October 2016

CHAPTER VII

BIBLE HISTORY IN ISLAM

EVERY reader of the Qur'an knows that it contains lengthy and repeated references to Bible history. A very large amount of space indeed is given in the Qur'an to the stories of the early Patriarchs; whilst Moses, David, Solomon and others are also frequently mentioned. Now if the Qur'an ‘confirms,’ as it claims to do, the Old and New Testament Scriptures, then it is obvious that Qur'anic references to the great men mentioned in those books will agree with the accounts found in the Torah and Injil. Far from this being the case, however, we shall show that Muhammad again and again falls into serious error with regard to those whom he mentions. Two principal reasons may be assigned for these mistakes on the part of Muhammad. In the first place, we have direct evidence from Islamic sources that Muhammad was in the habit of asking the Jews concerning their Faith, and that, in reply, the crafty sons of Israel often deliberately misled the Prophet by misrepresenting the truth, and by leading him to believe that what they had told him was in reality in their Scriptures. This evidence is furnished by no less an authority than 'Abbas, one of the companions of the Prophet. The Tradition itself is recorded by Muslim, and runs as follows:—

قَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ فلما سَأَلَهُمُ النَّبِيُّ صلعم عَنْ شَىْءٍ من أهل الكتاب فَكَتَمُوهُ إِيَّاهُ وَأَخْبَرُوهُ بِغَيْرِهِ فَخَرَجُوا قَدْ أَرَوْهُ أَنْ قَدْ أَخْبَرُوهُ بِمَا سَأَلَهُمْ

‘Ibn 'Abbas said that, when the Prophet asked any question of the people of the Book, they suppressed the matter, and, in place of it, told him something else, and went away letting him think that they had told him what he asked them.’ 86 Here, then, we have a sufficient explanation of the fact that many of the Jewish stories repeated in the Qur'an do not agree with the inspired records of the Torah and Injil.

Another undoubted reason for the historical errors of the Qur'an is the fact that the Jews of Arabia in the time of Muhammad had largely superseded the study of the Torah by that of the Talmud. This latter was a collection of traditional folk-lore and Rabbinical speculation concerning almost every conceivable topic. Apocryphal stories of the ancient Patriarchs and traditional comments and glosses of the ancient Scriptures made up a large portion of the Talmud, which, rather than the Torah, was the book most studied in the schools and recited on public occasions. Little wonder, then, that Muhammad, as he listened to its unhistorical legends, should have imagined them to be the very words of Scripture, and so was led to incorporate them in his Qur'an. This is the view of no less a scholar than Sir Amir 'Ali, who admits 87 that Muhammad ‘borrowed from the fleeting fancies of Zoroastrianism, Sabeanism and the Talmudic Jew.’ These borrowed 'fancies' no doubt contributed not a little to the many historical errors of the Qur'an. In another place the same Muslim writer, speaking of similar Traditions current amongst the Christians of Arabia in the time of Muhammad, makes the following significant admission:— ‘Before the advent of Muhammad, all these traditions, based on fact though tinged by the colourings of imagination, must have become firmly imbedded in the convictions of the people, and formed essential parts of the folk-lore of the country. Muhammad, therefore, when promulgating his faith and his laws, found these Traditions floating among his people; he took them up and adopted them as the lever for raising the Arabs as well as the surrounding nations from the depth of social and moral degradation into which they had fallen.’ 88 If, as the Sayyid admits, Muhammad ‘took up’ and ‘adopted’ ‘traditions based on fact, though tinged by the colourings of imagination,’ is it any wonder that many historical errors as to matters of fact found a place in his teaching!

We do not propose to show here to what extent Muhammad borrowed from Jewish and Christian tradition, 89 but we intend to confine ourselves to a few illustrations of the historical errors in which the Qur'an abounds. These illustrations could be multiplied almost indefinitely, but limits of space forbid more than the briefest selection.

In the Torah it was revealed to Moses that our first parents lived in the garden of Eden, whence flowed the rivers Hiddekel (Tigris) and Euphrates. The land of Assyria is also mentioned as being near by. From this it is clear that the garden of Eden was situated upon the earth. But in the Qur'an it is erroneously stated that the garden of Eden was in heaven. Thus we read, ‘O Adam, dwell thou and thy wife in Paradise,90 and eat ye whence ye will, but to this tree approach not, lest ye become of the unjust doers.’91 This was not improbably one of the untruths repeated to Muhammad when he questioned the Jews as to what was in their Scriptures. It is in keeping with their conduct on another occasion when, being asked by him as to what was the punishment laid down in the Torah for adultery, they falsely told him it was scourging—instead of death by stoning.

The Qur'an erroneously makes Haman to be the name of one of the chief officers (the commentators say Vizier) of Pharaoh. Thus we read, ‘and Pharaoh said, “O Haman, build for me a tower that I may reach the avenues, the avenues of the heavens, and may mount to the God of Moses, for I verily deem him a liar”.’ 92 Now Haman, it is well known, lived several hundred years later than Moses. He was vizier to Ahasuerus, king of Babylon, and is mentioned in the Book of Esther, where we read, ‘After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Aagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes that were with him.’ 93 Not only so, but the great Jewish historian Josephus also clearly states that Haman served under Ahasuerus in Babylon, and he gives many details of his life there.94 Thus the statement of the Qur'an that Haman lived in Egypt in the time of Moses is a gross error.

The passage from the Qur'an quoted above contains a double error, for it ascribes the building of the tower of Babel to Pharaoh, though, in reality, it was begun very many years before the time of Moses. If the reader will turn to the eleventh chapter of Genesis he will see how great a time separated the building of the tower from the Pharaoh of Moses' day. Moreover the real tower was built ‘in the Land of Shinar,’ i.e. Babylon, and not in Egypt at all.

From the Torah 95 we learn that the name of Abraham's father was Terah. The great Jewish historian Josephus says the same, for in his book 96 we read of ‘Terah, who was the father of Abraham.’ There can be no doubt, therefore, that Terah was the correct name; yet, strange to say, the Qur'an erroneously calls him Azar 97 in these words,

وَإِذْ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ لأَبِيهِ آزَرَ

‘And when Abraham said to his father Azar.’  No satisfactory explanation of this has ever been given; though later Muslim scholars, who have recognised Muhammad's mistake, have made various attempts to escape the difficulty. Thus the Jalalain, in commenting on the passage just quoted, says

هو لقبه، واسمه تارخ

‘It (i.e., the word Azar) was his title, and his name was Tarakh.’ 98 The commentator Baidawi quotes another opinion to the effect that Abraham's father had two names, Azar and Tarakh! These are obviously mere subterfuges designed to explain away the Prophet's mistake.

In Surah Al-Qasas 28:9 we are told that Pharaoh's wife took pity on and brought up the infant child Moses when he was taken out of the river where he had been hidden by his mother. It is there written that Pharaoh's wife said, “Joy of the eye to me and thee! put him not to death. Haply he will be useful to us, or we may adopt him as a son”.’ This, however, is another of the mistakes of Muhammad, for the Torah makes it clear that it was Pharaoh's daughter, and not his wife, who found the child and adopted him as her son. It is there written, 'The daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash herself at the river; and her maidens walked along by the river's side; and when she saw the ark among the flags, she sent her maids to fetch it. And when she opened it, she saw the child . . . and the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son.’ 99 The Bible narrative is amply confirmed by the Jewish historian Josephus who writes, ‘Thermuthis was the king's daughter. She was now diverting herself by the banks of the river; and seeing a cradle borne along by the current, she sent some that could swim, and bid them bring the cradle to her. . . . Thermuthis, therefore, perceiving him to be so remarkable a child, adopted him for her son.’ 100

In the Bible there is a very vivid story of the great lsraelitish leader Gideon, who was instructed by God to choose his men for battle by taking only those who drank the water of the river from their hands, instead of kneeling down to drink. 101 Josephus, likewise, relates the story, and says distinctly that the incident took place in the time of Gideon. The Qur'an, however, erroneously states that the incident took place many years later in the time of Saul! Thus we read, ‘And when Saul marched forth with his forces he said, “God will test you by a river. He who drinketh of it shall not be of my band, but he who shall not taste it, drinking a drink out of the hand excepted, shall be of my band”.’ 102 Now whom, we ask, are we to believe: those inspired men who lived in Palestine and who wrote soon after the event, and had ample opportunity of learning the truth, or Muhammad, who lived in Arabia more than a thousand years later, and who contradicts not only the Bible, but the testimony of the Jewish historian Josephus?

One of the greatest mistakes of the Qur'an is that of confusing Mary, the mother of Jesus, with Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron. This mistake is found in Surah Maryam 19:27-28, where we read, ‘They said, “O Mary, now hast thou done a strange thing! O sister of Aaron, thy father was not a man of wickedness, nor unchaste thy mother".' In another place in the Qur'an Mary is called the ‘Daughter of 'Imran’. Moses, too, is called by Muhammad the ‘Son of 'Imran,’ so that it is clear the Prophet thought the two Marys were one and the same person. It is well known, however, that Mary, the mother of Jesus, lived many centuries after Moses and Aaron, and that there was nothing in common between the two women except that they both belonged to the same race, and bore the same name. The father of Moses and Aaron and Miriam (Mary) was, we learn from the Bible, Amram, thus affording still further proof, if such were needed, that Muhammad imagined that Mary to be the mother of Jesus.

One more illustration must suffice before bringing this chapter to a close. It is found in Surah Al-Isra' 17, verse 1, where we read, ‘Glory be to Him who carried His servant by night from the sacred temple (of Mecca) to the temple that is more remote.’ The commentators agree that by the ‘temple that is more remote’ is meant the holy temple at Jerusalem, and Muhammad himself has left, in the traditions, most circumstantial and detailed accounts of this supposed journey. In one of them, preserved in the Mishkat, he says that

فركبته حتى أتيت بيت المقدس فربطته بالحلقة التي تربط بها الأنبياء قال ثم دخلت المسجد فصليت فيه ركعتين

‘Therefore I rode him (the beast Buraq) until I came to the Holy House (i.e. the temple at Jerusalem). Then I tied him to the ring to which the prophets were wont to tie (their steeds).’ He said, ‘After that I entered the temple and prayed in it two rakats.’ Unfortunately for the truth of this story, the famous Jewish Temple at Jerusalem was totally 103 destroyed by the Romans some centuries before the birth of Muhammad, and was never rebuilt. The story quoted above, therefore, together with the Qur'anic reference to it, is totally false. This is not a matter of opinion or of exegesis: it is a simple matter of fact which any intelligent Muslim can verify for himself, and it conclusively shows how little dependence can be placed on the words of the Qur'an.

We have not touched on the question of the bible in the Traditions; the reason being that, that aspect of the subject has already been fully dealt with.104

We now bring this brief study of the place of the Bible in Islam to a close. We have seen that Muhammad consistently held the Bible to be the uncorrupted word of God, and a ‘Light’ and ‘Guidance’ for men. He taught the Jews and Christians to observe it, thus demonstrating that it had not been abrogated.  We have further seen that Muhammad, whose knowledge of the contents of the Bible was gained from hearsay, held many erroneous views both as to its doctrines and history. Had he come into contact with true Christianity, and not been influenced by the false teaching of heretical Christian sects, he would probably have been a Christian.

In conclusion, we would urge the reader to study the Bible for himself. He will find it to be indeed a ‘light’ on all the difficulties and problems of life, and ‘guidance’ from this world to that which is to come.

PRINTED AT THE DIOCESAN PRESS, VEPERY, MADRAS-C18084

86. Sahih Muslim, Bk 51, No 11, see also  Sahih Bukhari, Vol 6, Bk 60, No 91.

87. The Spirit of Islam, p. 235.

88. Amir 'Ali, Life of Muhammad, p. 25.

89. See Goldsack, The Origins of the Qur'an, Chaps. ii, iii.

90. The Paradise or the heaven (al-Jannata,  الْجَنَّةَ)

91. Qur’an Al-A’raf 7:19.

92. Qur’an Al-Mu'min 40:36-37.

93. Esther 3:1.

94. See Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, p. 283.

95. Genesis 11:27.

96. Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, p. 35.

97. Qur’an Al-An'am 6:74.

98. Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Al-An’am 6:74, Arabic.

99. Exodus 2:3,10.

100. The Antiquities of the Jews, p. 63.

101. Judges 7.

102. Qur’an Al-Baqarah 2:249.

103. Page 72 Where does footnote belong?  1. Mishkatu'l Masabih, Babu'l-Adab.

104. See Goldsack, The Traditions in Islam, Chapter iv.

I

“Raise Up Unto Thee A Prophet”

Deuteronomy 18: 15, 18-19

One of the passages of the Bible most frequently quoted by Muslim writers in support of the claim that Muhammad has been foretold in that Book, is found in Deuteronomy 18:15,18-19. It is there written, ‘The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; . . . I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.’ Muslim controversialists, in urging that Muhammad is foretold in this passage, lay great stress upon the words ‘from among their brethren’. These words, they claim, clearly show that the great Prophet whose advent is here foretold, was to arise, not among the Bani Isra'il, but amongst their brethren. These latter, we are told, were the Ishmaelites, from whom was descended Muhammad; hence the passage can refer to none other than the great Arabian Prophet. 1 Great emphasis, too, is laid upon the words ‘like unto thee’, i.e. Moses, and various resemblances between the latter and Muhammad are pointed out, such as that they both married and had children, they both wielded the sword, etc., neither of which things, the Christian is reminded, Jesus did.

When one comes to examine the passage quoted above in the light of its Muslim exegesis, the latter is seen to be based upon a most obvious fallacy. 2 Nothing less than a perverse obstinacy could persuade any one to believe that the words ‘from among thy brethren’, mean anything else than Jews, for the word brethren is most consistently used in various places in this very book of Deuteronomy with that meaning. A reference to a few such passages will make the matter clear, and show at once the groundlessness of the claim that the passage denotes ‘the brethren of the Bani Isra'il—the Ishmaelites.’ In Deuteronomy 17:14-15, the word ‘brethren’ is obviously used of the Jews themselves. It is there written, ‘When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein; and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are round about me; thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, which is not thy brother.’ Comment upon this passage is scarcely necessary, for all are well aware that the first king of the Jews, anointed by the Prophet Samuel, under the express direction of God Himself, was not an Ishmaelite but Saul the son of Kish of the Jewish tribe of Benjamin. This is clear from 1 Samuel 10:20, 21, 24, where we read, ‘And when Samuel brought all the tribes of Israel near, and the tribe of Benjamin was taken. And he brought the tribe of Benjamin near by their families, and the family of Matrites was taken and Saul the son of Kish was taken . . . And Samuel said to all the people, See ye him whom the Lord hath chosen, that there is none like him among all the people? And all the people shouted, and said, “God save the King”.’ From what has been written above it is clear that the word ‘brethren’ means, of the same nationality, i.e. Jews.

Again in Deuteronomy 15 the word is used with precisely the same signification. It is there written, ‘And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee’ (verse 12). Yet once again in Leviticus 25:46, it is written, ‘Over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigour.’ From these passages, and many more to the same effect might easily be quoted, it is manifest that when God said to Moses, ‘I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren,’ He meant from among the Bani Isra'il themselves, and not from the Arab tribe of the Quraish. This is so obvious that one cannot but wonder at the blindness and perversity which persists in urging some other meaning.

The Muslim controversialist is less excusable for such an error from the fact that his own Qur'an contains quite similar uses of the word ‘brother’. Thus in Qur’an Al-A'raf 7:85, we read:—

وَإِلَى مَدْيَنَ أَخَاهُمْ شُعَيْباً قَالَ يَا قَوْمِ

‘And (we sent) to Madian their brother Shu'aib. He said, “O my people”.’ In this passage of the Qur'an, Shu'aib is represented as addressing his own tribe as ‘my people’ and yet God is represented as saying, ‘(we sent) to Madian their brother Shu'aib.’ Comment upon this passage is superfluous, for the words themselves make it obvious that the word ‘brother’ is used in the sense of fellow-tribesman.

But we have yet another observation to make with reference to this word ‘brethren’. It is this: even granting for the sake of argument, that the word is used in Deuteronomy 17 in the sense attached to it by Muslim writers; yet Muhammad is still excluded; for it must be remembered that Ishmael was not Israel's brother but his uncle. The brother of Israel (i.e. Jacob) was Esau. 3 This is clear from Genesis 25:24-26, where we read, ‘And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. And the first came forth red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau. And after that came forth his brother, and his hand had hold on Esau’s heel; and his name was called Jacob.’ Consequently, even on the showing of Muslims themselves, the promised Prophet would appear, not from the descendants of Ishmael, but of Esau, that is, the Edomites. This is clear from the words of Scripture, which run thus, ‘Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother’ (Deuteronomy 23:7).

The Muslim attempt to press details of likeness between Moses and Muhammad in accordance with the words of the prophecy, ‘I will raise them up a Prophet from amongst their brethren like unto thee,’ is equally futile. The likeness referred to is obviously spiritual and functional rather than personal. 4 Insistence upon the latter point lands the Muslim in insuperable difficulties. For example, Muslims glory in the fact that Muhammad was an Ummi Prophet, which, according to them, means that he was unable to read or write. But Moses, we are told in the Bible, was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts 7:22). It will be difficult indeed for our Muhammadan brethren to explain wherein the likeness exists here.

Again we are told in the Qur'an Al-Ankabut 29:39 that Moses worked many miracles:—

لَقَدْ جَاءهُم مُّوسَى بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ

‘Moses came unto you with proofs of his mission’; but the testimony of the Qur'an is equally clear that Muhammad worked no miracle. Thus, for example, he says:—

إِنَّمَا الآيَاتُ عِندَ اللَّهِ وَإِنَّمَا أَنَا نَذِيرٌ مُّبِينٌ

‘Signs are in the power of God alone, and I am only a plain-spoken warner’ (Qur'an Al-Ankabut 29:50). And again, still more clear:—

وَمَا مَنَعَنَا أَن نُّرْسِلَ بِالآيَاتِ إِلاَّ أَن كَذَّبَ بِهَا الأَوَّلُونَ

‘Nothing hindered us from sending (thee, O Muhammad) with the power of working miracles, except that the peoples of old treated them as lies’ (Qur’an Al-Isra' 17:59). If such personal resemblances are to be pressed, it is difficult to see in what respect Muhammad can be said to be like unto Moses. To say that they both married, and both wielded the sword means little; for so did the false prophet Moseilama, and many others.

But there is another point to be noticed in connexion with the prophecy we are discussing. In the fifteenth verse of Deuteronomy 18 referred to, it is said that God would raise up a Prophet ‘unto thee’,  i.e. unto the Bani Isra’il. 5 Now it is well known that Muhammad proclaimed himself as, in a special sense, sent to the Arabs, and not the Jews. Thus we read in Qur’an At-Taubah 9:128 that,

لَقَدْ جَاءَكُمْ رَسُولٌ مِّنْ أَنفُسِكُمْ

‘Now hath an apostle come unto you from among yourselves.’ Again in Qur'an Ibrahim 14:4, we find these words:—

وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِن رَّسُولٍ إِلاَّ بِلِسَانِ قَوْمِهِ

‘We have not sent any apostle, save with the speech of his own people.’ And yet again in Qur’an Al-Qasas 28:46, we read,

وَمَا كُنتَ بِجَانِبِ الطُّورِ إِذْ نَادَيْنَا وَلَكِن رَّحْمَةً مِّن رَّبِّكَ لِتُنذِرَ قَوْماً مَّا أَتَاهُم مِّن نَّذِيرٍ مِّن قَبْلِكَ

‘Nor wast thou (O Muhammad) on the slope (of Sinai) when we called (to Moses); but it is of the mercy of thy Lord that thou warnest a people, to whom no warner had come before thee.’ If the reader will reflect upon the purport of the three Qur’anic passages quoted above, he will see how far removed from the truth is the statement that Muhammad was sent ‘unto thee’, i.e. unto the Jews. Muhammad confessedly knew no Hebrew, and in the celebrated Mishkatu'l-Masabih, 6 in Kitabu'l-Adab it is related that he instructed his amanuensis Zaid to learn Hebrew for the purpose of carrying on his correspondence with the Jews. If Muhammad was sent to a people to whom no prophet had been sent before, then manifestly he was not sent to the Jews, to whom a long succession of Prophets had been sent, as the Qur'an itself bears witness. These two significant words ‘unto thee’ are thus amply sufficient in themselves to refute the claim that the prophet spoken of in the passage quoted can be Muhammad. The plain truth is that the prediction refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, who was in a special sense sent to the Jews, as He Himself affirmed in these words, ‘I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Matthew 15:24).

Yet again the passage in Deuteronomy distinctly states that the promised Prophet would he raised up ‘from the midst’ of the Jews. 7 This prediction can in no sense apply to Muhammad, who was born, not in Judea, but in Mecca some hundreds ,of miles away, and in the midst of idolatrous Arabs. It does, on the other hand, describe the Messiah, who was born in Bethlehem ‘the city of David’, and who lived all His life amongst the people to whom He had been sent. The Messiah was literally raised up ‘from the midst’ of the Bani Isra’il, and fulfilled in all its minute particulars this wonderful prophecy of Moses. His great work was the redemption of His people from the thraldom of sin, just as Moses had saved Israel from the thraldom of Egyptian bondage; and He now sits at the right hand of the Majesty on high as the great Intercessor for His people, even as Moses had pleaded with God on behalf of disobedient Israel.

Finally, we remark that, in the word of God, the Injil, it is distinctly stated that this prophecy of Moses refers to the Lord Jesus Christ. 8 Thus in Chapter three of the Book of the Acts, we read, ‘For Moses indeed said, A prophet shall the Lord God raise up unto you from among your brethren, like unto me; to him shall ye hearken in all things whatsoever he shall speak unto you. And it shall be, that every soul, which shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel, and them that followed after, as many as have spoken, they also told of these days. Ye are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Servant, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities’ (Acts 3:22-26). Nor is this all; the Messiah Himself, on one occasion, definitely stated the same thing in these words, ‘For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me’ (John 5:46). Thus the conclusion is clear that the important prophecy recorded in Deuteronomy 18 refers to the Messiah, Jesus Son of Mary, and to none other; and down through all the ages the divine message has sounded the warning that, ‘Whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him’ (Deuteronomy 18:19).

1. Proof of Prophet Mohammad from the Bible, Lahore, p. 5.

2. The term ‘brethren’ denotes Israelites.

3. According to the Muslim argument, 'brethren' would mean Edomites.

4. The term ‘like unto thee’ denotes a spiritual and functional likeness.

5. The Prophet foretold was to be sent to the Bani Isra'il.

6. Lahore edition, A. H. 1321, vol. iii, p, 231.

7. The Prophet foretold was to arise amongst the Jews.

8. The Injil refers the prophecy to Jesus Christ.

II

Seir and Mount Paran

Deuteronomy 33:2

The next Biblical passage of importance which Muslim writers quote as referring to Muhammad is found in Deuteronomy 33:2. The words are as follows, ‘And he (Moses) said, The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran.’ Concerning this passage Muslim controversialists write as follows, ‘The words quoted above may be divided into three sections. In the first the words, “The Lord came from Sinai” are fulfilled in the terrible works of power performed, and in the religion preached by Hazrat Musa. The words of the second section “He rose up from Seir unto them” find their fulfilment in Hazrat Isa, and in the Injil preached by him. Then Allah mentions by the mouth of His servant a far-distant event, and in the third section the words “He shined forth from Mount Paran” find a wonderful and literal fulfilment in Hazrat Muhammad.’ 9

If the Muslim writer who penned the words quoted above had first studied the geography of the wilderness wanderings of the children of Israel on their journey from Egypt to the promised land of Canaan, 10 and had examined, with even ordinary attention, a map of that part of the ancient world, he would not have made himself the laughing-stock of all intelligent people; for even the most cursory glance at a good map of that region will show that Sinai, Seir and Paran are three mountains comparatively near one another, and situated in the Sinaitic Peninsula between Palestine and the Red Sea. The attempt to find a reference to the missions of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad in the passage quoted is not only fanciful, and geographically unsound, but it ignores the real meaning of the passage altogether, which has not the slightest reference whatever to any Prophet. The passage contains a historical reference to past events, and reminds the children of Israel of the wonderful display of divine glory and power at the several places mentioned during their long wilderness journey. The reader will easily be able to verify this by a reference to Exodus 19, Numbers 13, 14, 16, and Deuteronomy 2.

One fatal mistake invariably made by Muslim controversialists is to take a word or a passage from the Christian Scriptures, and by entirely divorcing it from its context subject it to the most fanciful interpretations. It apparently never occurs to them to look for other Biblical references to names and places which might be expected to throw light upon the questions at issue. The result is disastrous, as may be seen from the passage at present under discussion. If Madhu Miah, the writer of Baibele Muhammad quoted above, had but taken the trouble to consult the many passages of the Bible in which both Seir and Paran are mentioned, he would never have been so foolish as to have contended that these mountains signify the missions respectively of Jesus and Muhammad, for a study of the geography of the region will make it abundantly clear that Jesus never visited Seir, and Muhammad had no acquaintance with Paran. As a matter of fact Mount Seir was situated in what was then the country of Edom, lying some distance to the south of the Dead Sea. This is clear from Genesis 32:3, where we read, ‘And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother unto the land of Seir, the field of Edom.’ The same fact is still more clearly brought out in Genesis 36:8-9, where it is written, ‘And Esau dwelt in Mount Seir: Esau is Edom. And these are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in Mount Seir.’

Again a study of the wilderness journeyings of the children of Israel will show that in order to pass into the land of Canaan it was desirable to pass through Edom; hence it is recorded that, ‘Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom, Thus saith thy brother Israel, Thou knowest all the travail that hath befallen us . . . let us pass, I pray thee, through thy land, . . and Edom said unto him, Thou shalt not pass through me, lest I come out with the sword’ (Numbers 20:14, 17, 18). This passage makes it clear that on the journey from Egypt, the land of Edom, and so Seir, was reached before Canaan.

Yet again we read in Deuteronomy 1:2, that ‘It is eleven days’ journey from Horeb by the way of Mount Seir unto Kadesh-barnea.’ This quotation confirms, what has been already proven, that Mount Seir lay between Horeb and Kadesh-barnea, both these latter places lying to the south of the Dead Sea. The reader will now be in a position to appreciate the absurdity of the contention—made, strangely enough, by many reputable Muslim authors —that the term ‘Mount Seir’ has some connexion with the ministry of the Lord Jesus. Thus another Muslim author says, ‘Seir is the name of a mountain in Syria, where Jesus used to go, and where he got commands through angels as to his Gospel.’ 11 The latter, we know, was born in Bethlehem, brought up in Nazareth in the northern Province of Galilee, and all His life ministered to the people of His native land. Far from Jesus living in Edom, Ezekiel makes it clear that the Edomites, in other words the people of Seir, were the confirmed enemies of the Jews, and in Ezekiel 35 the destruction of their cities in consequence is clearly foretold! Consequently the statement that the words, ‘He rose up from Mount Seir unto them’, find their fulfilment in Hazrat Isa and in the Injil preached by Him, has not the slightest foundation either in reason or in Scripture.

It cannot but be a matter of most profound regret that the writers referred to are as ignorant of the geographical position of Mount Paran as they are of Mount Seir. Far from Muhammad being born in Mount Paran, or having even lived there, there is most conclusive evidence that that mountain was situated some five hundred miles to the north of Mecca, the acknowledged birthplace of Muhammad and there is nothing, either in Scripture or in history, to connect the Prophet of Islam with the former place. A comparison of the Biblical references to Paran will make this indisputably evident. As a matter of fact Paran was a mountain to the north of Sinai, as may be seen from the following words of Scripture, ‘And the children of Israel set forward according to their journeys out of the wilderness of Sinai; and the cloud abode in the wilderness of Paran’ (Numbers 10:12). Moreover it is stated with the utmost clearness that when the children of Israel in their journey from Egypt drew near to the southern borders of Canaan, Moses sent from the wilderness of Paran a number of spies in order to spy out the promised land. Thus we read that, ‘Afterward the people journeyed from Hazeroth, and pitched in the wilderness of Paran. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Send thou men, that they may spy out the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel’ (Numbers 12:16 and 13:1). The return of the spies was the occasion of a special manifestation of the glory of God, as we read in Numbers 14:10, where it is said that, ‘The glory of the Lord appeared in the tent of meeting unto all the children of Israel.’ The reader is now in a position to judge whether the words ‘He shined forth from Mount Paran’ have any reference to a man who lived in Mecca some five hundred miles to the south of Paran, or whether they do not refer to the special ‘glory of the Lord’ which appeared to the children of Israel in Paran as recorded above.

9. Baibele Muhammad. Calcutta, A.H. 1320, p. 17.

10. The geographical position of Seir and Paran precludes any reference to Jesus and Muhammad.

11. Proof of Prophet Mohammad from the Bible. Lahore, p. 12.

III

‘Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O mighty one’

Psalms 45: 3-5

Some Muslim writers claim that Psalms 45 refers to Muhammad, and they quote in particular the third, fourth and fifth verses of that Psalm as having a direct reference to him. The words run as follows, ‘Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O mighty one, with thy glory and thy majesty. And in thy majesty ride on prosperously, because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things. Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies, whereby the people fall under thee.’

If the reader will study carefully the whole Psalm in which this passage is found, he will see that it has no reference whatever to Muhammad. 12 In its primary application it probably had reference to the marriage of King Solomon to a foreign princess. Such a marriage is actually recorded in the first Book of Kings, where we read that, ‘Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh, King of Egypt, and took Pharaoh's daughter, and brought her into the city of David’ (1 Kings 3:1). But if this Psalm 45 be studied with attention it will be seen that it has a much deeper signification, and points to one, much greater than Solomon, who was possessed in some mysterious way of a divine nature. Thus in the sixth verse—a verse which, it may be remarked, Muslim writers usually discreetly omit to quote—that one is addressed in these terms, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’ This one sentence is sufficient to prove the groundlessness of the claim that the Psalm refers to Muhammad, for it is acknowledged by all that the latter never claimed divinity. On the other hand, there is the clearest evidence in the Injil that the Psalm does refer to the Lord Jesus Christ, whom Muslims honour with the titles ‘Word of God’ and ‘Spirit of God’. 13 Thus we read, ‘But of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever’ (Hebrews 1:8). This passage from God's word makes it clear that the Psalm is Messianic in character, the ‘bride’ being the Christian Church. This idea of the Christian Church as the bride of Christ is found repeatedly in Scripture, and thus helps to corroborate our view of the Psalm we are discussing. For example, the Apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthian Church says, ‘For I espoused you to one husband, that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ’ (2 Corinthians 11:2). And again in the record of the visions of the Apostle John we read that, ‘I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband’ (Revelation 21:2).

Muslim controversialists in arguing against the Messianic character of this Psalm point out the reference to swords and arrows and ask in triumph whether Hazrat Isa was ever a man of war —as if this question settled the whole matter. 14 They apparently forget that even the word sword may be used with a spiritual signification. As a matter of fact it is so used in the Injil. Thus the Apostle Paul urges his converts in their fight against ‘the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places’ to take ‘the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God’ (Ephesians 6:17). How well the Lord Jesus Christ used this sword is evident in the account of His great temptation by Satan as recorded in Matthew 4, when to every suggestion of the evil one He replies by quoting the written Scriptures, and thereby repels his every onslaught.

12. The Psalm has reference to a divine Being.

13. The lnijil quotes the Psalm as Messianic.

14. See also, Revelation 19:11-16, where, in the future, Jesus comes as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

IV

“Muhammadim”

Song Of Songs 5:10-16

Another favourite passage of Muslim controversialists is that found in Solomon's Song 5:10-16. It is there written, ‘My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand. His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a raven. His eyes are like doves beside the water brooks; washed with milk, and fitly set. His cheeks are as a bed of spices, as banks of sweet herbs: his lips are as lilies, dropping liquid myrrh. His hands are as rings of gold set with beryl: his body is as ivory work overlaid with sapphires. His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon sockets of fine gold: his aspect is like Lebanon, excellent as the cedars. His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.’

In the Bengali book Baibele Muhammad referred to above, the Muhammadan author comments thus upon the passage here quoted. ‘Although Hazrat Solomon the Wise, in the verses quoted above, has described the glories of the person referred to in the imagery of poetry, yet the whole description tallies with the form and beauty of the last ‘Prophet of Light’ (Nur Nabi). Not only so, but in the final clauses of the passage quoted, Hazrat Solomon, being moved by the Holy Ghost, has mentioned the name of “His” beloved as Muhammad. We know not whether to describe the translation of the Hebrew word “Muhammadim” in the Bible current to-day as based on ignorance or as the fruit of deceit. In the English translation the word “Muhammadim” (מַחֲמַדִּ֑ים) has been rendered by the word “lovely”, but this is clearly wrong. If the word be correctly translated it must be rendered in English by the words “Illustrious” or “the Praised”. In our opinion it would have been better not to have translated the word at all.’ 15

We need scarcely remark in reply to the extraordinary exhibition of ignorance presented in the comments we have quoted, that the passage in question contains no reference whatever to Muhammad. The Song of Solomon is admittedly written in figurative language. 16 It describes, with a wealth of imagery, the bond of love which unites God to His chosen people, and the passage quoted above is simply one portion of that description. The writer of the Bengali book Baibele Muhammad, however, has ignored the context in which his quotation is found, and has contented himself with affirming that the word ‘Muhammadim’ is a ‘proper noun’, 17 and that it means Muhammad!! The truth is that the word is not a proper noun at all, and it does not mean Muhammad. It is a common noun, as the use of the plural here shows, and is used frequently throughout the Bible both of persons and things. We need only refer to one or two of the passages where the word occurs in order to see the absurdity of the contention that the word is a proper noun, and means Muhammad. If the reader will turn to Ezekiel 24:16, he will find these words, ‘Son of man, behold, I take away from thee the desire of thine eyes (Muhammadim) with a stroke; yet neither shalt thou mourn nor weep, neither shall thy tears run down.’ The eighteenth verse of the same chapter makes it clear that the desire of the Prophet Ezekiel's eyes was none other than his wife, whom God caused to die. Will it be seriously contended, we ask, that because in the sixteenth verse quoted above the Hebrew word Muhammadim occurs, therefore it contains a prophecy of Muhammad!!

Again in 1 Kings 20:6, the word ‘Muhammadim’ is used of inanimate objects, viz. the goods of the children of Israel. Thus we read, ‘I will send my servants unto thee to-morrow about this time, and they shall search thine house, and the houses of thy servants; and it shall be, that whatsoever is pleasant in thine eyes (Muhammadim), they shall put it in their hand, and take it away.’ The context of this passage shows that it refers to Ben-hadad, the king of Syria, who sent messengers to the king of Israel, and threatened to despoil the houses of the Israelites of all their goods, even the things that were pleasant in their eyes. Again, we ask, can it be seriously contended even for a single moment, that because the Hebrew word ‘Muhammadim’ is used in this passage, that, therefore, we have in it a prediction of Muhammad? Apart from the context, which makes the meaning perfectly clear, can it be affirmed as a matter of history, that Muhammad was ever seized by a foreign king, and taken away captive to a foreign land? The whole thing is preposterous, and only serves to show how those who, without any knowledge of Hebrew, presume to argue from the meaning of certain Hebrew words, expose their own colossal ignorance. Indeed the whole argument is childish in the extreme, and unworthy of thoughtful men. If a superficial resemblance between the Hebrew word ‘Muharnmadim’ and the name of Muhammad is to be construed into a prophecy of the latter, why, it may well be asked, should not the Hindus find in the Qur'an a reference to their Avatar Ram, because, forsooth, the word Rum is found in the pages of that book!!

15. Baibele Muhammad, pp. 18, 19.

16. The passage describes the love which unites God to His people.

17. The term ‘Muhammadim’ is a common, and not a proper, noun.

V

“Camels”

Isaiah 21:7

It is much to be deplored that some Muslims, in their eagerness to find in the pages of the Bible some reference to Muhammad, often resort to the most unreasonable and fanciful methods of exegesis. If their eye but meets the word ‘sword’ in the pages of that Book, there is immediately an hysterical cry raised that the word contains some reference to Muhammad. In like manner the word ‘camel’ is invariably sufficient to raise a chorus of asseveration that, at last, a distinct prophecy of the Arabian lawgiver has been found!! 18 We are moved to these remarks by the Muslim exegesis of Isaiah 21:7, which illustrates in a striking manner the fault of which we complain. It is there written, ‘And when he seeth a troop, horsemen in pairs, a troop of asses, a troop of camels, he shall hearken diligently with much heed.’ Strange as it may appear, Muslim writers profess to find in the words just quoted a prophecy of Muhammad, and the troop of asses' we are gravely told, refers to Jesus Christ, because, forsooth, He, on one occasion, entered Jerusalem riding upon an ass; whilst, more wonderful still, the troop of camels refers to Muhammad, because it was his custom to ride on that beast; as if none but Muhammad ever rode upon a camel, or any but Jesus entered Jerusalem upon an ass!!

We have seen many attempts to find Muhammad in the pages of the Old and New Testaments, but this, surely, is the most ludicrous of them all. It has not even the shadow of reasonableness; for there is nothing in the whole context which in any way suggests a reference to the Arabian Prophet. 19 The chapter deals, as a careful perusal will easily show, with the coming destruction of Babylon, and the prediction was fulfilled some two hundred years later when Darius the Persian took that city. Had the writer quoted above but taken the trouble to read the ninth verse of that same chapter he would not have permitted himself to write as he has done, for there we find Babylon distinctly mentioned in these words, ‘And, behold, here cometh a troop of men, horsemen in pairs. And he answered and said, Babylon is fallen, is fallen’ (Isaiah 21:9). Muslim authors must be hardpressed indeed for predictions of their Prophet when they have to argue from such passages.

18. When he sees riders, horsemen in pairs, riders on donkeys, riders on camels, let him listen diligently, very diligently. Isaiah 27:1.

19. The passage is a prophecy of the destruction of Babylon.

VI

“Kedar”

Isaiah 42:11

Isaiah 42 is sometimes quoted as containing a prediction of Muhammad. 20 The first verse runs thus, ‘Behold my servant, whom I uphold;  my chosen, in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles. 21 We shall not waste the reader's time with a long comment upon this passage. It will be sufficient to refer him to the Injil, where it is distinctly stated that the prophecy finds its fulfilment in the Lord Jesus Christ. This being God's own interpretation of His word, it is needless for us to discuss in detail the imaginations of men. The passage referred to runs as follows, ‘And he (Jesus) charged them that they should not make him known: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgement to the Gentiles’ (Matthew 12:16-18).

But Muslims sometimes, whilst admitting the truth of what has been written above, affirm that in the latter part of the forty-second chapter of Isaiah another person, whom they assert to be Muhammad, is clearly foretold. They especially refer to the eleventh verse, which runs as follows, ‘Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the villages that Kedar doth inhabit; let the inhabitants of the Sela sing, let them shout from the top of the mountains.’ (Isaiah 42:11).  The word ‘Kedar’ in this verse, we are told, has a distinct reference to the Arabs, and so, by implication, to Muhammad.

The passage in question, we reply, has no reference whatever to Muhammad. It simply reminds us, when describing the spread of the Messiah's kingdom, that one day, in the providence of God, the people of Kedar would share in the blessings of that kingdom. 22  It cannot possibly have any reference to Muhammad, because he was not of the tribe of Kedar at all, but of the Quraish, as every Muslim well knows. Moreover in the tenth verse we read, ‘Sing unto the Lord a new song, and his praise from the end of the earth’ (Isaiah 42:10); but singing is prohibited in the worship of Islam, so that the passage cannot possibly refer to it. There is a well-known saying of Muhammad that,

الْغِنَاءُ يُنْبِتُ النِّفَاقَ فِي الْقَلْبِ كَمَا يُنْبِتُ الْمَاءُ الزَّرْعَ

‘As water causes the grain to spring forth, so singing causes hypocrisy to spring up in the heart.’ 23 How then can it be urged that a prophecy concerning a people who should delight in singing the praises of their Redeemer can have any reference to Muslims?

20. See Pracharak, A.H. 1308, No. 9, p, 264.

21. Isaiah 42:1 The InjiI quotes the passage as a prophecy of Jesus Christ.

22. The passage refers to the spread of the Messiah's kingdom.

23. See also, Qur'an Luqman 31:6 and Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 43, Hadith no 4927  and  Sunan Ibn Majah, Book 36 Hadith 4020

VII

Teman and Mount Paran

Habakkuk 3:3

Another passage of the Old Testament frequently quoted by Muslims 24 as containing a prediction of Muhammad is found in Habakkuk 3:3. It runs thus, ‘God came from Teman, 25 and the Holy One from Mount Paran.’ Those who have studied the ancient geography of Bible lands know that Teman was near Paran, which latter place, we have already shown, was at least 500 miles north of Mecca. As a. matter of fact Teman was a part of the country of Edom. This will be made clear from the following passage, ‘Of Edom, thus saith the Lord of hosts: Is wisdom no more in Teman?’ (Jeremiah 49:7). Again we read, ‘Therefore thus saith the Lord God, I will stretch out mine hand upon Edom, and will cut off man and beast from it: and I will make it desolate from Teman’ (Ezekiel 25:13). These quotations are sufficient to fix the locality of Teman, which could not have been many miles to the south of the Dead Sea. It has absolutely no reference whatever to Muhammad. As to the words, ‘The Holy One from Mount Paran’, we have already shown (p. 15) that Muhammad had no more connexion with Paran than with India. It was at least 500 miles from Mecca, and was a place of which he was probably totally ignorant.

In the second place, if we study carefully the passage under discussion, together with its context, it will be clearly seen that it applies to no human being whatever, but God Himself. 26 It was God who came from Teman, and He was the Holy One who came from Mount Paran. One has only to remember the many passages in both Qur'an and Ahadith in which the sins of Muhammad are mentioned in order to realize how impossible it is for this description to apply to him. Nor, again, can it be truly said of Muhammad that, ‘His glory covered the heavens’ (Habakkuk 3:3), or that ‘His ways are everlasting’ (Habakkuk 3:6). The whole passage, indeed, can only apply to God; and only the most wilful blindness of heart can see in it any prophecy of Muhammad.

24. See Proof of Prophet Muhamtnad from the Bible, pp. 12, 13.

25. Habakkuk 3:3, Teman was 500 miles from Mecca the birth-place of Muhammad.

26. The passage applies to a divine Being.

VIII

“One Mightier Than I”

Mark 1:7

Muslims not only profess to find in the Old Testament certain predictions concerning Muhammad, but they, in the same manner, quote a number of passages from the New Testament, in which, they affirm, the advent of Muhammad is clearly stated. We shall now proceed to deal with the principal of these latter. The first we shall discuss is found in the Gospel according to Mark, and reads as follows, ‘There cometh after me he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose’ (Mark 1:7). 27 In this passage, we are told, Hazrat Isa plainly points to the coming of the last and greatest Prophet Muhammad.

For thorough disingenuousness this claim on the part of some Muslim writers is probably unique. It cannot for the moment be believed that the writers who quote the passage in question have not read the context; and the only conclusion which can be drawn is that they rely upon the ignorance of their Muslim readers in trying to persuade them that the speaker of the words quoted is Jesus, and the person referred to Muhammad; for the context makes it transparently clear that the speaker is not Hazrat Isa at all, but John the Baptist (Yahya Nabi). Thus in the fourth and sixth verses we read, ‘John who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins. And John was clothed with camel's hair, and had a leathern girdle about his loins; and did eat locusts and wild honey. And he preached, saying, There cometh after me he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose’ (Mark 1:4,6-7).

Moreover John uttered these words, not of Muhammad who did not live until nearly 600 years later, but of the Messiah who was even then living in their midst. Thus we read in another place that ‘John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: in the midst of you standeth one whom ye know not, even he that cometh after me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose’ (John 1:26-27). The passages which we have quoted leave no possible room for doubt that the speaker in the verse quoted was John the Baptist, and that he spake of Jesus the Messiah. There is no possible reference to Muhammad in any shape or form, and it would puzzle the Muslim author referred to to explain how Muhammad baptized men with the Holy Ghost!

27. The quoted words were spoken by John the Baptist, and refer to the Messiah.

IX

“That Prophet”

John 1:19-21

Another passage of the New Testament much quoted by Muslims to show that Muhammad was foretold in that book is found in John 1:19-21. It is there written, ‘And this is the witness of John, when the Jews sent unto him from Jerusalem priests and Levites to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; and he confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not. Art thou the prophet? And he answered, No.’

The common Muhammadan interpretation of this passage is that three prophets are here mentioned: the Messiah, Elias, and a third, un-named, but spoken of as ‘that prophet’. This un-named prophet, we are assured, is none other than the last and greatest Prophet Muhammad. The Jews, we are informed, were expecting a great Prophet, other than the Messiah, and therefore concluded that as John was neither the Messiah nor Elias he must be ‘that Prophet’; in other words, they were looking for the coming of the last Prophet Muhammad. 28

Unfortunately for this pretty piece of exegesis there are several insuperable objections to its acceptance by thoughtful people. In the first place, it is not true that the Jews were looking for a Prophet who should come after the Messiah, and of such a belief there is not the slightest trace in the Bible. Moreover the statement that they were doing so is inconsistent with the question put to John; for it must be remembered that, in the opinion of John's questioners, the Messiah Himself had not yet come; 29 consequently it would be foolish and unreasonable on their part to ask, in such a case, whether John were some Prophet who was to succeed the Messiah. The Jews, it is true, were expecting other Prophets before the advent of their Messiah. Many of them had not yet understood that the great Prophet foretold in Deuteronomy 18 was the Messiah, but imagined that he, like John the Baptist, was one of the forerunners of that Prophet. This is clear from the following words of the Injil (John 7:40), where we read that, ‘Many of the people, therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ’ (i.e. Messiah). The question, then, for many of the Jews, resolved itself into this: was John the Messiah or one of his forerunners? The question of any Prophet who was to come after the Messiah could not arise so long as the Messiah himself had not appeared. Some thought, as we learn from another place, that Jeremiah, or some other of the Prophets would arise as a forerunner of the Messiah. Thus it is written, ‘When Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is? And they said, Some say John the Baptists some, Elijah; and others, Jererniah, or one of the prophets’ (Matthew 16:13-14). From all this it can be seen how hazy and unreliable were the views of the Jews upon the whole question; consequently, when it is further remembered that these very Jews failed to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, or as, indeed, a Prophet of God at all, but rejected and eventually killed him, it is not surprising that they should have so grievously misinterpreted their Scriptures as to imagine that that ‘prophet foretold’ by Moses was some other than the Messiah.

Some of the Jews, we learn from the Scriptures, were more open-minded, and, later on, when they saw the miracles of Jesus, were constrained to confess their mistake, and to acknowledge that He was ‘that prophet’. Thus we read, ‘When therefore the people saw the sign which he did, they said, This is of a truth the prophet that cometh into the world’ (John 6:14).

If further proof were needed that the Messiah and ‘that prophet’ were one and the same person, 30 it is found in the words of the Apostle Peter who, taught by God, clearly announced their identity in these words, ‘Moses indeed said, A prophet shall the Lord God raise up unto you from among your brethren, like unto me; to him shall ye hearken in all things whatsoever he shall speak unto you. And it shall be, that every soul, which shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people. Yea and all the prophets from Samuel and them that followed after, as many as have spoken, they also told of these days. . . Unto you first God, having raised up his Servant, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities’ (Acts 3:22-26).

From what has been written above it is clear that modern Muslims, like the Jews of the Messiah's time, have grievously erred in imagining that the Messiah and ‘that prophet’ foretold by Moses were different persons. The Scriptures make it clear that they were one and the same, hence the fiction that, in the passage we have been discussing, there is a reference to the coming of Muhammad, is seen to be worthless.

28. Baibele Muhammad, pp. 28-32.

29. The Jews were expecting another prophet as a forerunner of the Messiah—not as His successor.

30. The Messiah and ‘that’ prophet were one and the same person.

Pages