Are there Prophecies about Muhammad in the Bible?

    

Further prophecies dealt with in the general Bible Commentary pages

The 99 Truth Tracts site has several articles on this topic. Muhammad's life and its bearing on the question of his prophethood. Is Muhammad Foretold in the Bible? in response to Ahmad Deedat's claims. Muhammad in the Bible - A series of responses to the claims of Hamza Abdul Malik. Alleged Prophecies in the Bible pointing to Mohammed

Muhammad
Apologetic Paper (Joseph Smith) - May 1995

Contents
A. Introduction B. Is Muhammad a Prophet? 1. The Muslim Position i. Supernatural witness points to Muhammad's Prophethood ii. Illiterate Creator of the Qur'an points to his Prophethood iii. Prophesying points to his Prophethood iv. Miracles point to his Prophethood 2. The Christian Position i. Who qualifies as a true Prophet of God? a. A Prophet must be born in the Prophetic Race b. A Prophet must Speak in the Name of God (=YAHWEH or JEHOVAH) c. A Prophet's Message must Conform to previous Revelation d. A Prophet's Predictions must be Verifiable ii. Which of these Biblical qualifications does Muhammad demonstrate? a. Was he born in the line of the Prophets? b. Did he speak in the name of "the eternal," YAHWEH? c. Did Muhammad's revelation conform to the message which had preceded him? d. Were any of Muhammad's predictions verifiable within his lifetime? C. Questions concerning Muhammad's Prophethood 1. Was Muhammad a specific or universal Prophet? 2

Misha'al Al-Kadhi's claims several such prophecies in his "comprehensive book" on mankind's tampering with the Bible. --- Judge for yourself who is tampering. Here we look at chapter 6 in his book which claims several prophecies about Muhammad in the Bible.
   

Habakkuk 3:3 and a response Haggai 2:7 more will be forthcoming The first part of Hamran Ambrie's testimony also deals with the (dis)similarities of Muhammad and Jesus in regard to Moses.

Also check out what Akbarally Meherally writes on this issue.
  

Is Muhammad the "Shiloh" of Genesis 49:10? Is Muhammad the Prophet like Moses? (Deuteronomy 18:18) : [1], [2], [3], [4] Is the Muhammad the "Comforter" or the "Spirit of Truth"? (John 14-16) : Who is the "Comforter"? The "Paraclete" as a prophecy of Muhammad (Ahmad)? The Comforter - Muhammed or Holy Spirit? Who really is the Paracletos? 1

2. Was Muhammad a Prophet of the Jews? 3. Was Muhammad a Prophet to the Christians? 4. Was Muhammad the Seal of the Prophets i. What about Jesus? ii. What about the Other Prophets? iii. What about Muhammad? a. Muhammad's Concessions to People b. Muhammad's Sexuality c. Muhammad's Elevation d. Muhammad's Sin D. Were there prophecies concerning Muhammad? 1. Is there a prediction of Muhammad in Deuteronomy 18? i. Comparison: Who is the prophet like Moses? ii. Contrast: This prophet cannot be Muhammad iii. Consideration: This prophet must be Jesus iv. Conclusion: Without a prediction where is Muhammad's authority? 2. Are there further predictions of Muhammad in the Old Testament? i. Do we find Muhammad in the Old Testament? ii. Muslims find Muhammad in the Old Testament iii. Names which point to Muhammad iv. Song of Solomon 5:16 v. The Problem with this exercise 3. Is there a prophecy of Muhammad in the Injil? i. Parakletos or Periklytos? ii. Greek language confirms parakletos iii. Greek manuscripts confirm parakletos iv. Therefore Muhammad could not be the parakletos v. So who is the parakletos? vi. The answer is the Holy Spirit, who arrived 50 days later E. Conclusion

A: Introduction
All of us have had discussions with Muslims concerning our different beliefs. If your experience has been like mine, in order to dialogue convincingly with a Muslim about his beliefs, you have had to bring up the thorny question concerning the foundation for his beliefs. And in order to speak to those foundations, you have had to speak to the issue concerning the founder (as far as the Muslims world is concerned) for those beliefs. According to Muslim Tradition (as opposed to historical and scientific evidence) Islam was created by Allah, but the final and truest revelations of Islam were "passed down" (Nazil) to humanity via the angel Jibril (Gabriel), to Muhammad. Muhammad, therefore is the final authority for Allah's revelation here on earth. Consequently, if we are to dialogue with a Muslim it is imperative that we begin with the expounder for their beliefs, Muhammad. It is he who takes on the mantle of the "seal of the prophets," the final and greatest spokesman for God. But where is the proof for such a title? How is he any different from any other man or thinker or statesman who came before; or after, for that matter? In Isaiah 41:21-23 we find a challenge to those who claim to come in the name of the Lord. Isaiah writes: "'Present your case,' says the Lord. 'Set forth your arguments,' says Jacob's King. 'Bring in your [proofs] to tell us what is going to happen. Tell us what the former things were, so that we may consider them, and know their final outcome. Or declare to us the things to come, tell us what the future holds, so that we may know you are gods.' Like Isaiah in his day, we make the same challenge today, asking Muslims to provide us with proof for Muhammad's prophethood. Let us then see the case for their argument.

B: Is Muhammad a Prophet?
3 Muslims point to not just one proof but to a number of areas, which they feel, substantiate their claim to Muhammad's prophethood. It would be 4

helpful to look at these areas, and come to some conclusion as to whether they are legitimate claims for his prophethood.

In 612 C.E. Muhammad became withdrawn and frequently went for meditation to Mt. Hira, which is situated close to Mecca. Here, according to tradition he had his first revelation. In the Mishkat-ul-Massabih, vol.IV, pp.356-357 we read about this first revelation as reported by Aisha, Muhammad's favorite wife: "The first revelation which began to be revealed to the Apostle of Allah was a correct dream in sleep. He did not see a dream but it came like the morning dawn. Thereafter loneliness became dear to him and he used to seclude himself to the cave of Hira and engaged therein in deep devotion (and it is divine service) for many nights before he went to his house and provided himself with food therefor. Then he would return to Khadija and take provision for the like of them (nights) until the truth came unto him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel appeared before him and said, 'Read.' He said, 'I cannot read.' He narrated: Then he took me and pressed me hard till there came great exhaustion on me; thereafter he let me off and said, 'Read.' I replied, 'I cannot read.' Then he took me and pressed me hard for the second time until there appeared a great exhaustion on me; thereafter he let me off. He said, 'Read.' I said, 'I cannot read.' Then he took me and pressed me a third time till there appeared a great exhaustion on me; thereafter he let me off. He said, 'Read in the name of your Lord who created, created man from a clot. Read and your Lord is the Most Generous, who taught with the pen, taught man what he knew not.' Then the prophet returned therewith, his heart was trembling and he went to Khadijah and said, 'Wrap me up, wrap me up.' Then they wrapped him until the dread went away from him. Like anyone who had been grabbed by an angel (some traditions say he was grabbed by the throat), he became frightened and ran home to his wife, who had her own rather interesting means of delineating whether he was telling the truth or not. She put him on each of her hips and asked him if he still saw the angel, to which he said yes. Then she disrobed in front of him and asked him again, and when he said no, she then believed he was receiving authentic revelations. Khadija then took him to a Nestorian monk in Mecca, named Waraqa ibn Nofal, who was translating the book of Matthew into Arabic at the time. He, upon questioning him, confirmed that Muhammad was indeed a 6

B1: The Muslim Position
The name Muhammad, like Ahmed, means "the Praised One." It is more than likely that this was not his initial name, but was the name attributed to him later on in life once he became the recognized prophet to the Arabs. Scholars believe that his childhood name was "Amin," named after his mother "Amina" who died when he was 6 years old. His father was called "Abdullah," but Muhammad never knew him as he died before he was born. After the death of his mother Muhammad was brought up by his grandfather, and following his death by his uncle, Abu Talib. In his youth Muhammad travelled widely with camel trading caravans. It is at this point, according to Muslim Tradition, that certain things happened to him which were indicators of his special status among men.

B1i: A supernatural witness points to Muhammad's prophethood
When he was three years old, two angels came and took out his heart from his chest, cleaned it with ice water, put it back and left. In doing so they supposedly prepared him for his mission on earth. Another story which comes via Muslim Tradition mentions that after the death of his grandfather Abdu-Mutalib, Muhammad went to visit a Catholic monk with his uncle Abu-Talib. It is reported that the monk saw a cloud specifically protect Muhammad from the sun. It was then that he knew that he would be someone special. At the age of twenty-five he married Khadijah, a widow fifteen years his senior, who was in fact his employer. The marriage was a happy one, and two boys and four girls were born to them, though the two boys did not live to a mature age. Khadija died after twenty-five years of marriage to Muhammad. During that time Muhammad never took another wife.

5

prophet. Unfortunately this monk must not have translated Matthew 24:24 by this time. Had he done so, Muhammad may never have taken the route of prophethood. These above accounts, according to Muslim Tradition, are how Muhammad obtained his authority to begin his ministry, and how he received credibility as a prophet of God, and more than that, as the penultimate prophet of God, the "seal of all the prophets" (according to Sura 33:40). There are other alleged "proofs" which Muslims point to which substantiate his claim to prophethood:

B1ii: The Illiterate Creator of the Qur'an points to his prophethood
Muslims claim that Muhammad was illiterate. They reason: "How can an illiterate man compose a book like the Qur'an?" By this they imply that the authorship for the Qur'an could not have been done by one who could not read, so consequently its composition is a miracle, since it must have come from Allah. They conclude, therefore, that the miracle of the Qur'an affords Muhammad the right to claim prophethood. To better understand this argument, we need to refer to the passage which speaks of his illiteracy. In Sura 7:157 we read: "Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures); in the Law and the Gospel; for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil: he allows them as lawful what is good." In order to understand what the words 'unlettered prophet' really mean, we have to take a look at the Arabic text. In the Arabic it says, annabiyyal-ummi. Nabi is easy to translate. It means prophet. That is pretty clear. The word 'ummi,' however, is not so clear. To discern its meaning we need to refer to another verse in the Qur'an which uses it. We find it used in Sura 62:2, which says: "It is He who has sent amongst the Unlettered an apostle from among themselves, to rehearse to them His signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom." 7

Who are the 'unlettered' in this text? Yusuf Ali's commentary makes it quite clear who these unlettered are. He says in footnote no.5451, "The Unlettered; as applied to a people, it refers to the Arabs, in comparison with the People of the Book, who had a longer tradition of learning, but whose failure is referred to in verse 5 below. As applied to individuals, it means that Allah's Revelation is for the benefit of all men, whether they have worldly learning or not." The word ummiyyun used in Sura 62:2 is the plural form of ummi found in Sura 7:157. Therefore what we find is that the word ummi was used for people who did not have the scriptures, in contrast to the Jews and Christians. To put it simply, they were "unscriptured." Muhammad considered himself to be the prophet to the unscriptured, a prophet to those who had no Book, no revelation; in other words, to the Arabs. Therefore Sura 7:157 cannot be used as proof that Muhammad was illiterate. What we can say is that more than likely Muhammad was literate. He was responsible for Khadija's caravans, had travelled widely, and must have kept records of his transactions. The Hadith of Ibn Sa'd alludes to the fact that he wrote. Ibn Sa'd states: "The prophet, may Allah bless him, fell ill on Thursday. Thereupon he, i.e., Ibn 'Abbas began to weep and say: 'Woe be to this Thursday! What a Thursday.' The illness of the prophet, may Allah bless him, became severe: he said: 'Bring an ink-pot and something [paper or papyrus or any material used for writing] to write on. I shall [write for you] a document and you will never be misguided." (Ibn Sa'd, p.302) This entire argument, however, is rather moot if one considers that the Qur'an which is in our possession today is not the original revelation which was revealed via Muhammad to his followers. In fact, according to tradition, it is the work of Muhammad's secretary Zaid ibn Thabit, who finally compiled it 14 years after Muhammad's death, during the reign of Uthman. Where, then, is the miracle in that? From an historical perspective the argument falls even further into disrepute, as many historians believe that very little of the Qur'an was actually written by Muhammad, but was rather the result of an evolving set of polemical writings which became canonized in the 9th-10th 8

century, 200-300 years after the life of Muhammad. Can we claim this a miracle? The further one uncovers the facts, the further it becomes clear that the Qur'an is not the miracle which Muslims like to point to as proof for Muhammad's credibility as a prophet.

Besides, like the previous example, they were either easily predictable, or just war- propaganda. In this event George Bush might be called a prophet too, for he predicted that the Gulf-coalition would win the war with Iraq.

B1iv: Miracles point to his Prophethood
Muslims also claim that Muhammad performed miracles, and this is further proof that he was a prophet. Interestingly, despite this claim by Muslims, the Qur'an, whose authority they refer to, denies that Muhammad performed any miracles. Take for instance Sura 17:90-93. Here Muhammad is challenged to perform miracles to prove his credibility, and he responds by admitting that he is only a man, an apostle. There are other similar Suras which speak about the challenge for a sign by unbelievers, and Muhammad's angry retort that he was merely a "warner," a "guide," and a "bearer of glad tidings." (refer to Suras 2:118-119; 6:37 and 124; 13:7; and 17:59). The Hadith, on the other hand, reports a number of miracles which Muslims are quick to point to as further proof for Muhammad's authority. In Mishkat IV page 411 we read: "The prophet was looking while riding upon his mule like one eagerly longing to kill them. He said: 'This was when the blood boiled in veins.' Thereafter he took some pebbles and threw them at the faces of the infidels and then said: 'Be routed, by the Lord Muhammad.'" And in Mishkat IV pages 419-420 we read: "Anas reported: A man wrote to the prophet that he turned an apostate from Islam and joined the infidels. The prophet said: 'Verily the earth will not accept him.' Abu Talhah informed me that he had come to the land wherein he died. He found him thrown outside. He said: 'What is the matter with him?' They said: 'They buried him several times but the earth did not accept him.'" But probably the most popular miracle which has been passed down by the hadith and fomented by Muslims even today, is the splitting of the moon by Muhammad. It is recorded in Sahih Muslim IV, pg.1467: This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Mas'ud (who said): We were along with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon 10

B1iii: Prophesying points to his prophethood
Another proof of his prophethood, according to Muslims, stems from the fact that Muhammad prophesied events in the future, which then came to pass later on. Only a prophet of God could know what was going to happen in the future, and therefore Muhammad must be a prophet. Yet, the only 'real' prophecy recorded, which Muslims attribute to Muhammad is that found in Sura 30:1-4, where it is written: A.L.M. The Roman Empire has been defeated. In a land close by; but they (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious. Within a few years. With Allah is the decision, in the past and in the future: on that day shall the Believers rejoice. This passage refers to the defeat of the Byzantines in Syria by the Persians under Khusran Parvis (in A.D. 615), six years before the Hijra. The defeat of the Persians should take place soon- "in a small number of years." In light of this prediction, Abu-Bakr undertook a bet with Ubaiibn-Khalaf that this prediction would be fulfilled within three years. But he was corrected by Muhammad, who stated that the "small number" is between three and nine years (Al-Baizawi). Muslims tell us that the Byzantines overcame their enemies within seven years. However, the fact is that the Byzantines defeated Persia in AD 628 (Al-Baizawi's commentary). That was twelve years after the prediction of Muhammad. Consequently, this passage does not qualify as a prophecy, particularly as the time between the prophecy and fulfilment was far too short, and in addition the event was easily predictable. The odds were only 50/50. The other 'prophecies' which Muslims point to refer to Muhammad's victories and those relating to the Qur'an itself. It is nearly impossible to establish whether these prophecies were said before their fulfilment. 9

him) at Mina that moon was split up into two. One of its parts was behind the mountain and the other one was on this side of the mountain. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to us: 'Bear witness to this.'" The splitting up of the moon is not simply a fable from the Hadith, but is alluded to in the Qur'an as well. Sura 54, which is titled "The Moon," begins by saying, "The hour (of judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder..." From the context it is obvious that this was meant to be a sign, but people rejected it as such and in their desire to create some supernatural proof for their faith interpreted it word-for-word. Even today you will hear Muslims claim that the American astronauts, upon landing on the moon took pictures of a large crack, or fissure on the moon's surface, which is what remains from Muhammad's split. These reports, for Christians, sound very much like the legendary stories of the New Testament Apocrypha. Though they are well-meaning reports, they are often very fanciful in character. However, they lack one simple ingredient: authenticity. The Apocrypha primarily dates from the 2nd century C.E. (i.e. 70-170 years after the death of Jesus). The Hadith, on the other hand, was compiled approximately 250-300 years after the Hijra. Before that time all material and stories were passed down from generation to generation by oral tradition. Is it no wonder, then, that with each passing generation more was added to the story in order to enhance the image and character of the prophet? Can we, therefore, say that these four proofs put forward by the Muslims give validity to Muhammad's claim as a true prophet? I think not. Yet, according to Muslim Tradition these stories are all that are needed to give Muhammad the title "Rasu- ul-Allah." I dare to differ. From our discussion above it is clear that the early supernatural witnesses are probably apocryphal additions from later Muslim Traditions, while the claim for Muhammad's illiteracy, though debatable, considering his background and vocation, misses the point entirely, since the Qur'an was never written by him anyway. His claim of prophesying, furthermore, is as valid a claim as either you or I could give, considering he never went beyond a 50/50 odds. And the miracles 11

attributed to him are so incredulous that they speak more to the times of the later tenth century polemical traditions then those of the seventh century Arabic isolation. Obviously the Muslims will need to come up with better defenses then these for substantiating Muhammad's prophethood. Yet that is not all, for we as Christians are also interested in the question of prophethood. It is and always has been in our best interest to delineate who exactly is a true prophet, for we have been warned to be watchful for false prophets who will come our way (Matthew 24:24). Let's then look at some of the criteria which our scriptures give us for describing a true prophet.

B2: The Christian Position
Let me begin by asking you a question. How would you define a prophet? Better yet, how would you know one if you saw him, or her? Would he or she be someone who is learned, perhaps wearing a beard (if a male), perhaps dressed in a white robe, and carrying a staff, with fiery eyes and booming voice, speaking with "thees" and "thous"? That is how Hollywood has portrayed a prophet. But is this the criteria God has given for a prophet? Is this the type of man God has chosen to represent Him on earth, to carry His message to the world? What I would like to do now is try to answer the question of who, according to the scriptures, exactly qualifies to be called a prophet? Surely, if God had sent individuals to be His representatives on earth, He would have given us criteria by which we could recognize them, a means by which we could know who truly was His and who truly was not. Let's then go to the scriptures, His revelation to us, to find who God delineates as a true prophet.

B2i: Who qualifies as a true Prophet of God?
"Amos 3:7) "Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing His plan to His servants the prophets. Both Muslims and Christians would agree with this verse from Amos. God uses prophets to fulfil His purposes on earth. At times individuals are used to prophecy specific events (such as Miriam, Balaam, and Saul in the Old Testament, and Anna in the New Testament-Luke 2:36). The 12

office of a prophet, however, is a specific task given to only certain chosen men. Many of us know the names of the more famous prophets, such as: Moses, Abraham, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Yaxya (John the Baptist) and so on... Muslims would add to our list of prophets another name, that of Muhammad, whom they believe is the final and greatest of all prophets. According to the Qur'an, we read: (Sura Al Ahzab 33:40) "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets." Today we need to ask how it is that these men have come to have the office of prophet? What gives them the authority for calling themselves prophet? When we go to the scriptures we find that God delineated as qualifications for the office of prophet four categories: a. a prophet must be born in the prophetic race, b. he must speak in the name of God, c. his message must conform to the message which has gone before, and d. there must be verifiable accomplishments to the prophet's predictions.] Let's go through each of these four categories one-at-a-time. B2ia: A Prophet must be born in the Prophetic Race To begin with, a prophet must be born within the line or race of the prophets. The Bible speaks specifically what this line is. In Genesis 12:13, we see that this refers to the family of Abraham (see also Galatians 3:8), and then carries on through his son Isaac (Genesis 17:2,7-8,15-21; 21:10-12; 22:2). The Qur'an, in Sura Al 'Ankabut 29:27, also speaks specifically of this prophetic line, saying: "and we bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and We establish the Prophethood and the Scripture among his seed" (also Sura Al Jathiyah 45:16). As we continue on in Genesis 25:23,31-33; 26:1-2 we find that the alliance passes to Jacob, who is subsequently named Israel (also Genesis 28:13-15; 32:28). Further on, in Genesis 49:1-4,8-10, this alliance passes on to Judah. In fact, as we continue throughout the Old Testament we find that God's work on earth runs uniquely through the line of Isaac and Jacob. It is their lineage alone that God uses for His work on earth. Even in the Deuteronomy 18 where Moses promises a prophet like unto him, it 13

says specifically that the prophet would come "from among your own brothers," an Israelite of the line of Jacob. Continuing this theme further we read in 2 Samuel 7:4-16 and Psalms 89:35-38 that God's alliance with humanity passes to David, and is finally fulfilled in Jesus Christ 1,000 years later (see Matthew 22:42). Nowhere in any of those passages do we find any other line mentioned or acknowledged as being chosen for the office of prophethood. B2ib: A Prophet must speak in the Name of God (=YAHWEH or JEHOVAH) Secondly, a prophet of God must speak in the name of God, the unique name which He gave His creation to use. What exactly is that name? Traditionally it was known as the "Tetragrammaton" (YHWH). Today we spell it Yahweh or Jehovah depending on which vowels are used. This is the Hebrew name for God revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai (in Exodus 3), consisting of the four consonants YHWH. We don't know what vowels were used as it was never spoken audibly, due to the fact that it was regarded by the Jews as too sacred a name to be pronounced. In Exodus 3:1-6, 13-15, where God talks to Moses at the burning bush, we find God referring to Himself as "I am" which in Hebrew means "YAHWEH," or in English The One Who Is. This is very significant. What God is saying here is that this name signifies His complete selfexistence, that He has no dependence upon any other. Being selfexistent, He cannot but be self- sufficient, and therefore, all-sufficient. No-one can claim to be self-existent but God, and thus no-one can claim this name. It is uniquely His. God continues by saying that "this is my name for ever," signifying that it is His eternal name, the name which only God can take for Himself, and the name by which the Jews in Egypt would recognize Him (see also Ps.72:17-19 and Rev. 1:8,17). One can now see why the Jews in Palestine were so angry when Jesus made the same claim, calling Himself the "I am" in John 8:24,58. They naturally picked up stones to kill Him, as He had dared to take this name 14

of God for Himself, and this was blasphemous, a sin which deserved the punishment of death by stoning. Muslims are not familiar with the historical context of this name, nor the significance of its meaning, therefore they laugh when they hear Jesus referring to Himself as "I am" in John 8. It would be helpful to take them back to the Exodus 3 passage of the burning bush, since it is a story which exists in the Qur'an as well. If we were to take a survey of the names for God found in the Bible and the Qur'an, we would find a rather interesting contrast. The General name for God in Hebrew is Elohim, which is mentioned 2,550 times. In Arabic it is Allah. The Descriptive name for God in Hebrew is Adonai, meaning Lord, and is mentioned only 340 times. In Arabic the equivalent is Rabb. But the Specific and Personal name for God in Hebrew, the name which God Himself asked Moses to use when referring to Him, is Yahweh, which means "the One who Is." This name is repeated 6,823 times in the Old Testament alone! Look it up for yourself. (note: in our English translation, Yahweh can be identified easily. Every time the word "LORD" is capitalized, that signifies Yahweh). Thus all of the ancient Biblical prophets speak of God using this name. However, this name for God is not used even once in the Qur'an, and has no equivalent in the Arabic language, the language Muslims claim God speaks. B2ic: A Prophet's message must conform to previous revelation A third qualification of a prophet concerns his message. A prophet's message, in order to be credible must conform to the revelation which God had revealed before. God's word must remain consistent, in other words unchanging, otherwise it becomes useless, a tool in the hands of corrupt rulers and would-be prophets, bending and swaying with the whim of succeeding generations. The unchangeableness of God's word is often repeated in the scriptures. In Deuteronomy 4:1-2; Isaiah 8:20; Matthew 5:17-18; 24:35; and Revelations 22:18-20 we find warnings not to change or delete God's Word. God's Word must remain constant. In Psalms 89:35 we read that God cannot contradict His word. 15

The Qur'an, as well, agrees with this directive in Suras Al An'am 6:34 and Yunus 10:64. In Sura Qaf 50:28-29 Allah is quoted as saying: "I had already in advance sent you warning; the Word changes not." In fact, the Qur'an claims that it was sent to guard the former revelations (Al Ma'idah 5:47-51). Thus, that which the prophets revealed cannot be contradictory. If it is, it must not be trusted. There are, however, many Qur'anic stories which contradict the Biblical account (the revelation which came before). We don't have time to go into all of them here, but perhaps it would be helpful to just relate a few of the more relevant ones: 1. Many contradictions are found concerning Abraham: a. Abraham's father is wrongly called Azar, instead of Terah (Al An'am 6:74 vs. Genesis 11:26). b. He did not raise his descendants in the valley of Mecca, but in Hebron (Genesis 13:14-18). c. His hometown was not called Mecca but Ur in Chaldea. Even the secular-Ebla tablets found in Syria recently give proof for this (see Genesis 11:31). d. He wandered through Haran, not Arabia, and he went to Canaan, not to Mecca's valley. The Ebla tablets prove this as well (Genesis 11:31 & 12:5) e. He was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac, and not Ishmael, as the Lord was to make His covenant with the Son brought about by His making, and not the son of the Egyptian slave, Hagar (see Genesis 17:18-21 & 22:2). f. There is no record that he and Ishmael went to Arabia and built the Ka'ba in Mecca, though he did spend some time in Egypt (Genesis 12:10). 2. Muslims assume that the Arabs are Ishmael's descendants. a. Yet, according to the best historical records, the first father of the Arabs was Qahtan or Joktan. Some of his sons names are still found in geographical locations in Arabia today, names such as Sheba, Hazarmaveth, Ophir, and Havilah. b. Furthermore, Abraham's nephew Lot is another ancestor of the Arabs; as is Jacob's twin brother Esau, the father of the Edomites and the Moabites. 16

c. Finally, Keturah, Abraham's third wife, had six sons who all became forefathers of Arabs (i.e. Sheba and Dedan, located in Yemen)(Genesis 25). 3. Other errors are found in the Qur'an which contradict the Biblical account: a. In the Qur'an Mary is recorded as the sister of Aaron and the daughter of Imran, as well as the mother of Jesus (Sura Maryam 19:28). Yet, the Mary of the Qur'an depicted as the mother of Jesus is 1,570 years removed from the Mary, the sister of Aaron (also referred to Miriam in the Bible). b. Haman, which is not an Egyptian name but Babylonian, is mentioned as the Wazir of the Pharaoh in Suras 28:5; 29:38: 40:25,38, yet the book of Esther correctly lists him as an official of king Xerxes, in Babylon. c. The Qur'an presents a confused and often contradictory view of the Holy Spirit. It is called God's own breath (15:29), the angel Gabriel (19:17), and the divine inspiration (16:2). These are only some of the examples we could give, but they do point out that there are very real problems concerning the conformity of God's revelation relating to these two scriptures. B2id: A Prophet's predictions must be verifiable The final qualification of a prophet deals with the veracity of the prophet's message, whether what he says can be verified. A prophet shows his authenticity by predicting events which can be verified by witnesses. Those predictions which cover the longest duration are the most relevant and valuable for us, and therefore we tend to focus on them. Yet, according to the principle which is announced in Deuteronomy 18:21-22; Isaiah 43:9; and John 13:18-21, it is important that there are other predictions which are short-term, which can be verified by contemporary's of the prophet. These predictions serve to identify him immediately as a prophet, and so give credibility to the longer, future predictions. When we take the example of Moses, we find that his prediction of the death and defeat of the Egyptian army was immediately fulfilled (Exodus 17

14:13-14,27-28). The same can be said of the prophet Isaiah, who prophesied that God would hold back the sun for ten steps (or hours) to permit Hezekiah to defeat his Assyrian enemy. It was fulfilled the same day (Isaiah 38:5-8). Another prophecy by Isaiah, concerning the rout of 185,000 of Sennacherib's soldiers came to pass the next morning (in Isaiah 37:21-38). Imagine if you had been with Moses or Isaiah at the time these prophecies were fulfilled. How would you have felt? I'm sure your estimation for these two men would have increased dramatically. That was one of the reasons for these prophecies. It gave immediate credibility to him who was making the prophecy. Someone could say that it is simple to predict a victory or defeat of an enemy; as one has a 50% chance of being correct. Therefore other predictions were required to substantiate the claim of the prophet, especially for later generations who did not have the ability to know the prophet first-hand. In Deuteronomy 28:1,15,64-66, and 30:1,4-5, Moses offers a prophecy concerning God's blessings and curses for the Children of Israel, depending on whether they obeyed or not. These curses were fulfilled far into the future, centuries later and consequently did not benefit those who initially heard the prophecy. A prophecy by Isaiah to Hezekiah, concerning the captivity and enslavement of his descendants by the rulers of Babylon was fulfilled 150 years later, in 606 B.C. (Isaiah 39:6-7). Even the prophecy concerning the fall of Babylon was fulfilled 200 years later. In fact some believe its fulfilment continues on until today (read Isaiah 13:1,19-20). Babylon was destroyed in 539 B.C., 200 years after the prophecy was made by Isaiah. Interestingly, however, up until now, 2,500 years later, no-one has ever tried to live there. The Arabs even refuse to stay overnight, yet they know nothing of this prediction since it does not exist in the Qur'an. Finally we come to another prophecy which some believe is being fulfilled in our lifetime (see Isaiah 11:11-12). This prediction was given 18

by Isaiah in 750 B.C., over 140 years before the first dispersion which occurred in 606 B.C. We know from historical records, and the scriptures that the first return was in 536 B.C. History also tells us that the second dispersion was in 70 C.E., while, according to some, the second return began towards the beginning of this century, in 1900, and continues till today. These prophecies are especially helpful for us today, thousands of years later, as we, in hindsight can see the authenticity of Moses's and Isaiah's calling. Due to the fact that what they said so long ago has been fulfilled and are even now being fulfilled, what they say on other matters then takes on added credibility, because we know that they are truly men of God, who are being used by Him. Since God's fingerprint can be evidenced in those fulfilled prophecies, His fingerprint can then be ascribed to the other claims which these men of God assert. An interesting point needs to be interjected here; why were there so many verifications given by God for Isaiah? The reason must be that he has a unique place among all the prophets, because it is he who predicts, more than any other prophet: 1. the coming of Jesus (prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 & 9:6, and fulfilled in Matthew 1:22). 2. It is Isaiah who predicts Jesus's death (prophesied in Isaiah 35:4-5 & 53:1-12, and fulfilled in Luke 7:18-22, 24-27). 3. And finally, it is Isaiah who predicts Jesus's resurrection (prophesied in Isaiah 53:11, and fulfilled in Luke 18:33; 24:6-7). There was no doubt that these were truly prophets of God, as they spoke of things which only God could have known, both immediately so that the people of their time could identify them as prophets, and in the long term so that we today can acknowledge the hand of God in their lives and ministry.

B2ii: Which of these Biblical qualifications does Muhammad demonstrate?
The question then must be asked: which of these four Biblical qualifications does Muhammad demonstrate? Was he born in the prophetic race, did he speak in the name of God, did his message conform to the message which had gone before, and was there any verifiable accomplishments to the prophet's predictions? B2iia: Was he born in the line of the Prophets? To begin with, we must ask the question whether he was born in the line of the prophets? Sura 29:27 mentions that prophethood and the scriptures came uniquely through the seed of Isaac and Jacob (Sura 45:16 concurs with Sura 29). There are no Muslims, that I am aware of, who believe Muhammad was a descendant of Isaac. While there is an ongoing discussion concerning the veracity of the claim for Muhammad's descendance through Ishmael, this view is, nonetheless, widely held by Muslims today. Yet, this is a moot point, since according to both the Bible and the Qur'an, all the prophets came in the line of Isaac, fulfilling the promise to Abraham in Genesis 17:20-21, that only through Isaac, and not Ishmael would the alliance with the Lord be fulfilled. B2iib: Did he speak in the name of "the eternal," YAHWEH? Secondly, did Muhammad speak in the name of God, using that name which God gave as a signature for His authority, the name Yahweh? Though the term YHWH was used 6,823 times in the Bible, it is not used once in the Qur'an, and perhaps was not even known by Muhammad, since if he was supposedly illiterate in his own language, Arabic, it is hardly likely that he would have been able to read Hebrew. Yet, is it not curious that Muhammad, the "seal of the prophets," he who was commissioned to bring the 'final revelation' did not even know the name of the God by whom he was commissioned? Is it not also curious that the God of Abraham, Isaac, Moses and David would go to the trouble of revealing His unique name in the Hebrew language, which was then passed down from generation to generation, up to the present day, yet somehow this name was forgotten or never revealed in the 20

19

language which Muhammad claimed was God's special language, Arabic? Moses could speak to the Israelites in Egypt with credibility because he spoke in the name of God. Why then did Muhammad presume that the descendants of those Israelites living in Medina would accept him as their prophet if he didn't even know the true name of God? Would you accept my authority as a teacher of Christian apologetic, if I never once mentioned the name of Jesus, nor even knew that it existed? Of course not! A prophet, by definition is one who comes with a message which is not his own (the Arabic word for prophet, Rasul means "the sent one"). Consequently, in order to give meaning to the message, there needs to be a sender, a person who created the message, whose signature goes along with the message to identify it as coming from Him. If I did not know who it was who sent me, my message would certainly lose its credibility. If I spoke as a Christian yet did not know the name of Jesus Christ, I would be a pretty miserable creature, and not worthy of my vocation. In much the same way Muhammad's message completely loses its credibility since he was never even aware of the name of the sender, Yahweh, the One Who Is. Consequently, if Muhammad did not even know the name of God, nor was God's true name even used in the language of Muhammad, then how could he claim to be truly from God? B2iic: Did Muhammad's revelation conform to the message which had preceded him? Thirdly, did Muhammad's revelation conform to the message which had preceded him via the former prophets? We have seen that there are many contradictions between the Qur'an and the Bible, the most damaging of which concern who Jesus is, and the reason for His mission on earth. Both the Bible and the Qur'an agree that God's word cannot change, and certainly must not contradict that which has gone before. Why then do we find all these contradictions? 21

If Muhammad is responsible for receiving these contradictory revelations from God, does it not put suspicion on his veracity as a true prophet? Certainly it does. If God had got the story right through the thousands of generations from Abraham to Jesus, with each successive prophet agreeing with and verifying that which had preceded him, then why all of a sudden did God get it so wrong less then 700 years later with the prophet Muhammad? Neither Muslims nor Christians would blame God for the contradictions. The blame must be placed on the messenger. Either all the previous prophets got it wrong, or the one who came at the end did. It beggars belief to think that for thousands of years the Jewish prophets were consistently revealing corrupted stories which all agreed in content, with not even once trying to correct the seeming errors. Then, finally, the last prophet got it right, and brought the message back to what God had intended all along. It reminds me of the mother, who watching her son in a parade whispers over to her friend, "Oh look, everyone's out of step but my Johnny boy!" If a prophet's message goes against previous predictions, he then can no longer qualify as a true prophet. B2iid: Were any of Muhammad's predictions verifiable within his lifetime? And finally, were any of Muhammad's predictions verifiable within his own lifetime? Although Muhammad, on occasion, predicted the victory of Islam in the battles which were fought in Arabia, there are no other precise predictions which we know of which demonstrate that his authority came from God (the victory of a battle has a 50-50 chance of being correct, or not). In fact, this was a cause for concern even for Muhammad, who, numerous times in the Qur'an mentions the distrust by others of his inability to produce a miraculous sign which would substantiate his authority (see Suras 10:21, 13:7 & 13:27). There is little evidence from our scriptures which show that Muhammad had authority to claim prophethood. He was not born into the line of Jacob, nor did he speak in the name of Yahweh, nor did his revelations conform to the message which preceded him, and his predictions were not verifiable. 22

What, then, must be our conclusion? In Matthew 24:24-25 we read "...false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect... See I have told you ahead of time." In Deuteronomy 18:19-22 we find an even stronger warning: If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death. You may say to yourselves, 'How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?' If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

C1: Was Muhammad a specific or universal Prophet?
When we read the Qur'an we find that Muhammad understood himself at first to be a warner to Arabia in the succession of the Biblical prophets. It is evident from these passages in the Qur'an that he considered his duty was that of bringing the same message which can be found in the Bible, but now within the Arabic language. The Taurat was a book for the Jews, the Injil a book for the Christians, and now the Qur'an was a book for the Arabs. This was his initial understanding. Let's look at some of the earlier Suras which seem to point out that Muhammad's specific task was simply to warn, and at the same time reveal Allah's word in the Arabic language. Sura 2:119: "Verily, We have sent thee in truth as a bearer of glad tidings and a warner: but of thee no question shall be asked of Companions of the Blazing Fire." Sura 14:4: "We sent an apostle except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them." Sura 17:93: "Say: 'Glory to my Lord! am I aught but a man, an Apostle?" Sura 26:195,196: "In the perspicuous Arabic tongue. Without doubt it is (announced) in the mystic Books of former peoples." Sura 27:91: "For me, I have been commanded to serve the Lord of this City, Him Who has sanctified it and to Whom (belong) all things: and I am commanded to be of those who bow in Islam to Allah's Will," Sura 42:7: "Thus have We sent by inspiration to thee an Arabic Qur'an: that thou mayest warn the Mother of Cities and all around her," Sura 43:3: "We have made it a Qur'an in Arabic, that ye may be able to understand (and learn wisdom)." 24

C: Questions concerning Muhammad's Prophethood
In this paper we have been asking the question of whether Muhammad could qualify as a true prophet of God. We posed the Muslim positions that he could: because of the supernatural witness to his prophethood during his early childhood, because of the fact that he delivered the Qur'an though he was illiterate, and because both his prophesies and miracles pointed to his prophethood. After presenting rebuttals to all four of these positions we followed up with four criteria of our own, taken from scripture, to ascertain what God considers the qualities of the office of a prophet are. These were that he must be born in the prophetic race, that he must speak in the name of Yahweh, that his message must conform to previous revelations, and that his predictions must be verifiable. We concluded that Muhammad could not qualify in any four of these categories. Now we take that same argument further, and ask some disturbing questions as to whether Muhammad could qualify to be a true prophet of God, not just for the Arabs, but for the world as a whole. We begin, then, with that very point. Was Muhammad called to be a prophet for the whole world, or was his calling only limited to that of Arabia? 23

Sura 46:12: "And before this, was the Book of Moses as a guide and a mercy; and this Book confirms (it) in the Arabic tongue; to admonish the unjust, and as Glad Tidings to those who do right." As we continue on through the Qur'an we find that this position changes. He becomes not just a prophet for the Arabs, with simply an Arabic Qur'an, but enlarges on this idea to now become the universal and the final prophet for all people. Sura 33:40: "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets, and Allah has full knowledge of all things." Sura 34:28: "We have not sent thee but as a universal (Messenger) to men, giving them glad tidings, and warning them (against sin), but most men understand not." While in Mecca, at least, where the former Suras quoted above were written, Muhammad considered himself as a warner to the Arab peoples. This position contradicts the claim by Muslims today that Muhammad was always a universal messenger for all peoples in all times. The term "Arabic Qur'an" (in Suras 42:7; 43:3 and 46:12 - above) obviously presupposes that there was at least one other Qur'an. This more than likely is referring to the Hebrew and possibly the Greek "Qur'an" (which are the Old and New Testament). Muslims would not say that they are invalidated by the Arabic Qur'an, but are rather confirmed by it. There is a problem, however. An Arabic Qur'an was not announced in "the mystic books of the former peoples" (Sura 26:196). To say the least, there is no such book available today which speaks of this "Arabic Qur'an," in contrast to the former "Qur'ans." Neither was it known at the time of Muhammad, as we have many manuscripts in our possession with which to verify if such an announcement had been made. So, initially Muhammad was only a messenger for the Arab people. He saw the polytheism which were pervasive in Arabia, and sought to eradicate it with the 'messages' he was receiving via the angel Gabriel. 25

Why then, did he go universal? There are those who believe this probably came about due to his successes on the battle- field. As his prominence grew, so did his authority over people who were not necessarily Arab. In other words, his supernatural monotheistic message, had to keep pace with the natural polytheistic reality on the ground. Suras 33:40 and 34:28 provided him with the authority to do so. A more likely scenario is that the later redactors of the Qur'an imposed this universal application on Muhammad, once the borders of Islam had reached beyond the Hijaz (Arabia). Without eradicating the Suras which speak of his specific Arabic mission, they simply imposed this new category while applying the law of abrogation to the former Suras.

C2: Was Muhammad a Prophet of the Jews?
The second question we ask is whether Muhammad was a prophet to the Jews? In Medina were a number of Jewish groups called the Kahinan. They were the wealthiest inhabitants of Medina, and lived in fortified forts surrounding the city. There were three principle tribes living in Medina (according to Muslim Tradition): the Kaynuka, the al-Nadir, and the Kurayza. They all had good relations with the Jews of the north (especially in Khaybar). During his first year in Medina Muhammad devoted considerable attention to the Jewish inhabitants there, describing himself as their prophet, who could be placed in the long line of prophets. To appease them, he adopted many of their religious observances. Some of these were: i. ii. iii. keeping the 10th of Muharram as a fast day, much like the Yom Kippur fast, performing the 3-daily prayer rituals (versus the two Salats kept by Muhammad before the Hijra, while still in Mecca), the weekly community worship services in the early afternoons on fridays (following the Jewish Sabbath day of preparation).

26

Note: This also made common-sense since Friday was the market day, the day when the largest number of people would have been in Medina. And finally: iv. Muhammad also adopted the north-facing Qibla, the practice of facing Jerusalem when praying.

of their pre-Islamic history, Muhammad could now offer a universally accepted god, who was uniquely adapted to the indigenous community. This not only elevated the status of the Arab people, whose allegiance Muhammad needed to continue his military campaigns, but it elevated the status of Muhammad as the mouthpiece of the true God. It also enhanced Muhammad's vision to introduce his heightened concept of god for the whole civilized world. Muhammad stepped forward as the restorer of the religion of Abraham that had been distorted by the Jews and Christians. Abraham now became the great Hanif and not a Jew or a Christian. He now took the honour as the 'first Muslim,' "a person fully surrendered to the one true God," according to Suras 3:67: 2:135; 3:95; 6:161; 16:123. Abraham and his son Ishmael, who the rest of the world regarded as having come from Ur of the Chaldeans, were now perceived to be the Arab's direct ancestors, and were now considered to have founded the Meccan sanctuary and the rites celebrated there. Muhammad's task, therefore, was to restore the ancient rites to their original monotheistic state, as they had been corrupted by the intervening polytheists. Note: It is highly unlikely that Muhammad was acquainted with the idea of the connection between Abraham and the Ka'ba before the Hijra since this relationship occurs nowhere in the numerous Meccan passages that treat the significance of the Ka'ba. This apparent evolution in Muhammad's theology seems to have been created by his relationship with the Jews. What then, of the Jews who remained under Muhammad's jurisdiction? They, needless to say, did not accept many of these new revelations concerning their own God. What was to be done with them? Let's see what Muslim Tradition tells us. In 624 C.E., Muhammad routed a group of 900 Meccans with only a force of 300 at the battle of Badr. This battle became of the utmost significance for the history of Islam. Muhammad saw in the victory a 28

It soon became clear, however, that the Jews in Medina were not going to accept Muhammad's claim to prophethood. These were for a number of reasons, which we can find in Sura 17:90-93. The Jews would not accept an Arabic speaking prophet. They had never accepted Jesus as a prophet, and he was an Aramaic speaking Jew! So why should they change now? Their principle requests, as we can derive from Sura 17, was that Muhammad present them with a few "superfluous" miracles. In Sura 3:183 and 184 the Jews ask for a sign similar to that of Elijah for proof of his prophethood. Muhammad retorts that this has always been the way with previous prophets. In Suras 2:118-119; 6:37,124; 13:7; 17:59 the Jews also ask for a sign, to which Muhammad responds that even if a sign were given, like those of the earlier prophets, they would not believe it. Since Muhammad did not proffer them with a sign, the Jews refused to accept him as their prophet. The opposition of the Jews of Medina to Muhammad appears to have had a significant impact on the shaping of Islam, for it was precisely at that time and apparently in direct response to the Jews' rejection of him that the nascent Muslim community took on a pronounced national character through the adoption of various elements from ancient Arabian worship. This occurred in the 2nd year of the Hijra, and was signaled by the change of direction for the Qibla. Instead of facing Jerusalem, the prayers were now to be carried out facing Mecca. Here we find a break with Muhammad's Jewish roots, and a symbolic statement that Islam was now venturing on an Arabic course. This nationalization of Islam gave Muhammad a certain legitimization and broadened his authority in the eyes of the Arab world. Instead of worshipping or adopting a foreign god, which had been the case for most 27

powerful confirmation of his belief in the one true God (Suras 8:17,65; 3:123), and in his own call. Word got around to the outlying areas of this defeat of the Meccans. Upon his return to Medina, Muhammad began to besiege the outlying Jewish tribe of the Kaynuka (Sura 59:14). Some say that he did so because they had not supported him when he decided to face the Meccans. The Jews were forced to abandon their fort and move north to other Jewish settlements leaving their possessions behind. In 625 C.E., the Meccans sent a force of 3,000 and defeated Muhammad at the battle of Uhud, wounding Muhammad. But with his eloquence, he endeavored to raise the morale of his followers by exhortations and censure alike (Sura 3:118ff). His authority was inevitably hurt, and he took out much of his anger on the Jewish tribe of Banu 'l-Nadir. They could not withstand his wrath, and he banished them to Khaybar to the north, leaving behind their weapons, gold, and silver which was reserved for Muhammad alone (Sura 59:7ff). In 627 C.E. Muhammad managed to keep an army of 10,000 Meccans at bay by building a trench around Medina (referred to as the "Battle of the Trench." Once the frustrated Meccans finally left, Muhammad declared war on the last Jewish tribe in Medina, the Kurayza. Unlike the other Jewish families before them, they were given no clemency. According to Ibn Hisham, all the men, numbering between 600-900 were beheaded and their property was divided among the Muslims, while the women and children were taken as captives (for further reading, refer to Christians Ask Muslims by Gerhard Nehls). The expulsion or elimination of these three Jewish tribes brought Muhammad closer to his goal of organizing an umma strictly on a religious basis. Many Muslims today contend that the Kurayza brought upon themselves their own destruction, as they were treacherous towards Muhammad and refused to accept his authority. According to the Qur'an, however, their only sin was that they "defied God and his messenger" (Sura 59:4). They were eliminated, it seems, simply because they remained neutral.

Note: If we take the annihilation of the Kurayza tribe as a precedent, considering it was given authority by Muhammad himself, is it no wonder that so many non-Muslims in the world today shudder with apprehension at the thought of a Muslim domination of their state? Muslims will speak often of the rights of the non-believers within a Muslim Khilafa, yet, when observing the above examples, one wonders where those rights begin and the 'rights for self-expression' end? Is this why propagation of one's belief is illegal in many Muslim lands today? Will blasphemy also be prohibited, and punishable by death? The question which we asked was whether Muhammad was a prophet of the Jews? We see that initially he attempted to be their prophet, incorporating many of their religious practices into those of his own. We would expect a prophet to do this. They demanded that he prove his prophethood with signs. The Qur'an contends that these were of a miraculous nature. We have no way of knowing if this was all that they asked. It is likely that the Jews would have wanted to know whether his prophecies corroborated with those of their own. It is obvious from the historical account, as well as the Qur'anic account that Muhammad was not able to provide either of the two, and consequently he was rejected by the Jews. Instead of changing his beliefs, Muhammad decided to fight against the Jews. This we see vividly through his expulsions and executions of the three major tribes of Medina, using them as a scapegoat for the defeat of Uhud. What is more significant, however, is that all their riches were taken by himself and his followers. These were the wealthiest inhabitants of Medina, therefore, by taking their possessions they not only enriched Muhammad, but enhanced his image amongst the other Arabs. Because of his actions, it is quite likely that Muhammad would not be acknowledged as a prophet of the Jews, both then in Medina, and currently today in the 20th century. It also now helps us to understand the great gulf which exists between Jews and Muslims currently.

29

30

C3: Was Muhammad a Prophet to the Christians?
We now come to the Christians. Was Muhammad a prophet to the Christians? Initially, according to Muslim Tradition, the Christians carried favour with Muhammad. We can see this attitude in Sura 5:8286. In this passage Muhammad mentions that the Jews and pagans were the furthest from the believers, while the Christians were "the nearest among them in love..." This, according to Sura 5, was because they were men of learning who had renounced the world and were not arrogant (possibly referring to the Monks whom Muhammad had contact with earlier in his life). He goes on to say that when the Christians heard his message they accepted it with tears, and immediately counted themselves amongst the believers. Obviously, we would have a problem with this definition of a Christian. What Muhammad is speaking of here are not Christians, as we know them, but individuals who have either conceded to him out of fear for their lives, or have converted out of Christianity and become Muslims. It would be difficult to believe that Christians could make such statements about their beliefs towards Muhammad and still call themselves Christians. These individuals have truly rejected their earlier faith. The supposed affinity with Christians was, nonetheless, short-lived. The Qur'an gives the impression that there was a gradual deterioration in the Muslims relationship towards the Christians, in Sura 57:27. Those who followed Jesus the son of Mary had been called on "to seek for the Good pleasure of Allah," but, according to this Sura, they soon became rebellious transgressors. If we were to read other Suras which pertained to Jews and Christians, it soon becomes evident that both the Jews and Christians were both considered little more than enemies of the unbelievers. They were only acceptable to Muhammad once they had acknowledged him as a prophet (Sura 5:86). In fact there are specific Suras which warn the believers not to acquaint themselves with the Christians and Jews, warning that the 31

Christians are only interested in converting the believers to their own beliefs. Consider these: Sura 2:120: "Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: 'The Guidance of Allah, that is the (only) Guidance.' Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor Helper against Allah." Sura 3:28: "Let not the Believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers; if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (to remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah." Sura 5:54: "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust." With quotes like the above, is it possible for us to contend that Muhammad was the prophet of the Christians? It is highly doubtful. It seems that Muhammad, and those who follow him can only accept Jews and Christians if they first renounce their beliefs and follow Muhammad as the final prophet. This is not an accommodation at all but rather a threat, and finally a denunciation of all that the Jews and Christians cherish dearly.

C4: Was Muhammad the Seal of the Prophets?
We now come to the question of whether Muhammad had the right to claim to be the greatest of all the prophets, the final revelation of God, by whom all other prophets were to be measured. For most Christians the very question is sparked with controversy, as it assumes that Muhammad can be deemed a legitimate prophet. There are few Christians who would make this claim. For argument's sake, 32

however, let's assume that Muhammad did have the right to claim prophethood. Could he be the seal of the prophets; that is the greatest of all the prophets? Does he have the character to make such a claim? The Qur'an is very clear that he does. In Sura 33:40 we read, "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets, and Allah has full knowledge of all things."

C4i: What about Jesus?
How, as Christians are we to answer that claim? What the Qur'an is saying, in essence, is that Muhammad has a standing with God which is superior to that of even Jesus. We know that the Qur'an does not attribute divinity to Jesus, but considers him merely as a prophet. Yet, in the pages of both the Qur'an and the Bible Jesus enjoys a uniqueness that elevates Him above all other prophets. The Qur'an is replete with attributes of Jesus which are absent in all other prophets: a. He was born of a virgin (Suras 19:16-34; 21:91) b. He was uniquely holy, pure or faultless, according to Sura 19:19. Note: In Yusuf Ali's translation Jesus is referred to as "holy;" in Arberry's translation He is referred to as "pure," and in Pickthall's He is referred to as "faultless".

C4ii: What about the other Prophets?
Contrast this claim with the examples of the other prophets. We know that in the Bible all of the prophets were weak and sinful. Not one could stand up to the same standard which Jesus fulfilled. The Qur'an also recounts many sins of the prophets. Note the following: a. Adam In Sura 20:119 disobeyed his Lord and so sinned. In Sura 2:33 we find that Adam violated the prohibition to refrain from eating of the tree. The blame according to the following verse (34) is placed on Satan, but nonetheless Adam is charged with the sin. Then finally, in Sura 7:23 Adam and Eve ask for forgiveness for their wrongdoing. 33

b. Noah In Sura 71:24-28 we find Noah cursing the infidels, asking God to annihilate them all, and then asks for forgiveness for his request. Noah in Sura 11:47-49 requests that God forgive his illegitimate son Canaan, and is rebuked by God for requesting it, implying a reprimand and threat to Noah. Noah's subsequent request for pardon is proof of his guilt. c. Abraham Abraham is ascribed a number of sins in the Qur'an, such as idolatry (Sura 6:77), doubting (2:263), deceit (Sura 37:39), and divination (Sura 37:86). These Suras show that Abraham worshiped the planets, questioned the might of God, lied several times, and consulted the stars. d. Lot Lot is charged with failing to rely upon the Lord in Sura 22:82, when the people of Sodom refused the gift of his two daughters instead of the angels. e. Aaron Aaron is charged with going-along with the Israelites in building the golden calf, and therefore having done evil in Moses's absence (Suras 7:146-151 and 20:86-96). f. Moses Moses was charged with ordering two golden cherubim to be fashioned in Sura 2:248. He is charged with murder, and the need for forgiveness in Sura 28:14-15. He allows sorcerers to practice their magic in Sura 26:42, and He asks forgiveness from God for his anger in Sura 7:147-150. g. David David asks forgiveness from the Lord for his sin (which alludes to his taking of Uriah's wife, Bathsheba) in Sura 38:20-24. h. Solomon Solomon asks for forgiveness for letting horses cloud out his devotion to his Lord in Sura 38:30-34. We can therefore say that even the Qur'an shows categorically that the prophets have all sinned, proving that, unlike Jesus, they were fallible. It is true that we have to look hard to find these sins (i.e, the Qur'an only alludes to David's sin, rather then emphatically pronouncing what the sin 34

was in Sura 38), but the Qur'anic accounts do admit that God's holy emissaries were less then perfect. Jesus alone stands apart as "faultless." Note: It is important to remember that their sins are all in the realm of personal weaknesses, while their infallibility comes about when conveying divine revelations. In such instances they make no mistakes. It is this factor which seems to confuse so many Muslims, possibly because of their view of Nazil revelation, attributed to the Qur'an. Jesus is the only one who is both infallible during his life, and when conveying divine revelations. There is no recorded evidence in the Bible or the Qur'an of Jesus sinning, both privately or publicly.

The Satanic Verses found in Sura 53:19-20 which speak about the goddesses Allat, Manat and Al Uzza were recognized by Muhammad during a dispiriting time in Mecca. When he mentioned them, the Meccans rejoiced and joined him in prayer. Then, supposedly Gabriel told him later to change this revelation. C4iiib: Muhammad's sexuality The sexuality of Muhammad is a rather contentious area for most Muslims who believe that the sexual rules practiced by Muhammad and his followers were simply a fact of those days in which he lived, and we must see him within that context. The argument by Muslims is that during the "Holy Wars" when many men were killed, polygamy, for instance, was a justifiable provision for the widows. Yet, according to notes in "Sahih Muslim" III, pg.941, in all the 82 hostilities during the lifetime of Muhammad, only 259 Muslims lost their lives. Muhammad moved to Mecca with 10,000 men. How many of them would have had a chance of marrying even one widow? 2%! (current figures show an over-abundance of males due to amniosynthesis tests, because of the girls who are aborted as a result of the findings: 20 million extra boys in China) So what must we say about polygamy? We are reminded of the words of Jesus who said, "He who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18). Because polygamy excludes devoted love, for love between the sexes is exclusive, it is degraded in essence to mere sexual fulfilment. No woman who loves her husband and wishes to be fully loved in return, can tolerate a partner (why else was Hafsa so upset with Muhammad when he took the Copt Mary to her bed?). Take for instance a report from Aisha, Muhammad's favorite wife (recorded in Mishkat 1, pg.210, and noted in the Hadiths collected by alBukhari and Muslim). This report quotes her as saying: "I used to backbite those (females) who offered themselves for the Messenger of Allah. So I asked: Does a woman offer herself? Then the Almighty Allah revealed: you (Muhammad) may put off whom you please of them, you 36

C4iii: What about Muhammad?
But what about Muhammad? If he is the Seal of the prophets, he should have a better record then those which are mentioned above. As the greatest of all prophets his life should be exemplary. But is it? Let's find out: C4iiia: Muhammad's concessions to people God sent His prophets to nations which committed many sins. Although these prophets were also sinners, they never compromised with those to whom they were sent. Prophets like Elijah and Micah, though they were faced with formidable odds (i.e. 400 false prophets, their king and people) they never shifted from their position, nor did any seek to present a message to satisfy the expectations of their audience. Muhammad was altogether different. Ibn Abbas broke with the restriction of having sex with his wife when he first awoke, which was a law instigated by Muhammad, and therefore, asked forgiveness from Muhammad, who, receiving Sura 2:183 suddenly allows men to now do that which before was prohibited. Muhammad legalized Muta marriages (marriages of pleasure) for his followers during the battle of Khaybar and Fath (Al- Bukhari's "al-Jami' al-Sahih, pg.423). He then prohibits it during the battle of Wadaa, because he believed it now resembled fornication (Imam Muslim's "alJami' al-Sahih" pg.130-131). 35

may take to you whom you wish, and if you desire any whom you have separated, no blame attaches to you (from Sura 33:51). It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire." There is a further aspect: monogamy gives recognition, status and integrity to a woman. It is simplistic to argue that a polygamous society makes prostitution unnecessary. What about sexual fulfilment for the woman who has to share her husband with other wives? And what about the men who surely have to go without wives, because someone else (usually an older and thus richer man) has more than one? When we look at the life of Muhammad we find an even larger emphasis on sex, and the fulfilment of carnal desires. Consider the following examples: a. Thirteen Wives A Muslim man is permitted to marry up to four wives (excluding concubines) according to Sura 4:3. Muhammad had lived 25 years married to his first wife Khadija. After her death, which roughly coincided with the Hijra to Medina, he married about thirteen wives (the exact number is still debated). All except Aisha were widows or divorcees. It is recorded in Sura 33:50, "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers, and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Mecca) with thee; and any believing woman, who dedicates her soul to the Prophet, and if the Prophet wishes to wed her-this only for thee, and not for the believers (at large)..." This Sura gives Muhammad an unlimited number of women who lived in and around him, yet set strict restrictions on the other believers. b. Zainab Zainab was the wife of his adopted son Zaid. When Zaid realized 37

that Muhammad wanted her he divorced her so that Muhammad could have her. Sura 33:36-38 speaks of this affair (read). c. Preference In Sura 33:51 we read, "Thou mayest put off whom thou wilt of them, and whom thou wilt thou mayest take to thee; and if thou seekest any thou hast set aside there is no fault in thee. So it is likelier they will be comforted, and not sorrow, and every one of them will be well-pleased with what thou givest her." According to Al-Hasan, this phrase means "that the Lord (may He be praised and exalted) allowed Muhammad to abandon or to sleep with any of his women, according to his wish." Muhammad bestowed his love on Aisha, Hafsa, Um Salama and Zainab constantly and equally, and deferred the turn of five of his women (Ummu Habiba, Maymuna, Sawda, Juwayrid, and Safiyya). These he would visit according to whim (alZamakhshari's commentary on the verse). d. Mary According to tradition, Muhammad would take a rota with his wives, sleeping with each in their turn. One night, during Hafsa's turn, she asked to visit her father, and Muhammad granted her request. While she was gone, however, Muhammad took Mary the Coptic slave-girl and slept with her in Hafsa's bed. Hafsa returned, was enraged, and confronted Muhammad. He promised (on oath) not to touch Mary again if she would keep this a secret, and then promised that her father Umar would be his successor after Abu Bakr (according to al-Sira al- Halabiyya, vol.2). Hafsah, however, told Aisha of the incident, and for a full month Muhammad had no dealings with any of his wives, living with Mary alone. Aisha berated Muhammad for his deceit, whereupon Muhammad was finally given the vision recorded in Sura 66:1, in order to defend himself (Mizanu'l Haqq, pg.330 and Mishkat II, pgs.680-681) (read Ali's version of 66:1, plus footnotes). This Sura says, "O prophet, why forbiddest thou what God has made lawful to thee, seeking the good pleasure of thy wives...?" Based on this ayya it seems that God is in the business of not 38

only getting Muhammad out of his 'jams', but that God justifies unfaithfulness and deceit as well. e. Aisha According to Sahih Muslim (pg.716) Aisha reported that Muhammad married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, along with her dolls. When Muhammad died she was only eighteen. f. Zealousness There are many accounts of Muhammad's prowess with women. The traditions maintain that his marriages were primarily an act of compassion towards the widows whom he married. The evidence seems to say differently. According to Al-Bukhari (1 pg.165) "the prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number. I asked Anas, 'Had the prophet the strength for it?' Anas replied, 'We used to say that the prophet was given the strength of thirty (men). And Sa'id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven)." Ibn Sa'd backs this up as well where he states (1 pg.438) "The apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: Gabriel brought a kettle from which I ate and I was given the power of sexual intercourse [equal] to forty men." It is odd that God would allow one of His prophets, the recipient of revelations, to indulge in lust and revel with women at his pleasure. Muhammad embraced those who captivated his mind and heart with their beauty, such as Aisha and Zainab, and treated the rest poorly. Do we find any of the other prophets so obviously controlled by sex, or even engaged in this sort of lifestyle? Of course not! We would be appalled if a prophet would allow his carnal desires to so completely control him that he would even use the Word of God to escape from difficult circumstances (such as we noted with Zainab or the incident with Hafsa and Aisha). 39

C4iiic: Muhammad's elevation Looking at the "revelations" of the Qur'an and the Hadith Traditions, we cannot fail to see that a number of statements deal with personal advantages and give Muhammad a particular status which is far beyond any other prophet's. We are told that all believers were to follow his example. Malek-b-Anas reported a defective tradition where Muhammad is purported to say, "I leave with you two things; as long as you hold fast by them both, you will never be misguided; the book of Allah and the Sunnah of his messenger (the copying of the lifestyle of Muhammad)" (from Mishkat 1, pg.159) Abu Hu'airah reported that the messenger of Allah said, "Every one of my followers will enter Paradise except he who refused." He was questioned, "And who has refused (truth)?" He said, "Whoever obeys me shall enter paradise, and whoever disobeys me has refused" (from Mishkat 1, Pg.173). Now not only must we obey God, but it is requisite that we obey Muhammad in order to enter paradise! The Qur'an also assumes a high regard for Muhammad as the supreme example in Sura 33:21, saying, "Ye have indeed in the Apostle of Allah a beautiful pattern of (conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the praise of Allah." Later, in ayya 36 a reprimand is given for any who question the prophet's authority, equating his authority with that of Allah, "It is not fitting for a believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Apostle, to have any option about their decision. If anyone disobeys Allah and His Apostle, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path." C4iiid: Muhammad's sin Our final category asks whether Muhammad, unlike Jesus (Sura 19:19), ever sinned. Can the same be said of Muhammad that was said of Jesus? I believe not! The Qur'an admits that the sins of Muhammad were many and that they weighed heavily on him. Sura 94:1-3 speaks of this when it says: "Have We not expanded thee thy breast? And removed from thee they burden, the which did gall thy back?" These verses indicate that Allah had to 40

remove Muhammad's burdens (sin) from his back. Muslims contend that these sins were committed before he became a prophet (before 610). We need only refer to Sura 48:2 which says in reference to Muhammad, "Allah may forgive thee thy faults of the past and those to follow..." indicating that even after the Sura was delivered Allah expected him to sin. In Suras 40:55 and Sura 47:19 we find written, "...and ask forgiveness for thy fault..." This seems straightforward, until you read Yusuf Ali's note at the bottom (4428), which explains that due to the prophet's responsibilities he asks forgiveness in a representative capacity. Leaving Yusuf Ali's "eisegesis" aside it seems evident that Muhammad, a weak and sinful man, pales in comparison to Jesus, the sinless and perfect incarnate God Himself. As an outside observer, we find it incredulous that Muhammad is permitted to live outside of the very rules which he has ordained for the believers (i.e. permitted to marry more than four wives, or permitted to marry the wife of his adopted son, or permitted to consummate a marriage to a girl of only nine). Yet, according to Islam, he is, at the same time, the absolute example of which all believers are to model. One is left with a set of contradictions: How are we to follow the model of a prophet who himself abrogates the very parameters which he has set for us to live by? To follow his example would contravene his laws. If a person is asked to follow a certain leader, they would weigh up the 'pros and cons' before reaching a decision. But when truth and eternal life are involved, expediency on temporal issues no longer applies. So when we are told to follow in the footsteps of a spiritual leader, our confidence must not be emotional alone; our confidence must be rational. That presupposes as deep a study of the quality of the life of the example as possible. One should not give a deaf ear to negative reports, provided they are substantiated. Also one should not explain away possible flaws. But most of all one must have a fixed standard by which to measure right and wrong, good and evil. As Christians we use the standard that is found in the Bible. Ultimately, our concept of what is moral and what is immoral will find its root there. 41

We are deeply interested in the question of true prophethood. It is and always has been in our best interest to delineate who exactly is a true prophet, for we have been warned to be watchful for false prophets who will come our way (Matthew 24:24). In light of that we ask whether Muhammad follows the standards by which he has set for himself; and we find him to be wanting. The historical record shows us that he abrogated his call to the Jews when he exiled them from Medina and executed the males of the Kurayza tribe. His claim to be the Seal of the prophets rings hollow in light of his carnal inadequacies, especially in comparison with the other prophets who preceded him. Finally we ask whether Muhammad fits the pattern of a prophet which we find in our own scriptures. That is the true test for us as Christians. From our study last week it was easy to ascertain that Muhammad failed in this category as well. What remains is to deal with one last area, the claim by Muslims that Muhammad was promised by the prophets who preceded him, and that these prophecies can be found in their writings. It is that area which we will take up next in order to conclude this study.

D: Were there prophecies concerning Muhammad?
We now come to this third and final category in our paper where we ask the question of whether the former prophets ever spoke about Muhammad? To begin with, let's ask that question of Moses, and see whether Muhammad is spoken of in the Taurat. Let's begin with a hypothetical situation. For instance, what would you say if I were to stand up and claim that I was the final prophet, in a long line of prophets; that whatever I said came straight from God, and therefore was to be believed as authoritative? You would obviously question my credentials as a spokesman from God; as a prophet. With a name like Joseph Smith, the same name as the founder of Mormonism, I wouldn't be the first to make this claim. And like him, all I would have to do is write a book which prescribed a new way of life, a new revelation 42

for humanity, and then look around for some disciples who would believe me willingly. There is another prophet who made such a claim, one who came a few hundred years before my namesake; you all know him as Muhammad, born in 570 C.E. At the onset he received visions via the angel Gabriel in the Hira cave, outside Mecca, when he was 40 years old. Interestingly, it was his Nestorian Christian uncle who first told him that his visions were authoritative. Yet initially there were few people who took him seriously, or believed in him as a prophet. In fact, when he finally fled to Medina 8 years later, in 622 C.E. (known as the Hijra), he had less then 100 followers with him (not even a good-sized church by today's standards). It was only when he attained political power, which afforded him economical might and control, that he was taken seriously, from a religious standpoint. This was especially so following the battle of Badr, when he turned against the Jews in Medina, with whom he had earlier made security alliances. One might say, then, that his religious credibility was in direct proportion to his political ascendancy, culminating in his triumphal entry into Mecca 8 years later, after which a true theocracy was instilled, which by its very nature neutralized any criticism or suspicion of his religious credibility. Because of his power-base in Medina and Mecca, Muhammad's authority was in no doubt 1,300 years ago, but it is in doubt today. There are many who are now asking where exactly Muhammad received his authority as a prophet? Previous prophets were authoritative first of all because they belonged to the line of prophets (the Israelite tribe), and secondly, because what they revealed coincided with what had been revealed before; and indeed, continued the same theme, which was: the promise of a Messiah who would come to save the world from sin, and thereby bring God's children back in relationship with Him.

Yet, when we look at the revelations which Muhammad gave the world, we find many contradictions with the scriptures which preceded him. Some of the more common ones you know quite well: 1. the claim that Ishmael instead of Isaac was the son who was to be sacrificed by Abraham, and the two of them then building the Ka'ba in Mecca 2. the erroneous burial account of Abel by Cain 3. the rather humorous account of king Solomon meeting the queen of Sheba by talking to a Hoopoo bird 4. the miraculous birth of Jesus, which according to the Qur'an took place under a palm tree 5. and even the story of Jesus speaking as a baby 6. and later breathing life into birds of clay. But probably the most damaging contradictions in the Qur'an is 7. its refusal to accept not only the doctrine of the Trinity, but to reject the divinity of Jesus as well as his crucifixion and resurrection. These are absolutely central to the Biblical testimony. Because so much of that which is important is at a variance with that which came before one has to ask for proof of his authority in making such claims. And this is being done today. It is for this reason that Muslims are attempting to come up with a ready defense. Initially, Muslims held the view that the differences between the Bible and the Qur'an could be blamed on the Jews and Christians, who, they believed, conspired to corrupt their scriptures in order to reject the claims of the prophet of Islam. One must ask how the Jews and Christians would have known what to change considering they would have had to do their work hundreds of years before the arrival of the Qur'an, as we have thousands of manuscripts which predate the Qur'an in our possession today, all of which remain true to the scripture which we hold in our hands today. The Qur'an itself, in Suras 5:47-51, 6:34, and 10:64 say that God cannot change his word, and that the Qur'an was sent to guard the former revelations. Thus many Muslim scholars have been forced to deny the possibility of corruption in the Word of God contained in the Bible. 44

43

Consequently, they have turned their endeavors in other directions, looking for predictions of Muhammad within those preceding scriptures. And it is this assertion which concerns us here. The Muslim Agenda Muslims will point out that in the Qur'an there are two ayas (verses) which speak of a prediction of Muhammad in the Taurat and the Injil (the Torah and the Gospels). They are: 1. Sura 7:157: "Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Taurat and the Injil..." 2. Sura 61:6:"Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Taurat, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is Ahmad (the Praised One)." These two ayas say specifically that Muhammad was referred to in both the Taurat and the Injil (the Torah and the Gospel). Our concern here is to ascertain whether this is true, whether there are any predictions concerning Muhammad outside the Qur'an? In other words, we are interested in finding out whether there is any evidence that the previous Jewish and Christian scriptures spoke about his coming? Most Muslims believe that in the Taurat (specifically in Deuteronomy 18:18) there is reference to the prophecy which the Qur'an speaks of in Sura 7:157 and Sura 61:6 concerning Muhammad. So it is to that passage that we will first focus our enquiry.

D1i: Comparison: Who is the prophet like Moses?
Our inquiry here is to ascertain what evidence supports the Muslim claim that it is Muhammad who is "a Prophet like you [Moses]." Is it he who is referred to in these verses? If it is then this would contradict the claim by Christians that the verse refers to the prophet Jesus, the promised Messiah. In order to support their claim, Muslim apologists have tried to write a list of criteria pertaining to Moses and Muhammad, saying that: both were married and had children, both led battles, and both were leaders, etc... What they fail to take into consideration is that any prophet could claim many of these parallels for himself. A handier tool would be to identify those comparisons which Moses fulfilled which are unique to his ministry, and which would, therefore, be unique to him who is: "a prophet like you (Moses)." In other words, compare apples with apples.

D1ii: Contrast: This prophet cannot be Muhammad
Can we, therefore, say that Muhammad is the promised one, this "prophet like Moses"? From what we have just read, we find that Muhammad was not born in the prophetic line of Moses, had no personal relationship with God, nor was he established in authority by God, as were both Moses and Jesus. More importantly, the mission of Muhammad was nothing like that of Moses and Jesus, for it was Moses and Jesus who offered themselves as a sacrifice for the sins of their people (Exodus 32:30-32; Deuteronomy 34:10-12; and Matthew 26:28). Most significantly, however, is the fact that, beginning with Moses and concluding with Jesus, the means of forgiveness and reconciliation with God were brought about (Leviticus 4:2; 6:24,25; 14;13 and Hebrew 19:22). This is the real criteria for "a prophet who is like you (Moses)." Many prophets can claim to be like Moses from the standpoint of human reasoning. Only one can claim to be like Moses from the standpoint of God's reasoning. His desire to save mankind, which Moses first began by bringing the Children of Israel out of captivity from Egypt, and which 46

D1: Is there a prediction of Muhammad in Deuteronomy 18?
In Deuteronomy 18:18 we read: "I (the LORD) will raise up for them a Prophet like you (Moses) and he will tell them everything I command him." 45

Jesus finally accomplished by bringing all believers out of captivity from sin 2,000 years ago.

D1iii: Consideration: This prophet must be Jesus:
Muhammad can never claim to parallel the essential and unique aspects of Moses' ministry on earth, as Jesus can. Those who worked alongside Jesus, and who predated Muhammad by nearly 700 years came to this same conclusion. Consider the following witnesses from John and Luke: John 1:45: "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law." John 5:46: "If you believed Moses you would believe me [Jesus], for he wrote about me." John 6:14: "Surely this [Jesus] is the prophet who is to come into the World." Acts 3:22: "Moses said, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people...'." (i.e. own brothers=sons of Israel.)

Without it, Muhammad has no outside evidence to prove his prophethood. Furthermore, the Qur'an itself claims, in Sura 29:27, that prophethood belongs solely to the line of Isaac and Jacob, to which Muhammad has no part. Consequently, the authority for the beliefs of over one billion Muslims then hangs on the single testimony of one finite man. (note: a man who himself admits his lack of power in Sura:Ta Ha 20:49, and his sinfulness in Sura: Ghafir 40:55, in contrast with the claim by Jesus to have all power in Matthew 28:18, and to be without sin in I Peter 2:22, which we also find in Sura 19:19). As we read these verses and consider what has been written, it is easy to conclude that this prophecy by Moses in Deuteronomy 18 can only belong to Jesus the Christ. It is He who was born in the line of Moses, and it is He who had a relationship with God, as He was God. It was He who was established in authority with God, and it was He who, like Moses, offered Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of others (in His case for all of humanity). It is this last criteria which sets these two off from the rest. Only Moses and Jesus had the unique mission: to bring about a renewal of relationship with God; the one, Moses, out of the captivity of slavery in Egypt, and the other, Jesus, out of the captivity of sin in our hearts, for eternity.

D1iv: Conclusion: Without a prediction where is Muhammad's authority?
In order to prove that Muhammad was a true prophet, the Qur'an stipulated that in the Taurat and the Injil predictions concerning him could be found (Refer to Suras 7:157 and 61:6 above). Yet we find none of these prophecies in either the Taurat, or the Injil (i.e. John 16:7 which we will deal with later). What does this say for the authority of Muhammad? At the heart of the argument, for a Muslim, is the desire to find any external predictions for the coming of Muhammad in the Taurat and the Injil (as referred to in Sura 7:157). Without it, the only criteria for Muhammad's authority is the Qur'an; while the only authority for the Qur'an is Muhammad. This is circular reasoning, which is not a valid scholarly argument. Since the evidence for any prediction by Moses concerning Muhammad does not exist in the Taurat, this creates a problem for Muslims who must produce external criteria for the authenticity of their prophet. 47

D2: Are there further predictions of Muhammad in the Old Testament?
We now come to the question of whether there are any other predictions of Muhammad in the Old Testament? According to Muslims there are a number of other instances where their prophet can be found. We need to know how to answer them on these issues as well.

D2i: Do we find Muhammad in the Old Testament?
According to Suras 7 and 61 Muhammad is supposedly predicted somewhere in the former scriptures (i.e. Taurat). For a long time now, Muslims have tried desperately to find these predictions for their prophet in those scriptures which preceded the Qur'an (the Taurat, Zabuur and 48

the Injil), but to no avail. It is ironic that Muslims are now compelled by their own scripture to establish the credibility of their prophet in the Old Testament, the very book which they claim elsewhere to be corrupted and of no real worth. Muslims and Christians alike agree that Christ's coming was predicted often in the Old Testament. Yet, if God had intended to send another prophet far greater than He, we should naturally find predictions concerning him there as well. Yet, none are to be found. Therefore, without a prediction the sole criteria for Muhammad's authority rests entirely on the Qur'an, whose sole authority rests on Muhammad, and for obvious reasons this is unworkable.

c. This person is someone whose geographical location coincides with that of Muhammad (Deuteronomy 33:2; Isaiah 63; Habakkuk 3:3). Yet the Mount Paran which they claim to be in Mecca is rather on the Sinai Peninsula, while Bozrah is not Basrah, but modernday Al-Busairah, situated in Edom, south of the Dead Sea. In Habbakuk 3:3 we read, "God comes from Teman." Muslims maintain that Teman refers to Islam. To be consistent they must also adhere to the other prophecies concerning Teman. In Jeremiah 49:7 God questions whether there is any wisdom in Teman. Verse 20 says the people of Teman will be aghast at their fate. Ezekiel 25:13 promises that God will lay waste the people of Teman, and God will send fire and consume them (Amos 1:12), and there will be no survivors (Obadiah 8-10). This would suggest that there is no wisdom in Islam, and that there awaits all Muslims a destruction by fire which will consume them! Fortunately for the Muslims, we know that this fate has no place in reality. For when we refer to the Biblical account we find that Teman is not Islam at all, but a town close to Jericho, in the territory of Edom. d. This person is someone whose name has a common root to that of Muhammad. In Genesis 49:8-10 it is Judah; in the Song of Solomon 5:16 it is Ahmad; and in Haggai 2:7 it is Hemdah. This fourth category needs further discussion as it is adhered to more resolutely by the Muslims as real proof for a prediction than the others.

D2ii: Muslims find Muhammad in the Old Testament
Due to the predicament which Muslims find themselves in, they have, after a hurried perusal of our Bible, come forward with a series of twelve passages from the Old Testament which they believe point to Muhammad. Outside of the Deuteronomy 18 passage (dealt with above), all of these passages, which supposedly refer to a messenger, falls into four general categories. a. This person is someone who used the sword (Psalm 45:2-5; 149; Isaiah 63). However, when we read further, the context in these passages clearly points out that the sword-wielder is not only God, but the Creator, the Lord of Israel and the Lord of Hosts. I know of few Muslims who would be willing to equate these titles with Muhammad. b. This person is someone whose life-style parallels that of Muhammad's day (i.e rides a camel, lives in a desert) (Isaiah 21:7 and 53). Yet the context again refers to both a messenger from Babylon, and a servant who was crushed, pierced, and wounded for others, hardly analogous to Muhammad's life. 49

D2iii: Names which point to Muhammad:
Muslims believe that all of these three passages use names which can be translated as "praise" (Judah, Ahmad, and Hemdah), and are semantically similar to "Muhammad," which means "the praised one." However, in Arabic the verb "Hamada" (to praise) is the root for many 50

words, yet one does not find Muslims substituting "Muhammad" and "Hamada" interchangeably. Take for instance the very first Sura of the Qur'an. In the second ayya (verse) we find, "Praise (al-hamadi) be to Allah." Do we dare change this to Muhammad? Of course not! That is sacrilege! In Haggai 2:7 Muslims believe "Hemdah" (the desire of nations) comes from the same root as the word "Muhammad." Yet they must certainly cringe when this word is again used in Daniel 11:37 to refer to a person "desired by women" who is a false god of the heathen.

b. If this is Muhammad, which of his wives is speaking? Was Muhammad ever married to a dark woman he wooed from Lebanon? c. Did Muhammad ever claim kingship? What, then, is this prophecy saying? The underlined words in the text above are the English renderings of the Hebrew word, machmad. Strong's concordance defines machmad as: desire, desirable thing, a pleasant thing. So, can Machmad signify Muhammad? Wise men allow that when one verse is in doubt it is justified to explain one passage of the Bible by another. The word machmad appears twelve more times in the Old Testament. Since Muslims are so intent on finding the name of Muhammad in the Hebrew word "machmad," it is important that they remain consistent. Therefore, we have printed these twelve prophetic verses below and leave it to you to ascertain whether they fit. Note that we have been consistent in now translating this word as the longneglected "proper noun" which they claim it to be. 1 Kings 20:6: "Yet I will send my servants to thee tomorrow about this time, and they shall search thy house, and the houses of thy servants; and it shall be, [that] whatever is Muhammad in thy eyes, they shall take [it] in their hand, and carry [it] away." 2 Chronicles 36:19: "And they burnt the house of God, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all its palaces with fire, and destroyed all its Muhammad vessels." Isaiah 64:11: "Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised thee, is burned with fire: and all our Muhammad things are laid waste." Lamentations 1:10: "The adversary hath spread out his hand upon all her Muhammad things: for she hath seen [that] the nations entered into her sanctuary, whom thou didst command [that] they should not enter into thy congregation."

D2iv: Song of Solomon 5:16
But perhaps the best example to illustrate the difficulty in exchanging one word for another is found in the Song of Solomon, chapter 5, verse 16. In this passage Muslims claim that the Hebrew word "Machmad" (altogether lovely) can be translated "praise" or "Ahmad." Following is the text of the passage as translated in the New International Version Bible: "His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely. This is my lover, this my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem." The book of Song of Solomon is a poetic love story between the Beloved and her Lover. It is a piece that explores the beauty of a marriage relationship between a king and his wife. Muslims believe that the adjectival clause "altogether lovely" can be changed to a proper noun, "Muhammad." The text should then read, when translated into English: "His mouth is sweetness itself; he is Muhammad. This is my lover, this my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem." This rendering, however, begs a number of difficult questions according to the context of the entire book. a. Who are the daughters of Jerusalem? Did Muhammad ever court one of his many wives in Jerusalem?

51

52

Lamentations 1:11: "All her people sigh, they seek bread; they have given their Muhammad things for food to relieve the soul: see, O LORD, and consider; for I am become vile." Lamentations 2:4: "He hath bent his bow like an enemy: he stood with his right hand as an adversary, and slew all [that were] Muhammad to the eye in the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion: he poured out his fury like fire." Ezekiel 24:16: "Son of man, behold, I take away from thee the Muhammad of thy eyes with a stroke: yet neither shalt thou mourn nor weep, neither shall thy tears run down." Ezekiel 24:21: "Speak to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will profane my sanctuary, the excellence of your strength, the Muhammad of your eyes, and that which your soul pitieth; and your sons and your daughters whom ye have left shall fall by the sword." Ezekiel 24:25: "Also, thou son of man, [shall it] not [be] in the day when I take from them their strength, the joy of their glory, the Muhammad of their eyes, and that on which they set their minds, their sons and their daughters." Hosea 9:6: "For, lo, they are gone because of destruction: Egypt shall gather them up, Memphis shall bury them: the Muhammad [places] for their silver, nettles shall possess them: thorns [shall be] in their tabernacles." Hosea 9:16: "Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay [even] the Muhammad [fruit] of their womb." Joel 3:5: "Because ye have taken my silver and my gold, and have carried into your temples my Muhammad things." If this mutilation of Scripture seems to you ridiculous, it is meant to be as it shows the quality of the theory behind such an idea. When taken to its logical conclusion it makes a mockery of Hebrew grammar. Why should an adjectival clause be translated a proper noun? Machmad already has a proper noun counterpart, but more closely 53

related to the clause -- Chemdan (or Hemdan), the eldest son of Dishon of Anah the Horite. If machmad should have been written as a proper noun the author would have written Chemdan.

D2v: The problem with this exercise
This claim is quite similar to the issue of the paraclete in the book of John (which we will refer to later). Many Muslims contend that it is another prophecy of Muhammad. Yet this prophecy in John 14 and 16 has been shown for what it is - a prophecy of the Spirit of God. We find it peculiar that Muslims will, in one text, base their claim on the meaning of one word at the expense of its pronunciation (paracletos versus periclytos) and yet with another text base their claim on the pronunciation of a single word at the expense of its meaning (desire versus praise)! If these techniques of hermeneutics are just, then wouldn't it be quite in line to expect to find as a substitute for the word paracletos a prophet named "Perry Clinton," whose name really means "the desired one?" Absurd? Yes! That is the point. Using this technique one can conjure up a prophecy for nearly any prophet one happens to fancy, or even make up one on the whim. Conversely, a Hindu could claim that in Sura 30:1, the word "al-rum" (for Romans), which can be written "Ram," must be referring to the Hindu God "Rama." A further irony in this whole exercise is that Muhammad is not even the name which the prophet grew up with. According to Muslim tradition, in his youth Muhammad was called Amin, a common Arab name meaning "faithful, or trustworthy." Amin was his given name, a masculine form from the same root as his mother's name "Amina." We understand the desire by Muslims to find any prophecy which will give credence to Muhammad, for without it Muhammad has no outside evidence to prove his prophethood. That then leaves the authority for the beliefs of over one billion Muslims hanging on the single testimony of just one finite man. We ask, however, that Muslims not twist or attack the scriptures in order to gain their own agenda. We are constantly 54

amazed that Muslims should be at once both critics and stewards of the Holy Scriptures of Christians and Jews. It would be better to be of one mind. If Muslims firmly believe the scriptures are inadequate then they should behave as such and abstain from picking and choosing what they like from what they deem a hopelessly inadequate book. We will not insult them for bravely allying with other enemies of the Bible. But it is hypocrisy to use data from a book they claim is crude and inferior to support an already illogical argument. If we truly believe the scriptures and desire to find prophecies within them, then we need to read them all and learn with an open mind. We need to truly submit ourselves to the authoritative and COMPLETE teachings of Scripture as has been diligently preserved throughout the ages.

Testament in John 14:16 and John 16:7. These are the passages which we will deal with here. Let's open to those passages. (Read John 14:16 and 16:7) The problem comes with the word "Counsellor". All the misunderstanding which separates Jews, Christians and Muslims come from the manner in which one pronounces or writes parakletos, which the translators of the gospel have rendered as "counsellor." There are two popular spellings of this word, the one parakletos and the other periklytos. Muslims, aware that the original New Testament was written in Greek, choose the latter spelling, periklytos, which in Greek is translated as 'glorious', over parakletos which means 'counsellor', or 'lawyer'. On the strength of the Qur'anic text Muslims claim that John 14:16 and 16:7 are predictions of the coming of Muhammad, as the word periklytos (glorious), refers to the Ahmad spoken of in Sura 61:6, a form of the name Muhammad, since both mean "the Praised one".

D3: Is there a prophecy of Muhammad in the Injil?
We now come to the final claim by Muslims, that a prediction of Muhammad can be found in the Injil, in other words in the New Testament.

D3ii: Greek language confirms parakletos
What the Muslims have tried to do with this word is to replace the vowels as they see fit (replacing the a-a-e-o in parakletos with e-i-y-o in periklytos). In Hebrew and Arabic, where the vowels are not included in the words, there is room for debate as to which vowels the author intended (such as YHWH), however, this is not so in Greek, as the vowels are clearly written in all Greek texts. Abdullah Yusuf Ali in his footnotes in the Qur'an referring to this passage says: "Our doctors contend that Paracletos is a corrupt reading for Periklytos, and that in their original saying of Jesus there was a prophecy of our Holy Prophet Ahmad by name" (pg. 1461, note no.5438).

D3i: Parakletos or Periklytos?
The two ayas quoted at the beginning of this lecture speak of a prophet or messenger who will be described in the Taurat and Injil, who can neither read nor write, who will come after Jesus, and will be called Ahmed. Attempts have been made by Muslims since the middle of the 10th century to quote definite verses from the Bible which speak of Muhammad; verses such as Genesis 16:9-12; 17:20-21; 21:21 and Deuteronomy 33:2,12. These are easily defendable, and need little of our time. Another scripture which is often quoted by Muslims as the definitive proof of a prediction concerning Muhammad is that found in the New 55

D3iii: Greek manuscripts confirm parakletos
It would have been helpful if Ali and his learned "doctors", before making such an erroneous claim, had referred to existing manuscripts 56

(MSS) which are easily accessible for examination (including two of the oldest, the Codex Siniaticus and the Codex Alexandrinas, both in the British Museum in London). There are more than 70 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in existence today, dating from before the time of Muhammad, and not one of them use the word periklytos! All use the word parakletos. In fact the word periklytos does not even appear at all in the Bible!

When we continue reading beyond chapter 14:16 and chapter 16:7, we find that Jesus predicts the specific details of the arrival and identity of the parakletos. Therefore, according to the context of John 14 & 16 we find that: a. Jesus said the parakletos is not a human being: 14:16: "he will be with you for ever" (a human doesn't live forever) 14:17: "he will be the spirit of truth" (a human is distinct from spirit) 14:17: "the world neither sees him..." (a human is visible) 14:17: "...nor knows him" (a human would be known by others) 14:17: "and he will be in you" (a human cannot be within others) b. Jesus said that the parakletos has a specific mission; to point to Jesus: 14:26: "whom the Father will send in my (Jesus') name" 14:26: "will remind you everything I (Jesus) have said to you" 16:8: "he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin..." 16:14: "He will bring glory to me (Jesus)..." c. Finally, Jesus said that the parakletos is a spirit: 14:17: "the Spirit of Truth" 14:26: "the Counsellor (parakletos), the Holy Spirit"

D3iv: Therefore Muhammad could not be the parakletos
So why do Muslims continue to cling to the erroneous rendering of this word? Obviously, as we have mentioned before, Yusuf Ali and his friends have a deep desire to find any prediction for the coming of Muhammad in the Taurat and Injil. Not only does the Qur'an mention that the predictions exist, but more damaging for today, without it the sole criteria for Muhammad's authority takes on an invalid circular reasoning, which goes something like this: Muhammad receives his authority from the Qur'an, which receives its authority from Muhammad, who receives his authority from the Qur'an...so on and so forth. There is no outside authority which can provide him with the credibility he needs. The evidence for any prediction by Jesus concerning Muhammad just does not exist in the Injil, creating a problem for Muslims who must, therefore, produce some further external criteria for the authenticity of their prophet. It's an unenviable task, one which I wouldn't want to have to do myself.

D3v: So who is the parakletos?
A further problem for the Muslim exists once they open to the verses in question. John 14:16 says: "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counsellor (parakletos) to be with you for ever." Most Muslims quote only the first half of this verse, as well as John 16:7, and then shut the Bible. What they fail to realize is that, as is the case in most pieces of literature, it is dangerous to read any verse or phrase without looking at the context first. 57

D3vi: The answer is the Holy Spirit, who arrived 50 days later
It is clear from the context that no human prophet or angelic being can qualify as the parakletos. Consider what these verses say: He will be with them forever, not seen, nor known, yet within others, and will set about reminding the people of what Jesus did, while bringing glory to Jesus. There is only one being who qualifies in all these areas, the Holy Spirit of the Injil, whom Jesus pointedly identifies as the parakletos. He fulfills all the above requirements. 58

In Acts 1, Jesus, just before He was to be taken up into heaven, and 40 days after He had first promised the Holy Spirit, again spoke about this "gift": a. v.4: "wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about" b. v.5: "in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." It is obvious that this counsellor, of whom Jesus speaks is indeed the Holy Spirit, who came in power, 50 days after these promises were given to the disciples; on the day of Pentecost (which is translated as the 50th day), and 570 years before the birth of Muhammad.

From there it was only natural to ask whether Muhammad could be understood as the seal of the prophets? In comparing him with Jesus and the former prophets we soon found that he didn't even come close. Not only did he concede his revelations to the people around him, but he had an enormous sexual appetite, while elevating himself almost on par with Allah. And finally, he, himself, realized that he had sinned and needed forgiveness. In all these categories Muhammad failed to persuade us that he could legitimately claim to be a prophet of God. But our enquiry was still not finished. We needed to ascertain if others had spoken previously about this prophet who was yet to come. In Suras 7:157 and 61:6 we read of a prophet, Ahmad (or Muhammad), who was revealed beforehand in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injil (Gospel). Because these Suras are included in the "eternal and perfect" authority for Muslims, it is imperative, therefore, that these passages be found, since without them, Muhammad has no outside evidence to prove his prophethood, other than himself. Muhammad's word worked fine in the heady days of the seventh century, where no-one dared counter his claim to prophethood, and where convenient revelations "descended" regularly to give him credibility before his people. But today, outside the realm of Islamic jurisdiction, and on the heels of an invigorated and ongoing literary criticism, the critics demand more proof. Without it the authority for the beliefs of over one billion Muslims then hangs on the single testimony of this one finite man, Muhammad. And many of those beliefs go diametrically against the intrinsic revelations espoused in the scriptures which preceded him, the very scriptures which Muslims must now use to find a prediction for their prophet in order to give him credibility. There are, however, no passages in the Taurat or the Injil which speak of him, not one. Muslims will certainly come forward and point to the passages in Deuteronomy 18, or the Song of Solomon 5:16, or John 14 and 16 as the one's which refer to Ahmad, or Muhammad. Yet, are they? Can this prophet like Moses, the promised one, this counsellor, be a mere human 60

E: Conclusion
So what have we learned? We began this paper by asking whether Muhammad could qualify as a true prophet of God. We presented the Muslim positions, positing that they claimed his prophethood due to the supernatural witness to his prophethood during his early childhood, as well as the fact that he delivered the Qur'an, though he was illiterate, and because both his prophesies and miracles pointed to his prophethood. We then gave rebuttals to all four of these positions and followed up with four criteria of our own, concluding that Muhammad could not qualify in any four of these categories. Following that we took the question further by asking whether Muhammad's message was for Arabs alone, or whether it was universal. Though verses can be found in the Qur'an which maintain both positions, we determined that this particular revelation had possibly evolved and followed the natural polytheistic reality on the ground at that time. We asked whether Muhammad could be a prophet to the Jews and Christians, and came away bruised and battered from the violence with which he enjoined those two groups.

59

or a mere prophet; or is He more than that? Is He not God Himself, in the form of a man, or, as we found in John, in the form of the Holy Spirit? As we read these verses and consider what has been said here, it will be good to feel encouraged that we do indeed serve the true God, who chooses to reveal Himself clearly and simply, from Genesis through to Revelation, and chooses to be in relationship with us as His creatures, by coming to us as a man in the line of Moses, while still relating to us by means of His Holy Spirit, mediating Christ in us. Because Muslims do not understand God within these parameters, it is no wonder that they are confused to find that it is Jesus and not Muhammad who is prophesied to carry on the mission of reconciliation, and that it is the Holy Spirit who has been promised to continue that same mission today, right here and right now, until we will all be with Him together for eternity; providing we believe.

MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE?
During 1975 Ahmed Deedat held a series of lectures at the Durban City Hall, two of which set out to prove that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible. The first lecture, entitled "What the Bible Says About Muhammad", dealt with the prophecy in Deuteronomy 18.18 in the Old Testament, and in it Mr. Deedat sought to show that Moses was predicting the coming of Muhammad when speaking of a prophet to follow him who would be like him. During 1976 Mr. Deedat published this lecture in booklet form under the same title. In his second lecture in 1975 he spoke on "Muhammad the Natural Successor to Christ" and here he endeavoured to prove that Jesus was foretelling the coming of Muhammad when he exhorted his disciples to wait for the coming of the one he called the Comforter who, he said, would follow him. Deedat's lectures were typical of numerous similar attempts that have been made by Muslim writers over the years to make these two particular prophecies fit Muhammad. The effort has generally arisen from a verse in the Qur'an which states that the coming of Muhammad was foretold in the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures. It reads: Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures) - in the Law and the Gospel. Surah 7.157 It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Muslims have searched exhaustively through the "Law and the Gospel" (the Tawrat and the Injil, the Old and New Testaments respectively) for proof that these two books indeed contain prophecies of the coming of Muhammad. The Qur'an seems to suggest that these prophecies would be found in the Torah and the Gospel without much difficulty, but when Muslims have applied themselves to finding these alleged predictions, they have been unpleasantly surprised to discover that in these two books it is Jesus who is the subject of the many prophecies in them and not Muhammad. The birth of Jesus, his ministry, parables, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, second coming, deity, glory and honour are the concerns of the prophetic texts of the Torah and the Gospel, and so extensively do these prophecies herald his advent as the ultimate climax of God's revealed truth and love towards men that one cannot help but be struck 62

Is Muhammad Foretold in the Bible?
by John Gilchrist Contents:
MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE? MOSES AND THE PROPHET 1. The Word of God in the Prophet's mouth 2. A prophet from among their Brethren 3. A Prophet like unto Moses 4. Jesus - the Prophet like unto Moses JESUS AND THE COMFORTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

61

by the fact that the Bible makes no allowance for the anti-climax of a "prophet" to follow him. Such prophecies are conspicuous only by their absence. Nevertheless, spurred on by the assurance in the Qur'an that the Bible indeed foretells the coming of Muhammad, Muslims have made every effort to find these prophecies. The obvious dearth of material in support of their quest has led most of them to wisely rely solely on the two prophecies we have already mentioned - one in each of the Testaments -, to prove their claim. Others, like Kaldani and Vidyarthy, have unwisely tried to apply every major prophecy in the Bible to Muhammad (including striking predictions of the crucifixion, atoning work and resurrection of Jesus Christ in Isaiah 53 for example!), but the shameless twists of interpretation that they have been compelled to resort to together with an abdication of all reason in their efforts to prove their points has fortunately restrained other Muslims from following in their steps and they have accordingly relied solely on the two prophecies we have mentioned, one by Moses and one by Jesus respectively. We are in the circumstances entitled to presume that these two prophecies are believed by the Muslims to be the strongest in support of their claims. Accordingly, if it can be proved that these texts do not in any way refer to Muhammad, or anticipate his advent or prophethood, then the whole theory that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible must simultaneously fall to the ground. We shall therefore in this booklet generously consider the strongest evidence of the Muslims that Muhammad is foretold in these two passages and will, in the light of the context of each passage, and of other factors crucial to a proper determination of the matter, decide whether the evidence is sufficient to prove the point or whether the case must ultimately be found to go against them. It is universally accepted in all civilised communities that if a matter is to be determined properly, all the relevant evidence must be weighed together and all irrelevant evidence must be ignored accordingly. No matter how great the temptation may be to ignore the relevant facts while giving undue weight to the irrelevant ones if this is the only way a matter can be decided in one's favour, the man who really loves the truth and 63

seeks for it will resist the temptation. It is our sincere hope that the Muslims who read this document will do likewise.

MOSES AND THE PROPHET
"I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him". Deuteronomy 18.18 Whenever Muslims seek to establish that Muhammad is foretold in the Torah, the Old Testament, they invariably refer to this verse as the one obvious prophecy in support of their claim. They argue that the prophet who was promised by God to Moses was Muhammad because: 1. The Qur'an is allegedly the Word of God and therefore, as Muhammad recited each passage that was delivered to him, he had the words of God put into his mouth in accordance with the words of this prophecy; 2. The prophet to come would be from among the brethren of the Israelites, hence the Ishmaelites, because Israel (Jacob) and Ishmael were both descended from Abraham, and the tribes who descended from the twelve sons of Ishmael are therefore "brethren" of the tribes who descended from the twelve sons of Israel. As Muhammad was the only Ishmaelite to claim prophethood in the line of the Old Testament prophets, they aver that the prophecy can only refer to him; 3. Muhammad was like Moses in so many ways that the prophecy can only refer to him. We shall consider these claims briefly and will do so in the light of the context of the prophecy, for this is the only way that a correct interpretation of the text can be obtained. Every intelligent expositor of scripture knows that no passage can be fairly interpreted if it is isolated from its context. Therefore it is essential to quote from the whole passage in which the prophecy is found and the following two extracts are of great importance:

64

The Levitical priests, that is, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings by fire to the Lord, and his rightful dues. They shall have no inheritance among their brethren; the Lord is their inheritance as he promised them. Deuteronomy 18.1-2. The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren - him shall you heed - just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, or see this great fire any more, lest I die'. And the Lord said to me, 'They have rightly said all that they have spoken. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. And whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die'. Deuteronomy 18.15-20. We shall proceed to briefly consider the three points that supposedly prove that Muhammad is the prophet referred to in the text and thereafter will, in the light of the context of the passage, discover precisely which prophet is referred to in the prophecy contained in Deuteronomy 18.18.

Furthermore we also read in Deuteronomy 18.18 that the prophet to follow Moses "shall speak to them all that I command him". Now we read that Jesus once said to his disciples: "For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has bidden me". John 12.49-50. A similar text which illustrates this point is found in the great prayer which Jesus prayed on the last night that he was with his disciples. He said: "I have given them the words which thou gavest me". John 17.8 In no way, therefore, can the identity of the prophet in the text of Deuteronomy 18.18 be established from the fact that God would put his words in his mouth. With every prophet who is true this is the case and the great prophet referred to in the text, who would be uniquely like Moses in a way that none of the other prophets were, must accordingly be identified from other sources.

1. THE WORD OF GOD IN THE PROPHET'S MOUTH.
Christians do not believe that the Qur'an is the Word of God but, purely for the sake of argument, we shall proceed as if God did indeed put his words in Muhammad's mouth to discover whether this might prove that Muhammad is the prophet referred to in Deuteronomy 18.18. In our view the statement "I will put my words in his mouth" does not help to identify the prophet referred to at all. It is true of every prophet that God has put his words in his mouth. For God said to Jeremiah: "Behold I have put my words in your mouth". Jeremiah 1.9

2. A PROPHET FROM AMONG THEIR BRETHREN.
Muslims allege that the expression "their brethren" in Deuteronomy 18.18 means the brethren of the Israelites, hence the Ishmaelites. In this case, however, if we are truly to discover the real identity of the prophet who would be like Moses, we must consider the expression in its context. God said, "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren." Of whom is God speaking when he speaks of "them" and "their"? When we go back to the first two verses of Deuteronomy 18 we find the answer:

65

66

"The Levitical priests, that is, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel ... they shall have no inheritance among their brethren". Deuteronomy 18.1-2. It is abundantly clear from these two verses that "they" refers to the tribe of Levi and that "their brethren" refers to the remaining eleven tribes of Israel. This is an inescapable fact. No honest method of interpretation or consistent method of exposition can possibly allow that Deuteronomy 18.18 refers to anyone else than the tribe of Levi and the remaining tribes of Israel. Let us briefly examine the only possible exposition of the prophecy that can lead to a correct interpretation and identification of "their brethren". We need only accentuate the relevant words from Deuteronomy 18.1-2 to discover the only possible conclusion that can be drawn. The text reads: "The tribe of Levi shall have no inheritance with ISRAEL. They shall have no inheritance among THEIR BRETHEREN". Therefore the only logical interpretation of Deuteronomy 18.18 can be: "I will raise up for them (that is, the tribe of Levi) a prophet like you from among their brethren (that is, one of the other tribes of Israel)". Indeed throughout the Old Testament one often finds the expression "their brethren" meaning the remaining tribes of Israel as distinct from the tribe specifically referred to. Let us consider this verse as an example: But the children of Benjamin would not listen to the voice of their brethren, the children of Israel. Judges 20.13 Here "their brethren" is specifically stated to be the other tribes of Israel as distinct from the tribe of Benjamin. In Deuteronomy 18.18, therefore, "their brethren" clearly means the brethren in Israel of the tribe of Levi. Again in Numbers 8.26 the tribe of Levi is commanded to minister to "their brethren", that is, the remaining tribes of Israel. In 2 Kings 24.12 the tribe of Judah is distinguished from "their brethren", once again the remaining tribes of Israel. (Further scriptures proving the point are 67

Judges 21.22, 2 Samuel 2.26, 2 Kings 23.9, 1 Chronicles 12.32, 2 Chronicles 28.15, Nehemiah 5.1 and others). Indeed in Deuteronomy 17.15 we read that Moses on one occasion said to the Israelites "One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother". Only an Israelite could be appointed king of Israel - "one from among your brethren" - no foreigner, be he Ishmaelite, Edomite or whoever he may be, could be made King of Israel because he was not one of "their brethren", that is, a member of one of the tribes of Israel. At this stage, therefore, we have a fatal objection to the theory that Muhammad is foretold in Deuteronomy 18.18. He was an Ishmaelite and accordingly is automatically disqualified from being the prophet whose coming was foretold in that verse. The prophet was obviously to come from one of the tribes of Israel other than the tribe of Levi. God said he would raise up a prophet for the Levites like Moses from among "their brethren", that is, from one of the other tribes of Israel. As we intend to prove that Jesus was the prophet whose coming was foretold it will be appropriate to mention at this stage that he was descended from the tribe of Judah (Matthew 1.2, Hebrews 7.14). He is therefore ably qualified to be the prophet who would be raised up from among the brethren of the Levites.

3. A PROPHET LIKE UNTO MOSES.
The Islamic publications listed in the Bibliography to this booklet are full of comparisons between Moses and Muhammad where evidence is brought forward of certain likenesses between them. These publications also produce many differences between Jesus and Moses as the authors try to disprove that Jesus is the prophet whose coming was foretold in Deuteronomy 18.18. In his booklet "What the Bible Says About Muhummed" Mr. Deedat produces a number of similarities between Moses and Muhammad which he claims do not exist between Moses and Jesus. Most of these are meaningless, however, and only serve to show the supreme uniqueness of Jesus over against the whole human race. For example, Deedat argues that Moses and Muhammad were both born naturally of human parents 68

and are buried on earth, whereas Jesus was born of a virgin-woman, had no earthly father, and ascended to heaven (Deedat, What the Bible Says About Muhummed", p. 7, 12). It is obvious that all men have natural parents and go back to the dust, and all Mr. Deedat is doing is to reveal certain ways in which Jesus was absolutely unique among men. This does not help to identify the prophet predicted by Moses, however. In the publications referred to we do find occasionally more prominent likenesses between Moses and Muhammad which do need to be analysed more carefully. Three such comparisons are: 1. Moses and Muhammad became the lawgivers, military leaders, and spiritual guides of their peoples and nations; 2. Moses and Muhammad were at first rejected by their own people, fled into exile, but returned some years later to become the religious and secular leaders of their nations; 3. Moses and Muhammad made possible the immediate and successful conquests of the land of Palestine after their deaths by their followers, Joshua and Umar respectively. At the same time it is alleged in these publications that Jesus and Moses were so different, according to Christian belief, that Jesus cannot be the prophet referred to. Such differences are these: 1. Moses was only a prophet but, according to Christian belief, Jesus is the Son of God; 2. Moses died naturally but Jesus died violently; 3. Moses was the national ruler of Israel which Jesus was not at any time during his ministry here on earth. We are constrained to ask: do these similarities and contrasts in any way prove that Muhammad is the prophet like Moses whose coming was foretold in Deuteronomy 18.18? It is the easiest of matters to show that this sort of reasoning will in no way assist us to discover the real identity of the prophet. Firstly, none of the alleged differences between Moses 69

and Jesus are of any importance. The Bible often calls Jesus a prophet as well as the Son of God (see, for example, Matthew 13.57, 21.11, and John 4.44) and the fact that Jesus died violently is hardly relevant to the issues at stake. Many prophets were killed by the Jews for their testimonies, a fact to which both the Bible and the Qur'an bear witness, (cf. Matthew 23.31, Surah 2.91). Furthermore the Bible teaches that the Christian Church as a whole has replaced the nation of Israel in this age as the collective object of God's special favours. Likewise, whereas Moses led that nation during his life on earth, so Jesus today heads the Church of God from his throne in heaven above. In this respect, therefore, he is really like Moses. Secondly, if we reverse the process we can show many similarities between Moses and Jesus where Muhammad at the same time can be contrasted with them. Some of these are: 1. Moses and Jesus were Israelites - Muhammad was an Ishmaelite. (This is, as we have seen, a crucial factor in really determining the identity of the prophet who was to follow Moses). 2. Moses and Jesus both left Egypt to perform God's work - Muhammad was never in Egypt. Of Moses we read: "By faith he forsook Egypt" (Hebrews 11.27). Of Jesus we read: "Out of Egypt have I called my Son" (Matthew 2.15). 3. Moses and Jesus forsook great wealth to share the poverty of their people which Muhammad did not. Of Moses we read: "He considered abuse suffered for the Christ greater wealth than all the treasures of Egypt" and that he chose "to share ill-treatment with the people of God" (Hebrews 11.25-26). Of Jesus we read: "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich" (2 Corinthians 8.9). So we have similarities between Moses and Jesus where Muhammad can be contrasted with them. This shows how weak the Muslim method of comparing Moses with Muhammad (while contrasting them with Jesus) is, for it works both ways. How then can we truly identify the prophet who was to be like Moses? 70

As there were numerous prophets down the ages, it is logical to assume that this prophet would be uniquely like Moses in a way that none of the other prophets were. Clearly the prophet to come would emulate him in the exceptional and unique characteristics of his prophethood. Indeed we would expect that God would give some indication in the prophecy of the distinguishing features of this prophet who was to be like Moses. We only have to refer to the context of the prophecy to find this striking verse which very clearly gives us an indication of the nature of the prophet to follow: "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren - him you shall heed - just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die' ". Deuteronomy 18.15-16. The prophet would be raised up just as God had raised Moses up as the mediator of the covenant which he gave at Horeb. The Israelites pleaded with Moses to become a mediator between them and God because they did not wish to hear God's voice face to face, and God said "They have rightly said all that they have spoken" (Deuteronomy 18.17). God henceforth raised Moses up as the mediator of the covenant between himself and Israel. We need also to consider that God spoke to Moses in a very special way as well and in the Bible we read: Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. Exodus 33.11 The Qur'an also teaches that God spoke directly to Moses in a way in which he did not speak to other prophets (Surah 4.164). Furthermore, to confirm the great mediatorial work which Moses was to perform, God did great signs and miracles through him in the presence of all Israel. Now as God had promised that the prophet to come would be like him in this mediatorial work, we must conclude that the distinguishing features of the prophet would be these:

1. He would be the direct mediator of a covenant between God and his people; 2. He would know God face to face; 3. His office would be confirmed by great signs and wonders which he would do by the power of God in the sight of all the nation of Israel. This conclusion is in fact clearly established by these last words in the Book of Deuteronomy: And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, none like him for all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, and for all the mighty power and all the great and terrible deeds which Moses performed in the sight of all Israel. Deuteronomy 34.10-12. The three distinguishing features of Moses as a prophet are clearly mentioned: he was the mediator between God and Israel, he knew the Lord face to face, and he did great signs and wonders. The prophet like him would obviously have to emulate these unique features of his prophethood. Did Muhammad possess these exceptional characteristics by which the prophet was to be recognised? Firstly, whereas God spoke directly to Moses, so that he was a direct mediator between God and the people of Israel, the Qur'an is alleged to have come at all times from the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad and at no time did God directly communicate it to him face to face, as the Muslims themselves admit. He also did not mediate a covenant between God and the people of Israel. Secondly, Muhammad performed no signs and wonders. Although the Hadith record some fanciful miracles, these are purely mythical, for the Qur'an very clearly says of Muhammad that he performed no signs. In Surah 6.37, when Muhammad's adversaries say "Why has no sign been sent down to him from his Lord?", Muhammad is bidden to reply merely that God could send one if he wanted to but had not done so. In the same Surah we read that Muhammad said, "I have not that for which you are 72

71

impatient" (Surah 6.57), meaning signs and wonders such as Moses had. He goes on to say that if he had had them, the dispute between him and them would have been decided long ago. Again in the same Surah Muhammad's adversaries say they will believe if signs come from God, but he only replies that God has reserved them because they would still disbelieve anyway (as indeed the Jews did with Jesus - John 12.37). Furthermore the Qur'an also says that Muhammad's adversaries in Mecca also once said to him: "Why are not (signs) sent to him, like those which were sent to Moses?" Surah 28.48 The answer the Qur'an gives is much the same - they rejected the signs of Moses anyway, so why do they now expect Muhammad to perform signs? Nevertheless, in terms of the prophecy in Deuteronomy 18.18, this was a very poignant and significant observation for it plainly distinguishes between Moses and Muhammad in the very important matter of performing signs and wonders. How indeed could Muhammad possibly be the prophet whose coming was foretold in Deuteronomy 18.18 if he was not granted the power to perform the kind of signs and wonders performed by Moses? In this case, therefore, he was definitely not like Moses in one of the vital, distinguishing characteristics of his prophethood. The Qur'an has its own testimony to this effect. So we find that Muhammad was not a direct mediator between God and man, nor could he do any signs and wonders to confirm his office. Deuteronomy 34.11 makes it essential that the prophet like Moses would do similar signs and wonders to those which Moses did, and as Muhammad did not, we have a second fatal objection against the theory that he is the prophet foretold in Deuteronomy 18.18. We can conclude by saying that whatever evidence the Muslims may produce in favour of their assertion, the really relevant and crucial evidence needed to prove the point is not only unfavourable in his case but in fact fatally rules out the possibility that he might indeed be the prophet of whom Moses spoke.

4. JESUS - THE PROPHET LIKE UNTO MOSES.
Considering now whether Jesus is the prophet referred to, let us begin by answering a few typical objections raised by the Muslims. Firstly, if he was the Christ, they say he could not be the prophet to follow Moses, because the Jews distinguished between Elijah, the Christ, and the prophet (John 1. 19-21). The argument goes that John the Baptist is believed by the Christians to have come in the spirit of Elijah, Jesus was the Christ, and Muhammad, therefore, must have been the prophet. We have already shown, however, that it is impossible for Muhammad to be the prophet. In any even nothing conclusive can be construed from the speculations of the Jews. They once said of Jesus: "This is indeed the prophet" (John 7.40). On another occasion they said he was "one of the prophets" (Matthew 16.14), on another "a prophet" (Mark 6.15) and worse still thought of him as both Elijah (Mark 6.15) and John the Baptist himself (Matthew 16.14). It needs to be pointed out that the Bible does not teach that Elijah, the Christ, and the prophet were to come in that order. The questions put by the Jews to John, whether he was Elijah, the Christ, or the prophet, merely expressed their own hopes and expectations of figureheads to come. In the light of their confusion, however, we can see that no serious consideration can be given to the distinctions they made between the Christ and the prophet. It is also important to note that the predictions of the prophet, etc., were made in the reverse order in the Old Testament (the prophet was promised by Moses, most of the prophecies of the coming Christ were set out in the writings of the later prophets, and the promise of the coming of Elijah only appears at the end of the book in Malachi 4.5). Furthermore no deliberate distinction between the prophet and the Christ was ever drawn in these prophecies and it is not surprising to find the Jews in one breath proclaiming that Jesus was indeed both the prophet and the Christ (John 7.40-41). Another favourite objection is that Jesus died at the hands of the Jews and God said, in Deuteronomy 18.20, that only the self-styled prophets would die. Every prophet, however, died - many violently as the Qur'an and the Bible jointly testify - and the mere physical death of a prophet was certainly no evidence against his divine mission. God obviously did not mean that every true prophet would not die! What he meant was that 74

73

a false prophet was to be put to death and would perish eternally - and all his prophecies with him. Only Judgment Day will reveal all the false prophets of the ages. What we are ultimately concerned about is this - God gave a definite promise that a prophet would arise like Moses who would mediate another covenant and that signs would accompany this covenant to confirm its heavenly origin. The very Bible that contains the prophecy of the prophet to come confirms quite clearly that that prophet was Jesus Christ. The Apostle Peter, claiming that God had foretold the coming of Jesus Christ through all the prophets, appealed specifically to Deuteronomy 18.18 as proof that Moses had done so (Acts 3.22). Jesus himself said, "Moses wrote of me" (John 5.46) and it is difficult to find elsewhere in the five books of Moses such a direct prophecy of his advent. Peter chose Deuteronomy 18.18 as the one distinctive prophecy in all the writings of Moses of the coming of Jesus Christ into the world. Likewise in Acts 7.37 Stephen appealed to Deuteronomy 18.18 as proof that Moses was one of those who had "announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One", Jesus, the one whom the Jews had recently betrayed and crucified. After witnessing all the signs that Jesus had done and after taking part in the New Covenant which he had mediated face-to-face between God and his people, the early Christians knew that Jesus was the prophet whose coming was foretold in Deuteronomy 18.18. They also knew that the prophecy of a prophet to come like Moses had been supplemented by God's promise to the prophet Jeremiah that he would mediate a new covenant in the days to come between himself and his people. For in speaking of this new covenant God clearly distinguished between it and the old covenant he had made with Moses and it was therefore obvious that the one who would mediate it would be the prophet whose coming Moses had foretold. God said: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant which 75

I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each man teach his neighbour and each his brother, saying 'Know the Lord', for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more". Jeremiah 31.31-34. "I will make a new covenant", God said, thereby confirming the promise in Deuteronomy 18 that a prophet would come to mediate between God and his people in the likeness of Moses. The promised new covenant was directly compared with the covenant God had made with Moses. The covenant would be different to that given through Moses but the prophet who would mediate it would be like him. It is therefore quite obvious that the prophet whose coming was foretold in Deuteronomy 18.18 would be the one to mediate this new covenant between God and his people. And we read: "Therefore Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant" (Hebrews 9.15). To ratify the first covenant we read that: Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, 'Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words'. Exodus 24.8 Just as the first covenant had therefore been ratified by the blood of a sacrificial offering, so the prophet to follow Moses would be like him and would also ratify God's new covenant with blood. And Jesus therefore said: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood". 1 Corinthians 11.25 God's promise of the coming of a prophet like Moses who would mediate a new covenant was one of the great blessings in the days preceding the advent of Jesus Christ. Although God mediated the old covenant through Moses, the blazing fire the Israelites saw together with the tempests and other portents made them "entreat that no further messages be spoken to them. For they could not endure the order that was given" (Hebrews 76

12.19-20). They all broke the covenant (Jeremiah 31.31) and died in the wilderness like flies (1 Corinthians 10.5). They failed to receive the life that was promised to those who abided by the old covenant. Therefore God promised to their descendants that he would raise up another prophet like Moses and would mediate a new covenant through him which God's people would both give heed to and obtain the promised blessings accompanying it - true knowledge of God, forgiveness of sins, power to keep God's law, and the public favour of God (Jeremiah 31.33-34). This new covenant Jesus brought in in due time. Unlike the Israelites under the old covenant who fell by the wayside, the people of God through this new covenant have come "to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel" (Hebrews 12.23-24). This is the covenant which Jesus brought in. Jesus therefore is the promised prophet like Moses for he mediated the new covenant between God and his people. Like Moses (and in a way in which no other prophet could compare), he also knew God face-to-face and became a direct mediator between God and men. "I know him, I come from him, and he sent me", Jesus said (John 7.29). Again he proclaimed: "No one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (Matthew 11.27). And yet again Jesus said: "Not that anyone has ever seen the Father except him who is from God - he has seen the Father" (John 6.46). And what further evidence do we need that Jesus knew God face-to-face and is the direct mediator between him and men than these two verses: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me ... Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14.6, 14.9). When he spoke to God face-to-face, "Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him" (Exodus 34. 29-30). When the image of the invisible God was directly revealed through the transfigured face of Jesus Christ, "his face did shine as the sun" (Matthew 17.2). No other prophet could claim such a distinction - no one 77

else knew God face-to-face in such a way that his face shone while he communed with him. Not only was the new covenant mediated through Jesus who knew God face-to-face as Moses had done, but he too performed great signs and wonders to confirm his mediatorial work. One of the greatest signs that Moses did was to control the sea: "Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind" (Exodus 14.21). Although other prophets had power over rivers (Joshua 3.13, 2 Kings 2.14), no other prophet emulated him in controlling the sea until Jesus came and we read that his disciples exclaimed "What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?" (Matthew 8.27). He caused a raging storm on the Sea of Galilee to cease with just three words: "Peace - be still" (Mark 4.39). Another of the great signs that Moses did was the feeding of the Israelites with bread from heaven. When the Israelites at the time of Jesus saw him perform a similar miracle by feeding no less than five thousand people with just a few loaves of bread they were convinced that he was the promised prophet. When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, 'This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world'. John 6.14 When they saw the sign, they said "This is the prophet". They knew well enough that the promised prophet would be recognised among other things by the performance of signs similar to those which Moses had done. When Jesus gave no indication of repeating the sign, the Israelites recalled that Moses had performed his feat for forty years unabated. So they said to Jesus, "What sign do you do that we may see and believe you?" (John 6.30), appealing to Moses' act of sustaining the lives of their forefathers in the wilderness. Jesus replied: "I am the Bread of Life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the 78

bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh". John 6.48-51. In every way he gave proof that he was the prophet who was to come one to mediate a covenant like that mediated through Moses at Horeb one who would know God face-to-face - one who would perform great signs and wonders as Moses had done. In every way the Jews were right on this one point when they said "This is really the prophet" (John 7.40). So it is proved that Muhammad is not foretold in Deuteronomy 18.18 but rather that the prophet whose coming was foretold in that verse was Jesus Christ. We shall go on to see that if Muhammad is not foretold on the Old Testament, neither is he foretold in the New Testament. We shall again see that Jesus Christ is the climax of all prophecy in all the revealed scriptures of God. For all the promises, revelations and blessings of God are vested in him - the fountainhead of the love and favour of God towards men. For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why we utter the Amen through him, to the glory of God. 2 Corinthians 1.20 We shall also see, even more clearly, that in the Torah and the Gospel there is only one Saviour, one man alone through whom the favour of God can be obtained. While there were many prophets in ages past - both true and false - yet for us there is only one Lord and one Saviour - Jesus Christ. Again it will be seen how deeply God wishes to impress this truth upon all men that they may believe in and follow Jesus Christ into the Kingdom of Heaven. For all who do not heed his words or believe in him with all their hearts, there remains only a "fearful prospect of judgment" (Hebrews 10.27) when God will fulfill his warning in Deuteronomy 18.19 by requiring of them their unbelief in the Saviour he sent and he will surely dismiss them, one and all, from his presence for ever and ever.

Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household. Acts 16.31

JESUS AND THE COMFORTER
Whenever Muslims seek to prove that Muhammad is foretold in the New Testament, they immediately appeal to the promise of Jesus that the "Comforter" would follow him and claim that this Comforter was Muhammad (particularly as in the Qur'an, Jesus is alleged to have foretold the coming of Muhammad in Surah 61.6 in similar language). Whereas the Revised Standard Version uses the word "Counsellor" rather than "Comforter", we shall use the word "Comforter" throughout this chapter because it is more familiar to the Muslims. The texts where the Comforter is mentioned by Jesus are: "And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you". John 14.16-17. "But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you". John 14.26 "But when the Comforter comes, whom I shall send you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me". John 15.26 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you". John 16.7 It is generally alleged by Muslims that the Greek word "paracletos" (meaning Comforter, Counsellor, Advocate, etc., in effect, one who unites men to God) is not the original word but that Jesus in fact foretold the coming of Muhammad by name and that the translation of his name 80

79

into Greek (or at least the meaning of his name in Greek) is "periklutos", that is, the "praised one". There is not a shred of evidence in favour of the assertion that the original word was "periklutos". We have thousands of New Testament manuscripts pre-dating Islam and not one of these contains the word "periklutos". In view of the fact that Muslims are prone to levelling false allegations that Christians are regularly changing the Bible, it is rather intriguing to find that they have no scruples about doing this themselves when it suits them to do so. In any event a cursory reading of the texts where the word "paracletos" appears will show that this is the only word that suits the context as I will show in one instance later on in this chapter. Some wiser Muslims admit that "paracletos" is correct, but they claim in any event that Muhammad was the Comforter whom Jesus was referring to. Let us briefly examine some of the texts in a truly exegetical manner to discover whether Muhammad is indeed the Comforter whose coming Jesus foretold. It is quite obvious from the four texts quoted that Comforter, Holy Spirit, and Spirit of Truth are interchangeable terms and that Jesus is speaking of the same person in each instance. The one obvious fact that emerges is that the Comforter is a spirit. (The fact that Jesus always speaks of the Spirit in the masculine gender in no way suggests that the Comforter must be a man as some of the publications in the Bibliography suggest. God himself is always spoken of in both the Bible and the Qur'an in the masculine gender and God is spirit - John 4.24. In the same way Jesus always speaks of the Comforter as a spirit and not as a man). If we apply sound exegesis to John 14.16-17 we shall discover no less than eight reasons why the Comforter cannot possibly be Muhammad. 1. "He will give YOU another Comforter". Jesus promised his disciples that God would send the Comforter to them. He would send the Spirit of Truth to Peter, and to John, and to the rest of the disciples - not to Meccans. Medinans or Arabians. 81

2. "He will give you ANOTHER Comforter". If, as Muslims allege, the original word was periklutos and that Christians changed it into paracletos, then the sentence would have read, "He will give you another praised one". This statement is both out of place in its context and devoid of support elsewhere in the Bible. Jesus is never called the "periklutos" in the Bible (the word appears nowhere in the Bible) so it is grossly unlikely that he would have said "He will give you another praised one" when he never used that title for himself. Worse still, as the Muslims allege that he actually foretold the coming of Muhammad by mentioning his name, the sentence in that case would have read "He will give you another Muhammad". The further the Muslims try to press the point, the more absurd it tends to become. John 16.12-13 makes it clear that the word "paracletos" is obviously the correct one. The text reads: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth". In other words, I have been your Comforter, your paracletos, and have many things to tell you, but I send the Spirit of Truth to you, another Comforter, another paracletos. In 1 John 2.1 we read that Christians have an "advocate" with the Father, "Jesus Christ the Righteous", and the word translated "advocate" is paracletos in the Greek. So Jesus is our paracletos, our Comforter and advocate with the Father, and he promised to give his disciples another Comforter. It is therefore logical to find that Jesus promised another paracletos when he himself was described as the paracletos of his followers, but it is illogical to suggest that he would speak of "another periklutos" when the word was never used to describe him in the first place. 3. "To be with you FOREVER". When Muhammad came he did not stay with his people forever but died in 632 AD and his tomb is in Medina where his body has lain for over 1300 years. Nevertheless Jesus said that the Comforter, once he had come, would never leave his disciples, but would be with them forever. 4. "The Spirit of Truth whom the world CANNOT receive". 82

The Qur'an says that Muhammad came as a universal messenger to men (Surah 34.28). If so, Jesus was not referring to Muhammad for he said that the world cannot receive the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth. 5. "You KNOW him". It is quite obvious from this statement that the disciples knew the Spirit of Truth. As Muhammad was only born more than five hundred years later, it certainly could not be him. The next clause brings out just how the disciples knew him. At this stage we can see quite clearly that the Comforter is a spirit who was in the disciples' presence already. 6. "He dwells WITH you". Where did the Comforter dwell with them? From various verses, especially John 1.32, we can see that the Spirit was in Jesus himself and so was with the disciples. 7. "He will be IN you". Here the death-blow is dealt to the theory that Muhammad is the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth. As the Spirit was in Jesus, so he would be in the disciples as well. The Greek word here is "en" and this means "right inside". So Jesus was in fact saying "he will be right inside you". 8. The last reason is really a re-emphasis of the first one. Do you notice how often Jesus addresses his own disciples when he speaks of the sphere of influence of the Comforter? "You know him ... he dwells with you ... he will be in you". Quite clearly the disciples were to anticipate the coming of the Comforter as a spirit who would come to them just after Jesus had left them. No other interpretation can possibly be drawn from this text. Only wishful thinking makes the Muslims allege that Muhammad was foretold by Jesus, but a practical interpretation of the texts destroys this possibility. Let us read how the Spirit came to Jesus: "The Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove" (Luke 3.22). We read that the Spirit, the Comforter, came to the disciples in a similar way just after the ascension of Jesus (as Jesus told them he would): "And there appeared to 83

them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2.3-4). He was with the disciples in the person of Jesus while he was still with them, and he was in the disciples from the day of Pentecost. We thus see the prediction Jesus made in John 14.17 duly fulfilled in the coming of the Holy Spirit. Within only ten days after the ascension of Jesus, the disciples duly received the Comforter as he was promised to them by Jesus. He had told them to wait in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, should come (Acts 1.4-8) as indeed he did while they were all together praying for his advent in the city. Muhammad is right out of this picture. Moving on now to John 16.7 (quoted earlier), the whole meaning of this verse also becomes clear from the statement of Jesus, "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" (John 16.12). Jesus also said: "It is to your advantage that I go away" (John 16.7). The disciples could not bear his teaching now because they were ordinary men devoid of power to comprehend or apply what he said. The Spirit of Truth was indeed in Jesus, but was not yet in his disciples, so they were unable to follow the spiritual elements in his teaching. But after the ascension they received the Spirit and could now communicate and understand his teaching because the Spirit of Truth was in them as well. That is why Jesus said "it is to your advantage that I go away". This is made equally clear elsewhere in the Bible: What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him, God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. 1 Corinthians 2.9-13. Paul makes it plain that the Spirit had already been given and if it had not, it could not have been to any advantage to the disciples to be without Jesus once he had ascended to heaven.

84

So it is abundantly proved that Muhammad is not the Spirit of Truth, the Comforter, whose coming Jesus foretold. Who is the Comforter then? He is the very Spirit of the living God as can be seen from some of the quotations already given. On the day when the Comforter duly came upon the disciples, his coming was accompanied by a tremendous sound, "like the rush of a mighty wind" (Acts 2.2). When the Jews heard this, they rushed together to see what was happening. Peter declared to them all: "This is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh' ". Acts 2.16-17. The Comforter, the Spirit of God, had come down on the disciples as Jesus had promised and was to be given to believing Christian men and women from every nation under the sun. But notice how Peter linked the coming of the Spirit with the ascension of Christ: "This Jesus God raised up and of that we are all witnesses. Being therefore exacted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear". Acts 2.32-33. Clearly the coming of the Comforter was inseparably linked to the risen, ascended glory of Jesus in the highest place that heaven affords. The Comforter is also called "the Spirit of Christ" (Romans 8. 9) and the reason is plain from what Jesus said: 1. "He will glorify me" (John 16.14). 2. "He will bear witness to me" (John 15.26). 3. "He will convince the world concerning sin because they do not believe in me" (John 16. 8-9). 4. "He will take what is mine and declare it to you" (John 16.14).

5. "He will bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (John 14.26). Quite obviously the great work of the Comforter is to bring people to Jesus, to make them see him as Saviour and Lord, and to draw them to him. The Comforter was given so that the glory of Jesus might be revealed to men and in men. A beautiful example of this is given by the Apostle John: His disciples did not understand this at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that this had been written of him and done to him. John 12.16 Without the Spirit, they had no understanding, but when they received the Spirit after Jesus was glorified, then they remembered as Jesus said they would. John illustrates this in this passage as well: On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and proclaimed, 'If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water'. Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. John 7.37-39. As soon as Jesus was glorified the Spirit was given so that the glory of Jesus in heaven might become real to men here on earth. As Peter said (Acts 2.33), once Jesus was exalted at the right hand of God, the Spirit was freely given to his disciples. Again Peter said, "The God of our fathers glorified Jesus" (Acts 3.13). We cannot see or comprehend this glory of Jesus here on earth (and Jesus himself said, "I do not receive glory from men" John 5.41), but he sent the Spirit so that we might behold this glory by the eye of faith. As Jesus himself said to his disciples of the Spirit: "He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine, therefore I said that he will take what is 86

85

mine and declare it to you". John 16.14-15. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and he is given to all true believers so that the glory of Jesus in heaven may become real to men on earth. John makes it plain how a man receives the Holy Spirit: Now this he spoke about the Spirit, which those who BELIEVED in him were to receive. John 7.39 To receive the Comforter, the Spirit of God, one must believe in Jesus and surrender body and soul to him. Without the Spirit no one sees or believes in the glory of Christ, but for those who are his true followers and who are sanctified by the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 1.2), Peter says: Without having seen him, you love him, though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with unutterable and exalted joy. As the outcome of your faith you obtain the salvation of your souls. 1 Peter 1.8-9. The distinction between those who have received the Spirit and those who have not, those who have beheld the glory of Christ and those who have not, comes out very clearly as Peter continues to speak to his fellow-believers: To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, 'The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner'. 1 Peter 2.7 The Bible says much about the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, but the great and most handsome work of the Spirit is summed up in Jesus' words: "HE WILL GLORIFY ME". John 16.14

Although the Spirit had been at work in the world before the advent of Jesus Christ, and had indeed filled many of the great prophets and men of old with a longing for the coming Christ, he only finally united himself to men, and men to God, and indeed true believers to one another after the resurrection and ascension of Christ to heaven. Jesus Christ spoke to his OWN disciples of the coming of the Comforter because the Spirit was sent down to comfort and regenerate all true believers in Jesus. This is one of the most significant and consistent elements of the teaching of Jesus about the Comforter. The prime purpose of the coming of the Comforter - immediately after the ascension of Jesus - was to draw men to him so that those who are influenced by the work of the Comforter will therefore become followers of Jesus. It is further evidence against the theory that Muhammad was the Comforter for, whereas the Comforter would not speak of himself but only of Jesus, Muhammad drew attention away from Jesus to himself, describing himself as the ultimate apostle of God to be followed and obeyed. The Comforter was never to do a thing like this. Jesus made it plain that the Comforter would draw the attention and faith of all men to himself and would glorify him before the eyes of faith of true believers as the Lord of glory in heaven. After Jesus Christ had ascended to heaven to be glorified at the right hand of God above all the angels and departed saints, the Comforter came immediately upon his disciples to make this glory real to them and through them to spread it all over the world. For Jesus Christ is the very image of the Father's glory. In him are all things united, whether in heaven or on earth. He is the climax of God's plan for the fulness of time. He is the beginning and the end of all God's gracious work in all ages for all the salvation and glory that God has prepared for those who love him are vested in Jesus. The Comforter came to give us a foretaste of this glory. He came to make the resplendent glory of Jesus real to those who follow him. As Moses encouraged his people to look forward to the prophet who would be like him, who would mediate a new covenant to save all who truly believe, so the Comforter encourages Christ's followers in this age to look up to the risen, ascended, Lord Jesus Christ who sits on the throne of God in eternal glory above the heavens. 88

87

Far from Muhammad being foretold in the Bible, every prophecy, every agent of God, every true prophet and spirit, looks upward towards the radiance of the Father's glory, the one who sits upon the throne, the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ ascended to heaven - God took him to himself. For Jesus alone is the Redeemer of the world. He alone is able, as a man, to enter the holy presence of the Father's throne and fill it with his own glorious majesty. So likewise he is able to reconcile sinful men to God and will one day be seen again in all his splendour as he comes to call his own those who eagerly awaited his coming before his time and all those who since his sojourn on this earth look forward to his return from heaven - to be with him where he is to behold with awe the glory which the Father gave him in his love for him before the foundation of the world. Moses rejoiced to see his day when speaking of the prophet to come. The Comforter today still rejoices to reveal his glory and majesty to those in whom he dwells. The angels and departed saints await with longing for the day when he shall be revealed to all the universe in all his magnificence - when all men shall be raised from the dead to see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, a day when the Comforter's work will be finally completed, a day when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that it is Jesus Christ who is Lord - to the everlasting glory of God the Father - Amen!

Deedat, A H - Muhammad in the Old and the New Testaments. (Uthmania Islamic Service Centre, Johannesburg, South Africa. n.d.) Deedat, A H - Muhammad Successor to Jesus Christ as portrayed in the Old and New Testaments. (Muslim Brotherhood Aid Services, Johannesburg South Africa n.d.) Deedat, A H - What the Bible says about Muhammad. (Islamic Propagation Centre, Durban, South Africa, 1976) Durrani, Dr M H - Muhammad - The Biblical Prophet. (International Islamic Publishers, Karachi, Pakistan, 1980). Gilchrist, J D - The Prophet after Moses. (Jesus to the Muslims, Benoni, South Africa, 1976). Gilchrist, J D - The Successor to Christ. (Jesus to the Muslims, Benoni, South Africa, 1975). Hamid, S M A - Evidence of the Bible about Mohammad. (Karachi, Pakistan, 1973). Jamiat, U N - The Prophet Muhammad in the Bible. (Jamiat Ulema Natal, Wasbank, South Africa, n.d.) Kaldani D B - Mohammad in the Bible. (Abbas Manzil Library, Allahabad, Pakistan, 1952).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS: Badawi, Dr J - Muhammad in the Bible. (Islamic Information Foundation, Halifax, Canada, 1982). Dawud, Prof A - Muhammad in the Bible. (Angkatan Nahdhatul- Islam Bersatu, Singapore, 1978).

Lee, F N - Muhammad in the Bible? (Unpublished M.Th. thesis, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 1964). S G Mission - The Prophet like unto Moses. (Scripture Gift Mission, London, England, 1951). Shafaat, Dr A - Islam and its Prophet: A Fulfilment of Biblical Prophecies. (Nur Al Islam Foundation, Ville St Laurent, Canada, 1984). Vidyarthy, A H - Muhammad in World Scriptures. (Volume 2, Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat-l-lslam, Lahore, Pakistan, 1968). 90

89

Y.M.M.A. - Do you know? The Prophet Muhammad is prophesied in the Holy Bible! (Young Men's Muslim Association. Johannesburg, South Africa, 1960). ARTICLES IN OTHER BOOKS:

"Jesus, son of Mary said ... 'I am indeed the Messenger of God to you, confirming the Torah that is before me and giving good tidings of a messenger who shall come after me whose name shall be Ahmad.'" (Sura 61:6). Do we find any record thereof in the Bible?

Niazi, K - The Bible and the last Prophet. (The Mirror of Trinity, S M Ashrai', Lahorc, Pakistan, 1975). Pfander, C G - Is the Mission of Mohammad foretold in the Old or New Testaments? Mizanul Haqq - the Balance of Truth, Church Missionary House, London, England, 1867). Robson, J - Does the Bible speak of Muhammad? (The Muslim World, Vol. 25, p. 17). Smith, P - Did Jesus Foretell Ahmed? (The Muslim World, Vol. 12, p. 71). Tisdall, W St C - Does the Bible Contain Prophecies concerning Muhammad? (Mizanul Haqq - The Balance of Truth, Revised Edition, Religious Tract Society, London, England, 1910). LECTURES ON TAPE: Deedat, A H - Muhammad the Natural Successor to Christ. (Durban City Hall, Durban, South Africa, 1975)

Ahmed is a form of the name Mohammed, both meaning "the praised one". In the Greek tongue, we are told, this would be "periklytos". Now we find in John's Gospel, Chapter 14:16: "I will pray the Father and He will give you another "parakletos", (Counsellor or comforter) to be with you for ever." On the strength of the Qur'anic text, Muslims claim this verse to be a forgery perpetrated by Christians who intended thereby to camouflage the predicted coming of Mohammed, which to Muslims is so obviously predicted in the above text. We must state, however, that all manuscript texts of this Gospel of John, which contain the word 'parakletos' and not 'periklytos', date back to hundreds of years before the coming of Mohammed. Furthermore, the very next verse relates to us that the 'parakletos' "is the spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You (the disciples of Jesus) know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you." (My emphasis). It should therefore be quite obvious that any interpretation that puts Mohammed in the place of the Holy Spirit is not in keeping with the facts.

ALLEGED PROPHECIES IN THE BIBLE POINTING TO MOHAMMED
The Qur'an states that 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 dawned from Mount Seir upon them; he shone forth from Mount Paran he came from ten thousands of holy ones: with flaming fire at his right hand. Yea, he loved His people; all those consecrated to him were in his hand: so they 92

91

followed in thy feet, receiving direction from thee, when Moses commanded us a law, as a possession for the congregation of Jacob. Thus the Lord became King in Jeshurun when the heads of the people were gathered, all the tribes of Israel together." (Deuteronomy 33:1-5). Muslims often take the second verse of this text and claim that when the Lord came from Sinai, he came through Moses; when he rose up from Seir, he came in Jesus; and when he shone forth from Mount Paran and came with ten thousands of saints, he came in Mohammed. This study does not allow for an exegesis of this Scripture, but it is quite clear from the context that this text refers to Yahweh and not to Moses or anyone else! The Islamic interpretation of this verse is absurd. Besides, it is based on the error that Mount Paran is somewhere in the Arabian Peninsula not far from Mecca. Any student of Biblical geography knows that the two mountains (Seir and Sinai) and the highlands of Paran are in the Sinai Peninsula, about 1,000 km away from Mecca. 3. Another Scripture that Muslims regard as a prophecy pertaining to Mohammed, is in the Gospel according to John 1:19: "And this is a record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, 'Who art thou?' And he confessed and denied not, but confessed, 'I am not the Christ.' And they asked him, 'What then? Art thou Elias?' And he said, 'I am not.' 'Art thou that prophet?' And he answered, 'No.' Then they said unto him, 'Who art thou?' ... He said, 'I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaiah.'" Although Muslims decidedly reject any other part of the same chapter, which in no uncertain terms proclaims the divinity of Christ, they deem it fit to assume that "that prophet" or, as it actually says in the original "the prophet", was the expected Mohammed. Israel at that time was expecting a prophet, "the" prophet from God in the situation they lived in. He is the one announced in Deuteronomy 18:15ff: "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren - him you shall heed - just as you 93

desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, or see this great fire any more, lest I die.' And the Lord said to me, 'They have rightly said all that they have spoken. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him." (Deuteronomy 18:15-19). That this "prophet" is Jesus is clearly stated in Acts 3:17-23: "And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. But what God foretold by the mouth of all prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he thus fulfilled. Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old. Moses said, 'The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet from your brethren as he raised me up. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. And it shall be that every soul that does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.'" In the mind of the Jews, however, "the prophet" was not the Messiah: "when they heard these words, some of the people said, 'This is really the prophet.' Others said, 'This is the Christ.'" (John 7:40)." 'Who do men say that the Son of man is?' And they said, 'Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.' 'And who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.'" (Matthew 16:13-16). Apart from anything else, the Pharisees, being part of the Chosen People, could not expect any Gentile to be the prophet that was to come. (See 94

Deuteronomy 18:15): "The Lord will raise for you a prophet ... from among you" i.e. the Jews) Therefore the Prophet is, without a doubt, the Messiah. 4. The most popular of all alleged prophecies about Mohammed, is found in the book of Deuteronomy 18:15-22: "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you from your brethren - him you shall heed - just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see his great fire anymore, lest I die.' And the Lord said to me, 'They have rightly said all that they have spoken. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?' When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the Word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.'" (My emphasis). The last part of this text needs much consideration: for Mohammed himself strongly indicates that he is the prophet referred to here (Suras 2:129,159; 3:81,164; 7:157). The Islamic interpretation of the text in Deuteronomy, is as follows: i. Both Moses and Mohammed had to take flight at the hands of their enemies; each found a companion in his own father-in-law. Jethro had to solace his son-in-law, Moses, in the hour of his need (Exodus 18:14-26); but it was Mohammed, who comforted his companion in the cave. ii. 95 ix. viii. iii.

Moses took shelter at Midian, which was later named Yathrib after his father-in-law, Jethro. Mohammed went to Yathrib, which later, after his flight, was renamed Medina. The flight of Moses proved beneficial to him under the direction of his fatherin-law; whereas Mohammed's flight paved his way for the achievement of a series of glorious victories. Moses was given a comprehensive code for his people; while Mohammed received a perfect code, complete in itself, for all people and for all times. iv. The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, "This month shall be unto you the beginning of months, it shall be the first month of the year to you." Similarly, with the Muslims, the month and the year of the flight of Mohammed became the month and year of the beginning of Muslim era. v. Moses set his people free from the bondage of Pharaoh; Mohammed vanquished his enemies in a hand-to-hand fight and won their children to his faith. vi. The strivings of Moses entailed hardships and bloodshed; while those of Mohammed were directed at achieving religious emancipation vii. The Laws of Moses were aggressive, since he had wanted to secure Canaan, which fell to his successors; Mohammed had to carry on defensive wars and yet Arabia submitted to him in the end. and even Canaan came under the subjugation of his successors. Moses sat to judge his people; Mohammed too, was a supreme judge of his people and even the Jews accepted him as such. Moses preached for ten years at Midian; so did Mohammed in Medina . x. Moses was the law-giver, general and guide of his people; Mohammed too was a victorious general, a perfect guide for all 96

people and a promulgator of an universal code, which was never to be abrogated. xi. A high tidal wave saved Moses from the Egyptians who were close upon him; but it was only a spiderweb which stood in good stead to Mohammed in a predicament. xii. When the companions of Moses saw the enemy, they cried out: "Surely we are being overtaken!" - to which Moses had to reply: "By no means, my Lord is with me. He will show me a way out." Mohammed's reply in a more precarious situation in the cave of Hira, was "Do not worry, surely Allah is with us." ("The Light" by al-Haj Sultan Hafiz Abdul, revised by Maulana Syed Zia-udDin Ahmad Gilani, pages 214-216). We contend: ii. The Midian of the Bible is near Mount Sinai and not where Yethreb or, as it is known today, Medina, is situated; vii. We fail to grasp which aspects of Mohammed's warfare were defensive except, perhaps, in some instances. We do not know what the Muslims were defending in Spain or even in France, in India, northern Africa, Syria, Turkey and the Balkans. Did the writer really mean what he said when he used the word 'subjugation', which means "to put under a yoke"? viii. The Jews had little choice, but to accept Mohammed as Judge ix. Moses did not preach in Midian, for this is not a town. He was keeping sheep there. Besides, he did that for 40 years and not 10. x. We take the "universal code" to be the Qur'an. It is incorrect to state that no abrogations took place in it. We refer to Suras 16:101 and 2:106 and the entire theology behind "mansukh" and "nasikh" (Please read "Christians ask Muslims", pp. 11-15) xi. 97 b. a. xii.

No tidal wave saved Moses from the Egyptians. The Jews went through an alley in the sea, the water standing like a wall on either side. After the Jews had gone through, the sea closed again, destroying the pursuing Egyptian army. (Exodus 14, Sura 2:50). During the course of history many believers have acted similarly in situations of distress. We should like to object to numbers i, ii, v, vi and xi, which do not bring out similarities, but rather contrasts. Number iii is generally accepted in the Muslim world. But as Christians we challenge Muslims to substantiate the claim that the Qur'an is superior to the Bible. We should like to know precisely in which points it is better than the Bible or additions or extensions that improve the Qur'an in comparison with the Bible and - last but not least - which superior evidence to its truth is there and in what respect Mohammed was superior to Jesus. But besides all this, the Biblical text itself, states clearly and distinctly, that the prophet would come from among you. This can only mean that the prophet had to be a Jew. The argument that Muslims sometimes use, namely that the prophet had to come "from among their brethren" (i.e. the brother of Isaac was Ishmael, so he would come from the Ishmaelites) must be rejected, because "among you" could hardly refer to those outside the Covenant. However, since we are busy with a list of similarities between Moses and the prophet, let us consider another list:

Moses and Christ were born in poverty (The Israelites being under subjugation to a foreign power). (Exodus 1:9-14). On both infants death was plotted. (Exodus 1:15-16,22, Matthew 2:13ff.). c. Both were rescued by divine intervention. (Exodus 2:2-10, Matthew 2:13ff.). 98

d. Both were revealed by signs and wonders. (Exodus 7:10,19,20; chapters 8-12; 14:21-22; 17:6-7; Matthew 8:14ff; Luke 7:11; Matthew 14:13, etc.). e. Moses was prepared in the wilderness for forty years; Christ for forty days. (In Biblical symbolism forty stands for preparation). (Acts 7:23 with Exodus 7:7, Matthew 4:1 ff.). f. Both are called "faithful servant" in Scripture. (Hebrew 3:2-5). g. Moses liberated Israel from the bondage of their oppressors; Christ liberated believers from the bondage of sin (of which Egypt throughout the Bible is the type). (Exodus, Isaiah 53, John 8:32-36, Romans 6:18-22, 8:2, Galatians 5:1). h. The water was subject to the authority of both: (The Red Sea to Moses; the Sea of Galilee to Christ). (Exodus 14:21, 17:6, Matthew 14:22ff., John 6:16ff., Matthew 8:18). i. Moses spoke to God, "face to face"; so did Christ, on the Mount of Transfiguration. (Exodus 33:11, Matthew 17:3). j. After this experience, the face of Moses shone; and so did the whole appearance of Christ. (Exodus 34:29, Matthew 17:2). k. Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant (Testament); Christ of the New Covenant, or Testament. (Exodus 19 and 20, Hebrews 12:24). l. Both prophesied events that were fulfilled. (Deuteronomy 18:1522, 28:15-29:67, Matthew 24). m. The Jews rebelled against both. (Exodus 5:21, 14:11-12, 17:2-4, Numbers 11:1-33, Luke 4:16-30, John 11:47-50, Matthew 26:5056, 27:15-23 etc.). n.

Both died because of sin - Moses for his own sin; Christ for the sin of the whole world. (Numbers 20:12, Deuteronomy 34:4-5, I Corinthians 15:3, John 1:29, 10:14-16, Isaiah 53, etc.). o. We have reason to believe that Moses rose again (Jude 9, Luke 9:30); Jesus Christ without doubt rose from the dead according to the Gospel. (Matthew 28:14, Luke 24:34, I Corinthians 15:4). p. The most important and anticipated event of the life of Moses happened after his death: the occupation of the Promised Land. And so it was with Christ: Christ, being the anti-type of Moses, secured new life for us by His death. (Romans 5:6-8, 8:34, I Corinthians 15:3,22, II Corinthians 5:15, I Thessalonians 5:9-10, etc.). In conclusion, we may say that Moses produced water out of a rock and in the New Testament, we are told "That rock was Christ" and He said, "If any man thirst, let him come to me." (I Corinthians 10:4, John 7:3738, 4:13-14). There are other lesser "prophecies", which might be considered here, but we deem them too insignificant to be taken up. However, we should note that if a Muslim takes his stand upon the Bible because it contains prophecies regarding Mohammed and if he deems those prophecies to be proof of the truth of his claims, then by doing so he in effect confesses that the Bible exists free of corruption, otherwise he would be building on sand. (J. Christensen).

Muhammad's False Prophecies
Sam Shamoun

The Holy Bible gives us a test to determine a true prophet from a false one: 99 100

"But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death. You may say to yourselves, 'How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?' If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him." Deuteronomy 18:20-22 In light of what God says in the preceding passage, we will examine several predictions made by Muhammad in the Quran and Islamic traditions to see if whether he passes God's test. On the Roman Conquest of Persia S. 30:2-4: "The Roman Empire has been defeated - in a land close by: But they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious within a few years." As the prophecy stated the Byzantines did become victorious over the Persians who had at first defeated them. Yet there are fundamental problems with this alleged prophecy:

According to Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Muhammad b. Ishaq- Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri- 'Ubaydallah b. 'Abdullah b. 'Utbah b. Mas'ud'Abdullah b. 'Abbas- Abu Sufyan b. Harb, who said: We were merchant folk. The warfare between us and the Messenger of God had prevented us from journeying, so that our wealth became depleted. After the truce between us and the Messenger of God, we feared that we might not encounter security. I set out for Syria with a group of merchants of Quraysh. Our specific destination was Gaza, and we arrived at the time of Heraclius' VICTORY over the Persians who were in his land - he expelled them and regained from them his Great Cross, which they had carried off. Having accomplished this against them and having received word that his cross had been rescued from them (he was staying at Hims), he set out from there on foot in thanksgiving to God for restoring it to him, to pray in Jerusalem. Carpets were spread out for him, and fragrant herbs were strewn on them. When he reached Jerusalem and performed his worship - with him were his military commanders and the nobles of the Romans - he arose troubled one morning, turning his gaze to the sky ... (The History of AlTabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press, Albany 1997], Volume VIII, pp. 100-101; bold and capital emphasis ours) The translator's footnote reads: 436. "In 627 Heraclius invaded the Persian empire, and in December of that year won an important victory near ancient Ninevah, but had to retreat shortly afterwards. In February 628, however, the Persian emperor was assassinated, and the son who succeeded him desired peace. By about March 628 Heraclius could regard himself as victorious, but the negotiations for the evacuation of the Byzantine empire by the Persians were not completed until June 629. In September 629 Heraclius entered Constantinople AS VICTOR, and in March 630 restored the Holy Rood to Jerusalem." (Watt, Muhammad at Medina, 113-114). See also Ostrgorsky, History of the Byzantine State, 103-4. (Ibid., capital emphasis ours) 102

According to Yusuf Ali the Arabic word for "a few years," Bidh'un, signifies a period of three to nine years; yet according to the historical records the victory did not come until nearly fourteen years later. The Persians defeated the Byzantines and captured Jerusalem at about A.D. 614 or 615. The Byzantine counter-offensive did not begin until A.D. 622 and the victory was not complete until A.D. 628, making it a period between thirteen to fourteen years, not "a few years" alluded to in the Quran.

Renowned historian and Muslim commentator, al-Tabari, places the Roman victory in 628 A.D. (6 A.H.), right after the signing of Hudaiybiya: 101

The hadith collection of al-Bukhari provides further corroboration that Abu Sufyan's visit with Heraclius occurred after the signing of Hudaiybiya: Narrated ' Abdullah bin 'Abbas: That Abu Sufyan bin Harb Informed him that Heraclius called him and the members of a caravan from Quraish who had gone to Sham as traders, during the truce which Allah's Apostle had concluded with Abu Sufyan and the Quraish infidels. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 399) Watt places Rome's complete victory at 630 A.D., fifteen to sixteen years after the so-called prophecy was given!

The original Quranic text had no vowel marks. Thus, the Arabic word Sayaghlibuna, "they shall defeat," could easily have been rendered, with the change of two vowels, Sayughlabuna, "they (i.e. Romans) shall be defeated." Since vowel points were not added until some time after this event, it could have been quite possible for a scribe to deliberately tamper with the text, forcing it to become a prophetic statement.

such Traditions are. The explanation which Al Baizawi gives is, that the Byzantines became conquerors of 'the well-watered land of Syria' (Arabic text appears here) and that the passage predicted that the Muslims would soon overcome them. If this is the meaning, the Tradition which records the 'descent' of the verses about six years before the Hijrah must be wrong, and the passage must belong to A.H. 6 at earliest. It is clear that, as the vowel points were not used when the Qur-an was first written down in Cufic letters, no one can be certain which of the two readings is right. We have seen that there is so much uncertainty about (1) the date at which the verses were 'sent down', (2) the correct reading, and (3) the meaning, that it is quite impossible to show that the passage contains a prophecy which was fulfilled. Hence, it cannot be considered to be a proof of Muhammad's prophetic office." (C. G. Pfander, Mizan-ulHaqq - The Balance of Truth, revised and enlarged by W. St. Clair Tisdall [Light of Life P.O. Box 18, A-9503, Villach Austria], 279-280) [emphasis ours] This being the case, a Muslim cannot confidently tell us what the true reading of the text is and hence cannot insure us that this verse originally predicted the Byzantine victory over the Persians. Yet either rendering leaves us with a false prophecy within the Quran.

This fact is solidified by Muslim commentator al-Baidawi. C.G. Pfander mentions Baidawi's comments on the variant readings surrounding this passage: "But Al Baizawi shatters the whole argument of the Muslims by informing us of certain varied readings in these verses of Suratu'r Rum. He tells us that some read (Arabic text appears here) instead of the usual (Arabic text appears here) and (Arabic text appears here) instead of (Arabic text appears here). The rendering will then be: 'The Byzantines have conquered in the nearest part of the land, and they shall be defeated in a small number of years'. If this be the correct reading, the whole story about Abu Bakr's bet with Ubai must be a fable, since Ubai was dead long before the Muslims began to defeat the Byzantines, and even long before the victories which Heraclius won over the Persians. This shows how unreliable 103

It amazes us that a prophecy from God would not specify the exact time of the victory, seeing that God is allknowing and all-wise, declaring the end from the beginning. When God specifies a time frame as an important part of a prophecy we would expect that it be precise, not a mere guess. For God to guess that the Byzantines would win at some time within "a few years" as opposed to specifying the exact year, is inconsistent with the belief in an Omniscient, Omnipotent Being. Hence, it is unlikely that the true God would actually make such a prophecy.

Interestingly, the phrase "a few years" serves to further discredit this alleged prophecy. Abu Bakr believed the term "a few years" meant that the Byzantines were going to win in three years: 104

"This passage refers to the defeat of the Byzantines in Syria by the Persians under Khusran Parvis. (A.D. 615 - 6 years before the Hegira). However, the defeat of the Persians should take place soon 'in a small number of years'. In the light of this prediction, Abu-Bakr undertook a bet with Ubai-ibn-Khalaf that this prediction would be fulfilled within three years, but he was corrected by Mohammed who stated that the 'small number' is between three and nine years (Al-Baizawi). Muslims tell us that the Byzantines overcame their enemies within seven years. The fact, however, is that the Byzantines defeated Persia in A.D. 628 (Al-Baizawi commentary). That was twelve years after the prediction of Mohammed. Consequently this passage does not qualify as a prophecy, particularly as the time between prophecy and fulfilment was far too short, and in addition the event was easily predictable." (Gerhard Nehls, Christians Ask Muslims [Life Challenge, SIM International; Africa, 1992], pp. 70-71) On Entering Mecca Sura 48:27 makes the following promise: "Truly did Allah fulfill the vision for His Messenger. Ye shall enter the Sacred Mosque, IF ALLAH WILLS, with minds secure, heads shaved, hair cut short, and without fear. For He knew what ye knew not, and He granted, besides this, a speedy victory." This verse was revealed in conjunction with the Muslims' failed attempt of entering Mecca to perform Tawaf (the ritual during Hajj of running between two mountains that was supposed to commemorate Hagar's fetching of water for Ishmael). On their way to the Ka'bah, they were met with a Meccan deputation headed by Suhail b. Amr who forbade the Muslims from completing their journey. This meeting then led to the signing of the treaty of Hudaibiya.

Several problems arise from this whole incident. First, at the signing of the Hudaibiya treaty Muhammad agreed with the pagan Meccans to return to them those who had converted to Islam. At the same time Muhammad also bowed to their demands of replacing his signature of 'Muhammad, Messenger of God' with 'Muhammad, son of Abdullah' so that he might be allowed to make pilgrimage to Mecca the following year. The following is taken from Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891: "When Suhail bin Amr came, the Prophet said, ‘Now the matter has become easy.' Suhail said to the Prophet 'Please conclude a peace treaty with us.' So, the Prophet called the clerk and said to him, 'Write: By the Name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful." Suhail said, 'As for "Beneficent," by Allah, I do not know what it means. So write: By Your Name O Allah, as you used to write previously.' The Muslims said, 'By Allah, we will not write except: By the Name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.' The Prophet said, 'Write: By Your Name O Allah.' Then he dictated, 'This is the peace treaty which Muhammad, Allah's Apostle has concluded.' Suhail said, 'By Allah, if we knew that you are Allah's Apostle we would not prevent you from visiting the Kaba, and would not fight with you. So, write: 'Muhammad bin Abdullah.' The Prophet said, 'By Allah! I am Apostle of Allah even if you people do not believe me. Write: Muhammad bin Abdullah.' (Az-Zuhri said, 'The Prophet accepted all those things, as he had already said that he would accept everything they would demand if it respects the ordinance of Allah, (i.e. by letting him and his companions perform 'Umra.)') The Prophet said to Suhail, 'On the condition that you allow us to visit the House (i.e. Ka'ba) so that we may perform Tawaf around it.' Suhail said, 'By Allah, we will not (allow you this year) so as not to give chance to the Arabs to say that we have yielded to you, but we will allow you next year.' SO, THE PROPHET GOT THAT WRITTEN. "Then Suhail said, 'We also stipulate that you should return to us whoever comes to you from us, even if he embraced your religion.' The Muslims said, 'Glorified be Allah! How will such a 106

105

person be returned to the pagans after he has become a Muslim?'" (bold emphasis ours) One of those forced to return to Mecca with the pagans was Abu Jandal. In Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasulullah (The Life of Muhammad, trans. Alfred Guillaume, Oxford University Press), p. 505 we are told: 'When Suhayl (the Meccan representative and the treaty's compiler) saw Abu Jandal he got up and hit him in the face and took hold of his collar, saying, 'Muhammad, the agreement between us was concluded before this man came to you.' He replied, 'you are right.' He began to pull him roughly by his collar and to drag him away to return him to Quraysh, while Abu Jandal shrieked at the top of his voice, 'Am I to be returned to the polytheists that they may entice me from my religion O Muslims?' and that increased the people's dejection'" (bold and italic emphasis ours) And: 'While they were in this state Abu- Jandal bin Suhail bin 'Amr came from the valley of Mecca staggering with his fetters and fell down amongst the Muslims. Suhail said, 'O Muhammad! This is the very first term with which we make peace with you, i.e. you shall return Abu Jandal to me.' The Prophet said, 'The peace treaty has not been written yet.' Suhail said, 'I will never allow you to keep him.' The Prophet said, 'Yes, do.' He said, 'I won't do: Mikraz said, 'We allow you (to keep him).' Abu Jandal said, 'O Muslims! Will I be returned to the pagans though I have come as a Muslim? Don't you see how much I have suffered?' Abu Jandal had been [previously] tortured severely for the cause of Allah' (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891) We need to ask did Moses ever return a convert (especially one who was an Egyptian) back to the pagan Pharaoh in order to please the latter in obtaining what he wanted? Did Jesus ever compromise the truth of God by agreeing with the Pharisees in turning back all gentile seekers in order to be accepted by the Jewish ruling council? Would either Moses or 107

Jesus go so far as to deny their apostleship in order to please the demands of pagans? Would these men refuse to glorify the true God in the manner commanded by the Creator and acquiesce to the request of addressing God in a manner pleasing to the unbelievers, much like Muhammad did? As one would expect the Muslims were enraged, especially Umar b. alKhattab who rebuked Muhammad: 'Umar bin al-Khattab said, 'I went to the Prophet and said, "Aren't you truly the messenger of Allah?" The Prophet said, "Yes, indeed." I said, "Isn't our cause just and the cause of the enemy unjust?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Then why should we be humble in our religion?" He said, "I am Allah's messenger and I do not disobey Him, and He will make me victorious"' (Sahih alBukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891) The anger of the Muslims is justifiable when we realize that Muhammad promised that his followers would have access to Mecca that very same year. When that did not occur, Muhammad attempted to justify his statement by stating, "Yes, did I tell you that we would go to Ka'ba this year?" (Ibid) In other words, since he did not specify when they would enter Mecca this cannot be considered a false prophecy! This is simply erroneous since the Muslim contingent was on their way to Mecca when a deputation from the pagan Arabs stopped them. In fact, one of Muhammad's demands in signing the treaty was that the pagans permit the Muslims to complete their journey to Mecca in order to perform Tawaf. Suhail denied Muhammad's request and instead made an agreement that the Muslims could enter Mecca the following year. Ibn Kathir further supports this in his commentary on S. 48:27: "In a dream, the Messenger of Allah saw himself entering Makkah and performing Tawaf around the House. He told his Companions about this dream when he was still in Al-Madinah. When they went to Makkah in the year of Al-Hudaybiyyah, none of them doubted that the Prophet's vision WOULD COME TRUE THAT YEAR. When the treaty of peace was conducted 108

and they had to return to Al-Madinah that year, being allowed to return to Makkah the next year, SOME OF THE COMPANIONS DISLIKED WHAT HAPPENED. 'Umar bin Al-Khattab asked about THIS, saying, 'Haven't you told us that we will go to the House and perform Tawaf around it?'" (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 9, Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun, Abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, London, Lahore; first edition, September 2000], p. 171; bold and capital emphasis ours) Al-Tabari writes: "While the Messenger of God was writing the document - he and Suhaly b. 'Amr - suddenly Abu Jandal, the son of Suhaly b. 'Amr, came walking with short steps in shackles. He had escaped to the Messenger of God. The companions of the Messenger of God had set out NOT DOUBTING that they would conquer, because of a vision the Messenger of God had seen. Therefore, when they saw what they saw - the peace, the retreat, and the obligations the Messenger of God had taken upon himself - the people felt so grieved about it that they were close to despair. When Suhayl saw Abu Jandal, he went up to him, struck him on the face, and grabbed him by the front of his garment. "Muhammad," he said, "the pact was ratified between me and you before this fellow came to you." "You are right," he replied. Suhayl began pulling and dragging [his son Abu Jandal] by the front of his garment to return him to Quraysh. Abu Jandal began screaming at the top of his vouce, "People of the Muslims, shall I be returned to the polytheists for them to torment me for my religion?" This made the people feel even worse. The Messenger of God said: "Abu Jandal, count on a reward, for God will give you and those who are oppressed with you relief and a way out. We have made a treaty and peace between oursleves and these people; we have given them and they have given us a promise, and we will not act treacherously toward them." (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, Volume VIII, pp. 86-87; bold and capital emphasis ours) 109

This proves that Muhammad actually believed he was going to enter into Mecca, a plan that never materialized. In order to save face he had to deny admitting that he actually implied that the Muslims would enter Mecca that same year. Second, to make matters worse Muhammad broke the treaty with the Meccans by refusing to return a Muslim convert from the Quraysh. This refusal was in clear violation of things expressly stipulated in the very document that Muhammad had agreed to sign: "Umm Kulthum Uqba b. Mu'ayt migrated to the apostle during this period. Her two brothers 'Umara and Walid sons of 'Uqba came and asked the apostle to return her to them in accordance with the agreement between him and Quraysh at Hudaybiyya, but he would not. God forbade it." (Sirat Rasulullah, p. 509; italic emphasis ours) Hence, Muhammad justified the breaking of his oath by claiming that it was God's will to do so. Unfortunately for Muslims, this would prove that Muhammad's God is not the God of the Holy Bible since breaking one's oath is strictly forbidden. (Cf. Numbers 30:1-2) In light of all these considerations we are again compelled to ask the following questions. Did Moses ever bow down to Pharaoh's requests in order to bring Israel out of bondage from Egypt? Did Jesus ever deny his Messiahship to gain access to the Temple? Did any true prophet of God ever compromise with the unbelievers in order to fulfill the will of God? Did these men proceed to break their oaths and promises in order to gain an unfair advantage over the unbelievers? One final problem with all this is that Muslims claim that every single word in the Quran was revealed directly by God to Muhammad through Gabriel. Based on this assumption Muslims further reason that one will not find Muhammad's words intermingled with the words of God. This being the case, how do Muslims explain the fact that S. 48:27 has Allah saying insha' Allah, i.e. "If Allah wills"? Does God not know what his will is? If so, is he uncertain whether his purpose shall come to pass necessitating him to then qualify his statement with the phrase, insha' Allah? 110

One can understand how fallible humans who are unaware of God's purpose can qualify their statements with the expression "If God wills" (Cf. James 4:13-15). But for God to make such a qualification is beyond reasoning. Furthermore, if God is in fact speaking then whom is he referring to when he says "If Allah wills"? Is he addressing himself or someone else? If he is addressing someone else, than how many Gods are there? Or perhaps Allah is also a multi-personal Being seeing that there is more than one Person that make up the unity of Allah? This leads us to conclude that Muhammad's prediction not only failed to materialize, but that his motives in concocting revelation were power, money and fame. This verse also proves that God cannot be the author of the Quran. On the Appearance of the Antichrist and the End of the World Muhammad allegedly claimed that the Antichrist (called the Dajjal) was to appear shortly after the Muslim conquest of Constantinople. The following traditions are taken from the Sunan Abu Dawud: Book 37, Number 4281: Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The flourishing state of Jerusalem will be when Yathrib is in ruins, the ruined state of Yathrib will be when the great war comes, the outbreak of the great war will be at the conquest of Constantinople and the conquest of Constantinople when the Dajjal (Antichrist) comes forth. He (the Prophet) struck his thigh or his shoulder with his hand and said: This is as true as you are here or as you are sitting (meaning Mu'adh ibn Jabal). Book 37, Number 4282: Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal: 111

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The greatest war, the conquest of Constantinople and the coming forth of the Dajjal (Antichrist) will take place within a period of seven months. Book 37, Number 4283: Narrated Abdullah ibn Busr: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The time between the great war and the conquest of the city (Constantinople) will be six years, and the Dajjal (Antichrist) will come forth in the seventh. Accordingly, Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 636 AD. Constantinople was taken over by Muslims in May 1453 AD. Yet the prophecy regarding Yathrib (Medina) being in ruins and Antichrist's advent to take place seven months after the conquest of Constantinople did not materialize. Based on the preceding traditions Antichrist was to appear in November 1453. Some may wish to argue that these events refer to future conquests. For instance some may wish to say that Constantinople is used as a synonym for the Roman Christian Empire. This would therefore be predicting that Muslims are to takeover Rome before Antichrist appears. The problem with this is that if Muhammad was speaking of Rome he could have simply used the word Romans (Arabic: Ar-Rum). In fact, Romans/Ar-Rum is the name given to chapter 30 of the Quran. To call Rome either Constantinople or even Byzantium would be rather anachronistic. See above. Hence, in light of the preceding factors we are forced to conclude that Muhammad's predictions failed to materialize, thus disqualifying him regarding his claim to prophethood. Muhammad also believed in a young earth and that the world was about to end shortly after his advent. The following citations are taken from The History of al-Tabari, Volume 1 - General Introduction and from the 112

Creation to the Flood (trans. Franz Rosenthal, State University of New York Press, Albany 1989), with all bold emphasis being ours: "According to Ibn Humayd- Yahya b. Wadih- Yahya b. Ya'qubHammad- Sa'id b. Jubayr- Ibn Abbas: This world is one of the weeks of the other world - seven thousand years. Six thousand two hundred years have already passed. (The world) will surely experience hundreds of years, during which there will be no believer in the oneness of God there. Others said that the total extent of time is six thousand years." (Tabari, pp. 172173; emphasis ours) "According to Abu Hisham- Mu'awiyah b. Hisham- Sufyan- alA'mash- Abu Salih- Ka'b: This world is six thousand years." (Ibid.) "According to Muhammad b. Sahl b. 'Askar- Isma'il b. 'Abd alKarim- 'Abd al-Samad b. Ma'qil I- Wahb: Five thousand six hundred years of this world have elapsed. I do not know which kings and prophets lived in every period (zaman) of those years. I aksed Wahb b. Munabbih: How long is (the total duration of) this world? He replied: Six thousand years." (Tabari, pp. 173-174; emphasis ours) According to at-Tabari Muhammad believe that the end of the world was to occur 500 years after his coming: "According to Hannad b. al-Sari and Abu Hisham al-Rifa'i- Abu Bakr b. 'Ayyash- Abu Hasin- Abu Salih- Abu Hurayrah: The Messenger of God said: When I was sent (to transmit the divine message), I and the Hour were like these two, pointing at his index and middle fingers." (Tabari, p. 176; emphasis ours, see also pp. 175-181) Similar traditions are found in Sahih Muslim: Book 41, Number 7044:

This hadith has been reported by Sahl b. Sa'd that he heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I and the Last Hour are (close to each other) like this (and he, in order to explain it) pointed (by joining his) forefinger, (one) next to the thumb and the middle finger (together). Book 41, Number 7046: Shu'ba reported: I heard Qatada and Abu Tayyab narrating that both of them heard Anas as narrating that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: I and the Last Hour have been sent like this, and Shu'ba drew his forefinger and middle finger near each other while narrating it. Book 41, Number 7049: Anas reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I and the Last Hour have been sent like this and (he while doing it) joined the forefinger with the middle finger. At-Tabari comments on the meaning of the Hour being as close as Muhammad's index and middle fingers: "Thus, (the evidence permitting) a conclusion is as follows: The beginning of the day is the rise of the dawn, and its end is the setting of the sun. Further, the reported tradition on the authority of the Prophet is sound. As we have mentioned earlier, he said after having prayed the afternoon prayer: What remains of this world as compared to what has passed of it is just like what remains of this day as compared to what has passed of it. He also said: When I was sent, I and the Hour were like these two- holding index finger and middle finger together; I preceded it to the same extent as this one- meaning the middle fingerpreceded that one- meaning the index finger. Further, the extent (of time) between the mean time of the afternoon prayer- that is, when the shadow of everything is twice its size, according to the best assumption ('ala al-taharri)- (to sunset) is the extent of time of one-half of one-seventh of the day, give or take a little. Likewise, the excess of the length of the middle finger over the 114

113

index finger is something about that or close to it. There is also a sound tradition on the authority of the Messenger of God, as I was told by Ahmad b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. Wahb- his paternal uncle 'Abd-allah b. Wahb- Mu'awiyah b. Salih- 'Abd al-Rahman b. Jubayr b. Nufayr- his father Jubayr b. Nufayr- the companion of the Prophet, Abu Tha'labah al-Khushani: The Messenger of God said: Indeed, God will not make this nation incapable of (lasting) half a day- referring to the day of a thousand years. "All these facts taken together make it clear that of the two statements I have mentioned concerning the total extent of time, the one from Ibn Abbas, and the other from Ka'b, the one more likely to be correct in accordance with the information coming from the Messenger of God is that of Ibn 'Abbas transmitted here by us on his authority: The world is one of the weeks of the other world - seven thousand years. "Consequently, because this is so and the report on the authority of the Messenger of God is sound- namely, that he reported that what remained of the time of this world during his lifetime was half a day, or five hundred years, since five hundred years are half a day of the days, of which one is a thousand years- the conclusion is that the time of this world that had elapsed to the moment of the Prophet's statement corresponds to what we have transmitted on the authority of Abu Tha'labah al-Khushani from the Prophet, and is 6,500 years or approximately 6,500 years. God knows best!" (Tabari, pp. 182-183, bold emphasis ours) Hence, according to these traditions Muhammad believed that not only was the world less than 7,000 years old but it was to end on the seventh day, or seven thousand years from the time it was created. Accordingly, the world should have ended sometime between 1070-1132 AD, approximately 500 years after the birth and death of Muhammad. This is based on the fact that according to at-Tabari and others, the advent of Muhammad took place approximately 6,500 years from the time of creation. This is clearly a false prophecy. 115

Yet this date contradicts the one approximated by Abu Dawood in his Sunan. There, we saw that Antichrist was to appear seven months after the conquest of Constantinople, an event that took place in 1453 AD. This being the case, how could Muhammad have claimed elsewhere that the world was to end 500 years after his own birth and death? To make matters worse, the Islamic traditions claim that Antichrist was actually present during Muhammad's lifetime. In fact, according to the traditions Antichrist was a man named Ibn Saiyad: Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 437: Narrated Ibn 'Umar: 'Umar set out along with the Prophet (p.b.u.h) with a group of people to Ibn Saiyad till they saw him playing with the boys near the hillocks of Bani Mughala. Ibn Saiyad at that time was nearing his puberty and did not notice (us) until the Prophet stroked him with his hand and said to him, "Do you testify that I am Allah's Apostle?" Ibn Saiyad looked at him and said, "I testify that you are the Messenger of illiterates." Then Ibn Saiyad asked the Prophet (p.b.u.h), "Do you testify that I am Allah's Apostle?" The Prophet (p.b.u.h) refuted it and said, "I believe in Allah and His Apostles." Then he said (to Ibn Saiyad), "What do you think?" Ibn Saiyad answered, "True people and liars visit me." The Prophet said, "You have been confused as to this matter." Then the Prophet said to him, "I have kept something (in my mind) for you, (can you tell me that?)" Ibn Saiyad said, "It is Al-Dukh (the smoke)." (2) The Prophet said, "Let you be in ignominy. You cannot cross your limits." On that 'Umar, said, "O Allah's Apostle! Allow me to chop his head off." The Prophet (p.b.u.h) said, "If he is he (i.e. Dajjal), then you cannot over-power him, and if he is not, then there is no use of murdering him." (Ibn 'Umar added): Later on Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) once again went along with Ubai bin Ka'b to the date-palm trees (garden) where Ibn Saiyad was staying. The Prophet (p.b.u.h) wanted to hear something from Ibn Saiyad before Ibn Saiyad could see him, and the Prophet (p.b.u.h) saw him lying covered with a sheet and from where his murmurs were heard. Ibn Saiyad's mother saw Allah's Apostle while he was hiding himself behind the trunks of 116

the date-palm trees. She addressed Ibn Saiyad, "O Saf! (and this was the name of Ibn Saiyad) Here is Muhammad." And with that Ibn Saiyad got up. The Prophet said, "Had this woman left him (Had she not disturbed him), then Ibn Saiyad would have revealed the reality of his case." The traditions go on to positively identify Ibn Saiyad as Antichrist: Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 453: Narrated Muhammad bin Al-Munkadir: I saw Jabir bin 'Abdullah swearing by Allah that Ibn Sayyad was the Dajjal. I said to Jabir, "How can you swear by Allah?" Jabir said, "I have heard 'Umar swearing by Allah regarding this matter in the presence of the Prophet and the Prophet did not disapprove of it." Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37, Number 4317: Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah: Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir told that he saw Jabir ibn Abdullah swearing by Allah that Ibn as-Sa'id was the Dajjal (Antichrist). I expressed my surprise by saying: You swear by Allah! He said: I heard Umar swearing to that in the presence of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), but the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) did not make any objection to it. Yet these traditions contradict the following traditions where Antichrist is described as being one eyed and as being locked up in chains: Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 553: Narrated Ibn Umar: Once Allah's Apostle stood amongst the people, glorified and praised Allah as He deserved and then mentioned the Dajjal saying, "I warn you against him (i.e. the Dajjal) and there was no 117

prophet but warned his nation against him. No doubt, Noah warned his nation against him but I tell you about him something of which no prophet told his nation before me. You should know that he is one-eyed, and Allah is not one-eyed." Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37, Number 4306: Narrated Ubadah ibn as-Samit: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: I have told you so much about the Dajjal (Antichrist) that I am afraid you may not understand. The Antichrist is short, hen-toed, woolly-haired, one-eyed, an eyesightless, and neither protruding nor deep-seated. If you are confused about him, know that your Lord is not one-eyed. Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37, Number 4311: Narrated Fatimah, daughter of Qays: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) once delayed the congregational night prayer. He came out and said: The talk of Tamim ad-Dari detained me. He transmitted it to me from a man who was of the islands of the sea. All of a sudden he found a woman who was trailing her hair. He asked: Who are you? She said: I am the Jassasah. Go to that castle. So I came to it and found a man who was trailing his hair, chained in iron collars, and leaping between Heaven and Earth. I asked: Who are you? He replied: I am the Dajjal (Antichrist). Has the Prophet of the unlettered people come forth now? I replied: Yes. He said: Have they obeyed him or disobeyed him? I said: No, they have obeyed him. He said: That is better for them. Someone might interject here and claim that the traditions make mention of 30 Antichrists to come into the world: Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37, Number 4319: 118

Narrated Abu Hurayrah: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The Last Hour will not come before there come forth thirty Dajjals (fraudulents), everyone presuming himself that he is an apostle of Allah. (see also Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 237) This implies that Ibn Saiyad was just one of the thirty antichrists, and not THE Antichrist that was to come right before the end of the world. There are several problems with this assertion. First, none of the traditions claim that Ibn Saiyad is one of the thirty antichrists that were to appear. Rather, the traditions imply that he is THE Dajjal or Antichrist. Second, if we take either of the dates proposed by at-Tabari or Abu Dawood all thirty Dajjals needed to have appeared before either 1070-1132 or 1453 AD. Finally, according to the New Testament Muhammad is actually one of these Antichrists: "Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour… Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist-he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also." 1 John 2:18, 22-23 Since Muhammad denied that Jesus is God's Son he is therefore one of the many antichrists that was to come according to the apostle John. As if the preceding weren't bad enough, other traditions have Muhammad predicting that the end was to come within the lifetime of his followers: Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 7050: 'A'isha reported that when the desert Arabs came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) they asked about the Last Hour as to when that would come. And he looked towards the youngest amongst them and said: If he lives he would not grow 119

very old that he would find your Last Hour coming to you he would see you dying. Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 7051: Anas reported that a person asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as to when the Last Hour would come. He had in his presence a young boy of the Ansar who was called Mahammad. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: If this young boy lives, he may not grow very old till (he would see) the Last Hour coming to you. Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 7052: Anas b. Malik reported that a person asked Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him): When would the Last Hour come? Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) kept quiet for a while, then looked at a young boy in his presence belonging to the tribe of Azd Shanilwa and he said: If this boy lives he would not grow very old till the Last Hour would come to you. Anas said that this young boy was of our age during those days. Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 7053: Anas reported: A young boy of Mughira b. Shu'ba happened to pass by (the Holy Prophet) and he was of my age. Thereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be apon him) said: If he lives long he would not grow very old till the Last Hour would come (to the old People of this generation). Muhammad clearly said that the young boy wouldn't have grown very old before the Last Hour came upon the people. Now let us be generous and suppose that the young boy was ten and lived to be hundred and ten years old, implying that the Last Hour was to take place a hundred years after Muhammad made these statements. Yet, centuries have passed and the Last Hour still hasn't come upon us.

120

But wait, there is more! According to the narratives of al-Bukhari, Muhammad announced that everyone would be dead within a hundred years: Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 116: Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: Once the Prophet led us in the 'Isha' prayer during the last days of his life and after finishing it (the prayer) (with Taslim) he said: "Do you realize (the importance of) this night? Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight will be living after the completion of one hundred years from this night." Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 10, Number 539: Narrated Abdullah: "One night Allah's Apostle led us in the 'Isha' prayer and that is the one called Al-'Atma by the people. After the completion of the prayer, he faced us and said, ‘Do you know the importance of this night? Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight will be living after one hundred years from this night.’" (See Hadith No. 575). Nearly fourteen centuries have gone by and there continue to be human beings alive all around the earth! This particular hadith was so troubling that another narration tries to explain it away by arguing that Muhammad really meant that none of his generation would be alive in a hundred years: Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 10, Number 575: Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: The Prophet prayed one of the 'lsha' prayer in his last days and after finishing it with Taslim, he stood up and said, "Do you realize (the importance of) this night? Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight would be living after the completion of one hundred years from this night."

The people made a mistake in grasping the meaning of this statement of Allah's Apostle and they indulged in those things which are said about these narrators (i.e. some said that the Day of Resurrection will be established after 100 years etc.) But the Prophet said, "Nobody present on the surface of earth tonight would be living after the completion of 100 years from this night"; he meant, "When that century (people of that century) would pass away." There are several points to note from this specific report. First, note the candid admission of the narrator that Muslims understood from Muhammad’s words that the world was going to end in a hundred years. This provides corroborating evidence that the plain meaning of Muhammad’s so-called prophecy was that the last day would occur within a hundred years. Second, notice just how irrational this ad hoc explanation is. The hadith compiler really expects his readers to believe that what Muhammad meant was that no one of his generation would be alive within a hundred years when there is nothing amazing about such a claim. To say that one’s generation would all be dead within a hundred years doesn’t require supernatural knowledge. The only thing required to make such a claim is common sense since life expectancy was low in those days. Hardly anyone lived beyond the age of a hundred years. If it was supposed to be a statement ("prophecy") about the life expectancy of the people living around him, then it was trivial. What is the point? Even though trivial, it would almost certainly be wrong. Muhammad said "on the surface of the earth" – that is a large place. Although centenarians are rare, they probably existed at all times. Even in the life of Muhammad there was at least one such person. Abu Afak is reported to have lived to the age of 120: SARIYYAH OF SALIM IBN ‘UMAYR Then occurred the sariyyah of Salim Ibn ‘Umayr al-‘Amri against Abu ‘Afak, the Jew, in Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijrah of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. Abu ‘Afak, was from Banu ‘Amr Ibn ‘Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to 122

121

instigate the people against the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, and composed (satirical) verses. Salim Ibn ‘Umayr who was one of the great weepers and who had participated in Badr, said: I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu ‘Afak or die before him. He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu ‘Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn ‘Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people, who were his followers rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him. (Ibn Sa'ad's Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi - 110 002 India), Volume II, p. 31; bold and underline emphasis ours) Did Muhammad really want to say: in a hundred years from now, there will be no more people who are older than a hundred years? Again: what would be the point of such an announcement? What has that to do with the message of Islam? Moreover, Muhammad introduced his announcement with these words: "Do you know the importance of this night?" For that main reason, the alternative interpretation supplied by the narrator makes little sense. After all, in what sense would the observation that a time will come when nobody will be older than a hundred years be important for Muslims or Islam? It is simply irrelevant, and irrelevant is the opposite of important. On the other hand, the proclamation of the Day of Resurrection and Allah’s judgment of all people is an essential part of Islam. If it had been revealed to Muhammad in his prayer that the world would end in exactly one hundred years, such a revelation would mark this night without question as being very important. Only this interpretation really makes sense of the statement. The problem is, however, that the only meaningful interpretation of it has the consequence that Muhammad made a false prophecy. Muslims have tried to avert this by putting instead an utterly trivial, irrelevant – and most probably still incorrect – statement into Muhammad’s mouth. 123

Finally, it must be kept in mind that imam al-Bukhari collected these traditions roughly 250 years after Muhammad’s migration to Medina (c. 622/623 AD), long after the time that Muhammad said the world was going to end. In light of this, it is not surprising that he or someone else would provide an explanation in order to avoid having to admit that Muhammad was a false prophet for falsely claiming that the Day of Resurrection would take place a hundred years after his time. Therefore, no matter from what angle one looks at it we are still left with irreconcilable contradictions and false predictions. CONCLUSION We have examined both the Quran and the Islamic traditions and found that both sources contain false predictions. In light of the prophetic criteria given by God in Deuteronomy 18 we discover that Muhammad fails this test. This means that Muhammad is neither a true prophet nor is he the prophet like Moses. In the service of our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, our risen Lord forever. Amen. Come Lord Jesus. We love you always.

Jesus or Muhammad: Who is God's True Seal of Prophethood?
Sam Shamoun

The Quran claims that Muhammad is God's seal of prophethood, and therefore the last and final messenger to mankind: "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things." S. 33:40 Muslims further reason that since the Lord Jesus clearly stated that false prophets would come to deceive many, this strongly argues that there would be another true prophet to come after Christ. Had there been no more prophets after Christ, there would have been no need for Jesus to 124

give a criterion to distinguish false prophets. Christ could have simply stated that there would be no more prophets at all. (Cf. Matthew 7:15-20; 24:23-26) The problem with such reasoning is that it completely ignores the entire context of the Holy Bible. For instance, the Lord Jesus states that God has given his personal seal of approval, backing up all of Christ's words and deeds: "Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed HIS SEAL OF APPROVAL." John 6:27 This is reiterated elsewhere by the Lord: "I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent." John 5:36-38 "But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me." John 8:16-18 "Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." John 10:36-38 "Jesus answered: ‘Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, "Show us the Father"? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the 125

Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.’" John 14:9-11 Part of Jesus' claims, which God has given his approval to, includes Christ's statement that he is the final messenger. This essentially means that the Lord Jesus is God's final and only perfect commentary in relation to the things pertaining to God: "He then began to speak to them in parables: ‘A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed. HE HAD ONE LEFT TO SEND, A SON, WHOM HE LOVED. He sent him LAST OF ALL, saying, "They will respect my son." But the tenants said to one another, "THIS IS THE HEIR. Come, let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours." So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.’" Mark 12:1-8 After sending his servants the prophets, God sent his beloved Son last of all. This indicates that Christ believed that he was not just the last spokesperson sent by God to the people, but that he was also God's beloved Son and the Heir of all things. (Cf. Matthew 28:18; Luke 10:22; John 5:17-31; 10:36; 13:3; 16:13-15; 17:10; Hebrews 1:2-3) In fact, the Father himself has personally testified that Jesus is his beloved Son: "At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: ‘YOU ARE MY SON, WHOM I LOVE; with you I am well pleased.’" Mark 1:9-11

126

"After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus. Peter said to Jesus, ‘Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters— one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.’ (He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.) Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud: ‘THIS IS MY SON, WHOM I LOVE. LISTEN TO HIM!’" Mark 9:2-7 This by itself is sufficient to prove that Muhammad is not God's prophet or seal since he denies God's testimony regarding the divine sonship of Christ. "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: 'Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.'" Revelation 1:17-18 "'Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End ... I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star' ... He who testifies to these things says, 'Yes, I am coming soon.' Amen. Come, Lord Jesus." Revelation 22:12-13, 16, 20 The Lord Jesus claims to be the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, as well as the First and the Last. This implies that Jesus is both the source of all creation and the consummation of all things. Christ sovereignly controls and guides all creation to accomplish all he intends and desires. In light of its Old Testament background, the title "the First and the Last" indicates that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only true God:

"This is what the LORD says - Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God." Isaiah 44:6 "Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last." Isaiah 48:12 Muhammad denied that Jesus is the source and consummation of all things and that Christ, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is the only true God. This means that Muhammad was not God's seal nor was he a true prophet sent by the true God. Both the Old and New Testament emphatically state that with Christ's advent both prophecy and vision have been consummated: "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, BUT IN THESE LAST DAYS HE HAS SPOKEN TO US BY HIS SON, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven." Hebrews 1:1-3 After having spoken to the people through the prophets, God has given his final revelation through his Son. The Son has communicated this final message through the men that he appointed: "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit-fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name." John 15:16 "He said to them (the disciples): 'It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.'" Acts 1:7-8 "Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to 128

127

the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?' 'Who are you, Lord?' Saul asked. 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' he replied. 'Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do' ... But the Lord said to Ananias, 'Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.'" Acts 9:1-6, 15-16 "In this connection I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me. And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' And I said, 'Who are you, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me AND TO THOSE IN WHICH I WILL APPEAR TO YOU, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles--to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'" Acts 22:12-18 "Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy." 1 Corinthians 7:25 "If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored." 1 Corinthians 14:37-38 "For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus ... Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit." 1 Thessalonians 4:2, 8 129

"We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will." Hebrews 2:1-4 "Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles." 2 Peter 3:1-2 "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testifies to everything he saw - that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near ... On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, which said: 'Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.'" Revelation 1:1-3, 10-11 These passages establish that the holy Apostles did not speak from their own desires. Rather, these men spoke the very words given to them by the Lord Jesus Christ, having received the authority of Christ to record and pass on the very instructions of the Master. "While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the LORD my God for his holy hill - while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. He instructed me and said to me, 'Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. As soon as you began to pray, an answer was given, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. Therefore, consider the message and understand the vision: 'Seventy 130

"sevens" are decreed for your people and your holy city to FINISH transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, TO SEAL UP VISION AND PROPHECY and to anoint the most holy. Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One (Messiah), the ruler, comes, there will be seven "sevens," and sixty-two "sevens." It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two "sevens," the Anointed One (Messiah) will be CUT OFF and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.'" Daniel 9:20-26 According to this passage, Gabriel tells Daniel that a period of 69 "sevens" have been decreed where the Messiah would arrive on the scene, be killed ("cut off") with both Jerusalem and the second temple being destroyed by the governing authorities. During this time, both vision and prophecy would come to an end. These events were fulfilled during Christ's first advent where he was cut off violently on the cross with the destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple occurring shortly thereafter (c. 33-70 AD). This clearly establishes that there would be no other prophet to come after Christ's advent who isn't comissioned by the Lord Jesus personally. Anyone claiming to be a prophet after Christ must prophesy solely in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, confirming the Gospel preached by Christ and his Apostles: "Therefore I AM SENDING YOU PROPHETS AND WISE MEN AND TEACHERS. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town." Matthew 23:34 The Lord Jesus states that he will commission prophets for the people. This establishes that Jesus is God since God alone empowers and commissions prophets. This also affirms that a prophet must speak in the name of the Lord Jesus, confirming the message preached by Christ and his Apostles. Again: 131

"It was he (Christ) who gave some to be apostles, SOME TO BE PROPHETS, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." Ephesians 4:11-13 This passage reiterates the point made by the Lord Jesus, namely that it is Christ who would commission prophets, teachers, evangelists etc. Some of these prophets included: "During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.) The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea." Acts 11:27-29 "After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. Coming over to us, he took Paul's belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, 'The Holy Spirit says, "In this way the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles."'" Acts 21:10-11 "Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers." Acts 15:32 Basically what this means is that Jesus was the last One sent directly by God and from now on Christ would be the One sending out all the rest of the messengers, prophets, emissaries etc.: "As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world." John 17:18 "So Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.’ And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.’" John 20:21-23 132

Christ had predicted: "I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her." Mark 14:9 This is reiterated elsewhere: "Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth-to every nation, tribe, language and people." Revelation 14:6 These passages affirm that the gospel is the means of salvation for all men and for all time, and will be proclaimed throughout the world. Anyone bringing a message contrary to the gospel proclaimed by the Lord Jesus is not of God. In the words of the Apostle Paul: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel - which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" Galatians 1:6-9 Seeing that the angel that spoke to Muhammad brought a message contrary to the gospel of Christ means that this angel falls under God's eternal condemnation. This implies that this angel could not have been the angel Gabriel but a satanic counterfeit. This shouldn't surprise us since the Holy Bible clearly states that Satan is able to masquerade as an angel of light in order to deceive and prevent people from embracing the true message of salvation: "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants 133

masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve." 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 This is precisely why the Holy Bible gives us a test to distinguish between false prophets and true ones, or lying spirits from the Holy Spirit of God: "Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, 'Jesus be cursed,' and no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit." 1 Corinthians 12:3 "Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist - he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father." 1 John 2:18-24 "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood." 1 John 4:1-6 134

According to these passages any person or spirit that denies that Jesus is God's eternal Son that became flesh or denies Christ's sovereign Lordship is not of God. Since Islam denies all these fundamental truths it therefore cannot be from the true God. In fact, Islam makes God a liar since it denies the testimony given by God on behalf of his beloved Son: "We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life." 1 John 5:9-12 The Lord continues: "When the Counselor 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. And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning." John 15:26-27 According to Jesus, the function of the Holy Spirit is to testify about Christ. Any prophet that does not testify about the person and work of the Lord Jesus is a false prophet. In fact, the entire focus of prophecy centers on the person of Christ: "He commands us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as the judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." Acts 10:42-43 "At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, 'Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.'" Revelation 19:10 135

Jesus is the very focal point of prophecy, and of history for that matter, since it is in Christ that all things hold together and are reconciled to God: "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12 "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation - " Colossians 1:19-22 God designed it this way in order that Christ might have the preeminence over all things: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. Colossians 1:15-18 NKJV To summarize:
  

Jesus claims to be God's final spokesperson for mankind. The Old Testament affirms that at Christ's advent prophecy and vision would come to an end. The whole focus of prophecy is to testify to Jesus' Deity, divine Sonship and his sovereign authority and rulership over all creation. The message of the Gospel is universal, extending to all ages and for all men, being the only means of salvation.

136

Any prophet after Christ must speak in Jesus' name, confirming the message preached by Christ as recorded within the pages of the New Testament.

Comforter was not already present, but that the Comforter would not be present in the manner that Jesus had described earlier. Here are Jesus' words in their context: "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever - the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, FOR HE LIVES WITH YOU AND WILL BE IN YOU." John 14:16-17 The Lord clearly states that the Comforter was already present with the disciples and that his followers knew him. The difference is that even though the Comforter was present with the disciples he would not be able to indwell and empower them until Jesus ascended into heavenly glory. John reiterates this very point earlier in his Gospel: "Then John gave this testimony: ‘I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him.’" John 1:32 "On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, ‘If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.’ By this he meant THE SPIRIT, whom those who believed in him were LATER to receive. Up to that time THE SPIRIT HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN, since Jesus had not yet been glorified." John 7:37-39 Hence, when John 16:7 is read within its immediate and greater context the Comforter can only be referring to God's Holy Spirit. It cannot be referring to Muhammad. There are additional problems with viewing the Comforter as a prediction of Muhammad, some of which include:

In light of the preceding factors, Muhammad cannot be a true prophet nor God's seal of prophethood. Muhammad denied the very core and foundation of prophecy, namely the preeminence and supremacy of God's beloved, divine eternal Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. In doing so Muhammad showed that he was not a prophet of the true God revealed in the inspired pages of the Holy Bible, Yahweh Elohim.

ADDENDUM MUHAMMAD AS THE PARACLETE Some Muslims have attempted to show that Jesus did predict the coming of Muhammad. Muslims often point to Jesus' promise to send another Comforter (Greek, Paraclete) as a prediction of their prophet. (Cf. John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15) Even though the Lord Jesus clearly identifies the Comforter as the Holy Spirit in John 14:26, Muslims try to use John 16:7 to prove that the Comforter cannot be referring to the Holy Spirit: "But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." Christ makes it clear that he must depart in order for the Comforter to arrive. If Christ did not depart then the Comforter would not come. It is presumed that since the Holy Spirit was already present during Christ's ministry, the Comforter cannot be referring to him. This could only be referring to Muhammad who arrived nearly 600 years after Christ had departed. (Cf. Matthew 3:16-17) The only problem with the Muslim interpretation is that it ignores the context of Jesus' statement. For instance, Jesus wasn't claiming that the 137

According to John 14:17 the Comforter would be able to indwell all the disciples at the same time. This means that the Comforter could only be an immaterial entity, a spirit, since a physical entity cannot indwell anyone, let alone a group of men at the same time. This also implies that the Comforter is omnipresent. Since God alone is omnipresent, this means that the Comforter is God. 138

Unless a Muslim wants to claim that Muhammad is God then there is no basis to view these references as predicting the prophet of Islam. The Comforter was to glorify Christ by taking what belongs to Christ and making it known to his followers:

In the service of our risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ forever and ever. Amen. Come Lord Jesus. We love you always.

"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you." John 16:13-15 Jesus claims that everything that the Father owns belongs to him. This makes Jesus the Heir of all things. Yet the Quran claims that Allah is the Heir of all things: "And certainly We! We it is Who give life, and cause death, and We are THE HEIRS." S. 15:23 "Lo! We, only We, inherit the earth and all who are thereon, and unto Us they are returned." S. 19:40 Taking these points to their natural conclusion would inevitably mean that Jesus is Allah, the God of Muhammad! Note the following syllogism: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Muhammad is the Comforter The Comforter was to glorify Jesus All things belong to Christ Muhammad glorified Allah All things belong to Allah Therefore Jesus is Allah!

A Quranic Criterion for a True Prophet
Sam Shamoun & Jochen Katz In some of our papers we have presented the Biblical criteria to distinguish between true and false prophets. One criterion that the Holy Bible gives is that the teachings of a prophet or a messenger must fully agree with the previous revelations: "If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear him, and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and cleave to him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to make you leave the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from the midst of you." Deuteronomy 13:1-5 "I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded." Romans 16:17-18 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel -- not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert 140

Which Muslim would agree to this? The fact that no Muslim would or could accept such reasoning only reinforces the absurdity of trying to make Muhammad the Comforter predicted by Christ.

139

the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:6-9 "And this is love, that we follow his commandments; this is the commandment, as you have heard from the beginning, that you follow love. For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward. Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work." 2 John 1:6-11 The Quran also agrees with this criterion since it says: It is not (possible) that a man, to whom is given the Book, and Wisdom, and the prophetic office, should say to people: "Be ye my worshippers rather than God’s": on the contrary (He would say) "Be ye worshippers of Him Who is truly the Cherisher of all: For ye have taught the Book and ye have studied it earnestly." Nor would he instruct you to take angels and prophets for Lords and patrons. What! would he bid you to unbelief after ye have bowed your will (To God in Islam)? Behold! God took the covenant of the prophets, saying: "I give you a Book and Wisdom; then comes to you an apostle, CONFIRMING what is with you; do ye believe in him and render him help." God said: "Do ye agree, and take this my Covenant as binding on you?" They said: "We agree." He said: "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses." S. 3:79-81 Y. Ali Other versions render Sura 3:81 slightly different: AND, LO, God accepted, THROUGH THE PROPHETS, this solemn pledge [from the followers of earlier revelation]: "If, after all the revelation and the wisdom which I have vouchsafed unto you, there 141

comes to you an apostle CONFIRMING the truth already in your possession, you must believe in him and succour him. Do you" - said He – "acknowledge and accept My bond on this condition?" They answered: "We do acknowledge it." Said He: "Then bear witness [thereto], and I shall be your witness." S. 3:81 Asad Asad noted: Lit., "the solemn pledge of the prophets". Zamakhshari holds that what is meant here is a pledge taken from the community as a whole: a pledge consisting in their acceptance of the messages conveyed through the prophets. (Source) The late Muhammad Ali translated it similarly to Asad: And when Allah made a covenant THROUGH THE PROPHETS: Certainly what I have been given you of Book and Wisdom – then a Messenger comes to you VERIFYING that which is with you, you shall believe in him, and you shall aid him. He said: Do you affirm and accept My compact in this (matter)? They said: We do affirm. He said: Then bear witness that I (too) am of the bearers of witness with you. M. Ali (Source) Ali explains the reason for his formulation in a footnote: 81a. Mithaq al-nabiyyin means literally the covenant of the prophets, and may therefore signify either the covenant of the prophets with Allah or the covenant of the prophets with their people. As the words that follow are plainly addressed to the people, the Jews and the Christians being particularly addressed in the last two verses, I adopt the latter interpretation, and therefore translate the words as meaning a covenant through the prophets. Both Moses and Jesus especially laid an obligation on their people to accept the prophet about whom they prophesied. Thus, through Moses, Almighty God had warned the Israelites, after promising them "a prophet from among their brethren like unto thee", and that "Whosoever will not hearken unto My words which he shall speak in My name, I will require of him" (Deut. 18:19). And Jesus was equally emphatic when, prophesying the advent of the Comforter, he added: "He will guide you into all the truth; for he shall not speak of himself, but 142

whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak" (John 16:13). As a matter of fact the Prophet had his advent foretold by all the prophets of the world. The new Testament bears testimony to this: "Whom the heaven must receive until the time of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all of His holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me: him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you" (Acts 3:21, 22). The covenant referred to was made through each prophet separately as he appeared in the world. And just as all the prophets foretold the advent of the Prophet Muhammad and laid an obligation upon their people to accept him, so the Prophet Muhammad also told his followers to believe in all the prophets that had appeared among different people in different ages, and this is stated in what follows. The truth of the first statement that all the prophets foretold the advent of the Prophet Muhammad is borne out by the second statement that the Prophet would bear testimony to the truth of all the prophets of the world. (Source; bold emphasis ours) The foregoing is significant for at least two reasons. First, Surah 3:81 is presupposing that the previous Scriptures, i.e. the Holy Bible, are the criteria determining whether a person is a true or false prophet. The author of the Quran essentially accepted the fact that all messengers must be in full agreement with the teachings of the Holy Bible, otherwise they would be rejected. Second, the only way for Muhammad or anyone else claiming to be a messenger to be able to confirm the previous Scriptures is if these Books remained intact. If these texts were corrupted then the messenger wouldn’t be able to confirm them lest he be guilty of verifying scriptures that God had not inspired. And yet failing to confirm the Scriptures in the possession of the people before him would lead to a complete rejection of such a messenger. The people would consider such a person a false messenger for contradicting the Scriptures in their possession which they would view as being the uncorrupt revelations of God! To put it in another manner, the only way for the community of the prophets such as the Jews and Christians to know whether someone like Muhammad was a messenger is if he confirmed their Holy Scriptures. 143

But if these Scriptures had been corrupted then there would be no way for the people to know who that messenger was since they no longer had the authentic Scriptures for him to confirm. This would lead them to conclude that such a person was a false messenger for not confirming their religious texts! It should not be hard for Muslims to see why this reasoning is valid. Just imagine another man coming today, claiming to be a prophet (or some other title to the effect that he is speaking with divine authority), and saying exactly what Muhammad said, i.e. he came to confirm what the earlier prophets said. Would Muslims accept him as a prophet because he claims to confirm what Muhammad had already said? The Muslim answer would obviously be no, since that person must not contradict the teachings of the Quran or Muhammad, and yet by claiming to be a prophet he would be contradicting the Quran’s testimony that Muhammad is the seal of the prophets. In fact, isn’t that what Baha’ullah (founder of the Baha’is) and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (founder of the Ahmadiyya) did? Both acknowledge (confirm) Muhammad as a prophet and the Quran as divine revelation, but they are adding their own words to it. Their additional writings are foundational for the movements they have started. Yet Muslims reject them as false. Why would they if these men satisfy this quranic criterion of confirming the revelation that came before them? Just as Christians do, Muslims test the later claims to prophethood with the former revelation — and they are right in doing so. That has to be the principle. The foregoing leaves Muslims in a quagmire. If the Quran is to be believed then Muslims must accept the fact that the previous Scriptures have been preserved and Muhammad had to confirm them as true revelations. Yet, since these previous Scriptures of the Jews and Christians (i.e. the Holy Bible) contradict the teachings of the Quran and Muhammad on essential issues, this therefore means that Muhammad is a false prophet.

144

In conclusion, Muhammad fails the very biblical criterion – accepted by the Quran itself – for determining whether a person is a true prophet or not. Further Reading Here are the papers documenting the criteria which the Holy Bible gives to distinguish true and false prophets, showing how Muhammad fails the criteria for being a true prophet: http://answering-islam.org/Green/test.htm http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/true_seal.htm http://answering-islam.org/Campbell/s6c1.html http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/fatrah2.htm http://abrahamicfaith.com/shamoun/Is_Muhammad_a_true_Prophet_of_God.html http://abrahamic-faith.com/mohammed-the-false-prophet.html

In light of what God says in the preceding passage, we will examine several predictions made by Muhammad in the Quran and Islamic traditions to see if whether he passes God’s test. On the Roman Conquest of Persia S. 30:2-4: “The Roman Empire has been defeated - in a land close by: But they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious within a few years.” As the prophecy stated the Byzantines did become victorious over the Persians who had at first defeated them. Yet there are fundamental problems with this alleged prophecy:

Muhammad’s False Prophecies
The Holy Bible gives us a test to determine a true prophet from a false one: “But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death. You may say to yourselves, ‘How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?’ If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.” Deuteronomy 18:20-22

According to Yusuf Ali the Arabic word for “a few years,” Bidh'un, signifies a period of three to nine years; yet according to some scholars the victory did not come until nearly twelve years later. The Persians defeated the Byzantines and captured Jerusalem at about A.D. 614 or 615. The Byzantine counteroffensive did not begin until A.D. 622 and the victory was not complete until A.D. 625, making it a period between ten to eleven years, not “a few years” alluded to in the Quran. The original Quranic text had no vowel marks. Thus, the Arabic word Sayaghlibuna, “they shall defeat,” could easily have been rendered, with the change of two vowels, Sayughlabuna, "they (i.e. Romans) shall be defeated." Since vowel points were not added until some time after this event, it could have been quite possible for a scribe to deliberately tamper with the text, forcing it to become a prophetic statement.

145

This fact is solidified by Muslim commentator al-Baidawi. C.G. 146

Pfander mentions Baidawi's comments on the variant readings surrounding this passage:

true reading of the text is and hence cannot insure us that this verse originally predicted the Byzantine victory over the Persians. Yet either rendering leaves us with a false prophecy within the Quran.

“But Al Baizawi shatters the whole argument of the Muslims by informing us of certain varied readings in these verses of Suratu'r Rum. He tells us that some read (Arabic text appears here) instead of the usual (Arabic text appears here) and (Arabic text appears here) instead of (Arabic text appears here). The rendering will then be: 'The Byzantines have conquered in the nearest part of the land, and they shall be defeated in a small number of years,' &c. If this be the correct reading, the whole story about Abu Bakr's bet with Ubai must be a fable, since Ubai was dead long before the Muslims began to defeat the Byzantines, and even long before the victories which Heraclius won over the Persians. This shows how unreliable such Traditions are. The explanation which Al Baizawi gives is, that the Byzantines became conquerors of 'the well-watered land of Syria' (Arabic text appears here) and that the passage predicted that the Muslims would soon overcome them. If this is the meaning, the Tradition which records the 'descent' of the verses about six years before the Hijrah must be wrong, and the passage must belong to A.H. 6 at earliest. It is clear that, as the vowel points were not used when the Qur-an was first written down in Cufic letters, no one can be certain which of the two readings is right. We have seen that there is so much uncertainty about (1) the date at which the verses were 'sent down', (2) the correct reading, and (3) the meaning, that it is quite impossible to show that the passage contains a prophecy which was fulfilled. Hence, it cannot be considered to be a proof of Muhammad's prophetic office.” (C. G. Pfander, Mizan-ulHaqq- The Balance of Truth, revised and enlarged by W. St. Clair Tisdall [Light of Life P.O. Box 18, A-9503, Villach Austria], 279-280) [emphasis ours]

It amazes us that a prophecy from God would not specify the exact time of the victory, seeing that God is all-knowing and allwise, declaring the end from the beginning. For God to guess that the Byzantines would win in “a few years” as opposed to specifying the exact year, is inconsistent with the belief in an Omniscient, Omnipotent Being. Hence, it is unlikely that the true God would actually make such a prophecy.

Interestingly, the phrase “a few years” serves to further discredit this alleged prophecy. Abu Bakr believed the term “a few years” meant that the Byzantines were going to win in three years:

“This passage refers to the defeat of the Byzantines in Syria by the Persians under Khusran Parvis. (A.D. 615 - 6 years before the Hegira). However, the defeat of the Persians should take place soon—‘in a small number of years’. In the light of this prediction, Abu-Bakr undertook a bet with Ubai-ibn-Khalaf that this prediction would be fulfilled within three years, but he was corrected by Mohammed who stated that the ‘small number’ is between three and nine years (Al-Baizawi). Muslims tell us that the Byzantines overcame their enemies within seven years. The fact, however, is that the Byzantines defeated Persia in A.D. 628 (Al-Baizawi commentary). That was twelve years after the prediction of Mohammed. Consequently this passage does not qualify as a prophecy, particularly as the time between prophecy and fulfilment was far too short, and in addition the event was easily predictable.” (Gerhard Nehls, Christians Ask Muslims [Life Challenge, SIM International; Africa, 1992], pp. 70-71) 148

This being the case, a Muslim cannot confidently tell us what the 147

The final problem with this alleged prophecy is that the Persians didn’t attack Rome, but rather the Byzantines. Christian Apologist Andrew Vargo notes:

Need we say more? On Entering Mecca Sura 48:27 makes the following promise:

The Persians attacked the Byzantines, not the Romans. The ancient Roman Empire was divided into two parts - Eastern and a Western. The Eastern portion was ruled by the successors of Constantine, from the capital city of Byzantium or Constantinople. Byzantine refers to the Eastern portion of the Roman Empire which survived after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Byzantine State (SAM- See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03096a.htm) existed between 610 and 717 AD. This Sura was apparently “revealed” to Muhammad in 615 AD, (source) (SAM-See http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau30.html) five years after the establishment of the Byzantine Empire! Therefore, had the “revelation” been from God, it should have referred to the Byzantines and not the Romans. More disturbing is that, according to the Traditions, Muhammad and his companions were aware that the eastern Roman Empire was called the Byzantine Empire. One of the most perplexing traditions was recorded by Bukhari (SAM- See Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 297) and says, at the end: “… ‘Alif-Lam-Mim, the Romans have been defeated, and they, after their defeat, will be victorious,’ (30.1-3) (This verse): Indicates that the defeat of Byzantine has already passed.” This tradition suggests the impossible scenario of an all-knowing God, committing an historical error in [what is purported to be] His revelation! (source- http://answeringislam.org.uk/Responses/Badawi/Radio/RA200J7.htm) 149 “Truly did Allah fulfill the vision for His Messenger. Ye shall enter the Sacred Mosque, IF ALLAH WILLS, with minds secure, heads shaved, hair cut short, and without fear. For He knew what ye knew not, and He granted, besides this, a speedy victory.” This verse was revealed in conjunction with the Muslims failed attempt of entering Mecca to perform Tawaf (the ritual during Hajj of running between two mountains that was supposed to commemorate Hagar's fetching of water for Ishmael). On their way to the Ka’bah, they were met with a Meccan deputation headed by Suhail b. Amr who forbade the Muslims from completing their journey. This meeting then led to the signing of the treaty of Hudaibiya. Several problems arise from this whole incident. First, at the signing of Hudaibiya Muhammad agreed with the pagan Meccans to return to them those who had converted to Islam. At the same time Muhammad also bowed to their demands of replacing his signature of ‘Muhammad, Messenger of God’ with ‘Muhammad, son of Abdullah’ so that he might be allowed to make pilgrimage to Mecca the following year. The following is taken from Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891:

“When Suhail bin Amr came, the Prophet said, ‘Now the matter has become easy.’ Suhail said to the Prophet ‘Please conclude a peace treaty with us.’ So, the Prophet called the clerk and said to him, ‘Write: By the Name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful." Suhail said, ‘As for “Beneficent,” by Allah, I do not know what it means. So write: By Your Name O Allah, as you used to write previously.’ The Muslims said, ‘By Allah, we will not write except: By the Name of 150

Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.’ The Prophet said, ‘Write: By Your Name O Allah.’ Then he dictated, ‘This is the peace treaty which Muhammad, Allah's Apostle has concluded.’ Suhail said, ‘By Allah, if we knew that you are Allah's Apostle we would not prevent you from visiting the Kaba, and would not fight with you. So, write: ‘Muhammad bin Abdullah.’ The Prophet said, ‘By Allah! I am Apostle of Allah even if you people do not believe me. Write: Muhammad bin Abdullah.’ (Az-Zuhri said, ‘The Prophet accepted all those things, as he had already said that he would accept everything they would demand if it respects the ordinance of Allah, (i.e. by letting him and his companions perform 'Umra.)’ The Prophet said to Suhail, ‘On the condition that you allow us to visit the House (i.e. Ka'ba) so that we may perform Tawaf around it.’ Suhail said, ‘By Allah, we will not (allow you this year) so as not to give chance to the Arabs to say that we have yielded to you, but we will allow you next year.’ SO, THE PROPHET GOT THAT WRITTEN. “Then Suhail said, ‘We also stipulate that you should return to us whoever comes to you from us, even if he embraced your religion.’ The Muslims said, ‘Glorified be Allah! How will such a person be returned to the pagans after he has become a Muslim?’” (bold emphasis ours) One of those forced to return to Mecca with the pagans was Abu Jandal. In Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasulullah (The Life of Muhammad, trans. Alfred Guillaume, Oxford University Press), p. 505 we are told: “…When Suhayl (the Meccan representative and the treaty's compiler) saw Abu Jandal he got up and hit him in the face and took hold of his collar, saying, ‘Muhammad, the agreement between us was concluded before this man came to you.’ He replied, ‘you are right.’ He began to pull him roughly by his collar and to drag him away to return him to Quraysh, while Abu Jandal shrieked at the top of his voice, ‘Am I to be returned to the polytheists that they may entice me from my religion O Muslims?’ and that increased the people's dejection…” (bold and italic emphasis ours) And: 151

“…While they were in this state Abu- Jandal bin Suhail bin ‘Amr came from the valley of Mecca staggering with his fetters and fell down amongst the Muslims. Suhail said, ‘O Muhammad! This is the very first term with which we make peace with you, i.e. you shall return Abu Jandal to me.’ The Prophet said, ‘The peace treaty has not been written yet.’ Suhail said, ‘I will never allow you to keep him.’ The Prophet said, ‘Yes, do.’ He said, ‘I won't do: Mikraz said, ‘We allow you (to keep him).’ Abu Jandal said, ‘O Muslims! Will I be returned to the pagans though I have come as a Muslim? Don't you see how much I have suffered?’ Abu Jandal had been [previously] tortured severely for the cause of Allah…” (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891) We need to ask did Moses ever return a convert (especially one who was an Egyptian) back to the pagan Pharaoh in order to please the latter in obtaining what he wanted? Did Jesus ever compromise the truth of God by agreeing with the Pharisees in turning back all gentile seekers in order to be accepted by the Jewish ruling council? Would either Moses or Jesus go so far as to deny their apostleship in order to please the demands of pagans’? Would these men refuse to glorify the true God in the manner commanded by the Creator and acquiesce to the request of addressing God in a manner pleasing to the unbelievers, much like Muhammad did? As one would expect the Muslims were enraged, especially Umar b. alKhattab who rebuked Muhammad: “… Umar bin al-Khattab said, ‘I went to the Prophet and said, “Aren't you truly the messenger of Allah?” The Prophet said, “Yes, indeed.” I said, “Isn't our cause just and the cause of the enemy unjust?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Then why should we be humble in our religion?” He said, “I am Allah's messenger and I do not disobey Him, and He will make me victorious”’…” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891) The anger of the Muslims is justifiable when we realize that Muhammad promised that his followers would have access to Mecca that very same 152

year. When that did not occur, Muhammad attempted to justify his statement by stating, “Yes, did I tell you that we would go to Ka’ba this year?” (Ibid) In other words, since he did not specify when they would enter Mecca this cannot be considered a false prophecy! This is simply erroneous since the Muslim contingent was on their way to Mecca when a deputation from the pagan Arabs stopped them. In fact, one of Muhammad’s demands in signing the treaty was that the pagans permit the Muslims to complete their journey to Mecca in order to perform Tawaf. Suhail denied Muhammad’s request and instead made an agreement that the Muslims could enter Mecca the following year. Ibn Kathir further supports this in his commentary on S. 48:27: “In a dream, the Messenger of Allah saw himself entering Makkah and performing Tawaf around the House. He told his Companions about this dream when he was still in Al-Madinah. When they went to Makkah in the year of Al-Hudaybiyyah, none of them doubted that the Prophet’s vision WOULD COME TRUE THAT YEAR. When the treaty of peace was conducted and they had to return to Al-Madinah that year, being allowed to return to Makkah the next year, SOME OF THE COMPANIONS DISLIKED WHAT HAPPENED. ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab asked about THIS, saying, ‘Haven’t you told us that we will go to the House and perform Tawaf around it?’…” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 9, Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun, Abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, London, Lahore; first edition, September 2000], p. 171 bold and capital emphasis ours) This proves that Muhammad actually believed he was going to enter into Mecca, a plan that never materialized. In order to save face he had to deny admitting that he actually implied that the Muslims would enter Mecca that same year. Second, to make matters worse Muhammad broke the treaty with the Meccans by refusing to return a Muslim convert from the Quraysh. This 153

refusal was in clear violation of things expressly stipulated in the very document that Muhammad had agreed to sign: “Umm Kulthum Uqba b. Mu’ayt migrated to the apostle during this period. Her two brothers ‘Umara and Walid sons of ‘Uqba came and asked the apostle to return her to them in accordance with the agreement between him and Quraysh at Hudaybiyya, but he would not. God forbade it.” (Sirat Rasulullah, p. 509 italic emphasis ours) Hence, Muhammad justified the breaking of his oath by claiming that it was God’s will to do so. Unfortunately for Muslims, this would prove that Muhammad's God is not the God of the Holy Bible since breaking one’s oath is strictly forbidden. (Cf. Num. 30:1-2) In light of all these considerations we are again compelled to ask the following questions. Did Moses ever bow down to Pharaoh's requests in order to bring Israel out of bondage from Egypt? Did Jesus ever deny his Messiahship to gain access to the Temple? Did any true prophet of God ever compromise with the unbelievers in order to fulfill the will of God? Did these men proceed to break their oaths and promises in order to gain an unfair advantage over the unbelievers? One final problem with all this is that Muslims claim that every single word in the Quran was revealed directly by God to Muhammad through Gabriel. Based on this assumption Muslims further reason that one will not find Muhammad’s words intermingled with the words of God. This being the case, how do Muslims explain the fact that S. 48:27 has Allah saying insha’ Allah, i.e. “If Allah wills”? Does God not know what his will is? If so, is he uncertain whether his purpose shall come to pass necessitating him to then qualify his statement with the phrase, insha’ Allah? One can understand how fallible humans who are unaware of God’s purpose can qualify their statements with the statement “If God wills” (Cf. James 4:13-15). But for God to make such a qualification is beyond reasoning.

154

Furthermore, if God is in fact speaking then whom is he referring to when he says “If Allah wills”? Is he addressing himself or someone else? If he is addressing someone else, than how many Gods are there? Or perhaps Allah is also a multi-personal Being seeing that there are more than one Person that make up the unity of Allah? This leads us to conclude that Muhammad’s prediction not only failed to materialize, but that his motives in concocting revelation were power, money and fame. This verse also proves that God cannot be the author of the Quran. On the Appearance of the Antichrist and the End of the World Muhammad allegedly claimed that the Antichrist (called the Dajjal) was to appear shortly after the Muslim conquest of Constantinople. The following traditions are taken from Sunan Abu Dawud: Book 37, Number 4281: Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The flourishing state of Jerusalem will be when Yathrib is in ruins, the ruined state of Yathrib will be when the great war comes, the outbreak of the great war will be at the conquest of Constantinople and the conquest of Constantinople when the Dajjal (Antichrist) comes forth. He (the Prophet) struck his thigh or his shoulder with his hand and said: This is as true as you are here or as you are sitting (meaning Mu'adh ibn Jabal). Book 37, Number 4282:

Book 37, Number 4283: Narrated Abdullah ibn Busr: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The time between the great war and the conquest of the city (Constantinople) will be six years, and the Dajjal (Antichrist) will come forth in the seventh. Accordingly, Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 636 AD. Constantinople was taken over by Muslims in May 1453 AD. Yet the prophecy regarding Yathrib (Medina) being in ruins and Antichrist’s advent to take place seven months after the conquest of Constantinople did not materialize. Based on the preceding traditions Antichrist was to appear in November 1453. Some may wish to argue that these events refer to future conquests. For instance some may wish to say that Constantinople is used as a synonym for the Roman Christian Empire. This would therefore be predicting that Muslims are to takeover Rome before Antichrist appears. The problem with this is that if Muhammad was speaking of Rome he could have simply used the word Romans (Arabic-ArRum). In fact, Romans/ArRum is the name given to chapter 30 of the Quran. To call Rome either Constantinople or even Byzantium would be rather anachronistic. See above. Hence, in light of the preceding factors we are forced to conclude that Muhammad’s predictions failed to materialize, serving to disqualify his prophetic claims. Muhammad also believed in a young earth and that the world was about to end shortly after his advent. The following citations are taken from The History of al-Tabari, Volume 1- General Introduction and from the Creation to the Flood (trans. Franz Rosenthal, State University of New York Press, Albany 1989), with all bold emphasis being ours: “According to Ibn Humayd- Yahya b. Wadih- Yahya b. Ya'qubHammad- Sa'id b. Jubayr- Ibn Abbas: This world is one of the weeks of the other world- seven thousand years. Six thousand 156

Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The greatest war, the conquest of Constantinople and the coming forth of the Dajjal (Antichrist) will take place within a period of seven months. 155

two hundred years have already passed. (The world) will surely experience hundreds of years, during which there will be no believer in the oneness of God there. Others said that the total extent of time is six thousand years.” (Tabari, pp. 172173) “According to Abu Hisham- Mu'awiyah b. Hisham- Sufyan- alA'mash- Abu Salih- Ka'b: This world is six thousand years.” (Ibid.) “According to Muhammad b. Sahl b. 'Askar- Isma'il b. 'Abd alKarim- 'Abd al-Samad b. Ma'qil I- Wahb: Five thousand six hundred years of this world have elapsed. I do not know which kings and prophets lived in every period (zaman) of those years. I aksed Wahb b. Munabbih: How long is (the total duration of) this world? He replied: Six thousand years.” (Tabari, pp. 173-174) According to at-Tabari Muhammad believe that the end of the world was to occur 500 years after his coming: “According to Hannad b. al-Sari and Abu Hisham al-Rifa'i- Abu Bakr b. 'Ayyash- Abu Hasin- Abu Salih- Abu Hurayrah: The Messenger of God said: When I was sent (to transmit the divine message), I and the Hour were like these two, pointing at his index and middle fingers.” (Tabari, p. 176- see also pp. 175-181) At-Tabari comments on the meaning of the Hour being as close as Muhammad's index and middle fingers: “Thus, (the evidence permitting) a conclusion is as follows: The beginning of the day is the rise of the dawn, and its end is the setting of the sun. Further, the reported tradition on the authority of the Prophet is sound. As we have mentioned earlier, he said after having prayed the afternoon prayer: What remains of this world as compared to what has passed of it is just like what remains of this day as compared to what has passed of it. He also said: When I was sent, I and the Hour were like these two- holding index finger and middle finger together; I preceded 157

it to the same extent as this one- meaning the middle fingerpreceded that one- meaning the index finger. Further, the extent (of time) between the mean time of the afternoon prayer- that is, when the shadow of everything is twice its size, according to the best assumption ( 'ala al-taharri)- (to sunset) is the extent of time of one-half of one-seventh of the day, give or take a little. Likewise, the excess of the length of the middle finger over the index finger is something about that or close to it. There is also a sound tradition on the authority of the Messenger of God, as I was told by Ahmad b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. Wahb- his paternal uncle 'Abd-allah b. Wahb- Mu'awiyah b. Salih- 'Abd al-Rahman b. Jubayr b. Nufayr- his father Jubayr b. Nufayr- the companion of the Prophet, Abu Tha'labah al-Khushani: The Messenger of God said: Indeed, God will not make this nation incapable of (lasting) half a day- referring to the day of a thousand years. “All these facts taken together make it clear that of the two statements I have mentioned concerning the total extent of time, the one from Ibn Abbas, and the other from Ka'b, the one more likely to be correct in accordance with the information coming from the Messenger of God is that of Ibn 'Abbas transmitted here by us on his authority: The world is one of the weeks of the other world- seven thousand years. “Consequently, because this is so and the report on the authority of the Messenger of God is sound- namely, that he reported that what remained of the time of this world during his lifetime was half a day, or five hundred years, since five hundred years are half a day of the days, of which one is a thousand years- the conclusion is that the time of this world that had elapsed to the moment of the Prophet's statement corresponds to what we have transmitted on the authority of Abu Tha'labah al-Khushani from the Prophet, and is 6,500 years or approximately 6,500 years. God knows best!” (Tabari, pp. 182-183)

158

Hence, according to these traditions Muhammad believed that not only was the world less than 7,000 years old but it was to end on the seventh day, or seven thousand years from the time it was created.

Accordingly, the world should have ended sometime between 1070-1132 AD, approximately 500 years after the birth and death of Muhammad. This is based on the fact that according to at-Tabari and others, the advent of Muhammad took place approximately 6,500 years from the time of creation. This is clearly a false prophecy. Yet this date contradicts the one approximated by Abu Dawood in his Sunan. There, we saw that Antichrist was to appear seven months after the conquest of Constantinople, an event that took place in 1453 AD. This being the case, how could Muhammad have claimed elsewhere that the world was to end 500 years after his own birth and death? To make matters worse, the Islamic traditions claim that Antichrist was actually present during Muhammad’s lifetime. In fact, according to the traditions Antichrist was a man named Ibn Saiyad: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 437: Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: ‘Umar set out along with the Prophet (p.b.u.h) with a group of people to Ibn Saiyad till they saw him playing with the boys near the hillocks of Bani Mughala. Ibn Saiyad at that time was nearing his puberty and did not notice (us) until the Prophet stroked him with his hand and said to him, “Do you testify that I am Allah's Apostle?” Ibn Saiyad looked at him and said, “I testify that you are the Messenger of illiterates.” Then Ibn Saiyad asked the Prophet (p.b.u.h), “Do you testify that I am Allah's Apostle?” The Prophet (p.b.u.h) refuted it and said, “I believe in Allah and His Apostles.” Then he said (to Ibn Saiyad), “What do you think?” Ibn Saiyad answered, “True people and liars visit me.” The Prophet said, “You have been confused as to this matter.” Then the Prophet said to him, "I have kept something (in my mind) for you, (can you tell me that?)" Ibn Saiyad said, “It is Al-Dukh (the smoke).” (2) The Prophet said, “Let you be in ignominy. You cannot cross your limits.” On that 159

‘Umar, said, “O Allah's Apostle! Allow me to chop his head off.” The Prophet (p.b.u.h) said, “If he is he (i.e. Dajjal), then you cannot overpower him, and if he is not, then there is no use of murdering him.” (Ibn ‘Umar added): Later on Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) once again went along with Ubai bin Ka'b to the date-palm trees (garden) where Ibn Saiyad was staying. The Prophet (p.b.u.h) wanted to hear something from Ibn Saiyad before Ibn Saiyad could see him, and the Prophet (p.b.u.h) saw him lying covered with a sheet and from where his murmurs were heard. Ibn Saiyad's mother saw Allah's Apostle while he was hiding himself behind the trunks of the date-palm trees. She addressed Ibn Saiyad, “O Saf! (and this was the name of Ibn Saiyad) Here is Muhammad.” And with that Ibn Saiyad got up. The Prophet said, “Had this woman left him (Had she not disturbed him), then Ibn Saiyad would have revealed the reality of his case.” The traditions go on to positively identify Ibn Saiyad as Antichrist: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 453: Narrated Muhammad bin Al-Munkadir: I saw Jabir bin 'Abdullah swearing by Allah that Ibn Sayyad was the Dajjal. I said to Jabir, “How can you swear by Allah?” Jabir said, “I have heard ‘Umar swearing by Allah regarding this matter in the presence of the Prophet and the Prophet did not disapprove of it.” Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37, Number 4317: Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah: Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir told that he saw Jabir ibn Abdullah swearing by Allah that Ibn as-Sa'id was the Dajjal (Antichrist). I expressed my surprise by saying: You swear by Allah! He said: I heard Umar swearing to that in the presence of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), but the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) did not make any objection to it. 160

Yet these traditions contradict the following traditions where Antichrist is described as being one eyed and as being locked up in chains: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 553: Narrated Ibn Umar: Once Allah's Apostle stood amongst the people, glorified and praised Allah as He deserved and then mentioned the Dajjal saying, “I warn you against him (i.e. the Dajjal) and there was no prophet but warned his nation against him. No doubt, Noah warned his nation against him but I tell you about him something of which no prophet told his nation before me. You should know that he is one-eyed, and Allah is not one-eyed.”

I asked: Who are you? He replied: I am the Dajjal (Antichrist). Has the Prophet of the unlettered people come forth now? I replied: Yes. He said: Have they obeyed him or disobeyed him? I said: No, they have obeyed him. He said: That is better for them. Someone might interject here and claim that the traditions make mention of 30 Antichrists to come into the world:

Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37, Number 4319: Narrated AbuHurayrah:

Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37, Number 4306: Narrated Ubadah ibn as-Samit: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: I have told you so much about the Dajjal (Antichrist) that I am afraid you may not understand. The Antichrist is short, hen-toed, woolly-haired, one-eyed, an eye-sightless, and neither protruding nor deep-seated. If you are confused about him, know that your Lord is not one-eyed. Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37, Number 4311: Narrated Fatimah, daughter of Qays: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) once delayed the congregational night prayer. He came out and said: The talk of Tamim ad-Dari detained me. He transmitted it to me from a man who was of the islands of the sea. All of a sudden he found a woman who was trailing her hair. He asked: Who are you? She said: I am the Jassasah. Go to that castle. So I came to it and found a man who was trailing his hair, chained in iron collars, and leaping between Heaven and Earth. 161

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The Last Hour will not come before there come forth thirty Dajjals (fraudulents), everyone presuming himself that he is an apostle of Allah. (see also Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 237) This implies that Ibn Saiyad was just one of the thirty antichrists, and not THE Antichrist that was to come right before the end of the world. There are several problems with this assertion. First, none of the traditions claim that Ibn Saiyad is one of the thirty antichrists that were to appear. Rather, the traditions imply that he is THE Dajjal or Antichrist. Second, if we take either of the dates proposed by at-Tabari or Abu Dawood all thirty Dajjals needed to have appeared before either 1070-1132 or 1453 AD. Finally, according to the New Testament Muhammad is actually one of these Antichrists: “Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour… Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist-he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” 1 John 2:18, 22-23 162

Since Muhammad denied that Jesus is God’s Son he is therefore one of the many antichrists that was to come according to the apostle John. Therefore, no matter from what angle one looks at it we are still left with irreconcilable contradictions and false predictions. CONCLUSION We have examined both the Quran and the Islamic traditions and found that both sources contain false predictions. In light of the prophetic criteria given by God in Deuteronomy 18 we discover that Muhammad fails this test. This means that Muhammad is neither a true prophet nor is he the prophet like Moses. In the service of our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, our risen Lord forever. Amen. Come Lord Jesus. We love always. Abrahamic Faith

Another version reads: We sent no Messenger, but to be obeyed by Allah's Leave. If they (hypocrites), when they had been unjust to themselves, HAD COME TO YOU (Muhammad SAW) and begged Allah's Forgiveness, and the Messenger had begged forgiveness for them: indeed, they would have found Allah All-Forgiving (One Who accepts repentance), Most Merciful. Hilali-Khan This makes approaching Muhammad synonymous with invoking Allah. As renowned Sunni exegete Ibn Kathir put it: <If they (hypocrites), when they had been unjust to themselves,> directs the sinners and evildoers, when they commit errors and mistakes, to come to the Messenger, so that they ask Allah for forgiveness IN HIS PRESENCE and ask him to supplicate to Allah to forgive them. If they do this, Allah will forgive them and award them His mercy and pardon. This is why Allah said… <they would have found Allah All-Forgiving (One Who forgives and accepts repentance), Most Merciful>. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir; source; capital and underline emphasis ours) According to Ibn Kathir, Q. 4:64 is clearly making it incumbent on the Muslims to come to Muhammad in order to obtain forgiveness, with the implication being that if they did not come to him they would not be forgiven. With this in mind is it any wonder that Pickthall rendered the Arabic to mean that the people had to come and ask Muhammad to forgive their sins since this is basically what they had to do? To put it another way, why didn’t these Muslims simply confess their sins to Allah without having to go to Muhammad if he wasn’t somehow involved in assuring that their sins would be forgiven? The answer? Because coming before Muhammad is going to or standing before Allah since Allah decided to make his forgiveness dependent on Islam’s prophet.

Muhammad as the Mediator of Redemption and Forgiveness
How Islamic Religion Turned Muslims into Idolaters and Necromancers Sam Shamoun According to the Quran forgiveness of sins is based on Muhammad’s mediation: We sent no messenger save that he should be obeyed by Allah's leave. And if, when they had wronged themselves, THEY HAD BUT COME UNTO THEE and asked forgiveness of Allah, AND ASKED FORGIVENESS OF THE MESSENGER, they would have found Allah Forgiving, Merciful. S. 4:64 Pickthall 163

164

What this basically means is that Muhammad is Allah’s partner since he shares in his deity’s prerogatives such as to forgive sins, which is explicitly and clearly a divine function: And those who, having done something to be ashamed of, or wronged their own souls, earnestly bring God to mind, and ask for forgiveness for their sins, - and who can forgive sins except God? - and are never obstinate in persisting knowingly in (the wrong) they have done. S. 3:135 The inspired Word of God, the Holy Bible, concurs with the Quran that forgiveness of sins is an exclusively divine function: "I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more." Isaiah 43:25 "Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea." Micah 7:18-19 It is rather interesting that this same Sura later says that Muhammad also had the ability to purify people: Truly God was gracious to the believers when He raised up among them a Messenger from themselves, to recite to them His signs and to purify them, and to teach them the Book and the Wisdom, though before they were in manifest error. S. 3:164 A point repeated elsewhere: It is He who has raised up from among the common people a Messenger from among them, to recite His signs to them and to purify them, and to teach them the Book and the Wisdom, though before that they were in manifest error, S. 62:2 Which is another divine function! 165

O believers, follow not the steps of Satan; for whosoever follows the steps of Satan, assuredly he bids to indecency and dishonour. But for God's bounty to you and His mercy not one of you would have been pure ever; but God purifies whom He will; and God is All-hearing, Allknowing. S. 24:21 It is abundantly clear from all of this that forgiveness of sins is clearly dependent upon coming to Muhammad. But this raises some questions. How does a Muslim obey this directive now that Muhammad is dead? Does this mean that Muslims have no hope for forgiveness since they cannot approach Muhammad seeing that he is no longer alive? The following Muslim scholar has the answer: Although, this verse (64) was revealed in the background of a particular incident relating to hypocrites, yet its words yield a general ruling which stipulates that anyone who presents himself before the Holy Prophet and he prays for his forgiveness, he will be definitely forgiven. And ‘the presence before the Prophet,’ as it would have been during his blessed life in this mortal world, HOLDS THE SAME EFFECT EVEN TODAY as the visit to the sacred precincts of the Mosque of the Prophet and the act of ‘presenting’ oneself BEFORE THE BLESSED RESIDENT OF THE SANCTIFIED MAUSOLEUM FALLS WITHIN THE JURISDICATION OF THIS RULE. Sayyidna ‘Ali has said: "Three days after we all had finished with the burial of the Messenger of Allah a villager came and fell down close to the blessed grave. Weeping bitterly, he referred to this particular verse of the Qur’an AND ADDRESSING HIMSELF TO THE BLESSED GRAVE, he said: ‘Allah Almighty has promised in this verse that a sinner, if he presented himself before the Rasul of Allah, and the Rasul elects to pray for his forgiveness, then he will forgive him. Therefore, here I am, presenting myself BEFORE YOU so that I may be blessed with YOUR prayer for my forgiveness.’ People personally present there at that time say that, in response to the pleading of the villager, a voice coming out from the sanctified mausoleum rang around with the words… You have been forgiven." (al-Bahr al-Muhit) (Mufti Shafi 166

Usmani, Maariful Quran, Volume 2, p. 486; source; capital emphasis ours) There is more to the story. According to one specific Islamic narration a Muslim actually visited Muhammad’s grave and asked him to pray for his forgiveness: "As I was sitting by the grave of the Prophet, a Bedouin Arab came and said: ‘Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah! I have heard Allah saying: "If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah’s forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful" (4:64), so I HAVE COME TO YOU asking forgiveness for my sin, seeking your intercession with my Lord.’ Then he began to recite poetry: O best of those whose bones are buried in the deep earth, And from whose fragrance the depth and the height have become sweet, May I be the ransom for a grave which thou inhabit, And in which are found purity, bounty and munificence! Then he left, and I slept and saw the prophet in my sleep. He said to me: ‘O `Utbi, run after the Bedouin and give him glad tidings that Allah has forgiven him.’" (Imam an-Nawawi, Kitab al-Adhkar [al-Maktaba alTijariyya, Mecca, 1412/1992], Chapter: Regarding visiting the grave of the messenger of Allah and its remembrances, pp. 253-254; source; see also al-Idah fi manasik al-hajj (Dar ibn Khaldun, Damascus, n.d.) p. 144, and an-Nawawi's Majmu`, volume 8, pp. 212f.; bold, capital and italic emphasis ours) And here is what Ibn Kathir stated concerning this narration, providing some additional information: "Allah is instructing the sinners when they commit a sin to come to the messenger of Allah and ask forgiveness in his presence and then they ask him to request forgiveness. And certainly if they did that, Allah would relent towards them and have mercy on them, and for that reason He said "they would have found Allah Oft-Returning, Merciful." 167

And Shaykh Mansur as-Sabbagh recollected in his book "The Perfections" (ash-Shama’il) the well-known (famous) transmission from ‘Utbi: "I was sitting by the grave of the Prophet and a Bedouin came and said: ‘Peace be upon you O Prophet of Allah. I heard Allah say: "And if they had come to thee when they had wronged their souls, and asked forgiveness of Allah, and if the Messenger had also asked forgiveness for them, they would have surely found Allah Oft-Returning with compassion and Merciful." And I came to you asking forgiveness for my sin, taking you as intercessor to my Lord.’ "Then he started reciting verses: ‘O You best of those whose bones are buried in al-Qa’a from the sweet scents of those bones the whole area of al-Qa’a and Akamu became perfumed. My self I sacrifice to the grave that you live in it is purity and in it is incredible generosity.’ "Then the Bedouin departed and sleep overcame me. And I saw the Prophet in my sleep and he said: ‘Ya ‘Utbi, follow the Bedouin and give him the glad tidings that Allah has forgiven him.’" (Ibn Kathir, Tafsir of Qur’an al-Adheem [Dar al-Fikr, Beirut, 1992/1412], volume I, p. 643; source) A similar report is sourced through Shafi’i Shaykh Sufyan ibn `Uyayna and through Abu Sa`id al-Sam`ani on the authority of Ali. The above narrative is further referenced by Ibn Qudamah Al-Maqdisi in his AlMughni, under the chapter, "Chapter on Visiting the Grave of the Prophet," volume 3, pp. 556-557 (source). Here is a list of some of the Muslim scholars who narrated this hadith:

  

Its grading is mashhur (established and well-known) and was related by an-Nawawi (Adhkar, Mecca ed., pp. 253-254; alMajmu`, 8:217; al-Idah fi manasik al-hajj, chapters on visiting the grave of the prophet). Ibn Kathir (Tafsir, 2:306; al-Bidayat wa al-nihayat, 1:180). al-Bayhaqi (Shu`ab al-iman, #4178). al-Qurtubi (Tafsir of 4:64 in Ahkam al-Qur'an, 5:265). 168

           

Ibn al-Jawzi (Muthir al-gharam al-sakin ila ashraf al-amakin, p. 490). Ibn `Asakir (Mukhtasar tarikh Dimashq, 2:408). Taqi al-Din al-Subki (Shifa' al-siqam, p. 52). Ibn `Aqil (al-Tadhkira). Ibn Qudama (al-Mughni, 3:556-557). Ibn Jama`a (Hidayat al-salik, 3:1384). Samhudi (Khulasat al-Wafa, p. 121 – from an-Nawawi). Dahlan (Khulasat al-Kalam, 2:247). Abu al-Faraj ibn Qudama (al-Sharh al-kabir, 3:495). al-Bahuti al-Hanbali (Kashshaf al-qina`, 5:30). Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (al-Jawhar al-munazzam [commentary on Nawawi's Idah]). Ibn al-Najjar (Akhbar al-Madina, p. 147)

"When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn." Isaiah 8:19-20 In fact, this was such a heinous sin that God in the Old Covenant prescribed the death penalty for anyone caught engaging in this practice: "I will set my face against the person who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute himself by following them, and I will cut him off from his people… A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:6, 27 A Muslim may retort that s/he doesn’t accept the Holy Bible as authoritative, and therefore rejects the validity of the above passages, a rather problematic position to take in light of the clear testimony of the Quran concerning the authenticity and authority of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures (*). Be that as it may, the difficulty with taking this stance is that it isn’t simply the Holy Bible that condemns contacting the dead but the Muslim scripture does so as well and expressly says that they cannot hear those who call upon them: Surely you do not make the dead to hear, and you do not make the deaf to hear the call when they go back retreating. S. 27:80 Shakir For verily thou (Muhammad) canst not make the dead to hear, nor canst thou make the deaf to hear the call when they have turned to flee. S. 30:52 Pickthall Neither are the living and the dead alike. Surely Allah makes whom He pleases hear, and you cannot make those hear WHO ARE IN THE GRAVES. S. 35:22 Shakir Certain Islamic narratives further confirm that the dead cannot hear the living: 170

The above information was adapted from these pages: 1, 2, 3 It is obvious that Muslims are faced with some huge problems! In fact, the assertion that people can go to the grave of Muhammad and receive forgiveness of sins poses major difficulties when considered in light of God’s true Word, the Holy Bible. For example, the Holy Scriptures emphatically censure the practice of contacting the dead: "Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:31 "When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the LORD your God. The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so." Deuteronomy 18:9-14 169

Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet said, "They now realize that what I used to tell them was the truth." And Allah said, ‘Verily! You cannot make the dead to hear (i.e. benefit them, and similarly the disbelievers) nor can you make the deaf hear.’ (27.80). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 453) Narrated Hisham's father: It was mentioned before 'Aisha that Ibn 'Umar attributed the following statement to the Prophet "The dead person is punished in the grave because of the crying and lamentation Of his family." On that, 'Aisha said, "But Allah's Apostle said, 'The dead person is punished for his crimes and sins while his family cry over him then." She added, "And this is similar to the statement of Allah's Apostle when he stood by the (edge of the) well which contained the corpses of the pagans killed at Badr, 'They hear what I say.' She added, "But he said now they know very well what I used to tell them was the truth." 'Aisha then recited: 'You cannot make the dead hear.' (30.52) and 'You cannot make those who are in their Graves, hear you.' (35.22) that is, when they had taken their places in the (Hell) Fire. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 316) Hisham narrated on the authority of his father that it was mentioned to 'A'isha that Ibn 'Umar had narrated as marfu' hadith from the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) that the dead would be punished in the grave because of the lamentation of his family for him. Upon this she said: He (Ibn 'Umar) missed (the point). The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had (in fact) said: He (the dead) is punished for his faults or for his sins, and the members of his family are wailing for him now. (This misunderstanding of Ibn 'Umar is similar to his saying:) The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) stood by the well in which were lying the dead bodies of those polytheists who had been killed on the Day of Badr, and he said to them what he had to say, i. e.: They hear what I say. But he (Ibn 'Umar) misunderstood. The Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) had only said: They (the dead) understand THAT WHAT I USED TO SAY TO THEM was truth. She then recited: "Certainly, thou canst not make the dead hear the call" (xxvii. 80), nor can you make those hear who are in the graves, nor can you inform them when they have taken their seats in Hell. (Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 2027) 171

The second difficulty with coming to Muhammad when he was alive and contacting him now that he is dead in order to receive forgiveness of sins is that this goes against the rather explicit teachings of the Quran that he was nothing but a mere, fallible human being: Say: I am only a mortal like you. My Lord inspireth in me that your God is only One God. And whoever hopeth for the meeting with his Lord, let him do righteous work, and make none sharer of the worship due unto his Lord. S. 18:110 Say (unto them O Muhammad): I am only a mortal like you. It is inspired in me that your God is One God, therefore take the straight path unto Him and seek forgiveness of Him. And woe unto the idolaters, S. 41:6 A mere imperfect human cannot perform functions that are exclusively divine. Thus, not only are the Islamic sources encouraging Muslims to violate the teachings of both the Holy Bible and the Quran which expressly prohibit communicating with the dead they have also turned Muhammad into a demigod. The final problem with this is that Muhammad himself was a sinner: Then have patience (O Muhammad). Lo! the promise of Allah is true. And ask forgiveness of thy sin, and hymn the praise of thy Lord at fall of night and in the early hours. S. 40:55 So know (O Muhammad) that there is no God save Allah, and ask forgiveness for thy sin and for believing men and believing women. Allah knoweth (both) your place of turmoil and your place of rest. S. 47:19 Lo! We have given thee (O Muhammad) a signal victory, That Allah may forgive thee of thy sin that which is past and that which is to come, and may perfect His favour unto thee, and may guide thee on a right path, S. 48:1-2 172

Who was uncertain about his own destiny and was filled of doubts: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers. And be not thou of those who deny the revelations of Allah, for then wert thou of the losers. S. 10:94-95 Say: "I am no bringer of new-fangled doctrine among the messengers, NOR DO I KNOW WHAT WILL BE DONE WITH ME OR WITH YOU. I follow but that which is revealed to me by inspiration; I am but a Warner open and clear." S. 46:9 Who couldn’t guarantee the salvation of his followers: Narrated 'Um al-'Ala: An Ansari woman who gave the pledge of allegiance to the Prophet that the Ansar drew lots concerning the dwelling of the Emigrants. 'Uthman bin Maz'un was decided to dwell with them (i.e. Um al-'Ala's family), 'Uthman fell ill and I nursed him till he died, and we covered him with his clothes. Then the Prophet came to us and I (addressing the dead body) said, "O Abu As-Sa'ib, may Allah's Mercy be on you! I bear witness that Allah has honored you." On that the Prophet said, "How do you know that Allah has honored him?" I replied, "I do not know. May my father and my mother be sacrificed for you, O Allah's Apostle! But who else is worthy of it (if not 'Uthman)?" He said, "As to him, by Allah, death has overtaken him, and I hope the best for him. By Allah, though I am the Apostle of Allah, yet I do not know what Allah will do to me," By Allah, I will never assert the piety of anyone after him. That made me sad, and when I slept I saw in a dream a flowing stream for 'Uthman bin Maz'un. I went to Allah's Apostle and told him of it. He remarked, "That symbolizes his (good) deeds." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 266) Narrated Abu Huraira: When Allah revealed the Verse: "Warn your nearest kinsmen," Allah's Apostle got up and said, "O people of Quraish (or said similar words)! Buy (i.e. save) yourselves (from the Hellfire) as I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment; O Bani Abd Manaf! I cannot save you from 173

Allah's Punishment, O Safiya, the Aunt of Allah's Apostle! I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment; O Fatima bint Muhammad! Ask me anything from my wealth, but I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 51, Number 16) How ironic… even though the above narrative emphatically says that Muhammad couldn’t save anyone the text of Q. 4:64 asserts that he was/is capable of mediating the forgiveness of sins! Even Muhammad’s companions realized that their prophet couldn’t assure them of eternal life as the following examples amply testify: Muhammad b. Ja'far b. al-Zubayr from 'Urwa b. al-Zubayr said: The apostle sent his expedition to Mu'ta in Jumada'l-Ula in the year 8 and put Zayd b. Haritha in command; if Zayd were slain then Ja'far b. Abu 'Talib was to take command, and if he were killed then 'Abdullah b. Rawaha. The expedition got ready to the number of 3,000, and prepared to start. When they were about to set off they bade farewell to the apostle's chiefs and saluted them. When 'Abdullah b. Rawaha took his leave of the chiefs he wept and when they asked him the reason he said, 'By God, it is not that I love the world and am inordinately attached to you, but I heard the apostle read a verse from God's book in which he mentioned hell: "There is not one of you but shall come to it; that is a determined decree of your Lord," and I do not know how I can return after I have been to it.' The Muslims said, 'God be with you and protect you and bring you back to us safe and sound.' ... (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah (The Life of Muhammad), translated by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, tenth impression 1995], p. 532; bold and italic emphasis ours) And: 455w. Abu Nazrah reported about a man called Abu Abdullah from the companions of the Holy Prophet. His companions went to him to visit him in illness and he was weeping. They asked him: What makes you weep? Has not the Apostle of Allah said to you: Clip your moustache and stay firm on it till you meet me? He said: Yes, but I heard the Messenger of Allah say: The Almighty and Glorious Allah caught one handful with His right hand and another with another hand and said: This 174

is for this, and this is for this, and I don’t care. I don’t know in which of the two handfuls I am. - Ahmad 1563. Here hold means party. Allah took one party of men in His right hand and another in His left and said that those who were in His right hand would go to Paradise and those in His left hand would go to Hell. The narrator feared in which of the hands of Allah he fell as that would decide his fate. (Maulana Fazlul Karim, Al-Hadis – An English Translation & Commentary With Arabic Text of Mishkat-Ul-Masabih [Islamic Education Center, Publishers and Booksellers, Improved Edition 1988], Book III, Chapter XXXII. Section 1. Pre-destination, p. 114; italic and underline emphasis ours) This narrative can also be found in the translation of Mishkat Al Masabih by Dr. James Robson, Volume I, Book I. – Faith, Chapter IV. Belief in the Divine Decree, p. 32, published by Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters, Lahore-Pakistan, reprinted 1990. And who was often rebuked and threatened by his deity: Allah forgive thee (O Muhammad)! Wherefore didst thou grant them leave ere those who told the truth were manifest to thee and thou didst know the liars? S. 9:43 And when Our clear revelations are recited unto them, they who look not for the meeting with Us say: Bring a Lecture other than this, or change it. Say (O Muhammad): It is not for me to change it of my accord. I only follow that which is inspired in me. Lo! if I disobey my Lord I fear the retribution of an awful Day. S. 10:15 Indeed they were near to seducing thee from that We revealed to thee, that thou mightest forge against Us another, and then they would surely have taken thee as a friend; and had We not confirmed thee, surely thou wert near to inclining unto them a very little; then would We have let thee taste the double of life and the double of death; and then thou wouldst have found none to help thee against Us. S. 17:73-75

And if he had invented false sayings concerning Us, We assuredly had taken him by the right hand And then severed his life-artery, And not one of you could have held Us off from him. S. 69:44-47 Pickthall How, then, could he purify anyone? How can he be a means of forgiveness when he himself was less than certain concerning his own personal destiny? Fortunately, there is One who can guarantee the forgiveness of sins: "When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.’ Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, ‘Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, ‘Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven," or to say, "Get up, take your mat and walk"? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . .’ He said to the paralytic, ‘I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.’ He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, ‘We have never seen anything like this!’" Mark 2:5-12 "Then Jesus said to her, ‘Your sins are forgiven.’ The other guests began to say among themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?’ Jesus said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace.’" Luke 7:4850 "He said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.’ Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, ‘This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.’" Luke 24:44-47 "to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the

175

176

forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace." Ephesians 1:6-7 One who completely purifies those who follow him: "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." 1 John 1:7 One who himself was absolutely pure and sinless: "Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an evil spirit cried out, ‘What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!’" Mark 1:23-24 "Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.’" John 6:68-69 "He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he who works for the honor of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him." John 7:18 "The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him… Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me?" John 8:29, 46 "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are - yet was without sin." Hebrews 4:15 "Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest meets our need - one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. Hebrews 7:25-27 177

"For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect." 1 Peter 1:18-19 "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed." 1 Peter 2:22-24 "Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure… But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin… Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous." 1 John 3:3, 5, 7 One who could give his followers the assurance of salvation and eternal life: "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:39-40 "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." John 10:27-30 "Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?’ ‘Yes, Lord,’ she told him, ‘I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.’" John 11:25-27

178

"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going.’ Thomas said to him, ‘Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?’ Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’" John 14:1-6 "After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: ‘Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him… While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled… Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world." John 17:1-2, 12, 24 That one is the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s blessed and beloved Son: "At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: ‘You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.’" Mark 1:9-11 "After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus. Peter said to Jesus, ‘Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.’ (He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.) Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud: ‘This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!’" Mark 9:2-7 179

"for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath." 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father! Amen.

Further Reading http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/only_judge.html http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/serve_besides_allah1.htm http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/serve_besides_allah2.htm http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/islam_paganism.htm http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_allah_judge.htm http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_mhd_superior.htm http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_tawhid.htm http://answer-islam.org/AllahMoObedience.html http://answer-islam.org/MoDeification1.html http://answer-islam.org/MoDeification2.html http://answer-islam.org/MoDeification3.html http://answer-islam.org/MoDeification4.html http://www.sunnah.org/msaec/articles/arnaut.htm http://www.sunnah.org/ibadaat/ziyara.htm http://writers.oneummah.net/content/view/144/2/ http://www.rifaieonline.com/advice.htm http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/fajr.html http://hadithproofsfortawassul.blogspot.com/2005/11/hadith-2-morereplies-to-al-albanis.html http://www.amislam.com/fajr.htm http://seekingilm.com/archives/189 http://www.al-islam.org/mot/tawassul.htm http://www.amislam.com/tawassul.htm

Muhammad and the Seal of Prophethood
A Sign or A Physical Deformity? 180

Sam Shamoun The Quran says that Muhammad is the seal of the prophets: Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets: and God has full knowledge of all things. S. 33:40 Y. Ali Now at first glance this text seems to imply nothing more than that Muhammad was the culmination of prophethood, that he was the last in a series of spokespersons that Allah had sent. Reading the hadith literature, however, it is obvious that according to Muslim sources this seal was more than a statement regarding Muhammad’s status in relation to the previous prophets. All bold and underline emphasis will be ours. Sahih al-Bukhari

Chapter 28: THE FACT PERTAINING TO THE SEAL OF HIS PROPHETHOOD, ITS CHARACTERISTIC FEATURE AND ITS LOCATION ON HIS BODY Jabir b. Samura reported: I saw the seal on his back as if it were a pigeon's egg. (Book 030, Number 5790) Abdullah b. Sarjis reported: I saw Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and ate with him bread and meat, or he said Tharid (bread soaked in soup). I said to him: Did Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) seek forgiveness for you? He said: Yes, and for you, and he then recited this verse: "Ask forgiveness for thy sin and for the believing men and believing women" (xlvii. 19). I then went after him and saw the Seal of Prophethood between his shoulders on the left side of his shoulder having spots on it like moles. (Book 030, Number 5793) Sunan of Abu Dawud

Narrated As Saib bin Yazid My aunt took me to the Prophet and said, "O Allah’s Apostle! This son of my sister has got a disease in his legs." So he passed his hands on my head and prayed for Allah's blessings for me; then he performed ablution and I drank from the remaining water. I stood behind him and saw the seal of Prophethood between his shoulders, and it was like the "Ziral-Hijla" (means the button of a small tent, but some said 'egg of a partridge.' etc.) (Volume 1, Book 4, Number 189) Narrated As Saib My aunt took me to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's Apostle! My nephew is ill." The Prophet touched my head with his hand and invoked Allah to bless me. He then performed ablution and I drank of the remaining water of his ablution and then stood behind his back and saw "Khatam An-Nubuwwa" (The Seal of Prophethood) between his shoulders like a button of a tent. (Volume 7, Book 70, Number 574) Sahih Muslim

Narrated Qurrah ibn Iyas al-Muzani: I came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) with a company of Muzaynah and we swore allegiance to him. The buttons of his shirt were open. I swore allegiance to him and I put my hand inside the collar of his shirt and felt the seal… (Book 32, Number 4071) Jami (Sunan) of at-Tirmidhi Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib When Ali described the Prophet (peace be upon him) he said: He was neither very tall nor excessively short, but was a man of medium size. He had neither very curly nor flowing hair but a mixture of both. He was not obese, he did not have a very round face, but it was so to some extent. He was reddish-white, he had wide black eyes and long eyelashes. He had protruding joints and shoulder-blades, he was not hairy but had some hair on his chest, and the palms of his hands and his feet were calloused. When he walked he raised his feet as though he were walking on a slope; when he turned round he turned completely. Between his shoulders was the seal of prophecy and he was the seal of the prophets. He had a finer chest than anyone else, was truer in utterance than anyone else, had the gentlest nature and the noblest tribe. Those who saw him suddenly 182

181

stood in awe of him and those who shared his acquaintanceship loved him. Those who described him said they had never seen anyone like him before or since. Tirmidhi transmitted it. (Hadith 1524; ALIM CD-Rom Version) Narrated AbuMusa AbuTalib went to ash-Sham (Syria) accompanied by the Prophet (may Allah bless him) along with some shaykhs of Quraysh. When they came near where the monk was they alighted and loosened their baggage, and the monk came out to them although when they had passed that way previously he had not done so. While they were loosening their baggage the monk began to go about among them till he came and, taking Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) by the hand, said, "This is the chief of the universe; this is the messenger of the Lord of the universe whom Allah is commissioning as a mercy to the universe." Some shaykhs of Quraysh asked him how he knew, and he replied, "When you came over the hill not a tree or a stone failed to bow in prostration, and they prostrate themselves only before a prophet. I recognize him by the seal of prophecy, like an apple, below the end of his shoulder-blade." He then went and prepared food for them, and when he brought it to them the Prophet (peace be upon him) was looking after the camels, so he told them to send for him. He came with a cloud above him shading him and when he approached the people he found they had gone before him into the shade of a tree. Then when he sat down the shade of the tree inclined over him, and the monk said, "Look how the shade of the tree has inclined over him. I adjure you by Allah to tell me which of you is his guardian." On being told that it was AbuTalib he kept adjuring him to send him back until he did so. AbuBakr sent Bilal along with him and the monk gave him provisions of a bread and olive-oil. (Hadith 1534; ALIM CD-Rom Version) Tarikh (History of) al-Tabari … When Bahira saw this, he descended from his cell and sent the caravan a message inviting them all… Finally he looked at Muhammad’s back, and saw the seal of prophethood between his shoulders… He replied, … "I also recognize him by the seal of prophethood which is below the cartilage of his shoulders and which is like an apple." … (The History of al-Tabari: Muhammad at Mecca, translated and 183

annotated by W. Montgomery Watt and M. V. McDonald [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1988], Volume VI, pp. 45, 46) Al-Harith – Muhammad b. Sa‘d – Muhammad b. ‘Umar – ‘Ali b. ‘Isa alHakami – his father – ‘Amir b. Rabi‘ah: I heard Zayd b. ‘Amr b. Nufayl saying … "He is a man who is neither short nor tall, whose hair is neither abundant nor sparse, whose eyes are always red, and who has the seal of prophethood between his shoulders. His name is Ahmad…" (p. 64) Ahmad b. Sinan al-Qattan al-Wasiti – Abu Mu‘awiyah – A‘mash – Abu Zibyan – Ibn ‘Abbas: A man of the Banu ‘Amir came to the Prophet and said, "Show me the seal which is between your shoulders, and if you lie under any enchantment I will cure you, for I am the best enchanter of the Arabs." "Do you wish me to show you a sign?" asked the Prophet. "Yes," said the man, "summon that cluster of dates." So the Prophet looked at a cluster of dates hanging from a date palm and summoned it, and began to snap his finger until it stood before him. Then the man said, "Tell it to go back," and it went back. The Amiri said, "O Banu Amir, I have never seen a greater magician than I have seen today." (Pp. 66-67) "Then one said to the other, ‘Open his breast.’ He opened my heart, and took out from it the pollution of Satan and the clot of blood, and threw them away. Then one said to the other, ‘Wash his breast as you would a receptacle– or, wash his heart as you would a covering.’ Then he summoned the sakinah, which looked like the face of a white cat, and it was placed in my heart. Then one of them said to the other, ‘Sew up his breast.’ So they sewed up my breast and placed the seal between my shoulders…" (p. 75) It turns out that Muhammad’s seal of prophethood was a physical deformity, a mole with spots, which conflicting reports say was shaped either like an apple, the button of a small tent or like the egg of a partridge! It is simply beyond us how this is supposed to be one of the proofs that convince people of Muhammad’s prophethood!

SATANIC VERSES 184

the infamous verses in the Qur'an where Muhammad was said to have been inspired by Satan concerning three of the idols worshipped by the Arabs, and was later said to be abrogated. Muhammad was said to have said one day to the Quraish, "Do you see Al Lat and Al Uzza, and Manat the third idol besides? They are the Sublime Birds, and their intercession is desirable indeed!" The famous traditionalist Tabari wrote, (Annals, vol I,3, p. 1192), "When the Quraish heard these verses, they were full with a great joy, and they prostrate themselves, Muslims and non Muslims." [I translate from French, please excuse my English] The two last sentences were abrogated after a while, because they were in contradiction with the unity of God, and were replaced by: "What? Shall you have male progeny and God female? This were indeed an unfair partition." (Maxime Rodinson, Qur'an, LIII, The Star, 19-20) Further reading:
     

these associates are even mentioned in the Qur'an, among them three female deities: al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat. Each had a shrine in separate places not far from Mecca in Arabia, where Muhammad was born and began his mission. They were even considered to be daughters of God! The Qur'an, as it now reads, obviously rejects these deities. But—and here comes the issue—did the Qur'an and Muhammad always reject them? While Muhammad was in Mecca, his followers were few, his movement grew painfully slowly and he, too, felt the pain of estrangement from his tribe. According to early and treasured biographical and historical accounts of Muhammad, authored by competent Muslim scholars (such as writings of at-Tabari and Ibn Sa’d), Muhammad longed for better relations and reconciliation with his community. Thereafter, the accounts continue, God revealed Surah 53 to Muhammad up to and including vss. 19, 20. These two verses read:
Have ye thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza And Manat, the third, the other? (53:19,20)

The Satanic Verses (the historical background, short) Muhammad and the Satanic Verses The historical data regarding the Satanic Verses (detailed, comprehensive) The Satanic Verses and their implications for the Miracle of the Qur'an Deuteronomy Deductions: Two Short, Sound, Simple Proofs that Muhammad Was a False Prophet SALMAN RUSHDIE and his "The Satanic Verses"

Then, originally, the verses (known today as the satanic verses) followed:
These are the exalted cranes (intermediaries) Whose intercession is to be hoped for.

See also the articles listed under Muhammad and Satan.

The Satanic Verses
Few books have had the publicity that surrounds The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. This brief article seeks to provide some background material for the book's title and for reasons why even the title might disturb Muslims. Islam strongly opposes idolatry, polytheism, associating anything or anyone with God. In fact, Islam's creed in Arabic begins with a negative: Not is there a god except God. It contrasts sharply with the contention of Muhammad's Arab contemporaries that God had associates. Some of 185

The cranes whose intercession was recognized were, of course, the three deities. The same accounts tell us that after this revelation was completed, Muhammad, his followers and the pagan Arabs all prostrated. Tensions eased, reconciliation was at hand, and all were delighted. But Muhammad soon retracted the reconciliation—how soon is not clear. For the account continues that Jibril (Gabriel), the angel of revelation, informed Muhammad that Satan had used Muhammad's desire for reconciliation with the pagan leaders to insert into the revelation of God the verses about the interceding cranes, otherwise called "the satanic verses". The verses which follow, not the satanic verses, serve as the proper sequence to 53:19,20 (above): 186

Are yours the males and His the females? That indeed were an unfair division! (53:21,22)

Such of Our revelations as We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things? (2:106 cf. 16:101)

In other words: When you Arabs have sons (whom you prefer to daughters!), how unfair of you to say that God has daughters! The idea of a plurality of gods or goddesses or sons or daughters of God is ridiculous. God alone is God. The three goddesses are false. Two other passages from the Qur'an are considered to have reference to the compromise between Muhammad and the Arabs, and Muhammad's eventual rejection of it. The first reads:
And they indeed strove to beguile thee (Muhammad) away from that wherewith We (God) have inspired thee, that thou shouldst invent other than it against Us; and then would they have accepted thee as a friend. And if We had not made thee wholly firm thou mightest almost have inclined unto them a little. Then had We made thee taste a double (punishment) of living and a double (punishment) of dying, then hadst thou found no helper against Us. (17:73-75)

In fact, Islamic theologians of earlier ages carefully sorted out which Quranic passages were abrogating and which were abrogated. Today, many Muslims deny that God could abrogate or change His Word in any way or form. Ironically, they sometimes interpret Qur'an 2:106 (above) to mean that the Qur'an has abrogated the previous Scriptures of Moses and Jesus—despite the fact that the Qur'an clearly attests that these Scriptures also are the Word of God and therefore, presumably, unchangeable! How much more odious, then, to suggest that at least for a period of time satanic verses actually formed a part of the Qur'an! For many Muslims it is simply inconceivable that Muhammad, even under the severest pressures, would (perhaps even could) compromise with his Meccan enemies, and still more that Satan somehow could "whisper" his thoughts into the substance of God's holy Word, the Qur'an. That is why even the idea of satanic verses in the Qur'an shocks some Muslims. But, to repeat, Rushdie did not originate the satanic verses. Nor did Jews, Christians or other non-Muslims. Our information about the satanic verses and the circumstances surrounding their revelation stems from the reputable Muslim accounts of at-Tabari and Ibn Sa’d. Muslims today who simply dismiss the account of these writers as fabricated and unhistorical must at least answer the question why such reputable persons would report it. The question is not new. But, it seems, a serious Muslim response is hard to find.

The second passage is intended to comfort Muhammad:
Never sent We a messenger or a prophet before thee but when He recited (the message) Satan proposed (opposition) in respect of that which he recited thereof. But Allah abolisheth that which Satan proposeth. Then Allah establisheth His revelations. Allah is Knower, Wise; That He may make that which the devil proposeth a temptation for those in whose hearts is a disease, and those whose hearts are hardened –Lo! the evil-doers are in open schism. (22:52,53)

On the basis of these verses especially, the contemporary designation "The Satanic Verses" arises. It is not our intention here to defend Rushdie and his book. On the other hand, it is clear that Rushdie did not invent the satanic verses. Moreover, it would seem that Muslims of earlier generations were content to accept that satanic verses could somehow be insinuated into a prophet's message from God, even into the Qur'an, that God could abolish the satanic verses, and that, as the following passage suggests, God could replace even a verse of His own revelation with a similar or better verse of His own: 187

(This article, originally written in 1989 and here slightly edited, draws freely from 1. A Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, Oxford, a translation of Ibn Hisham's early Arabic biography of Muhammad; 2. W. M. Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, Oxford, 1953, pp. 101-109. Reference to the topic is also found in a recently published biography of Muhammad by the Iranian Ali Dashti, Twenty-Three Years, translated from Persian by F. R. C. Bagley. Likewise, as to the event's historicity, Shabbir Akhtar's statement is of interest: "... This potentially damaging event, recorded in detail by a scrupulously honest Muslim tradition, had demonstrated the possibility that the Devil could interfere with the Prophet's reception of the revealed text ... In quoting the relevant passages

188

from surah 53 (vv. 19-23) of the Koran—which retain universal currency and complete textual purity—Rushdie perversely substitutes the original continuation of the passage containing the Satanic contribution (p. 114). Elsewhere the Qur'an clearly declares that God annuls the diabolical suggestions made to the Prophet" ("An Open Letter concerning Blasphemy" in Newsletter, Centre for the Study of Islam and ChristianMuslim Relations, Birmingham, Selly Oaks, May 1989; cf. Shabbir Akhtar, A Faith for all Seasons, Bellew Publishing, London, 1990, p. 59). On the historicity of the event, see also Yaqub Zaki, "The Qur’an and Revelation" in Islam in a World of Diverse Faiths, ed. Dan Cohn Sherbok, St. Martin’s Press, New York, p. 43: "... Satanic inspiration is known by the onomatopoeic wiswas (whispering) and there are two verses in the Qur’an whose source was recognized as satanic and were in consequence struck out immediately." It does seem, however, that “immediately” is questionable. Quranic quotations come from M. Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran. I found no reference to the satanic verses in Yusuf Ali's popular Quranic commentary! For a better-researched and more detailed presentation on this topic, please refer to Silas, Muhammad and the Satanic Verses, -- Ernest Hahn, 2000)

difficult for him and his followers, and many of his followers fled to Christian Abyssinia for protection. This was until Muhammad recited Surah 53 (Surat-an-Najm) with the following verses: Have you thought of al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third ... these are the exalted Gharaniq (a high flying bird)[6] whose intercession is approved. (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 165-166) Al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat were some of the local idols worshiped in Mecca. Previously Muhammad had spoken against them in his monotheist preaching but now he recited that their "intercession is approved". When Quraysh heard that, they were delighted and greatly pleased at the way in which he spoke of their gods and they listened to him ... Then the people dispersed and Quraysh went out, delighted at what had been said about their gods, saying, "Muhammad has spoken of our gods in splendid fashion". (Ibn Ishaq, p. 166) The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, repeated them (the verses), and he went on reciting the whole of surah (53) and then fell in prostration, and the people (the Quraysh) fell in prostration with him. (Ibn Sa'd, vol. 1, p. 237) Imam Bukhari too confirms that after Muhammad recited Surah 53 the Quraysh accepted Muhammad and prayed with him: Narrated Ibn Abbas: The Prophet ... prostrated while reciting An-Najm (Sura 53) and with him prostrated the Muslims, the pagans (Quraysh), the jinns, and all human beings. (Bukhari: volume 2, book 19, number 177, Khan) Muhammad's desire had been realised; the Quraysh accepted him. The Muslims who had fled to Abyssinia heard about this and many of them began to return to Mecca. The Quraysh accepted Muhammad because he had, "spoken of (their) gods in splendid fashion" (Ibn Ishaq, p. 166). The Islamic explanation as to why Muhammad accepted the idols is that he desired a way to attract the Quraysh and Satan used this opportunity to put these words on Muhammad's lips: 190

THE SATANIC VERSES AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS
By Samuel Green In 1989 the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie after Rushdie published a book entitled, The Satanic Verses[1]. The title of the book came from an event in Muhammad's life. This event is fully recorded and accepted as authentic by the earliest Islamic scholars: Ibn Ishaq[2], Wakidi, Ibn Sa'd[3], Tabari[4 ] and Bukhari[5] gives a partial account. In this article I will consult these Islamic scholars. Ibn Ishaq is the oldest account of Muhammad's life and his complete account is provided as an appendix. While this event is well documented in Islamic sources, current day Islamic leaders rarely tell Muslims or the general public about it. THE CONTEXT OF THE SATANIC VERSES When Muhammad first began preaching in Mecca his desire was that the people of Mecca, the Quraysh, would accept him as a prophet and the religion he was teaching. They were not receptive to him and made life 189

Now the apostle was anxious for the welfare of his people, wishing to attract them as far as he could. It has been mentioned that he longed for a way to attract them ... (and) Satan, when he (Muhammad) was meditating upon it, and desiring to bring it (sc. reconciliation) to his people, put upon his tongue "these are the exalted Gharaniq[6] whose intercession is approved". (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 165-166) This is what is meant by the phrase, the Satanic Verses; they were words that Muhammad spoke from Satan and his own desire. The Islamic accounts then say that the angel Gabriel rebuked Muhammad for what he had said: Then Gabriel came to the apostle and said , "What have you done, Muhammad? You have read to these people something I did not bring you from God and you have said what He did not say to you." (Ibn Ishaq, p. 166) Then Muhammad confessed: I ascribed to Allah, what He had not said. (Ibn Sa'd, vol. 1, p. 237) I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken. (Al-Tabari, vol. 6, p. 111) Muhammad then announced that Gabriel had now told him to speak against the idols and so what he recited changed. Previously it had been: Have you thought of al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third ... these are the exalted Gharaniq whose intercession is approved. (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 165-166) Now the verse became: Have you considered El-Lat and El-'Uzza and Manat the third, the other? What, have you males, and He females? That were indeed an unjust division. They are naught but names yourselves have named, and your fathers; God has sent down no authority touching them. (Qur'an 53:1923, Arberry) 191

This final form of the verse is what is now in the modern Qur'an. The Quraysh saw that Muhammad had now changed his message: When the annulment of what Satan had put upon the prophet's tongue came from God, Quraysh said: "Muhammad has repented of what he said about the position of your gods with Allah, altered it and brought something else." (Ibn Ishaq, p. 166-167) This explanation, that Satan had placed these words on Muhammad tongue and God had now cancelled it, now had to be justified to both his followers and to the Quraysh. The answer came by referring to another part of the Qur'an: Never have We sent a single prophet or apostle before you with whose wishes Satan did not tamper. But God abrogates the interjections of Satan and confirms His own revelations. (Qur'an 22:52, Dawood) Muhammad's justification was that other prophets had had their wishes tampered with by Satan just as he had done, but God had corrected the whole situation. SOME IMPLICATIONS OF THE SATANIC VERSES Such an event as Muhammad speaking the words of Satan and momentarily accepting idolatry and polytheism demand some comment. I have seven observations. 1. It is a real event that must be considered. It is Ibn Ishaq, Wakidi, Ibn Sa'd, Tabari and Bukhari who recorded and accepted the details of this event. If this story was told by people opposed to Islam then it would be fair to question whether they had invented this story as a way of discrediting Muhammad. But it is inconceivable that Ibn Ishaq, Wakidi, Ibn Sa'd, Tabari and Bukhari would invent a story about Muhammad accepting idols. It is shameful that the modern accounts of Muhammad's life do not include or deal adequately with this event. 192

The Qur'an says that other prophets also sinned this way (Adam 7:189192 and Aaron 4:163, 7:150-153, all prophets 22:52), therefore, it cannot be argued, from the Qur'an, that a prophet would be incapable of doing this because the Qur'an says other prophets did it. 2. It is an example of abrogation. The event of the Satanic Verses shows how a verse in the Qur'an could be modified or deleted at a later date. This is an example of the Qur'anic doctrine of abrogation. The Hadith also records several other occasions where verses of the Qur'an were modified, changed or deleted. Narrated Al-Bara: There was revealed: "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and those who strive and fight in the Cause of Allah." (Qur'an 4:95) The Prophet said, "Call Zaid for me and let him bring the board, the inkpot and the scapula bone (or the scapula bone and the ink pot)." Then he said, "Write: Not equal are those Believers who sit ...", and at that time 'Amr bin Um Maktum, the blind man was sitting behind the Prophet. He said, "O Allah's Apostle! What is your order for me (as regards the above Verse) as I am a blind man?" So, instead of the above verse, the following verse was revealed: "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame etc.) and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah." (Qur'an 4:95) (Bukhari: volume 6, book 61, number 512, Khan, agreed) This account clearly records the revision of 4:95 from its initial to final form. This type of modification is exactly what happened in the account of the Satanic Verses. Here is another example: Narrated Sahl bin Saud: When the following verses were revealed: "Eat and drink until the white thread appears to you, distinct from the black thread" (2:187) and "of dawn" was not revealed, some people who intended to fast, tied black and white threads to their legs and went on eating till they differentiated between the two. Allah then revealed the 193

words, "of dawn", and it became clear that meant night and day. (Bukhari: volume 3, book 31, number 141, Khan) Here is another example. In this case the verse was removed (cancelled) from the Qur'an altogether. Narrated Anas: ... We used to recite, "Inform our people that we have met our Lord, He is pleased with us and He has made us pleased". Later on this Quranic Verse was cancelled. (Bukhari: volume 4, book 52, number 57, Khan) Thus the Satanic Verses are not the only example of where the Qur'an was revised and modified. The modification of the Qur'an was a characteristic of how it developed. In fact, enough verses were modified or deleted that it made people doubt Muhammad was a genuine prophet and the issue had to be dealt with in the Qur'an: And when We exchange a verse in the place of another verse - and God knows very well what he is sending down - they say (to Muhammad), "Thou art a mere forger!" (Qur'an 16:101, Arberry) This modification and deleting of verses also makes me doubt that Muhammad was a genuine prophet. Why would God need to modify, change or delete his word? Surely God would get it right the first time? The fact that Muhammad had to change what he recited shows that he spoke from himself and not God. The whole doctrine of abrogation[7] is just an excuse used by Muhammad to justify the fact that he changed what he recited to suit his situation. It also exposes as false the claims that Muslim leaders make about the Qur'an. They claim the Qur'an came straight from Gabriel to Muhammad, and Muhammad memorized it with his followers and that it was never edited: The text of the Qur'an is entirely reliable. It has been as it is, unaltered, unedited, not tampered with in any way, since the time of its revelation. (M.Fethullah Gulen, Questions this Modern Age Puts to Islam, p. 58)

194

However, as all the evidence we have seen shows, the Qur'an was edited and revised. 3. Satan produced a surah like it. One of the proofs that Islamic leaders give that the Qur'an is miraculous is that no one is able to produce a surah like. This challenge is found in the Qur'an itself: And if you are in doubt concerning that We have sent down on Our servant, then bring a sura like it. (Qur'an 2:23, Arberry) They say the Qur'an is miraculous in beauty and no one can make anything to compare to it. However, the event of the Satanic Verses casts doubt over this claim. For in this event Muhammad spoke words from Satan but everyone thought these verses were part of the Qur'an for the believers were holding that what their prophet brought from their Lord was true, not suspecting a mistake or a vain desire or slip. (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 166) Thus the Islamic sources record that Satan produced verses which sounded exactly like those of the Qur'an. If they did not sound like the Qur'an then surely Muhammad, his followers and the Quraysh would never have accepted them? 4. It is an example of how Muhammad's desires inspired the Qur'an. In all of the Islamic accounts of the Satanic Verses the account begins with Muhammad's desire to see the Quraysh accept him as a prophet: Now the apostle was anxious for the welfare of his people, wishing to attract them as far as he could. ... he meditated on the project and longed for it and it was dear to him. (Ibn Ishaq, p. 165) He was one day sitting alone when he expressed a desire: I wish, Allah had not revealed to me anything distasteful to them. (Ibn Sa'd, p. 237)

The Messenger of God was eager for the welfare of his people and wished to effect a reconciliation with them in whatever ways he could. ... he longed in his soul that something would come to him from God which would reconcile him with his tribe. ... and he debated with himself and fervently desired such and outcome. (Al-Tabari, vol. 6, pp. 107-108) From this starting point the rest of the events of the Satanic Verses occur. However there are other examples of where Muhammad's desire, and that of his companions, led to "revelations" from Allah. Consider these four examples. 1. The Direction of Islamic Prayer Here we see that originally Muhammad prayed facing Jerusalem, but he wished for the direction to be change. Then he received a "revelation" from Allah (Qur'an 2:144) saying to now pray facing Mecca. Narrated Al-Bara: The Prophet prayed facing Bait-ulMaqdis (i.e. Jerusalem) for sixteen or seventeen months but he wished that his Qibla would be the Ka'ba (at Mecca). (So Allah Revealed (2.144) and he offered 'Asr prayers (in his Mosque facing Ka'ba at Mecca) and some people prayed with him. ... (Bukhari: volume 6, book 60, number 13, Khan) 2. When Allah Agreed with Umar Here are three occasions when the desires and sometimes exact words of Umar, Muhammad's companion, became revelations from Allah. Narrated 'Umar (bin Al-Khattab): My Lord agreed with me in three things: 1. I said,"O Allah's Apostle, I wish we took the station of Abraham as our praying place (for some of our prayers). So came the Divine Inspiration: And take you (people) the station of Abraham as a place of prayer (for some of your prayers e.g. two Rakat of Tawaf of Ka'ba)". (Qur'an 2:125)

195

196

2. And as regards the (verse of) the veiling of the women, I said, "O Allah's Apostle! I wish you ordered your wives to cover themselves from the men because good and bad ones talk to them." So the verse of the veiling of the women was revealed. (Qur'an 24:31) 3. Once the wives of the Prophet made a united front against the Prophet and I said to them, "It may be if he (the Prophet) divorced you, (all) that his Lord (Allah) will give him instead of you wives better than you." So this verse (the same as I had said) was revealed." (Qur'an 66:5). (Bukhari: volume 1, book 8, number 395, Khan) 3. Muhammad's Sexual Privileges In Surah 33 we read of Muhammad's sexual privileges. Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave-girls whom Allah had given you as booty; the daughters of your paternal and maternal uncles and of your paternal and maternal aunts who fled with you; and any believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet and whom the Prophet wishes to take in marriage. The privilege is yours alone, being granted to no other believer. (Qur’an 33:50, Dawood) The astonishing thing about this revelation is that Muhammad is given unique sexual privileges that no other Muslim was to have! This is normally the type of behaviour we associate with a cult leader. This privilege is seen in the next verse too, for Muhammad had many wives and there was an agreed roster by which he was shared among them. But in 33:51 Muhammad is given a special revelation so that he does not have to fulfil his sexual duties to his wives according to this roster. It is very interesting to read Aisha's response to this revelation: Narrated Aisha: ... (W)hen Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).' (Quran 33:51) I said (to the Prophet), "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires." (Bukhari: volume 6, book 60, number 311, Khan) 197

4. Muhammad Taking Zaynab as His Wife Muhammad had an adopted son named Zayd. Zayd had a beautiful wife named Zaynab. Now consider the following: One day the Messenger of God went out looking for Zayd. Now there was a covering of haircloth over the doorway, but the wind had lifted the covering so that the doorway was uncovered. Zaynab was in her chamber, undressed, and admiration for her entered the heart of the Prophet. (Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, vol. 8, p. 4) Here we see Muhammad visit Zayd's house and he sees Zayd's wife "undressed". We are told that, "admiration for her entered (his) heart". Muhammad's desires were obvious to Zayd and so Zayd offered to divorce Zaynab so that Muhammad could have her. Initially Muhammad refused as it was considered shameful in the pre-Islamic culture, as it is in many cultures, to marry your daughter-in-law. But then Muhammad received this revelation: Allah has not made for any man two hearts within him; ... nor has He made those whom you assert to be your sons your real sons; these are the words of your mouths; and Allah speaks the truth and He guides to the way. (Qur'an 33:4, Shakir) This revelation is saying that adopted sons are not to be considered real sons. Thus Zayd was not a son of Muhammad. This now justified Muhammad taking Zaynab as his wife. And this is what is "revealed" in verse 37. ... But when Zayd had accomplished his want of her (Zaynab), We gave her to you (Muhammad) as a wife ... (Qur'an 33:37, Shakir) Thus, what began with the desires Muhammad had when he saw Zaynab undressed, ended with revelations from Allah annulling adoption and the giving of Zaynab to Muhammad. This example, and the others I have given in this section, and the event of the Satanic Verses, convince me that Muhammad prophesied from his own desires and this is why I do not accept him as a prophet. 198

5. The Prophet Like Moses I (God) will raise up for them a prophet like you (Moses) from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. (Deuteronomy 18:18, NIV) Islamic leaders often refer to Deuteronomy 18:18 as evidence that Muhammad is predicted in the Bible. They say that Muhammad is the prophet like Moses[11]. But the Islamic leaders who make this claim should also read the verse in context for Deuteronomy 18:20 says: But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death. (Deuteronomy 18:20, NIV) When Deuteronomy 18:20 is considered in the light of the Satanic Verses it is clear that Muhammad is not a prophet like Moses, for Muhammad did the two things that this verse says a true prophet must not do: 1. He presumed to speak something that God had not commanded him to say. Muhammad himself said: I ascribed to Allah, what He had not said. (Ibn Sa'd, vol. 1, p. 237) I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken. (Al-Tabari, vol. 6, p. 111) 2. Muhammad spoke in the name of other gods when he spoke the words of Satan and said that the false gods where true. Therefore Muhammad is not the prophet like Moses, in fact Deuteronomy 18:18-20 says he is a false prophet. 6. Muhammad committed a serious sin. Accepting idolatry and polytheism is sin, and for a short period of time, while he was claiming to be a prophet, Muhammad did this. It is true that Muhammad confessed and repented, this is to his credit, but this event 199

still shows a great failing in his life. This event must not be ignored because it is inconvenient or thought irrelevant, for it shows that Muhammad was like you and me; he had to confess his sins and ask for forgiveness: (Muhammad prayed) O Allah! Forgive my mistakes and my ignorance and my exceeding the limit (boundaries) of righteousness in my deeds; and forgive whatever You know better than I. O Allah! Forgive the wrong I have done jokingly or seriously, and forgive my accidental and intentional errors, all that is present in me. (Bukhari: volume 8, book 75, number 408, Khan) So know (O Muhammad) that there is no God save Allah, and ask forgiveness for thy sin and for believing men and women (Qur'an 47:19, Pickthall) 7. Jesus and Muhammad Muhammad was tempted to acknowledge false gods in order to achieve his desire of the Quraysh accepting him. He gave in to this temptation and acknowledged their gods. Jesus too was tempted to achieve his desire to rule as Christ by acknowledging false gods, but when Satan tempted Jesus, Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'" (Matthew 4:10, NIV) Jesus was tempted by Satan in exactly the same way that Muhammad was, but unlike Muhammad Jesus never sinned. Jesus succeeded where Muhammad failed. How different Jesus is to Muhammad! He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth (1 Peter 2:22, NIV). (He) has been tempted in every way, just as we are - yet was without sin (Hebrews 4:15, NIV). Jesus is the only person who has offered perfect submission to God. He is higher than Muhammad. 200

APPENDIX: IBN ISHAQ'S ACCOUNT OF THE SATANIC VERSES Now the apostle was anxious for the welfare of his people, wishing to attract them as far as he could. It has been mentioned that he longed for a way to attract them, and the method he adopted is what Ibn Hamid told me that Salama said M. b. Ishaq told him from Yazid b. Ziyad of Medina from M. b. Ka`b al-Qurazi: When the apostle saw that his people turned their backs on him and he was pained by their estrangement from what he brought them from God he longed that there should come to him from God a message that would reconcile his people to him. Because of his love for his people and his anxiety over them it would delight him if the obstacle that made his task so difficult could be removed; so that he meditated on the project and longed for it and it was dear to him. Then God sent down "By the star when it sets your comrade errs not and is not deceived, he speaks not from his own desire," and when he reached His words "Have you thought of al-Lat and al-`Uzza and Manat the third, the others"[8], Satan, when he was meditating upon it, and desiring to bring it (sc. reconciliation) to his people, put upon his tongue "these are the exalted Gharaniq[6] whose intercession is approved". When the Quraysh heard that, they were delighted and greatly pleased at the way in which he spoke of their gods and they listened to him; while the believers were holding that what their prophet brought from their Lord was true, not suspecting a mistake or a vain desire or slip, and when he reached the prostration and the end of the Sura in which he prostrated himself the Muslims prostrated themselves when their prophet prostrated confirming what he brought and obeying his command, and the polytheists of Quraysh and others who were in the mosque prostrated when they heard the mention of their gods, so that everyone in the mosque believer and unbeliever prostrated, except al-Walid b. al-Mughira who was an old man who could not do so, so he took a handful of dirt from the valley and bent over it. Then the people dispersed and the Quraysh went out, delighted at what had been said about their gods, saying, "Muhammad has spoken of our gods in splendid fashion. He alleged in what he read that they are the exalted Gharaniq whose intercession is approved". The news reached the prophet's companions who were in Abyssinia, it being reported that Quraysh had accepted Islam, so some men started to return while others remained behind. Then Gabriel came to the apostle 201

and said , "What have you done, Muhammad? You have read to these people something I did not bring you from God and you have said what He did not say to you." The apostle was bitterly grieved and was greatly in fear of God. So God sent down (a revelation), for he was merciful to him comforting him and making light of the affair and telling him that every prophet and apostle before him desired as he desired and wanted what he wanted and Satan interjected something into his desires as he had on his tongue. So God annulled what Satan had suggested and God established His verses i.e. you are just like the prophets and apostles. Then God sent down: "We have not sent a prophet or apostle before you but when he longed Satan cast suggestions into his longing. But God will annul what Satan has suggested. Then God will establish his verses, God being knowing and wise"[9]. Thus God relieved his prophet's grief, and made him feel safe from his fears and annulled what Satan had suggested in the words used above about their gods by his revelation "Are yours the males and His the females? That were indeed an unfair division" (i.e. most unjust); "they are nothing by names which your fathers gave them" as far as the words "to whom he pleases and accepts"[10], i.e. how can the intercession of their gods avail with Him? When the annulment of what Satan had put upon the prophet's tongue came from God, Quraysh said: "Muhammad has repented of what he said about the position of your gods with Allah, altered it and brought something else." (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 165-167) ENDNOTES [1] Salman Rushdie, The Satanic Verses, London: Viking, 1988. [2] Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, translated as, The Life of Muhammad, pp. 165-167. [3] Ibn Sa'ad, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, vol. 1, pp. 236-239. [4] Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, "Muhammad at Mecca", vol. 6, pp. 107-113. [5] Bukhari: volume 2, book 19, number 177, Khan. [6] Numidian cranes which fly at a great height. They were probably thought to fly near the heavens and thus be able to intercede with god(s). [7] Qur'an 2:106, 16:101, 22:52 [8] Qur'an 53:1-20 [9] Qur'an 22:51/52 202

[10] Qur'an 53:19-27 [11] Ahmed Deedat, What the Bible Says About Muhummed (Peace be upon him), pp. 5-17. Responses to Islamic Awareness

It must be pointed out again that the "Satanic Verses" event is not something made up by non-Muslims. The event is recorded by the earliest Islamic sources available on Muhammad's life. No one should think that it is a story made up by people who are critical of Islam. It is an episode directly found in the early Islamic records. This topic is one of the most controversial in Islam. Satan caused Muhammad to recite his words as God's words. The background to this event is that Muhammad and his followers were being persecuted for attacking the pagan faiths of Mecca, and he did not want to further offend his Arab tribesmen, and, he wanted them to become his followers, i.e. Muslims. In fact Muhammad wished that God would not reveal anything further to him that would further alienate his fellow Arabs. So when opportunity arose, he spoke what Satan put into his heart and mind as God's word. In the Old Testament (OT), if someone caused the people to worship other gods he was put to death - Deuteronomy 13:1 - 5: "If prophets or those who divine by dreams appear among you and promise you omens or portents, and the omens or the portents declared by them take place, and they say, "Let us follow other gods" (whom you have not known) "and let us serve them," you must not heed the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul. ... But those prophets or those who divine by dreams shall be put to death for having spoken treason against the Lord you God ... So you shall purge the evil from your midst." [1] This is exactly what Muhammad did - he advocated the worship of pagan deities as intercessors with God. Later, after Muhammad admitted his mistake and took back the words, he had the audacity to say that God made light of the event! God has never made light of sin or false prophets. Think about it, which of the Old Testament prophets ever spoke the words of Satan? Those prophets loved their people, but they persisted in 204

MUHAMMAD AND THE SATANIC VERSES

Muhammad Spoke the Satanic Verses - The Evidence and Proof  INTRODUCTION  MUHAMMAD SPOKE THE SATANIC VERSES - THE EVIDENCE AND PROOF  THE EVIDENCE: THE EARLY ISLAMIC SOURCES  DISCUSSION / REVIEW OF THE SIRA MATERIAL ON THE SATANIC VERSES.  EVIDENCE FROM SAHIH HADITH THAT MUHAMMAD SPOKE THE SATANIC VERSES  FROM THE QURAN  AN ISLAMIC SCHOLAR'S COMMENTARY (TAFSIR)  OTHER COMMENTS  FUNDAMENTALIST MUSLIM'S COMPLAINTS AND DENIALS  CONCLUSIONS  BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION
One of the most embarrassing events in Muhammad's life occurred when Satan put his words in Muhammad's mouth. Muhammad spoke Satan's words as the word of God. This event is documented by several early Muslim scholars and referenced in the Hadith and Quran. Later Muslims, ashamed that their self declared prophet spoke Satan's words, denied the event occurred. A myriad of excuses and denials have been put forth by these later Muhammadans to cover up Muhammad's sinful error.

203

speaking the truth to them, not compromising the word of God to gain peace and converts as Muhammad did.

MUHAMMAD SPOKE THE SATANIC VERSES - THE EVIDENCE AND PROOF
Muslims frequently use the phrase "bring forth the proof". Well, the proof is presented here. This event is documented by the four early biographical writers of Muhammad's life: Ibn Ishaq, Wakidi, Ibn Sa'd, and Tabari. The Hadith and Quran also contain direct references. Additionally several other Islamic scholars on Hadith (traditions) support the event's occurrence. One Islamic book on Muhammad's life provides the following list: "... many of the traditionalists have recorded it with reference to the chains of its narrators. Among them more commonly known are: al-Tabari, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Mardauyah, Ibn Ishaq, Musa ibn 'Uqba, and Abu Ma'shar. It is all the more strange that Ibn Hajar, a recognized authority on traditions insists on the truth of this report and says, "As we have mentioned above, three of its chains of narrators satisfy the conditions requisite for an authentic report." [2] I have found four of the early Islamic biographical sources for this story in English. Therefore, prior to a discussion and analysis of the event, their writings should be reviewed. What first follows are the four accounts related from the 4 early sources: 1) Tabari's "History", published by SUNY, and translated by Watt [3], 2) the "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir", (The Book of the Major Classes), translated by S. Moinul Haq [4], 3) the "Sirat Rasulallah" (The Life of Allah's Prophet) by Ibn Ishaq, translated by A. Guillaume [5], 4) Wakidi's biographical material on Muhammad also includes the story of Muhammad speaking Satan's words. I have not been 205

able to find Wakidi's entire work in English but Wakidi's work is quoted by W. Muir in "The Life of Mahomet" [6]. 5) A sub source from #3 above is found in "New Light on the Life of Muhammad", by A.. Guillaume [7]. This source is from a manuscript containing information from other sources as well as Ibn Ishaq. The writer of the manuscript, Yunus ibn Bukayr, heard Ibn Ishaq's lectures at Kufa (located in modern Iraq), and made notes. 6) Additional supporting evidence will be provided from the Sahih Hadith of Bukhari [8]. 7) Finally, verses from the Quran will be provided as concurring evidence that Muhammad spoke the Quranic verses [9]

THE EVIDENCE: THE EARLY ISLAMIC SOURCES
NOTE: My comments will be in [ ] type brackets. Author's brackets will be in ( ) type brackets. TABARI volume 6, page 107

SATAN CASTS A FALSE REVELATION ON THE MESSENGER OF GOD'S TONGUE
The messenger of God was eager for the welfare of his people and wished to effect a reconciliation with them in whatever ways he could. It is said that he wanted to find a way to do this, and what happened was a follows. (170) Ibn Humayd - Salamah-Muhammad b. Ishaq - Yazid b. Ziyad alMadani - Muhammad b. Ka'b al-Qurazi: When the messenger of God saw how his tribe turned their backs on him and was grieved to see them shunning the message he had brought to them from God, he longed in his soul that something would come to him from God which would reconcile him with his tribe. With his love for his tribe and his eagerness for their welfare it would have delighted him if some of the difficulties which they made for him could have been smoothed out, and he debated with himself and fervently desired such an outcome. Then God revealed:(171) "By the Star when it sets, your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived; nor does he speak out of (his own) desire..." 206

and when he came to the words: Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other? Satan cast on his tongue, because of his inner debates and what he desired to bring to his people, the words: "These are the high flying cranes; verily their intercession is accepted with approval. (172) When Quraysh heard this, they rejoiced and were happy and delighted at the way in which he spoke of their gods, and they listened to him, while the Muslims, having complete trust in their prophet in respect of the messages which he brought from God, did not suspect him of error, illusion, or mistake. When he came to the prostration, having completed the surah, he prostrated himself and the Muslims did likewise, following their prophet, trusting in the message which he had brought and following his example. Those polytheists of the Quraysh and others who were in the mosque (173) likewise prostrated themselves because of the reference to their gods which they had heard, so that there was no one in the mosque, believer orunbeliever, who did not prostrate himself. The one exception was al-Walid b. AlMughirah, who was a very old man and could not prostrate himself; but he took a handful of soil from the valley in his hand and bowed over that. Then they all dispersed from the mosque. The Quraysh left delighted by the mention of their gods which they had hared, saying,"Muhammad has mentioned our goes in the most favorable way possible, stating in his recitation that they are the high flying cranes and that their intercession is received with approval." The news of the prostration reached those of the messenger of God's companions who were in Abyssinia and people said, "The Quraysh have accepted Islam." Some rose up to return, while others remained behind. Then Gabriel came to the Messenger of God and said, "Muhammad, what have you done? You have recited to the people that which I did not bring to you from God, 207

and you have said that which was not said to you." Then the messenger of God was much grieved and feared God greatly, but God sent down a revelation to him, for He was merciful to him, consoling him and making the matter light for him, informing him that there had never been a prophet or a messenger before him who desired as he desired and wished as he wished but that Satan had cast words into his recitation, as he had cast words on Muhammad's tongue. Then God cancelled what Satan had thus cast, and established his verses by telling him that he was like other prophets and messengers, and revealed: "Never did we send a messenger or a prophet before you but that when he recited (the Message) Satan cast words into his recitation (umniyyah). God abrogates what Satan casts. The God established his verses. God is knower, wise. (174) Thus God removed the sorrow from his messenger, reassured him about that which he had feared and cancelled the words which Satan had cast on his tongue, that their gods were the high flying cranes whose intercession was accepted with approval. He now revealed, following the mention of "al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other," the words: "Are yours the males and his the females? That indeed were an unfair division! They are but names which you have named, you and your fathers." to the words: to whom he wills and accept (175) This means, how can the intercession of their gods avail with God? When Muhammad brought a revelation from God canceling what Satan had cast on the tongue of His prophet, the Quraysh said,"Muhammad has repented of what he said concerning the position of your gods with God, and has altered it and brought something else." Those two phrases which Satan had cast on the 208

tongue of the Messenger of God were in the mouth of every polytheists, and they became even more ill-disposed and more violent in their persecution of those of them who had accepted Islam and followed the messenger of God. Those of the companions of the messenger of God who had left Abyssinia upon hearing that Quraysh had accepted Islam by prostration themselves with the messenger of God now approached.When they were near Mecca, they heard that the report that the people of Mecca had accepted Islam was false. Not one of them entered Mecca without obtaining protection or entering secretly. Among those who came to Mecca and remained there until they emigrated to al-Madinah and were present with the prophet at Badr, were, from the Banu Abd Shams b. Abd Manaf b. Quasyy, Uthman b. Afafan b. Abi al-As b. Umayyah, accompanied by his wife Ruaqyyah the daughter of the messenger of God; Abu Hudhayfah b. Utbah b. Rabiah b. Abd Shames, accompanied by his wife Sahlah bt. Suhalyl; together with a number of others numbering thirty three men. Al-Qasim b. Al-Hasan - al Husayn b. Daud - Hajja - Abu Mashar - Muhammad b. Kab al-Qurazi and Muhammad b. Qays: The messenger of God was sitting in a large gathering of Quraysh, wishing that day that no revelation would come to him from God which could cause them to turn away from him. Then God revealed: "By the Star when it sets, your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived..." and the Messenger of God recited it until he came to: "Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?" when Satan cast on his tongue two phrases: "These are the high flying cranes; verily their intercession is to be desired. (176) 209

He uttered them and went on to complete the surah. When he prostrated himself at the end of the surah, the whole company prostrated themselves with him. Al-Walid b. al-Mughirah raised some dust to his forehead and bowed over that, since he was a very old man and could not prostrate himself. They were satisfied with what Muhammad had uttered and said, "We recognize that it is God who gives life and death, who creates and who provides sustenance, but if these gods of ours intercede for us with him, and if you give them a share, we are with you." That evening Gabriel came to him and reviewed the surah with him, and when he reached the two phrases which Satan had cast upon his tongue he said, "I did not bring you these two." Then the messenger of God said, "I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to him words which He has not spoken." Then God revealed to him: "And they indeed strove hard to beguile you away from what we have revealed to you, that you should invent other than it against us... to the words: "and then you would have found no helper against us" (177) He remained grief stricken and anxious until the revelation of the verse: "Never did we send a messenger or a prophet before you... to the words...God is knower, wise. (178) When those who had emigrated to Abyssinia heard that all the people of Mecca had accepted Islam, they returned to their clans, saying,"They are more dear to us"; but they found that the people had reversed their decision when God cancelled what Satan had cast upon the messenger of God's tongue. END OF QUOTES 210

WATT'S NOTES IN TABARI 170) This section is also omitted by Ibn Hisham, perhaps because he felt it was discreditable to the Prophet. 171) Surah 53; the verses quoted are 1-3 and 19-20. 172) An alternative reading to turtada is turtaja, meaning, "is to be desired or hoped for" 173) The sacred area around the Ka'bah was not, of course, and Islamic mosque at this period, though the word masjid, "place of prostration, mosque,"seems to have been applied to it. 174) 22:52. The translation deviates here from that of Pickthall in order to make it correspond with what is required by Tabari's account. The meanings for tamanna and umniyyah, "recite" and "recitation", are well attested (see Lisan s.v.M-N-Y). An alternative rendering for this verse would be: "Never did we send a messenger of a prophet before you but that when he formed a wish Satan threw (some vanity) into his desire..." 175) 53:21-23, 26, Tabari explains diza, "unfair," as meaning 'awja, "crooked." 176) Surah 53. This version of the false verses has la-turja, "to be desired or hoped for." 177) 7:73, 75 178) 22:52 TABARI'S TIMELINE Hijrah to Abyssinia - page 98 Boycott - page105

Satanic verses spoken by Muhammad- page 107 Muslims return from Abyssinia - page 109 Boycott repealed - page 112 From Ibn Sa'd's "Kitab al Tabaqat al Kabir", Volume 1, parts 1 and 2, pages 236 - 239, translated by S. Moinul Haq, published by the Pakistan Historical Society. [NOTE: I have corrected some spelling and punctuation errors and changed some archaic language]. ACCOUNT OF THE CAUSES OF THE RETURN OF THE COMPANIONS OF THE PROPHET, FROM ABYSSINIA Muhammad Ibn Umar informed us; he said: Yunus Ibn Muhammad Ibn Fudalah al-Azfari related to me on the authority of his father (second chain) he (Ibn Sa'd) said: Kthir Ibn Zayd related to me on the authority of al-Muttalib Ibn Abd Allah Ibn Hantab; they said: "the apostle of Allah had seen his people departing from him. He was one day sitting alone when he expressed a desire: "I wish, Allah had not revealed to me anything distasteful to them." Then the apostle of Allah, approached them (Quraysh) and got close to them, and they also came near to him. One day he was sitting in their assembly near the Ka'bah, and he recited: "By the Star when it sets", (1) till he reached, "Have ye thought upon AlUzza and Manat, the third, the other". (2) Satan made him repeat these two phrases: "These idols are high and their intercession is expected". The apostle of Allah repeated them, and he went on reciting the whole surah and then fell in prostration, and the people also fell in prostration with him. Al-Walid Ibn alMughirah, who was an old man and could not prostrate, took a handful of dust to his forehead and prostrated on it. It is said: Abu Uhayhah Sa'id Ibn al-As, being an old man took dust and prostrated on it. Some people say: It was al-Walid who took the dust; others say: It was Abu Uhayhah; while other say: Both did 212

211

it. They were pleased with what the apostle of Allah had uttered. They said: "We know that Allah gives life and causes death. He creates and gives us provisions, but our deities will intercede with Him, and in what you have assigned to them, we are with you." These words pricked the apostle of Allah. He was sitting in his house and when it was evening, Gabriel came to him and revised the surah. Then Gabriel said: "Did I bring these two phrases?" The apostle of Allah said: "I ascribed to Allah, what He had not said." Then Allah revealed to him: "And they indeed strove hard to beguile you (Muhammad) away from that which We have inspired you, that you should invent other than it against Us; and then would they have accepted you as a friend. And if We had not made you wholly firm you might almost have inclined to them a little, Then had We made you taste a double (punishment) of living and a double (punishment) of dying then had you found no helper against Us.""(1) Muhammad Ibn Umar informed us; he said: Muhammad Ibn Abd Allah related to me on the authority of al-Zuhri, he on the authority of Abu Bakr Ibn Abd al-Rahman Ibn al-Harith Ibn Hisham; he said: "This prostration became know to people till the news reached Abyssinia and the Companions of the apostle of Allah that the people of Makkah fell in protraction and joined Islam including al-Walid. Ibn al-Mughirah and Abu Uhayhah who prostrated behind the prophet. The people said: "When such persons have joined Islam, who else remains in Makkah?" They said: "Our relatives are dear to us." So they returned. Where they were at a distance of one hour's walk from Makkah, they confronted some horsemen of Kinanah. They inquired about the Quraysh and their affairs. The horse men said: "Muhammad spoke well of their deities, so they followed him but then they turned apostate. He began to abuse their gods and they began to harm him. We left them in this struggle." They discussed that they should return to Abyssinia; but then they said: "We have reached here, so let us enter (the town), see the Quraysh and visit our families and then return."" 213

Muhammad Ibn Umar informed us; he said: Muhammad Ibn Abd Allah related to me on the authority of al-Zuhri, he on the authority of Abu Bakr Ibn Abd al Rahman; he said: "They entered Makkah and none entered it except under (some one's) protection; Ibn Masud stayed for a short time and returned to Abyssinia." Muhammad Ibn Umar said: "They had left (Makkah) in the month of Rajab in the fifth year. There they remained in the months of Shaban and Ramadan. The incident of prostration took place in Ramadan, and they returned in Shawwal in the fifth year." END OF IBN SA'D QUOTES HAQ'S NOTES page 237 1) Quran 53:1 2) Quran 53:19-20 page 238 1) Al-Quran,17:73-75. IBN SA'D'S TIME SEQUENCE First Hijrah to Abyssinia - pages 235, 236, 11 men, 4 women, month of Rajab in fifth year after Muhammad claimed to be an apostle The Blockade against Muhammad's tribe the Hashimites - page 241 Satanic Verses spoken by Muhammad - pages 236 - 239. 1st return to Mecca - pages 238 - 239 Second Hijrah to Abyssinia - pages 239 214

Return from Abyssinia just after Khaybar - page 240 FROM IBN ISHAQ'S "SIRAT RASULALLAH", translated as, "THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD" by A. Guillaume, page 165 - 167. "(Tabari). Now the apostle was anxious for the welfare of his people, wishing to attract them as far as he could. It has been mentioned that he longed for a way to attract them, and the method he adopted is what Ibn Hamid told me that Salama said M. B. Ishaq told him from Yazid b. Ziyad of Medina from M. B. Ka'b al-Qurazi: When the apostle saw what his people turned their backs on him and he was pained by their estrangement from what he brought them from God he longed that there should come to him from God a message that would reconcile his people to him. Because of his love for his people and his anxiety over them it would delight him if the obstacle that made his task so difficult could be removed; so that he meditated on the project and longed for it and it was dear to him. Then God sent down "by the star when it sets your comrade errs not and is not deceived, he speaks not from his own desire," and when he reached His words "Have you thought of al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat the third, the other (5), Satan, when he was mediating upon it, and desiring to bring it (sc. reconciliation) to his people, put upon his tongue "these are the exalted Gharaniq (1) whose intercession is approved. (2)" When Quraysh heard that, they were delighted and greatly pleased at the way in which he spoke of their gods.and they listened to him; while the believers were holding that what their prophet brought them from their Lord was true, not suspecting a mistake or a vain desire or a slip, and when he reached the prostration (3) and the end of the Sura in which he prostrated himself the Muslims prostrated themselves when their prophet prostrated confirming what he brought and obeying his command, and the polytheists of Quraysh and others who were in the mosque prostrated when they heard the mention of their gods, so that everyone in the mosque believer and unbeliever prostrated, except al-Walid b. Al-Mughira who was an old man who could not do so, so he took a handful of dirt from the valley and bent over it. Then the people dispersed and Quraysh went out, delighted at what had been said about their gods, saying, 215

"Muhammad has spoken of our gods in splendid fashion. He alleged in what he read that they are the exalted Gharaniq whose intercession is approved." The news reached the prophet's companions who were in Abyssinia, it being reported that Quraysh had accepted Islam, so some men started to return while others remained behind. Then Gabriel came to the apostle and said, "What have you done Muhammad? You have read to these people something I did not bring you from God and you have said what He did not say to you." The apostle was bitterly grieved and was greatly in fear of God. So God sent down (a revelation), for He was merciful to him, comforting him and making light of the affair and telling him that every prophet and apostle before him desired as he desired and wanted what he wanted and Satan interjected something into his desires as he had on his tongue. So God annulled what Satan had suggested and God established His verses i.e. you are just like the prophets and apostles. The God sent down: "We have not sent a prophet or apostle before you but when he longed Satan cast suggestions into his longing. But God will annul what Satan has suggested. Then God will establish his verses, God being knowing and wise. (4). Thus God relieved his prophet's grief, and made him feel safe from his fears and annulled what Satan had suggested in the words used above about their gods by his revelation. "Are yours the males and His the females? That were indeed an unfair division" (i.e. most unjust); "they are nothing but names which your fathers gave them" as far as the words "to whom he pleases and accepts" (5) i.e. how can the intercession of their gods avail with Him? When the annulment of what Satan had put upon the prophet's tongue came from God, Quraysh said: "Muhammad has repented of what he said about the position of your gods with Allah, altered it and brought something else." Now those two words which Satan had put upon the apostle's tongue were in the mouth of every polytheist and they became more violently hostile to the Muslims and the apostle's followers. Meanwhile those of his companions who had left Abyssinia when they heard that the people of Mecca had accepted Islam when they prostrated 216

themselves with the apostle, heard when they approached Mecca that the report was false and none came into the town without the promise of protection or secretly. Of those who did come into Mecca and stayed there until he migrated to Medina and were present at Badr with him was Uthman B. Affan... with his wife Ruqayya d. of the apostle and Abu Hudhayfa b. Zutba with his wife Sahla d. of Suhayl, and a number of others, in all thirty-three men (1). ... THE RETURN OF THOSE WHO HAD FLED TO ABYSSINIA The apostle's companions who had gone to Abyssinia heard that the Meccans had accepted Islamand they set out for the homeland. But when they got near Mecca they learned that the report was false, so that they entered the town under the protection of a citizen or by stealth. GUILLAUME'S NOTES Page 165 5) Sura 53: 1-20 Page 166 1) The word is said to mean "Numidian Cranes" which fly at a great height. 2) Another reading is "turjada" "to be hoped for". 3) Mentioned in the last verse of the Sura. 4) Sura 22:51. The following verse is not without relevance in this context: "that He may make what Satan suggested a temptation to those whose hearts are diseased and hardened." 5) Sura 53:19-27 Page 167 1) A parallel tradition from M.b. Ka'd al-Qurazi and M.B. Qays is given by Tabari 1195 - 6. IBN ISHAQ'S TIMELINE 217

First Migration to Abyssinia - page 146 Boycott - page 159 Mo speaks Satanic Verses - page 165, 166 Muslims in Abyssinia return from Abyssinia - pages 167, 168 Annulling of the boycott - page 172 ADDITION INFORMATION FROM IBN ISHAQ FROM "NEW LIGHT ON THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD, pages 38, 39: "The manuscript agrees with Salama's report from Ibn Ishaq that the emigrants returned from Abyssinia because they heard of the conversion of Quraysh in consequence of the concession to polytheism, but strangely enough it does not quote the offending words. Presumable they were deliberately omitted and readers must have known what they were because otherwise the narrative would be unintelligible. Tow verses are referred to, but the second is not quoted. In view of its interest I give a translation of the manuscript: "(The emigrants) remained where they were until they heard that the people of Mecca had accepted Islam and prostrated themselves. That was because the chapter of The Star (53) had been sent down to Muhammad and the apostle recited it. Both Muslim and polytheist listened to it silently until he reached his words "Have you seen (or, "considered") al-Lat and al-Uzza?" They gave ear to him attentively while the faithful believed (their prophet). Some apostatized when they heard the "saj" of the Satan and said "By Allah we will serve them (the Gharaniq) so that they may bring us near to Allah". The Satan taught these two verses to every polytheist and their tongues too to them easily. This weighed heavily upon the apostle until Gabriel came to him and complained to him of these two verses and the effect that they had upon the people. Gabriel declined responsibility for them and said "You recited to the people something which I did not bring you from God and you said what you were not told to say". The apostle was deeply grieved and afraid. Then God send down by way of comfort to him: "Never did we send an apostle or a prophet before you but when he wished Satan cast a 218

suggestion into his wish" as far as the words "Knowing, Wise"" (Sura 22:51)." END OF QUOTES FROM "NEW LIGHT ON THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD". WAKIDI'S WRITINGS ON THE SATANIC VERSES W. Muir quotes Wakidi as writing: "On a certain day, the chief men of Mecca, assembled in a group beside the Kaaba, discussed as was their wont the affairs of the city; when Mahomet appeared and, seating himself by them in a friendly manner, began to recite in their hearing the 53 Sura.... " "And see ye not Lat and Ozza, and Manat the third besides?" "When he had reached this verse, the devil suggested an expression of the thoughts which for many a day had possessed his soul; and put into his mouth words of reconciliation and compromise, the revelation of which he had been longing for from God, namely; "These are the exalted Females, and verily their intercession is to be hoped for" "The Coreish were surprised and delighted with this acknowledgement of their deities; and as Mahomet wound up the /Sura with the closing words "Wherefore bow down before God, and serve Him" "the whole assembly prostrated themselves with one accord on the ground and worshipped. Walid alone, the son of Mughira, unable from the infirmities of age to bow down, took a handful of earth and worshipped, pressing it to his forehead." "And all the people were pleased at that which Mahomet had spoke, and they began to say, 219

"Now we know that it is the Lord alone that give life and takes it away, that created and supports. These our goddesses make intercession with Him for us; and as thou has conceded unto them a portion, we are content to follow thee". But their words disquieted Mahomet, and he retired to his house. In the evening Gabriel visited him; and the prophet recited the Sura unto him. And Gabriel said, "What is this that thou has done? Thou has repeated before the people words that I never gave unto thee". So Mahomet grieved sore, and feared the Lord greatly; and he said, "I have spoken of God that which He had not said." But the Lord comforted His prophet, and restored his confidence, and cancelled the verse, and revealed the true reading thereof (as it now stands), namely, "And see ye not Lat and Ozza, and Manat the third beside? What! Shall there be male progeny unto you, and female unto him? That were indeed an unjust partition! They are naught but names, which ye and your Fathers have invented, etc." END OF MUIR'S QUOTES FROM WAKIDI

DISCUSSION / REVIEW OF THE SIRA MATERIAL ON THE SATANIC VERSES.
All four of the biographies agree on all the primary facts: 1) Muhammad did not want to further offend the Meccans and he did not want God to reveal something to him that would cause further offence. 2) Muhammad desired a revelation that would bring peace between he and the Meccans. 3) When Muhammad began to recite the chapter called "The Star", Satan interjected some words and thoughts into Muhammad's heart and mind. This was coupled with Muhammad's own desires; thus Muhammad spoke Satan's words.

220

4) Later, Gabriel rebuked Muhammad for having spoken Satan's words. Muhammad admitted his sinful error and was then comforted by Allah. The accounts are very similar. Each contains minor different details, but all agree totally on the relevant essentials points; Muhammad spoke the Satanic verses. The fact that all of the earliest Islamic sources agree on the event is substantial evidence that it occurred.

passage found in chapter 53, called "The Star", (An-Najm), verses 19 through 26 or so. This passage has already been mentioned. The second passage is in chapter 22, called "The Pilgrimage", (Al-Hajj), verses 52, 53: "Never have We sent a single prophet or apostle before you with whose wishes Satan did not tamper. But God abrogates the interjections of Satan and confirms His own revelations. God is all-knowing and wise. He makes Satan's interjections a temptation for those whose hearts are diseased, whose hearts are hardened ... The third passage is chapter 17, called "The Night Journey", (Al Isra), verses 73 - 75: "They sought to entice you from Our revelations - they nearly did -hoping that you might invent some other scripture in Our name, and thus become their trusted friend. Indeed had we not strengthened your faith, you might have made some compromise with them and thus incurred a double punishment in this life and in the next. Then you should have found none to help you against Us." All of these verses are mentioned in the biographical material. All of them were revealed in relation to Muhammad speaking Satan's words. Note how Tabari records Muhammad's admittance of sin and repentance after Gabriel confronted him with his error. Afterwards, God supposedly comforts Muhammad with the verses from chapters 17 and 22. Ibn Sa'd records the same sequence of verses. After he admitted his sinful error, Muhammad was comforted by Gabriel. Who was this Gabriel? See the webpage below for more material dealing with Muhammad interactions with "Gabriel" and Satan..

EVIDENCE FROM SAHIH HADITH THAT MUHAMMAD SPOKE THE SATANIC VERSES
There are references to the event found in Bukhari. Although the actual Satanic verses are not recorded by Bukhari, part of the event is related: 6.385 Narrated Ibn Abbas: The Prophet performed a prostration when he finished reciting Surat an-Najm, and all the Muslims and pagans and Jinns and human beings prostrated along with him. What is of note here is that the Hadith states that after Muhammad spoke "The Star", the pagans prostrated. This is exactly what the four biographers state. Remember, the pagans were totally opposed to Muhammad. They disliked him; he frequently insulted their faith. Yet here, something Muhammad said, caused them to prostrate with him and the Muslims, in "one accord". Muhammad had said something persuasive to move them to bow in worship. Of course it was the Satanic verses. There is no allusion to anything else in the biographical material. Neither is anything specifically recorded in Sahih Hadith or the Quran that refers to other than the Satanic Verses event. Note again how this Hadith lines up with the four biographies.

FROM THE QURAN
There are three passages in the Quran that reference the event. These passages are recorded in the biographical material. The first is the actual 221

222

AN ISLAMIC SCHOLAR'S COMMENTARY (TAFSIR)
One of the greatest Islamic scholars who wrote a Tafsir was Zamakhshari. He commented on this event as well.Here is his writings, quoted from "The Quran and its Exegesis, by Helmut Gatje, pages 53 55, published by Oneworld, Oxford, England [10]. "The faithful rendering of the revelation Zamakhshari on Sura 22:52/51 We have never sent any messenger of prophet before thee, but that Satan cast into his fancy, when he was fancying; but God annuls what Satan casts, then God confirms His signs - surely God is All-knowing, All-wise. .. The occasion of the sending down of the present verse is the following: As the members of the tribe of the messenger of God turned away from him and took their stand against him and his relatives also opposed him and refused to be guided by what he brought to them, then, as a result of the extreme exasperation concerning their estrangement and as a result of the eager desire and longing that they be converted to Islam, the messenger of God sheltered the wish that nothing would come down to him that could make them shy away. Perhaps he should have been able to use that for the purpose of converting them and causing them to be dissuaded from their error and obstinacy. Now this wish continued in him until the sura called "The Star" (that is, Sura 53) came down. At that time he found himself with this wish in his heart regarding the members of his tribe. Then he began to recite, and when he came to God's words "and Manat, the third, the other" (Sura 53:20), Satan substituted something in accordance with the wish which the messenger of God had sheltered, that is, he whispered something to him which would enable the messenger to announce his wish. In an inadvertent and misleading manner, his tongue hurried on ahead of him, so that he said: "These (goddesses are the) exalted cranes. Their intercession (with God) is to be hoped for."...Yet, the messenger of God was not clear at this point until the protection of God "isma" reached him and he then became attentive again. 223

Some say that Gabriel drew his attention to it, or that Satan himself spoke those words and brought them to the people's hearing. As soon as the messenger of God prostrated (for prayer) as the end of the sura, all who were present did it with him and felt pleased (that is, the unbelievers felt pleased that their goddesses had been accepted as intercessors with God).

OTHER COMMENTS
A) It must be pointed out again that the "Satanic Verses" event is not something made up by non-Muslims. The event is recorded by the earliest Islamic sources available on Muhammad's life. And these men were devout Muslim scholars. They spent their lives studying, analyzing, and writing about Muhammad and Islam. They were real Islamic scholars, unlike today's amateur "Islamic scholars" like Ahmed Deedat and Jamal Baidawi. Also, these sources provide chains of narration isnaad, showing that the event is traceable to the earliest Muslims. Regarding these early Islamic scholars, William Muir writes in "The Life of Muhammad" that: "Pious Mussulmans of after days, scandalized at the lapse of their prophet into so flagrant a concession to idolatry, would reject the whole story. But the authorities are too strong to be impugned. It is hardly possible to conceive how the tale, if not founded in truth, could ever have been invented." B) One of the terms Muhammad used to describe the pagan Goddesses Manat, Uzza and al-Lat was "gharaniq" translated as "high flying cranes". In "Muhammad and the Religion of Islam", by John Gilchrist, published by Jesus to the Muslims, page 118, Gilchrist writes: [11] "The Arabic word "gharaniq" refers to certain cranes which fly at a great height. The pagan Meccans, impressed by the splendor of these birds, therefore described their goddesses by an analogous reference to them. When Muhammad quoted the very words used 224

by the Meccans to exalt their goddesses, they said to one another "Muhammad has spoken of our gods in excellent fashion". In the area there were cranes that flew at high altitudes. It was quite logical for Muhammad to thus describe the idols as "high flying", metaphorically flying in the heavens close to Allah - to act as intercessors. C) Another note of interest, Muhammad claimed that his Quran was above human invention. He challenged anyone, including "jinn" to produce something like the Quran. Well, we see that Satan was able to do so. Gabriel had to confront Muhammad with the fact that those "Satanic Verses" were not Allah's words. And note, all of the Muhammadans, i.e., Muhammad's followers, also prostrated when Muhammad prostrated. They did not realize that a false Quran had been spoken. Obviously, this "Quran" is not that special; even Satan was able to bring forth similar material.

The fundamentalist Muslim usually complain about someone criticizing their religion. And to cover the weakness of their position, they personally attack Christians or others who put forth the criticism. So, to start with, they complain about Christians identifying Muhammad with the Beast of Revelation 13. Here is their first complaint: "The word Maometis means The number of the beast, i.e., 666, by which Muhammad was known in the Middle Ages. The names Mahoun and Mahound refer to Muhammad, imagined by credulous Europeans to be a pagan God. These derogatory names were concocted by "love-thy-neighbor", "turn-thy-cheek" Christians who maintained an open policy of defamation against Islam and Muhammad throughout the Middle Ages. Apparently, this policy still exists today, though in a more sophisticated apparatus." Response #1 Shouldn't a false prophet be pointed out? If a man speaks Satan's words as God's, shouldn't this be revealed? Further, Islam denies the Sonship, Crucifixion, Messiahship, and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ shouldn't this be exposed? Additionally, didn't Muhammad order that all Jews and Christians be driven out of the Hijaz, i.e. the land where Muhammad lived? Didn't Muhammad have 800 males, some as young as 12 massacred? Didn't Muhammad allow the rape of female slaves? Didn't Muhammad torture a man just to obtain money? Didn't Muhammad order the deaths of female slaves for just mocking him? So then, to equate this evil man with the "Beast" of Revelation is no stretch. While it may offend Muslims, I encourage all Muslims to take a deeper look at the man they follow. I encourage all sincere Muslims to reexamine a man upon whom they are staking their eternity. I have examined Muhammad, and I find him evil. I find him as the greatest false prophet in history. Denial / Complaint #2 Muslim fundamentalists try to make it seem that only one man transmitted the event of the "Satanic Verses" spoken by Muhammad. They write: 226

FUNDAMENTALIST MUSLIM'S COMPLAINTS AND DENIALS
As was stated at the beginning, many fundamentalist Muslims today are embarrassed and ashamed that the man they follow was used by Satan to speak Satan's words. It is understandable that Muhammadans are ashamed; what kind of prophet speaks Satan's words? I will examine several of their arguments against the occurrence of the event. But note, there are numerous arguments and the scope of this paper is not to address each and every one. Most of them are subjective and lack substance; they are not worth the time of a reply. One set of denials is put forth by a set of Muslim writers M S M Saifullah, Qasim Iqbal, Jason Hannan, Mansur Ahmed & Muhammad Ghoniem. Much of their work is copied from other Muslim's works. What follows are some of their arguments. Denial / Complaint #1 225

"This would not be difficult to understand, given the fact that the so-called 'Satanic verses' were transmitted from al-Wâqidî to Ibn Sa'd. Ibn Sa'd (d. 230/845), who was the secretary of al-Wâqidî (d. 207/823), ... In other words, neither al-Wâqidî nor Ibn Sa'd were eyewitnesses to the revelation of 'Satanic verses'; they were simply the transmitters...Claiming that the issue of so-called 'Satanic verses' incident is true just because al-Tabarî or Ibn Sa'd mentioned them amounts to a deliberate distortion of the facts." Response #2 No, it is not a deliberate distortion of the facts. First of all, the story is transmitted by the four early biographers of Muhammad's life: Ibn Ishaq, Wakidi, Ibn Sa'd, and Tabari. Ibn Sa'd did use Wakidi's material, but he also was a scholar in his own right and did a great deal of research. Didn't he write a 15 volume work on the early Muslims? Ibn Sa'd was much more than just a mere copyist. Tabari used Ibn Ishaq's material as well as Wakidi's, and others. But Tabari did not simply write anything he came across. He too was more than a mere copyist. Tabari was also one of the greatest scholars of Islam. He wrote a 39 volume history mostly related to Islam, as well as a thorough Commentary (Tafsir) on the Quran. Obviously Tabari thought that the story had enough merit to be included in his writings. Additionally, there is corroborative material in both the Sahih Hadith and Quran supporting the story. Therefore, no facts are being distorted. These men were reputable Islamic scholars. They rank among the greatest in Islamic History. To say that the story is true based upon what they wrote is no distortion.There is nothing in the Quran or Hadith contradicting the story. Denial / Complaint #3 Fundamentalist Muslims try to discredit the event by saying that the verses in the Quran related to the event were revealed at a much later date than the incident occurred. Here is their argument: 227

"The verses of Sûrah al-Isrâ' (17:73-5) which were revealed, according to the story, to 'admonish' the Prophet for allegedly reciting the 'Satanic' verses, in fact were not revealed until after the event of the Mi'râj. The Mi'râj or the Ascent of the Prophet, according to historical sources, occurred in the tenth or eleventh year of the Prophetic call, i.e., two or three years before the Hijrah to Madinah. If this is so, then it implies that the 'Satanic' verses were not detected or for some reason no mention was made about the alleged interpolation of the verses for five or six years and only afterwards was the Prophet admonished for it. Can any sensible person believe that the interpolation occurs today, while the admonition takes place six years later and the abrogation of the interpolated verses is publicly announced after nine years." Response #3 This argument rests upon the chronological time of the revelation of 17:73 - 75. The early Muslim sources - Tabari and Ibn Sa'd, say these verses were revealed around the time the Satanic verses were spoken by Muhammad, not at the time of the Miraj. Additionally, the Quran is haphazardly composed. Verses that Muhammad spoke in Medina were mixed in with verses that he spoke in Mecca. Frequently, Muhammad told that verses he spoke at one time were to be recited with verses revealed at a much earlier time. To this date, Islamic scholars have not been able to determine a unified chronological sequence of the revelation of the Quran's chapters. While there are certain portions that can be put in some logical sequence, much of its chronology is indeterminate; the Quran is a hodgepodge of verses that have been spliced together. So, to base an argument on the supposed chronological order of the Quran is akin to building a house upon sinking sand. It cannot stand. This complaint / denial argument has also been defeated by John Gilchrist in "Muhammad and the Religion of Islam". Let me quote from page 120:

228

"The other argument is weak in that there is no concrete proof that the first part of Surah 53 refers to the miraj which followed the emigration to Abyssinia. As shown already, it almost certainly refers to one of Muhammad's initial visions, limited by the Quran itself to the two he had when his ministry began. Unfortunately one finds that virtually all Muslim arguments of a factual nature against this story are equally weak." Gilchrist goes on to quote Bell on the composition of the Quranic verses of 22:51-53: "The surah has in fact become quite disjointed. Verses 51 - 53 addressed to the prophet personally, are quite out of connection. (Bell, "The Quran Translated", Volume 1, page 316.) Denial / Complaint #4 Some poor Muslim scholars or students have put together an argument that rests upon the internal evidence of the chapter. Basically, they link both the Satanic verses with their replacement verses. Here is their argument: "Let us now turn to some internal evidence. It has been said in the story that the 'Satanic' interpolation occurred in Sûrah anNajm (53:19) which delighted the idolaters present in the Ka'bah and as a gesture of friendship and good-will, they all bowed down with the Prophet. In order to comment on the story it would seem necessary to read the verses in the Qur'ân, adding the alleged 'Satanic' verses, and find out what is actually meant to be conveyed here. It would read as follows. Have ye seen Lat and 'Uzza, And another, the third (goddess), Manat? [These are the high-flying ones, whose intercession is to be hoped for!] What! for you the male sex, and for Him, the female? Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair! these are nothing but names which ye have devised,- ye and your fathers,- for which Allah has sent down no authority (whatever). They follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls 229

desire!- Even though there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord! [Qur'ân 53:19-23] If one reads the bold part of the alleged Satanic verses quoted above, one fails to understand how God on the one hand is praising the deities and on the other hand discrediting them by using the subsequent phrases quoted above. It is also difficult to see how the Quraysh leaders drew the conclusion from this chapter that Muhammad as making a conciliatory move and was adopting a policy of give and take. Response #4 The Muslims who put together this argument did not bother to do their homework. Otherwise they would have read in Tabari that the Satanic verses were cancelled out by the critical verses of the goddesses. I have previously posted this out of Tabari: "Thus God removed the sorrow from his messenger, reassured him about that which he had feared and cancelled the words which Satan had cast on his tongue, that their gods were the high flying cranes whose intercession was accepted with approval. He now revealed, following the mention of "al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other," the words: "Are yours the males and his the females? That indeed were an unfair division! They are but names which you have named, you and your fathers." to the words: "to whom he wills and accept"". Consequently, the entire Muslim argument here falls apart. The Satanic verses were not initially revealed with the verses that cancel them. Unfortunately, this type of slipshod work is the state of the art of today's Islamic "scholarship". Denial / Complaint #5

230

Muslims claim that if Muhammad's followers heard him allow the worship of idols, they would have seen his hypocrisy and stop following him. The argument is as follows: "In the meantime the Muslims were supposedly asking Allat, Manat and Uzza for intercession! Had the genuine state of affairs truly been this ridiculous, it would have been impossible for Muhammad to have maintained such a loyal following. It is obvious that Watt and other Orientalists accept part of the story and reject the related parts along with their destructive implications, apparently because they are unable to find any link or sequence." Response #5 Again, we have a case of today's Muslims not doing their homework. The early sources state that Muhammad's followers listened to Muhammad proclaim the worship of the deities and that they continued to follow him, not suspecting any error on Muhammad's part. Again, here is a quote from Tabari: "When Quraysh heard this, they rejoiced and were happy and delighted at the way in which he spoke of their gods, and they listened to him, while the Muslims, having complete trust in their prophet in respect of the messages which he brought from God, did not suspect him of error, illusion, or mistake. When he came to the prostration, having completed the surah, he prostrated himself and the Muslims did likewise, following their prophet, trusting in the message which he had brought and following his example. Those polytheists of the Quraysh and others who were in the mosque (173) likewise prostrated themselves because of the reference to their gods which they had heard, so that there was no one in the mosque, believer or unbeliever, who did not prostrate himself." Denial / Complaint #6 Today's Muslims point out that there is no mention of the "Satanic Verses" found in Sahih Hadith. Here is the Muslim position: 231

"Had there been any element of truth in the story, it could have caused a great scandal against Islam and the Prophet and every detail of this scandal must have found its place in the hadîth literature. Why is the authentic hadîth collection conspicuously silent about the scandalous part of the story? Does it not lead to the conclusion, contrary to the established fact, that hadîth literature itself is very defective as it failed to record such an important event which led the Prophet and his Companions to read 'Satanic' verses for weeks, months or perhaps even years without realizing the error, all the while asking for the intercession of Lat, Manat and Uzza? In fact, al-Bukhârû, Muslim, Abû Dâwûd, Nasâ'î and Ahmad b. Hanbal all record the story, but only to the extent that was true. They all mention that the Prophet did recite Sârah an-Najm and that, at the end when he prostrated, the idolaters present were so overawed that they also joined him in prostration. These leading Muhaddithûn do not mention the blasphemous story which other sources have recorded. Response #6 It has been already established that Bukhari's Hadith does contain an indirect reference to the event. Additionally, many other sources of Hadith also record the event. Just because the Sahih Hadith do not specifically mention it does not mean it never happened. The later collectors of Hadith could have been embarrassed, as Ibn Hisham was, and decided to leave the event out of their collections. Another part of this Muslim argument says that the pagans were so overawed when they heard "The Star" chapter, that they bowed in prostration. However, these pagans had already heard Muhammad recite much of the Quran, and they rejected it. Further, if they were "overawed", why did the persecution against the Muslims grow immediately worse? The evidence, i.e., the early Islamic sources tell us that they prostrated themselves because Muhammad allowed their worship. As the pagans told Muhammad: "We recognize that it is God who gives life and death, who creates and who provides sustenance, but if these gods of ours 232

intercede for us with him, and if you give them a share, we are with you."

Silas

CONCLUSIONS
The evidence proves that Muhammad spoke the Satanic verses. The four early biographers of Muhammad's life detail the story. Many traditions (Hadith) also establish it. There are references to it in the Sahih Hadith. Finally, there is specific references to it in the Quran. No one, with an open mind and honest heart, can doubt the event. It may make Muslims uncomfortable that Satan used their prophet, but in the least they should be forthright and honest about it and admit it to themselves. If they wish to follow a man who spoke Satan's words, that is their business. Of course the ramifications are large. Muhammad had a strange relationship with Satan. Was it really Gabriel choking Muhammad in the cave? How many other words were influenced by Satan? Why would God make light of a prophet speaking Satan's words as God's? Didn't God command in the Old Testament that false prophets should be put to death? Didn't Jesus predict that false prophets would come and mislead many? (Ref. Matthew 24:11). Muhammad had a deal with the devil. Satan led, he followed. If Muhammad began to get off course, Muhammad was corrected. Islam's denial of Christ's identity, is Satan's stronghold upon millions of people. Muslims follow one of the false prophets Jesus foretold. One Christian writer addressing this question asked: "Muslims today who simply dismiss the account of these writers as fabricated and unhistorical must at least answer the question why such reputable persons would fabricate it. The question is not new. But, it seems, a serious Muslim response is hard to find." To this date, a serious Muslim response is still hard to find. Further reading: Sir William Muir's conclusion regarding the historical validity of the reports, and other articles and discussions on this issue.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] "Holy Bible", New Revised Standard Version, published by Thomas Nelson. [2] "Sirat Un Nabi", page 214, by Allama Shibli Nu'mani, translated by M. Tayyib Bakhsh Budayuni, Volume 1, published by Kazi Publications, Lahore Pakistan. 3] "Tabari's History", pages 107 - 113, translated by W. M. Watt, published by SUNY, N.Y., USA. [4] "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir", pages 236 - 239, (Book of the Major Classes), by Ibn Sa'd, translated by S. Moinul Haq, published by the Pakistani Historical Society. [5] "The Life of Muhammad", pages 165 - 167, (translation / recomposition of Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasulallah" ("The Life of the Prophet of God", the most authentic extent biography of Muhammad's life), by A. Guillaume, published by Oxford, London, England. [6] "The Life of Mahomet", Volume 2, pages 150 - 152, by W. Muir, quoting "Kitab al-Wakidi", published in London. [7] "New Light on the Life of Muhammad", by A. Guillaume, published by Manchester University Press, Cambridge, England. [8] "Sahih Hadith of Bukhari", translated by Khan, published by Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, India.

233

234

[9] "The Quran" translated by N.J. Dawood, published by Penguin, London, England. [10] "The Quran and its Exegesis", by Helmut Gatje, pages 53 - 55, published by Oneworld, Oxford, England. [11] "Muhammad and the Religion of Islam", by John Gilchrist, page 118, published by Jesus to the Muslims, Durban, South Africa.

from Satan in comparison to those which came (supposedly) from Allah because Muhammad didn't realize it at the time. The Qur'an states: "And if you all are in doubt about what I have revealed to My servant, bring a single sura like it, and call your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful." (2:23) and specifically includes the jinn in the challenge:

The Satanic Verses and their implications for the Miracle of the Qur'an
For the historical background on the satanic verses, please read the article by Ernest Hahn. Here I only want to reflect on the implications of this event on the claimed miracle of eloquence which propsed as proof for the divine authorship of the Qur'an. Muslim authorities admit that Muhammad was at one time inspired by Satan to put some verses into the Qur'an. Some time later, upon receiving further revelation from Jibril, that those verses were not from God, but interjected by Satan, they were removed again. The Qur'an reports about it in Surah 22:52 Never sent We a messenger or a prophet before thee but when He recited (the message) Satan proposed (opposition) in respect of that which he recited thereof. But Allah abolisheth that which Satan proposeth. Then Allah establisheth His revelations. Allah is Knower, Wise; This means Satan was able to interfere with Muhammad's revelation and create some verses in praise of the idols al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, [see Sura 53:19-20], calling them "al-Gharaniq al-ula", "the high birds". He later annulled this (see Asbab al-Nuzul by al-Wahidi; chapter on why Sura al-Hajj was revealed). It seems that Satan was able to inspire some verses and nobody realized it until Allah pointed it out by giving further revelation. This means in particular: there was no "inferior language" in those verses which came 235

"Say: ‘If all mankind and the jinn would come together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce its like even though they exerted all and their strength in aiding one another.’" (17:88) According to the Qur'an, Satan is one of the jinn. We have learned that he gave revelation which Muhammad recited as being divine Qur'an. This revelation was sufficiently "like it" because Muhammad himself was not able to recognize that those verses were from Satan instead of from God. He was not able to distinguish those verses from the rest of the Qur'an based on their language. Instead, he needed another revelation from God to be informed about the falsehood of the former. This incident has several implications. The challenge of the Qur'an to "bring a surah like it" was actually met by those satanic verses in Muhammad's own time, which in turn leads to the conclusion that the rest of the Qur'an is not from God either. Some might want to respond with the argument that these satanic verses are "not long enough" to be counted as a whole sura as the Qur'an demands. This is a rather weak argument based on quantity instead of quality since such a response already acknowledges that the verses meet the criterion to be "like the Qur'an". If the Qur'an had contained a sura as short as these verses, you would not have rejected to believe it based on brevity. How do you know what is the minimum length for a possible sura? For those who do not want to accept that these verses meet the challenge in a qualitative way, and who claim that they know with their "feeling for 236

good Arabic", that these are inferior to the Qur'an, we respond that they apparently claim to know Arabic better, and that they have a better grasp on how to evaluate a sura than even Muhammad himself, who could not distinguish the fake from the real on the basis of language features. In the very least, this incident shows that Muhammad himself did not have any objective criteria on which to base an acceptance or rejection of a text that would take up the challenge in the Qur'an. Where then do you get your "feeling" from or from what source will you derive your "criteria" on the basis of which you can decide whether a certain Arabic text meets the Qur'anic challenge, or not? Particularly, on what basis can you reject these suras as not meeting the challenge?

The most popular "prophecy" about Muhammad is found in Deuteronomy 18. It is quite ironic, then, to learn that, according to Deuteronomy 18, Muhammad can’t possibly be a prophet. As we will see, this puts Muslims in an awkward position, and helps show the lengths to which they will go in their efforts to defend their prophet. The purpose of this essay is to prove, based on Muslim claims (including their appeal to Deuteronomy 18), that Muhammad was a false prophet. I will begin by presenting two arguments against the prophethood of Muhammad, and I will follow this by carefully defending the arguments. Once I have shown that the arguments are sound, I will briefly discuss the options available to Muslims who want to reject the obvious conclusion. I. THE DEUTERONOMY DEDUCTIONS

THE DEUTERONOMY DEDUCTIONS:
Two Short, Sound, Simple Proofs that Muhammad Was a False Prophet By David Wood
"But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak . . . that prophet shall die." ~GOD (Deuteronomy18:20)[1] "I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken." ~MUHAMMAD (Al-Tabari 6:111)[2]

There are two elements to look for when examining deductive arguments: valid logic and true premises. To say that a deductive argument is valid is to say that, due to the logical form, true premises will always lead to a true conclusion. The most basic argument form is the syllogism, and the most basic valid form of the syllogism is Modus Ponens.[3] The logical form of the following arguments is Modus Ponens; thus, they are logically valid: Argument A—false gods and false prophets A1. If a person speaks in the names of false gods, that person is a false prophet. A2. Muhammad spoke in the names of false gods. —————————————————— A3. Therefore, Muhammad was a false prophet. Argument B—false revelations and false prophets B1. If a person delivers a revelation that doesn’t come from God, that person is a false prophet. B2. Muhammad delivered a revelation that didn’t come from God. —————————————————— B3. Therefore, Muhammad was a false prophet. 238

Muhammad claimed that Jewish and Christian scriptures had predicted his coming (see, e.g., Qur’an 7:157). This has led Muslim apologists to comb the Old and New Testaments in search of passages that refer to their prophet. While all biblical evidence offered by Muslims in support of their prophet appears horribly strained to non-Muslims (provided the latter read the passages in context) and has been thoroughly refuted time and again, it is still common to hear Muslims claim that the Bible speaks about Muhammad. 237

Since the logic of both arguments is valid, true premises will always lead to a true conclusion. Hence, if the premises of these arguments are true, Muhammad was a false prophet. Let us turn, then, to a careful discussion of our premises. II. PREMISES A1 AND B1 DEFENDED A1 and B1 seem intuitively obvious. That is, it seems clear that if a person speaks in the names of false gods or delivers revelations that don’t come from God, the person cannot be a true prophet. Nevertheless, by appealing to the Bible to bolster their belief in Muhammad, Muslims have inadvertently granted that A1 and B1 are true. Deuteronomy 18 serves as the foundation of Islam’s "Argument from Biblical Prophecy," used by generations of Muslims to prove that Muhammad was a true prophet. Indeed, the popular Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam uses Deuteronomy 18 as its primary evidence that the Bible speaks of Muhammad. Author I. A. Ibrahim says, The Biblical prophecies on the advent of the Prophet Muhammad are evidence of the truth of Islam for people who believe in the Bible. In Deuteronomy 18, Moses stated that God told him: "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account." (Deuteronomy 18: 18-19)[4] The book goes on to argue that Muhammad fulfilled this prophecy in numerous ways. While such claims have been refuted ad nauseum,[5] I will simply note that Muslims have here granted that Deuteronomy 18:18-19 is inspired by God (since they regard it as a miraculous prophecy). Surely, then, we can’t ignore the next verse, where God says: "But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die." (Deuteronomy 18:20)

Here we have two criteria for spotting a false prophet: (1) delivering a revelation which God has not "commanded him to speak," and (2) speaking "in the name of other gods." Since Muslims who appeal to socalled biblical prophecies of Muhammad have given this passage their stamp of approval, they cannot deny the truth of A1 and B1. To sum up, Muslims have appealed to a passage in Deuteronomy 18, and that passage entails premises A1 and B1. Thus, according to Muslim claims, the first premise of each of the Deuteronomy Deductions is true. III. PREMISES A2 AND B2 DEFENDED We have seen that, according to a passage regarded by many Muslims as divine revelation, a person who either delivers a message that does not come from God or speaks in the names of false gods must be a false prophet. But this means that Muhammad was a false prophet, since he did both when he delivered the infamous "Satanic Verses." We learn about the Satanic Verses, not from Christian or Jewish sources, but from early Muslim writings. Accounts of the Satanic Verses are given in a number of early sources, including: (1) Ibn Ishaq, (2) Wakidi, (3) Ibn Sa’d, (4) al-Tabari, (5) Ibn Abi Hatim, (6) Ibn al-Mundhir, (7) Ibn Mardauyah, (8) Musa ibn 'Uqba, and (9) Abu Ma'shar.[6] According to the great Muslim scholar Ibn Hajar, three chains of transmission (isnad) in these accounts "satisfy the conditions requisite for an authentic report."[7] Moreover, Sahih al-Bukhari, Islam’s most trusted source on the life of Muhammad, gives indirect confirmation of the event (Number 4862, quoted below). Beyond this, certain verses of the Qur’an (17:73-5 and 22:52-3) were revealed in response to Muhammad’s embarrassing lapse into polytheism. We therefore have compelling historical evidence that the story is authentic. (For a thorough discussion of the evidence for the Satanic Verses, see "Muhammad and the Satanic Verses.") In fact, the historical method virtually guarantees the legitimacy of the story. Historians examining the lives of leaders and religious figures employ what is known as the "Principle of Embarrassment," a principle which also carries much weight in legal investigations. Law professor Annette Gordon-Reed sums up the principle thus: "Declarations against interest are regarded as having a high degree of credibility because of the 240

239

presumption that people do not make up lies in order to hurt themselves; they lie to help themselves."[8] Applying the Principle of Embarrassment to accounts of the Satanic Verses, we see immediately that Muslims would not have invented this story, since it calls Muhammad’s reliability into question. We also see that the story couldn’t have been invented by non-Muslims; for if non-Muslims had invented the story, Muslims would have exposed the story’s origin, instead of defending it in their earliest historical works. The evidence for the general reliability of the Muslim accounts concerning the Satanic Verses is therefore too overwhelming to ignore. With this in mind, let us consider a condensed account of what happened, based on the History of al-Tabari. According to al-Tabari, When the Messenger of God saw how his tribe turned their backs on him and was grieved to see them shunning the message he had brought to them from God, he longed in his soul that something would come to him from God which would reconcile him with his tribe. With his love for his tribe and his eagerness for their welfare it would have delighted him if some of the difficulties which they made for him could have been smoothed out, and he debated within himself and fervently desired such an outcome. Then God revealed: By the Star when it sets, your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived; nor does he speak out of (his own) desire . . . and when he came to the words: Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-‘Uzza and Manat, the third, the other? Satan cast on his tongue, because of his inner debates and what he desired to bring to his people, the words: These are the high-flying cranes; verily their intercession is accepted with approval. (Al-Tabari, p. 108) 241

The polytheists were delighted that Muhammad had at last approved of their gods. To return the kindness, they "prostrated themselves because of the reference to their gods which they had heard, so that there was no one in the mosque, believer or unbeliever, who did not prostrate himself" (p. 109). Muhammad’s friendly relations with the polytheists were short-lived, however, for he soon learned that his verses praising pagan idols came not from God, but from Satan. Saddened to recognize his treachery against Allah, Muhammad lamented: "I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken" (p. 111). Yet "Gabriel" comforted Muhammad, informing him that all prophets fall for Satan’s tricks from time to time. This staggering and unbelievable claim even found its way into the Qur’an: "And We did not send before you any apostle or prophet, but when he desired, the Shaitan made a suggestion respecting his desire; but Allah annuls that which the Shaitan casts, then does Allah establish His communications, and Allah is Knowing, Wise." (Surah 22:52)[9] According to the next verse, Allah allows his prophets to receive revelations from Satan in order to test hard-hearted people. Whatever we think of the preposterous Qur’anic explanation of the Satanic Verses (and its defense of Muhammad), it is clear that the Prophet of Islam, on at least one occasion, delivered a message that did not come from God. It is also clear that Muhammad, on at least one occasion, spoke in the names of false gods.[10] Thus, we can establish from Muslim sources that A2 and B2 are almost certainly true. IV. POSSIBLE REPLIES Since we have good reasons to accept premises A1, A2, B1, and B2, we have good reasons to accept conclusions A3 and B3, both of which claim that Muhammad was a false prophet. Muslims, however, will not want to accept this conclusion. Let us briefly discuss their prospects for rejecting it.

242

Muslims could, of course, claim that Deuteronomy 18:20 is a false teaching, not actually revealed by God. But if they take this route, it would be absurd of them to turn around and declare that 18:18-19 is an inspired prophecy. While it is alarmingly common for Muslims to pick and choose which passages in the Bible are correct (i.e. everything that agrees with Islam is correct, but everything that disagrees with Islam was corrupted by evil Jews and Christians), no one is going to be convinced by the claim that one verse in Deuteronomy 18 proves the prophethood of Muhammad, while another verse in the same passage is corrupted because it proves that he was a false prophet. Thus, Muslims who want to deny A1 and B1 must abandon their claim that Deuteronomy 18 predicts the coming of Muhammad. The problem with this approach is that the prophecy of a coming messenger like Moses is one of the last remaining verses that Muslims—in spite of the evidence—cling to in their hopes of vindicating Muhammad. But if the Bible contains no clear prophecies about Muhammad, then Muhammad was a false prophet, since he claimed (in the Qur’an no less!) that the Jewish and Christian scriptures contain prophecies of his coming. This means that Muslims are caught between the horns of a dilemma. If they cling to Deuteronomy 18, then Muhammad was a false prophet. If they abandon it, then they are on the verge of having no biblical prophecies of Muhammad, which would imply that Muhammad was a false prophet. Muslims who give up their most prized prophecy still wouldn’t be out of the water, however. For even if they abandon Deuteronomy 18 and declare it to be utterly corrupted, this wouldn’t refute A1 and B1, since, as I have already noted, these premises are intuitively obvious. Muslims who want to deny A1 and B1 must therefore show that these premises are false by arguing that genuine prophets can indeed deliver false revelations and speak in the names of false gods. I would love to see Muslims attempt to defend such an untenable position! It seems, then, that Muslims who want to continue believing in Muhammad must deny not A1 and B1, but A2 and B2. But this means that they must reject the overwhelming historical evidence for Muhammad’s temporary support of paganism. Muslims who take this approach must do seven things. First, they must provide some reasonable explanation as to the story’s origin (e.g. they must make a plausible case 243

that the story was invented by pagans, Jews, or Christians). Second, they must explain why Muslims, who had every reason to reject such a story, passed it on as if it were true (instead of exposing it as a fabrication). Third, they must show that Ibn Ishaq, Wakidi, Ibn Sa’d, al-Tabari, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Mardauyah, Musa ibn ‘Uqba, and Abu Ma’shar were sloppy historians (so amazingly sloppy that they included false stories about Muhammad that called his prophethood into question). Fourth, they must account for the various chains of authority to which the early Muslim biographers appealed in their efforts to demonstrate the story’s authenticity. Fifth, they must explain why alBukhari, Islam’s most trusted authority, confirms certain details of the story that only make sense if Muhammad really did deliver the Satanic Verses. According to Bukhari, The Prophet performed a prostration when he finished reciting Surat anNajm [Surah 53], and all the Muslims and Al-Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah and in His Messenger Muhammad) and jinn and human beings prostrated along with him. (4862)[11] Though Bukhari understandably omits the embarrassing reason for the prostration of the pagans, he inadvertently confirms the account given by Ibn Ishaq and the others, who faithfully reported that the pagans bowed down because Muhammad spoke favorably of their gods. Sixth, Muslims must account for Surah 22:52, which, again, declares that all God’s prophets received revelations from Satan—a verse so preposterous that it could only have been offered to the Muslim community as an absurd explanation for something like the Satanic Verses. Seventh, they must show non-Muslims why we should reject all the available evidence and believe that Muhammad was spiritually reliable, when, as all informed Muslims will admit, Muhammad was the victim of black magic (a spell cast by a Jewish magician) and, at one point, was convinced that he was demon-possessed. Put differently, if the Prophet of Islam could mistakenly believe that he was demon-possessed, and was susceptible to spiritual attacks (such as black magic), why shouldn’t we believe that he could fall prey to revelations from Satan? (For more on Muhammad’s spiritual difficulties, see "A Bewitched Prophet?")

244

While I have witnessed Muslim attempts to explain away the historical evidence for the Satanic Verses, I have never seen anything remotely resembling a convincing refutation of the evidence. For instance, in my debate on the prophethood of Muhammad at U.C. Davis, my opponent Ali Ataie tried to respond to al-Bukhari’s indirect confirmation of the Satanic Verses by appealing to the miraculous power of the Qur’an. According to Ataie, the reason the pagans bowed down in honor of Surah 53 (which, in its present form, ridicules polytheism) was that they were overwhelmed by its majesty. But surely such a response is based on fantasy rather than fact. Muslims have been reciting the Qur’an for more than a thousand years, and unbelievers are typically quite unimpressed by Muhammad’s poetry. Indeed, Muhammad won remarkably few converts when he appealed to the Qur’an as evidence of his divine commission. He only saw large numbers of converts when he turned to other (far more bloody) means of conversion. Thus, for Muslims like Ataie to claim that the pagans, with one accord, bowed down at Muhammad’s recitation of Surah 53, is bordering on delusional. Bukhari’s hadith makes far more sense when read in the light of historical works like Ibn Ishaq (which, incidentally, predates Sahih alBukhari by many decades). The only conceivable reason the pagans would bow down in honor of Surah 53 is that the Surah originally supported paganism, and this is exactly what our earliest historical records claim. All things considered, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the historical evidence is that Muhammad, in a moment of weakness, gave into temptation and actively promoted polytheism by delivering a revelation from Satan. But this means that we cannot rationally reject premises A2 and B2. Muslims, then, can have no good response to the Deuteronomy Deductions. We are therefore left with an unavoidable conclusion: Muhammad was a false prophet. V. ASSESSMENT To conclude, I would like to emphasize again that my entire argument (in two deductions) has been based on the writings and claims of Muslims. Early Muslim historians, in an astounding display of honesty and integrity, admitted that their prophet had delivered the Satanic Verses to his listeners. In acknowledging this, they provided all the 245

evidence we need for premises A2 and B2. Modern Muslims, in an effort to defend Muhammad’s claim to biblical support for his ministry, have granted that a passage in Deuteronomy 18 was inspired by God. In doing so, they have given us all the evidence we need for premises A1 and B1. Since both of the Deuteronomy Deductions are logically valid, we have two proofs, based entirely on the claims of Muslims, that Muhammad was a false prophet. Since the Deuteronomy Deductions are sound (i.e. logically valid with true premises), any honest seeker will have to admit that Muhammad was a false prophet. It should be an enlightening exercise, then, to present these arguments to Muslims. If a Muslim examines the arguments carefully, inspecting the premises and weighing the evidence, and then rejects the conclusion without refuting the argument, we can only assume that such a person is less interested in truth and more interested in the comfort provided by blindly accepting the faith he was raised in. Although my experience leads me to believe that most Muslims are of this type, my experience has also shown me that there are Muslims in the world who are actively dedicated to learning the truth about God. The first truth such Muslims must learn is that their prophet Muhammad was no prophet at all. The second is that their prophet Jesus is much more than a prophet. (But I’ll save that for another essay.)

Notes:
1

Bible quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition.

2

The History of al-Tabari, Volume VI: Muhammad at Mecca, W. Montgomery Watt and M. V. McDonald, trs. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988).
3

Modus Ponens takes the form:

1. If P, then Q. 2. P. ——————— 3. Therefore, Q. Here we may substitute various elements for P and Q, giving us, for instance:

246

1. If Fido is a dog, then Fido is a mammal. 2. Fido is a dog. ——————— 3. Therefore, Fido is a mammal.
4

Ibrahim, I. A. A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam (Houston: Darussalam, 1997), p. 33.
5

bears repeating: There is not a single verse in the Qur’an that prohibits making or having pictures of Muhammad or people or animals or trees. In fact, there are some verses in the Qur’an which mention images in a positive context and which therefore presuppose that some statues or images were approved by God, see the article Muhammad and Images. However, the vast majority of Muslims are Sunni Muslims, who regard six authorized collections of hadiths as the highest written authority in Islam after the Qur’an. The hadiths are records, often very detailed, of what Muhammad taught and did. We give multiple quotations to show that these teachings are not confined to just one writer/collector, but are spread throughout the different hadith collections. Where multiple trustworthy hadiths agree, Sunni Muslims will take this as binding. In other words, people today are kicked out of Islam, or even killed based on the hadiths. Pictures of Muhammad are "not exactly" forbidden in the hadiths either. The hadiths do not single out Muhammad’s picture. Rather, in the hadith we find the prohibition of all pictures of people or animals, which would include pictures from a camera. For example, Sahih Muslim vol.3 no.5268 (p.1160) says, "Ibn ‘Umar reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said: Those who paint pictures would be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it would be said to them: Breathe soul into what you have created.2519" Notice that the prohibition was not just against idolators who made pictures, or even Muslims who made pictures for other reasons, but for anyone who made pictures. Sahih Muslim vol.3 no.5271 (p.1161) gives a little more detail: "This hadith has been reported on the authority of Abu Mu’awiya though another chain of transmitters (and the words are): ‘Verily the most grievously tormented people amongst the denizens [inhabitants] of Hell on the Day of Resurrection would be the painters of pictures.2520..." "Narrated ‘Aisha: Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The painter of these pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be said to them, 248

See, for example, "Muhammad in the Bible?" For references, see "Muhammad and the Satanic Verses."

6

7

Ibn Hajar, quoted in Allam Shibli Nu’mani, Sirat-un-Nabi, Volume 1, M. Tayyib Bakhsh Budayuni, tr. (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2004), p. 164.
8

Annette Gordon-Reed, Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1997).
9

Qur’an quotations are from the M. H. Shakir translation.

10

One might object that Muhammad did not actually speak in the names of the pagan gods. That is, he did not say, "I come to you in the name of Manat." Instead, he spoke in the name of Allah, and merely approved of the intercession of the pagan gods. However, the point of the passage in Deuteronomy is clearly that anyone who promotes polytheism is a false prophet. And Muhammad certainly promoted polytheism on this occasion.
11

Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume Six, Muhammad Muhsin Khan, tr. (Riyadh: Darussalam, 1997).

Are Pictures of Muhammad Really Forbidden In Islam?
While some Muslims were outraged by a magazine printing cartoon pictures of Muhammad, we have to step back and calmly ask, are pictures of Muhammad really forbidden in Islam? – the answer might surprise you. Numerous passages in the Qur’an prohibit idolatry, and worshipping statues or pictures, but there is not even single verse in the Qur’an that explicitly or implicitly says not to have any pictures of Muhammad. This 247

Make alive what you have created.’" Bukhari vol.9 book 93 no.646 p.487. no.647 p.487 is the same except it is narrated by Ibn ‘Umar. No pictures of people or animals according to Bukhari vol.4 book 54 no.447-450 p.297-299. Conclusion: It is clear that the hadiths prohibit pictures of animals or people, especially in homes. There is no focus on pictures of Muhammad per se. All pictures of people and animals are forbidden. It is a completely general prohibition.

Damascus) has clearly stated that the photos of the modern age fall under the category of pictures. He says: ‘The words of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) that every maker of the photo would be tormented on the Day of Resurrection, include every artist whether he makes pictures with the help of his hand (with pencil or with the help of colour paint) or with the help of camera." (marginal notes on the book Ihham alAhham, Sharh ‘Umdat al-Ahham. Vol. II, p.37). Conclusion: "No pictures" includes no photos (still or moving). "No pictures" might reduce idolatry, but the reason given is not that, but that Allah will torment all who have made pictures. Observation: It is clear that making pictures is a horrible sin in Islam. There are dozens of narrations that emphasize and reiterate this point. However, it is always said that Allah will punish those people on the Day of Judgment. There is no command for Muslims to go out now and punish those painters themselves. This is particularly relevant since Muhammad was not shy in this regard. He ordered severe punishments, and at times even commanded torture, of many people who in his opinion had broken the law of Allah (c.f. this summary article for issues like whipping people who drink alcohol or gamble, cutting off the hands of thieves, etc., and this one for the issue of torture). Despite condemning the making of pictures as an especially grieveous sin, Muhammad does not prescribe earthly punishments for those who do.

What Do These Hadiths Mean?
Footnote 2519 (p.1160) says, "The ahadith pertaining to the preparation of pictures whether with the help of colour, paint, or pencil or photographic cameras, declare this art to be unlawful in Islam. The famous scholar of Hadith and an eminent jurist of the seventh century of Hijra, Ibn Daqiq al-Id, has made the following observation in regard to this art: ‘The reasons of the Shari’ah are so eloquent and clear in regard to the prohibition of making pictures that they need no comment and elucidation. That person is missing the mark who says that this prohibition comes under the category of disapproval and is not absolutely unlawful and the stress which had been laid upon its prohibition was not because of the fact that idolatry had been quite recently curbed, ... in the ahadith the reason put forward for the unlawfulness of pictures is this: Those who prepare pictures would be asked to breathe soul on the Day of Resurrection in these pictures made by them. And then they would not be able to do this, they would be punished ... (Ihham al-Ahham, Sharh ‘Umdat al-Ahham, Vol II, pp 1712)." The footnote goes on to give a lengthy discussion as to why all pictures are forbidden, but we will not quote those for the sake of space. What about Muslims in more modern times? Footnote 2520 (p.1161) says, "A well-known scholar of our times ‘Allama Muhammad Munir (of 249

Any Counter-Examples?
That is always a good question to ask when looking at the hadiths. Yes, there are two types of counter-examples, counter-example does not necessarily mean contradiction with what the rest of the hadiths say. Rather one is a qualification, and the other counter-example is "an exception that proves the rule." Counter-example 1: Dolls, pictures of non-living things, and even some churches are OK 250

Dolls: A’ishah [‘Aisha/A’isha] played with dolls when she was with other girls. When Muhammad came in, the other girls went out, and when Muhammad went out, they came back in. Sunan Abu Dawud vol.3 chapter 1769 no.4913 p.1373 Footnote 4288 on this verse says, "This tradition show that playing with dolls by children is permissible. The dolls used as toys for children are not prohibited. They do not fall under the category of pictures of animate objects that are prohibited. But these dolls should be meant only for children." ‘Aisha and Muhammad married when she was seven years old, and ‘Aisha was "taken to his house as a bride when she was nine and her dolls were with her;" Sahih Muslim vol.2 book 8 ch. 551 no.3311 p.716 ‘Aisha played with dolls while her husband Muhammad was with her. Sahih Muslim vol.4 book 29 ch.1005 no.5981 p.1299. One was a horse with wings. Sunan Abu Dawud chapter 1769 no.4914 p.1373. Bukhari vol.8 book 73 no.151 p.95 says something very similar. On the other hand, the English translator of Bukhari (Muhammad Muhsin Khan) has a different opinion. The parenthesis below this narration says, "(The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for ‘Aisha, at that time as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty. Fateh-Al-Bari Page 143 Vol.13)." However, the parentheses are not in the Arabic. Inanimate patterns: A’isha had a curtain with pictures. Muhammad told her to remove the picture, so she cut it in pieces and made pillows out of it, according to Sunan Nasa’i vol.1 chapter 454 no.764 p.471 A young girl from Ethiopia with a patterned dress made Muhammad happy. "214 Narrated Um Khalid bint Khalid: When I came from Ethiopia (to Medina), I was a young girl. Allah’s Apostle made me wear a sheet having marks on it. Allah’s Apostle was rubbing those marks with his hands saying, "Sanah! Sanah!" (i.e. good, good)." Bukhari vol.5 book 58 no.214 p.137

Churches: It might surprise some to hear that the hadiths are not against going to church, as long as there are no pictures. "(54) CHAPTER. To pray in a church or in a temple etc. ‘Umar said, ‘We do not enter your churches because of the statues and pictures.’ Ibn ‘Abbas used to pray in the church provided there were no statues in it." Bukhari vol.1 chapter 54 p.254 Counter-example 2: What happens if there are pictures in a Muslim house? Angels do not enter a house with a dog or a picture Sahih Muslim vol.3 book 22 no.5246-5252 p.1157-1158 as well as Ibn-i-Majah vol.5 book 32 no.3649-3652 p.108-109 Angels do not enter a house where there is a picture or a dog or a junubi (Someone who is unclean because of sex). Sunan Nasa’i vol.1 no.264 p.240 also Sunan Abu Dawud vol.1 book 1 no.227 p.55-56 Narrated ‘Aisha, the mother of the faithful believers: I bought a cushion with pictures on it. When Allah’s Apostle saw it, he kept standing at the door and did not enter the house. I noticed the sign of disgust on his face, so I said, "O Allah’s Apostle (Please let me know) what sin I have done." Allah’s Apostle said, "What about this cushion?" I replied, "I bought it for you to sit and recline on." Allah’s Apostle said, "The painters (i.e. owners) of these pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection. It will be said to them, ‘Put life in what you have created (.i.e. painted).’" The Prophet added, "The angels do not enter a house where there are pictures." Bukhari vol.3 book 34 no.318 p.180 No pictures, even of animals. "Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet entered upon me while there was a curtain having pictures (of animals) in the house. His face got red with anger, and then he got hold of the curtain and tore it into pieces. The Prophet said, ‘Such people as paint these pictures will receive the severest punishment on the Day of Resurrection.’" Bukhari vol.8 book 73 no.130 p.83-84 Muhammad went to Fatimah’s house, but turned back when he saw a figured curtain. Sunan Abu Dawud vol.3 book 21 no.3746 p.1060 252

251

When ‘Ali [Fatima’s husband] invited Muhammad over for food, Muhammad saw in the house pictures and then went back home. Ibn-iMajah vol.4 book 29 no.3359 p.481 Conclusion: Although these hadiths do not threaten eternal punishment for those who merely own pictures — it is always only the makers of the pictures that are cursed and condemned —, Muhammad’s very clear disapproval of having them in the house, and his example of destroying any picture in his own home, would be enough for any faithful Muslim to follow his example. A good Sharia Muslim would have no picture of people or animals, except perhaps dolls for children. Observation: Apart from the destruction of idols (e.g. in the Kaaba) it seems that Muhammad did neither order the punishment of painters, nor the destruction of other privately owned images. There are dozens of hadiths like the above. We have not found any that give a clear command to destroy pictures in general. Summary: In the most authoritative sources of Islam, there is no particular emphasis on forbidding pictures of prophets, or the person of Muhammad in particular. It is clear that Muslims should not make pictures of Muhammad but only as an application of the general prohibition against making pictures of people or animals.

producer of this flattering movie was himself killed by Muslims. Moustapha was one of the people who died in the hotel bombing in Amman Jordan on November 9, 2005. Moreover, you can see many pictures of Muhammad, created by Muslims themselves, in museums and on web sites, e.g. The Birth of Muhammad, Muhammad's call to prophethood, The Night Journey of Muhammad on His Steed, Buraq, etc. (1, 2, 3). The Mohammed Image Archive has two substantial collections of Muslim art containing depictions of Muhammad. The following are examples of pictures of people from current Muslim books about prayer. While probably the majority of Muslims would have no problem with the book covers below, Sharia Muslims who tell people to follow the hadiths would see that this disobeys the previously mentioned hadiths.

Muslims and Pictures Today
No pictures in the home includes no television in the home. When television in Saudi Arabia began having pictures of people and animals, there were violent riots. On the other hand, in the west at least, most Muslims do not observe any prohibitions against pictures. Moustapha Akkad was the Muslim who produced and directed the movie "Muhammad Messenger of God". It is widely used by Muslims as a missionary tool to invite people to Islam. Although the person of Muhammad is not shown in the movie, the actors are playing many of his companions, contradicting the above Islamic rules. It is ironic that the 253 (Source) (Source 1, Source 2)

These pictures were on the referenced sites as of February 6, 2006

254

Here is another picture, actually a large painting, of Saddam Hussain praying. Look at this, and then ask if this goes against the teaching of the hadiths. It is understandable though that no Muslims in Iraq voiced any criticism about this, because they would have been killed if they did. Hussein had numerous other pictures of him too. I am not aware of Muslims outside of Iran having outrage over this picture:

Sharia Law, Pictures, and the Hypocrites
Moderate Muslims have no problem with pictures, as long as they are not used in idolatry. But for Sharia Muslims, are you criticizing what non-Muslims do based on the hadiths, when you as a Muslim break these same hadiths? If you have been a Muslim hypocrite, but do not want to be anymore, I am ready to help. I will be happy to go over to your house, and help you destroy all of your books and newspapers that have photographs of people or animals in them, and break your TV, VCR, and video camera. When can I come over? ;-) So if a conservative Muslim tries to tell you that Sharia Law should be practiced today, or is outraged over a picture, ask them if they have a TV. If following the hadiths does not work for them, they are a hypocrite to demand from others to follow it. Now God does not want us to be hypocrites. If you teach other people to follow something, then you should try to follow it yourself. But if you do not think you should follow something, such as Sharia, then do not tell others that they should follow it. If you wish to discuss this, or have any comments, suggestions, or corrections, please contact me at webmaster@muslimhope.com. Summary: The points of this article are very simple:
  

Contrary to what most Muslims think, no pictures of people or animals are allowed. If you would consistently follow Sharia Law in the hadiths, then get rid of all your pictures. If not, don't advocate Sharia Law.

(Source, February 6, 2006)

Furthermore, this article was written as background information for gaining a better understanding in regard to the controversy about the Muhammad Cartoons. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been protesting, and thousands of Muslims became violent, attacking and 256

255

destroying embassies of Denmark and other countries, issuing death threats, etc. The above discussion shows that the prohibition of pictures cannot be the reason. What then is really going on here? What is the reason for thousands of Muslims to go on a rampage? To dig deeper into this topic, continue with this article: Is Islam above Criticism?

with you; and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak to you about all that I will give you in commandment for the sons of Israel." Exodus 25:10-22 "Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference. Under its brim gourds went around encircling it ten to a cubit, completely surrounding the sea; the gourds were in two rows, cast with the rest. It stood on twelve oxen, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south, and three facing east; and the sea was set on top of them, and all their rear parts turned inward. It was a handbreadth thick, and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom; it could hold two thousand baths. Then he made the ten stands of bronze; the length of each stand was four cubits and its width four cubits and its height three cubits. This was the design of the stands: they had borders, even borders between the frames, and on the borders which were between the frames were lions, oxen and cherubim; and on the frames there was a pedestal above, and beneath the lions and oxen were wreaths of hanging work... He engraved on the plates of its stays and on its borders, cherubim, lions and palm trees, according to the clear space on each, with wreaths all around... and the four hundred pomegranates for the two networks, two rows of pomegranates for each network to cover the two bowls of the capitals which were on the tops of the pillars; and the ten stands with the ten basins on the stands; and the one sea and the twelve oxen under the sea;" 1 Kings 7:23-29, 36, 42-44 "Moreover, the king made a great throne of ivory and overlaid it with refined gold. There were six steps to the throne and a round top to the throne at its rear, and arms on each side of the seat, and two lions standing beside the arms. Twelve lions were standing there on the six steps on the one side and on the other; nothing like it was made for any other kingdom." 1 Kings 10:18-20 "Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live.’ And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived." Numbers 21:8-9 258

Muhammad and Images
Sam Shamoun The Holy Bible, God’s true Word, as well as the Quran permit the fashioning of images, provided that these objects are not worshiped or venerated: "They shall construct an ark of acacia wood two and a half cubits long, and one and a half cubits wide, and one and a half cubits high. You shall overlay it with pure gold, inside and out you shall overlay it, and you shall make a gold molding around it. You shall cast four gold rings for it and fasten them on its four feet, and two rings shall be on one side of it and two rings on the other side of it. You shall make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. You shall put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark, to carry the ark with them. The poles shall remain in the rings of the ark; they shall not be removed from it. You shall put into the ark the testimony which I shall give you. You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold, two and a half cubits long and one and a half cubits wide. You shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub at one end and one cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim of one piece with the mercy seat at its two ends. The cherubim shall have their wings spread upward, covering the mercy seat with their wings and facing one another; the faces of the cherubim are to be turned toward the mercy seat. You shall put the mercy seat on top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony which I will give to you. There I will meet 257

And (further) their Prophet said to them: "A Sign of his authority is that there shall come to you the Ark of the covenant, with (an assurance) therein of security from your Lord, and the relics left by the family of Moses and the family of Aaron, carried by angels. In this is a symbol for you if ye indeed have faith." S. 2:248 Y. Ali And unto Solomon (We gave) the wind, whereof the morning course was a month's journey and the evening course a month's journey, and We caused the fount of copper to gush forth for him, and (We gave him) certain of the jinn who worked before him by permission of his Lord. And such of them as deviated from Our command, them We caused to taste the punishment of flaming Fire. They made for him what he willed: synagogues AND STATUES, basins like wells and boilers built into the ground. Give thanks, O House of David! Few of My bondmen are thankful. S. 34:12-14 Pickthall Muhammad, however, condemned the making of images: Narrated Abu Talha: The Prophet said, "Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or there are pictures." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 833) Narrated Salim’s father: Once Gabriel promised to visit the Prophet but he delayed and the Prophet got worried about that. At last he came out and found Gabriel and complained to him of his grief (for his delay). Gabriel said to him, "We do not enter a place in which there is a picture or a dog." (Sahih alBukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 843) Does this mean that there were no angels that attended Moses or Solomon, or that they never entered God’s temple because of the images which were placed therein? Narrated ‘Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet) I bought a cushion having pictures on it. When Allah’s Apostle saw it, he stopped at the gate and did not enter. I noticed the signs of hatred (for that) on his face! I said, "O Allah’s Apostle! I turn to Allah and His Apostle in repentance! What sin have I committed?" He said, "What 259

about this cushion?" I said, ‘I bought it for you to sit on and recline on." Allah’s Apostle said, "The makers of these pictures will be punished (severely) on the Day of Resurrection and it will be said to them, ‘Make alive what you have created.’" He added, "Angels do not enter a house in which there are pictures." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 844) Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet entered upon me while there was a curtain having pictures (of animals) in the house. His face got red with anger, and then he got hold of the curtain and tore it into pieces. The Prophet said, "Such people as paint these pictures will receive the severest punishment on the Day of Resurrection." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 130) Again, if Muhammad was correct then does this imply that God will severely punish Moses, Aaron, Solomon and those Israelites who were commissioned to make images? Will God also demand that these righteous and God-fearing men bring to life those very images which he himself commissioned them to make? Moreover, since Sura 2:248 explicitly states that angels carried the Ark of the Covenant does this therefore mean that these angels will be punished and thrown in hell for assisting in carrying something expressly condemned by Gabriel according to Muhammad? What makes this truly amazing, as well as astonishing, is that although Muhammad condemned image-making, something permitted by both the Holy Bible and the Quran, he kissed a black stone and thereby venerated it, something that is expressly condemned in both the Holy Bible and the Quran as idolatry! For further discussion, see Stone Kissing and Idolatry. The foregoing conclusively shows just how contradictory and confusing Muhammad’s practices and teachings truly are. Further reading: Are Pictures of Muhammad Really Forbidden In Islam?

260