Preparedby: Abo Karim Al-Hassany 1 6-The well of Zamzam. 1-Which of the two sons of Prophet Abraham PBUH was to be sacrificed? 3-Ishmael's relationship with Abraham peace be upon them. 7
Is Prophet Muhammad PBUH in the Bible. especially in the Song of Solomon, chapter 5 verse 16? We read in Hebrew âHikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem.â It means âHis mouth is most sweet yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.â Islamic scholars claim âMuhammadimâ is one of the places where the Prophet PBUH is mentioned in the Bible. However, Christians claim that it does not refer to Prophet Muhammad because the whole chapter is about manwoman love story. So, is it Prophet Muhammad PBUH who is meant by âMuhammadimâ in the Song of Solomon? Answer Muslim scholars have noted clear and undeniable prophecies found in the Bible both in the Old and New Testaments about the coming of the final prophet. When these verses are quoted, the usual response of many Jews and Christians is a staunch denial of any such possibility. And among those who have cared to examine the Islamic evidence were unbiased persons who were eventually convinced of the truth of Islam and have subsequently become Muslims. Understanding the Background As you have said, one of these prophetic verses is from the Song of Solomon. Before we explain the context and meaning of the quoted verse, we need to understand the subject of the Song of Solomon and why it is considered a holy book inspired by God Almighty. Here, we quote the learned view of a Christian Bible scholar on the Song of Solomon This book has received more varied interpretations than perhaps any other book in the Bible. Some writers believe it presents the reader with the âgreatest hermeneutical challenge in the Old Testamentâ. One excellent exegete called it âthe most obscure book in the Old Testamentâ Franz Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, quoted by Dr. Thomas L. Constable in his Notes on Song of Solomon There is no doubt that the Song of Solomon has a unique place among the books of the Bible because it is a love poem. Naturally, no one expects a love poem to be part of the Book revealed by God Almighty. The Christian Point of View Let us consider this question from the Christian point of view The Christian scholars quote the following verse from Paulâs Second Epistle to Timothy as giving clear criteria for judging inspired scripture [All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.] 2 Timothy 316, KJV Therefore, whatever is believed to have been revealed or inspired by God must serve one of the four purposes Either 1 it must teach us doctrine; 2 it must reprove us for our errors; 3 it offers us correction; or 4 it guides us into righteousness. On examination, we can find the Song of Solomon failing to pass any of the above criteria. From a religious point of view 1 it does not teach any doctrine; nor does it even mention God; 2 it does not reprove us for any error on our part; 3 it does not offer us any sort of correction; and 4 it does not guide us into righteousness; rather it gives sensuous descriptions of physical intimacy in a frank language in a Book of God. Indeed, the difficulty of providing it a meaningful interpretation has caused some Christian readers to doubt its status as a part of scripture. An Allegory? The Song is apparently sung by Solomon in admiration of one woman, and it depicts faithful love to that woman; but Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines 1 Kings 113. This fact alone should be enough to cast doubts on the claim that Solomon wrote the Song in admiration of his sweetheart â a single person â glorifying fidelity and sincerity in love. The only possible apology for the inclusion of the Song in the Bible can come from the view that it is an allegory. Majority of interpreters favor this view. To them, what the writer said was only a symbolic husk for a deeper spiritual meaning that the reader must discover. Greg W. Parsons âGuidelines for Understanding and Utilizing the Song of Songs,â Bibliotheca Sacra 156624 October-December 1999399-422; quoted by Dr. Thomas L. Constable in his Notes on Song of Solomon Viewed from this angle, it would be wrong to take the Song of Solomon literally. Chiefly, because a love story for the sake of a love story does not have any place in scripture. This means that the Christians must take one of the two reasonable positions Either they should consider the Song of Songs as non-canonical and reject it as possessing any scriptural value, OR they should be prepared to accept it as an allegory, where language is used symbolically. And then the love story suddenly takes on new meanings which it did not possess before. Muhammadim The Praised One Now, let us take a closer look at the verse quoted [His mouth is most sweet yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.] Song of Solomon 516 The original Hebrew Bible has âMuhammadimâ in the place of âaltogether lovelyâ, but the translators rendered it âaltogether lovelyâ. It should have been âthe Praised Oneâ â that is the correct meaning of âMuhammadimâ. At the same time, âMuhammadimâ happens to contain the name of the final prophet peace be upon him. This is what Muslims are quick to point out. They with very few exceptions do not study the context of the expression as found in the present Bible. The Christian contention is that the context does not warrant any one to claim that there is a clear reference here to the final prophet peace be upon him. Now, after considering the whole of the Song of Solomon and the context of the verse, we can say that if we take the Song as an allegory, and the epithet, âMuhammadimâ as a description of âthe belovedâ, it is possible that the beloved is someone for whom a nation â or the world â was waiting for instance. And as has been argued above, there is a strong case for that. We want to underscore this point again. The Christian claim about the Song of Solomon, that it just tells a good love story, seems to contradict their defense of the Song as divinely inspired as the rest of the Bible. It follows logically that either the Song of Solomon is not divinely inspired, or there is a possibility of âMuhammadimâ being a reference to the Last Prophet, Muhammad peace be upon him. Allah knows Best.â Almighty Allah is the highest and most knowledgeable, and the attribution of knowledge to him is the safest. Right from Almighty Allah and wrong from me and Satan Prepared by Mohamad Mostafa Nassar- Australia. Make sure to copy and email this post for your reference, you might need it later. Arrogance is not only a sign of insecurity, but also a sign of immaturity. Mature and fully realised persons can get their points across, even emphatically without demeaning or intimidating others. Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem." "His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem." And btw, you just use Yahweh? What about Eli? Eli means in hebrew "Allah" doesn't it? Check the Bible, I'm sure it has it in it. Quite simply, no. The claim in the video series you linked is patently What is being claimed? The argument presented in your videos is based entirely on the following passage in the Old Testament book of Song of Solomon. Song of Solomon 516 ASV2 16 His mouth is most sweet; Yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem. I have highlighted the phrase in question here. The claim in the video is that the phrase translated here as altogether lovely is actually the proper name "Mohammed" with a respectful plural ending and is incorrectly translated to its meaning. The video and several other sites on the net suggest taking the root Hebrew word ×××× into an online translator. The results they show have two machine translation sites returning "Mohamed" as the Why doesn't this mean anything? The flaw in this argument is that it proves absolutely nothing. To show why, I will give some translation examples from a language I know well. While it is relatively rare in English with our mish-mash of nationalities, in many languages even today and even more so through history it is common for proper names to be based words with straight forward meanings in their native tongues. I have Turkish friends with names like GĂźven, GĂźl, Nehir and PÄąnar. In the previous sentences I capitalized them and from the context it is clear that those words refer to people, but these are the ordinary everyday words for trust, rose, river and spring respectively. In fact most of the people I know have names with similar ordinary meanings. If I were to say "GĂźven çiçekçiden bir gĂźl aldÄą," GĂźven bought a rose from the florist there is absolutely no question from the context that I am using GĂźven as a proper name and gĂźl as a type of flower. You don't even need the capitalization or know my friends names. The immediate context of the words makes it clear how they are being used. Back to your videos. The accusation is raised that "we have no right to translate names". This is, in itself, true. You will note that in the English translation I provided for the Turkish sentence above, I have done the work of interpreting it for you and retained the proper names but translated the words with ordinary meanings. If I had given the translation as "Trust bought a GĂźl from the florist", my competence with the language must be called into question. The issue before us is when to translate a word as a name and when to give the meaning. For this, we need the context and to understand the thing we're translating in the first place. What does the context tell us? Song of Solomon is a notoriously difficult book to translate. The Hebrew is difficult and sometimes obscure. Even when you sort out the words, it is difficult to interpret what it is all supposed to mean. Jews and Christians differ widely on what to do with the passage, and even among Christian traditions there is some debate as to what the imagery refers to. However, those interpretation difficulties do not concern us here. Whether or not the passage was intended as an allegory or a plain description, it is clear that the immediate context of the passage is a woman addressing her lover. Even with two different religions claiming this as a holy text and vast differences in interpretation, the simple translation of these particular words has never really been in doubt because the face value translation of ×××× to mean lovely fits the context of both the sentence and the book. The verses leading up to this are in the voice of the woman describing the physical characteristics of her man. His hair, his eyes, his legs, etc. are all described in terms of appeal and desire. Verse 16 starts out talking about how sweet his mouth is and then says that he is desirable as a whole. Given the context and the time it was written, there is not a shred of evidence this should be translated any other way than it has been in every one of hundreds of languages by thousands of translators. And the Hebrew? One of the basic claims in the video is that the -im suffix used on the Hebrew root word should be seen as a respectful plural just as it is in Arabic, where saying "Mohammed-im" does apparently4 have that effect. According to Gesenius the standard Hebrew Grammar, the respectful plural is quite foreign to Hebrew. The "let us" passages of Genesis, which many take as plural of majesty, Gesenius takes as self deliberation. In the verse above, the word ×Öˇ×Ö°×Öˇ× is correctly being translated 'lovely' and the suffix that makes the contextual form of ×Öˇ×Ö˛×Öˇ×ÖźÖ´×× is a plural that intensifies the meaning, rendering the final translation 'altogether lovely'. This is not out of place. In fact the entire poem has similar constructs, including the previous line of the same verse. 'Very sweet' is one word, ××תק××, the root ××תק means 'sweet' and the plural makes it 'exceedingly sweet' or 'very sweet'.5 It is utterly irresponsible to take this standard grammar form that translates consistently as an intensifier on a series of adjective and render the final instance as a proper name just because it sounds like one in a later language and translate the suffix as a respectful plural according to the later language rather than the one in which it was written. But why does it sound the same? Lots of words in one language might be combined as a series of sounds and understood as something entirely different in another language. The videos include the sound of a Jewish Rabbi reading Hebrew text in question. To an ear that does not speak Hebrew, the combination of sounds making up the name Mohammed are clearly in there. Linguistically, this is just as absurd as the other line of reasoning. Just because a combination of sounds appearing in the normal course of a language sounds like something else in another language doesn't make it so. If I asked somebody on the street in Turkey "Where can I find a peach?" in English, they might look at me strange because they only word they heard in their own language was "bastard". Just because what used to be a root word in one language ends up sounding like a proper name in a later language does not mean that every instance of the original root word is a reference to a famous figure with the later name. The connection simply doesn't mean anything. And Jesus? Your question includes a one liner concerning a claim not actually found in your video Does Jesus predict the coming of Muhammad in the Bible? The simple answer to this is no. It is difficult to debunk this "claim" since you haven't even established in the question what the claim is, but let me do your homework for you. The Islamic Research Foundation makes the following claim which you will hear echoed throughout the Muslim world in various forms "Ahmed" or "Muhammad" meaning "the one who praises" or "the praised one" is almost the translation of the Greek word Periclytos. In the Gospel of John 1416, 1526, and 167. The word 'Comforter' is used in the English translation for the Greek word Paracletos which means advocate or a kind friend rather than a comforter. Paracletos is the warped reading for Periclytos. Jesus pbuh actually prophesised Ahmed by name. Even the Greek word Paraclete refers to the Prophet pbuh who is a mercy for all creatures. As far as I know, this is the only place the NT or Jesus is commonly claimed to mention Mohamed. I presume is is the subject of your inquiry. This claim, like the one above, is also patently ridiculous. There are several other variants of this, but they all hinge on really poor linguistics. Determining the meaning of the Greek word ĎÎąĎΏκΝΡο in context is not easy. Greek scholar Raymond Brown is often cited by Muslim apologists on this issue because his translation of John keeps a transliteration of the Greek as a sort of name instead of translating the meaning as most other English translations have done and rendering it as helper, advocate, comforter or counselor. However, his intention was to clear up the usage and understand it better in context. His understanding of who/what fills the role referred to can be clearly seen from this quote Thus the basic function of the Paraclete are twofold he comes to the disciples and dwells within them, guiding and teaching them about Jesus; but he is hostile to the world and puts the world on trial. Whether Christian or secular, Greek scholars investigating this passage all conclude that this passage must be understood in context with the related passages from the same authors and time period that describe the coming of the Holy Spirit. Whether you believe in such a thing at all, it is clear that the disciples did based on Jesus words, and that Jesus words as recorded in Greek fit with their contemporary understanding. Only a series of linguistic flying-leaps can connect this usage with another word in another language that doesn't sound the same but happens to have a similar meaning. Here is a similar series of connections My name is derived from a Hebrew name having a connotation of "faithful". The Turkish for faithful is "sadÄąk" which sounds a lot like "saÄdĹç" meaning groomsmen. Ergo my parents predicted that their son would be somebody's faithful best man. There are just too many unsupported jumps for this claim to hold water. Even the text from the IRF is worded with tentative phases such as "almost the translation of". They are making the jump from two words in two unrelated languages that have similar meanings to one being a prophecy of the other - in spite of other solid contextual evidence about the intended meaning being to the contrary. Footnotes Frankly this particular claim is one of the weaker ones made. There are several other verses more commonly cited as "proof" that hold more water than this one. There is an Isaiah verse with a similar translation issue. The case holds "more" water because at least it happens to be a prophecy, but still sinks because of the translation issue explained above. The usage of the ASV translation here was selected at random, the English translation used makes absolutely no difference to the argument. No serious translation work has translated this passage in any other way. While legitimate as far as it goes, I think it's somewhat telling that given the same input Google translator returns a clue in the form of the noun roots loveliness, delight, desire or charm. I didn't research the Arabic here, I'm only going off of the popular claim. Thanks to Frank Luke for some help with the Hebrew grammar here.4 prophet Muhammad (pbuh) mentioned by name in the old testament: Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon chapter 5 verse 16: "Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem." "His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters. Jun 15, 2019 ¡ Righteous, Moral.One of the Sahabas
Trying to validate the presence of Muhammad in the bible, Muslims utilize the apparently scriptural confirmation of such idea. Apparently, as nothing expressed the term âmuhammadimâ in certain note. Muslims say its âmuhammadimâ. The Hebrew used the term âmachmadimâ. So there is nothing certain. Granting that its âmuhammadimâ, does it denotes the idea of a proper noun? Or was it simply, an adjective? Now for the sake of factual evaluation, is there certainty to the concept that muhammadim is a proper name or was it simply an adjective? For example, JOYFUL is both noun and adjective. JOYFUL as a proper noun would obviously be understood as a name. Example My name is joyful. JOYFUL as an adjective would be understood as a descriptive term. Its not a name. Example The joyful crowd praised Jesus. Comparatively speaking, is muhammadim a proper noun or simply an adjective? That is something to be certified first bec if not, we have no way to ascertain muhammadâs presence in the songs of solomon. So is it a nounâor an adjective? Muslims has no answer. The hebrew term used though was âmachmadimâ. It is either a noun or adjective. Machmadim as adjective can be found in these verses Hosea 96,16; 1 Kings 206; Lamentations 110,11; 24; Isaiah 6410; 2 Chronicles 3619. Machmadim as noun can be found in these verses Ezekiel 2416,21,25. So is this also Muhammad? Nothing certified though that Muhammadim/machmadim in song of Solomon certifies a proper noun. It could simply be an adjective therefore nothing verifies any presence of Muhammad in itâon certain note! I looked it up on the interlinear hebrew bible and it say that Mahammadim or Machmad is a masculine noun. Still, it doesnt affirm if its a proper noun or a common noun bec if its a common noun then, it cannot be a proper name for a person, right? So what is it, is it a proper noun or common noun? Still, nothing verifies Muhammad in it on certain note. And fact is, masculine noun is a common noun if you try on google researchâso it cannot be a personal and proper name. Thank you. Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem." "His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem." In the Hebrew language im is added for respect. Similarely im is added after the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to make it Muhammadim. In ďťżThis is Q&A Islamic sessions that provide an opportunity for individuals to ask questions and receive answers from experts or knowledgeable individuals in to solve the problem. In this time we receive a question from individual that asking âWho Is âMuhammadimâ In The Song of Solomon?â and the question responded by the Imam below 14 March, 2018 Question Salam, I have a question regarding our prophet Muhammad PBUH in the Bible. In the Song of Solomon, chapter 5 verse 16, we read in Hebrew âHikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem.â It means âHis mouth is most sweet yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.â Islamic scholars claim âMuhammadimâ is one of the places where Prophet PBUH is mentioned in the Bible. However, Christians claim that it does not refer to Muhammad because the whole chapter is about man-woman love story. So, is it Prophet Muhammad PBUH who is meant by âMuhammadimâ in the Song of Solomon? Answer Thank you for contacting About Islam with your scholars have noted clear and undeniable prophecies found in the Bible both in the Old and New Testaments about the coming of the final these verses are quoted, the usual response of many Jews and Christians is a staunch denial of any such possibility. And among those who have cared to examine the Islamic evidences were unbiased persons who were eventually convinced of the truth of Islam and have subsequently become Muslims. Understanding the Background As you have said, one of these prophetic verses is from the Song of Solomon. Before we explain the context and meaning of the quoted verse, we need to understand the subject of the Song of Solomon and why it is considered a holy book inspired by God Almighty. Here, I quote the learned view of a Christian Bible scholar on the Song of Solomon This book has received more varied interpretations than perhaps any other book in the Bible. Some writers believe it presents the reader with the âgreatest hermeneutical challenge in the Old Testamentâ. One excellent exegete called it âthe most obscure book in the Old Testamentâ Franz Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, quoted by Dr. Thomas L. Constable in his Notes on Song of Solomon There is no doubt that the Song of Solomon has a unique place among the books of the Bible because it is a love poem. Naturally, no one expects a love poem to be part of the Book revealed by God Almighty. The Christian Point of View Let us consider this question from the Christian point of view The Christian scholars quote the following verse from Paulâs Second Epistle to Timothy as giving clear criteria for judging inspired scripture [All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.] 2 Timothy 316, KJV Therefore, whatever is believed to have been revealed or inspired by God must serve one of the four purposes Either 1 it must teach us doctrine; 2 it must reprove us for our error; 3 it offers us correction; or 4 it guides us into righteousness. On examination, we can find the Song of Solomon failing to pass any of the above criteria. From a religious point of view 1 it does not teach any doctrine; nor does it even mention God; 2 it does not reprove us for any error on our part; 3 it does not offer us any sort of correction; and 4 it does not guide us into righteousness; rather it gives sensuous descriptions of physical intimacy in a frank language in a Book of God. Indeed, the difficulty of providing it a meaningful interpretation has caused some Christian readers to doubt its status as a part of scripture. An Allegory? The Song is apparently sung by Solomon in admiration of one woman, and it depicts faithful love to that woman; but Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines 1 Kings 113. This fact alone should be enough to cast doubts on the claim that Solomon wrote the Song in admiration of his sweetheart â a single person â glorifying fidelity and sincerity in love. The only possible apology for the inclusion of the Song in the Bible can come from the view that it is an allegory. The majority of interpreters favor this view. To them, what the writer said was only a symbolic husk for a deeper spiritual meaning that the reader must discover. Greg W. Parsons âGuidelines for Understanding and Utilizing the Song of Songs,â Bibliotheca Sacra 156624 October-December 1999399-422; quoted by Dr. Thomas L. Constable in his Notes on Song of Solomon Viewed from this angle, it would be wrong to take the Song of Solomon literally. Chiefly, because a love story for the sake of a love story does not have any place in scripture. This means that the Christians have to take one of the two reasonable positions Either they should consider the Song of Songs as non-canonical and reject it as possessing any scriptural value, or they should be prepared to accept it as an allegory, where language is used symbolically. And then the love story suddenly takes on new meanings which it did not possess before. Muhammadim The Praised One Now, let us take a closer look at the verse quoted [His mouth is most sweet yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.] Song of Solomon 516 The original Hebrew Bible has âMuhammadimâ in the place of âaltogether lovelyâ, but the translators rendered it âaltogether lovelyâ. It should have been âthe Praised Oneâ â that is the correct meaning of âMuhammadimâ. At the same time, âMuhammadimâ happens to contain the name of the final prophet peace be upon him. This is what Muslims are quick to point out. They with very few exceptions do not study the context of the expression as found in the present Bible. The Christian contention is that the context does not warrant any one to claim that there is a clear reference here to the final prophet peace be upon him. Now, after considering the whole of the Song of Solomon and the context of the verse, we can say that if we take the Song as an allegory, and the epithet, âMuhammadimâ as a description of âthe belovedâ, it is possible that the beloved is someone for whom a nation â or the world â was waiting for instance. And as has been argued above, there is a strong case for that. I want to underscore this point again. The Christian claim about the Song of Solomon, that it just tells a good love story, seems to contradict their defense of the Song as divinely inspired as the rest of the Bible. It follows logically that either the Song of Solomon is not divinely inspired, or there is a possibility of âMuhammadimâ being a reference to the Last Prophet, Muhammad peace be upon him. I hope this answers your questions. Please keep in touch. Walaikum Asalam. From Ask About Islam archives Please continue feeding your curiosity, and find more info in the following links Muhammad Are You That Awaited Prophet? Was Muhammad Mentioned in the Bible? The Bible Prophecies of MuhammadHikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem." TRANSLATED "His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem." Also: "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever." (John 14-16)
Inthe Song of Solomon, chapter 5 verse 16, we read in Hebrew: "Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem." It means "His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem." Islamic scholars claim "Muhammadim" is one of the places where ProphetajC0.
hikko mamittakim we kullo muhammadim zehdoodeh wa zehraee bayna jerusalem
