MuhammadApologetic Paper by Joseph Smith - May 1995 |
|
MuhammadApologetic Paper by Joseph Smith - May 1995 |
|
Apologetic Paper by Joseph Smith - May 1995 |
|
CONTENTS D. Were there prophecies concerning Muhammad? E. Conclusion D2iv: Song of Solomon 5:16But 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."
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 long-neglected "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." 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 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
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 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. D3: Is there a prophecy of Muhammad in the Injil?
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 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". D3ii: Greek language confirms parakletos
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). D3iii: Greek manuscripts confirm parakletosIt would have been helpful if Ali and his learned "doctors", before making such an erroneous claim, had referred to existing manuscripts (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! D3iv: Therefore Muhammad could not be the parakletosSo 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.
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:
D3vi: The answer is the Holy Spirit, who arrived 50 days laterIt 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. 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":
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. E: ConclusionSo 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. 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.
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 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.
|
|
