Muhammed Mentioned by Name in Bible

[peaceful soul]

And yet another person who does not appear to understand or did not read what I wrote...

If you did comprehend please summarize...

Peace be unto you

I don't see the issue that you are calling out. You seem to try to justify something that isn't justifiable; so, I commented.

Tell me what you really meant in other words so that I don't misapprehend. If I misunderstood you, I will correct what I said.

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.

 

[humblemuslim]

I don't see the issue that you are calling out. You seem to try to justify something that isn't justifiable; so, I commented.

Tell me what you really meant in other words so that I don't misapprehend. If I misunderstood you, I will correct what I said.

Let me draw attention to some of the key phrases/words that should have nullified the types of responses that sprung forth...

Pay close attention to the second source which is a Hebrew Lexicon that notes this word is a "Masculine Noun". So actually...Yes it is a noun, it is not an adjective. "Lovely" is an adjective...

The context of this was that someone claimed the word was not a noun. This statement was simply false and was thrown into the conversation early on carelessly as an excuse to dismiss what the OP posted. I was simply correcting the mistake.

I will agree the presentation of the argument was not the best, however the point that this passage might be referring to someone who is not immediately thought of by Christians or Jews is not necessarily anymore baseless than any other interpretations.

Notice my careful usage of uncertain language here. Keep this in mind as I move through the rest of my initial post.

If you read the entire chapter and pay close attention to the passage it is talking about someone (A masculine Noun). Now as to whether this someone is Muhammad or not. I do not know. There is no direct mention of prophet hood or a message coming later or anything particularly noteworthy that would allow me to hold such a belief strongly. Though given the passage, I see it as a distinct possibility pending any further insight that is not corrupted by laughter or jest...

Recall my prior implied uncertainty, and here you have a direct mention of it. "I do not know" I state as clearly as I can. I mention a problem with the interpretation that it is referring to Muhammad and then go on to say I find it possible unless someone else brings forth any further information.

I would imagine it would be clear from this post that I am not supporting the interpretation, I am mostly admonishing people to respond appropriately and wisely.

Because of the absence of serious responses, I went on to add a simple reason why I feel the interpretation is weak. It lacks any true substance in details. No mention of prophethood. No mention of a revelation (Qur'an). Nothing. My uncertainty and skeptic nature continues in my next post.

And consider the possibility the passage speaks of someone indirectly using a word that references a meaning akin to their name providing a link to a specific person.

The explanation above this and leading up to this statement was again responding to ignorance, much like the mistake regarding that word being a noun. The person claims:

"it still is defined as beloved or the like. Not Mohammad."

Search everything I said and you will never once find that I said the word is a proper noun/name "Mohammad". This sort of mindless knee jerk of response makes me wonder if the person is even reading what I am saying or comprehends it, thus the reason why I immediately end the conversation following the second repetition of this statement following this post.

Reasons you will not find agreement on the idea this interpretation is "Ludicrous". Unclear perhaps, since as mentioned eariler we find no mention of specific deeds that would narrow the focus (Prophethood/Message/Revelation/Etc.). It could technically be speaking of any of the countless Muhammads throughout history. Or none of them.

I go on to emphasize that the explanation above is a reason why I do not dismiss the idea outright without further investigation. And then reiterate the problems I have with the interpretations to emphasize the fact that I do not accept it either.

What kinds of responses do I receive?

An off-topic response immediately following...

Assumptions/Understandings I accept the interpretation as stated in the OP...

I hope now you and others see more clearly what I have been saying from the beginning.

Peace be unto you

 

[Catherineanne]

Did you read my post sister?

More importantly did you comprehend it correctly?

If you answer yes to both, please summarize my point of view to demonstrate this...

Peace be unto you

You think I am lacking understanding?

Frankly, HM, in this particular instance I don't give a tinker's cuss what your post had to say. Anyone claiming Mohammed is in the Song of Songs is DISRESPECTING MOHAMMED. And, believe it or not, I am trying to tell Moslems here, as politely as I can, that this is not doing any of you any favours.

After that warning, if you really want to have Mohammed in the Song of Songs in between Solomon and the Queen of Sheba as they make love, then that is your choice. By doing so you bring your prophet into disrepute, not to mention making a mockery of any concept of intellectual rigour extant in your faith.

I posted the whole book, so that you can see for yourself. If you still choose the threesome approach, then all I can say is, God help Islam.

Good luck with that.

Lord, have mercy on us all!!!!

 

[Catherineanne]

I hope now you and others see more clearly what I have been saying from the beginning.

You are talking complete and utter nonsense, HM.

Read the Song of Songs for yourself:

Song of Solomon

This is a LOVE story, about the relationship between Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. Solomon's name appears several times, and it is he who is the male lover described.

You simply cannot stick Mohammed in there alongside Solomon in this arbitrary way without making him appear very, very dodgy indeed.

Where are the other Moslems? Can you explain this to HM better than I can? I honestly don't mind how much disrespect you give to your prophet, so perhaps I am not explaining this properly, in terms that are meaningful to Islam; can any of you defend him more effectively?

 

[JJWhite]

so perhaps I am not explaining this properly

I think you explained it very well, in my opinion.

To be fair to HM, I don't think his point was related so much to the verse in question as much as people misinterpreting what HE was saying. I don't think he's interested in sticking Muhammad in there, and it appears he's just wondering why people keep assuming he does????

 

[Catherineanne]

I think you explained it very well, in my opinion.

To be fair to HM, I don't think his point was related so much to the verse in question as much as people misinterpreting what HE was saying. I don't think he's interested in sticking Muhammad in there, and it appears he's just wondering why people keep assuming he does????

Fair enough.

As long as nobody is saying any longer that Mohammed is mentioned by name in the Song of Songs, as far as I am concerned, the matter is closed.

 

[Supreme]

I wonder why the Song of Songs has different names. I've always known it as the Song of Songs, but a few of my Bibles seem to have it down as Song of Soloman.

 

[Catherineanne]

I wonder why the Song of Songs has different names. I've always known it as the Song of Songs, but a few of my Bibles seem to have it down as Song of Soloman.

Perhaps to prevent people thinking it the Song of Mohammed?

 

[ChavaK]

I wonder why the Song of Songs has different names. I've always known it as the Song of Songs, but a few of my Bibles seem to have it down as Song of Soloman.

In Hebrew it's known as Shir HaShirim, Song of Songs. Because Solomon wrote it, I guess some people use Song of Solomon instead...

 

[yonah_mishael]

The claim that the verse has to do with Muhammad is just ridiculous and grasping at straws. There are a lot of cognates between Arabic and Hebrew, since they are sister tongues. It just so happens that one such cognate is ח.מ.ד/ح.م.د (ḥ-m-d). In Hebrew, this is used to express a lot of ideas about "niceness" and "cuteness" and "pleasantness."

We get words like חָמוּד ("cute, sweet") (which actually comes into Arabic as the word مَحْبُوب [maHbub], related to the borrowed Hebrew expression "habibi"). We also have נֶחְמָד ("nice"), which is expressed as لَطِيف [laTiif] (as in "Queen Latifa").

In Arabic the root ح.م.د came to be used for the idea of "praise," as in the opening line of the Qur'an: أَلْحَمْدُ لِلّٰـهِ الرحمن الرحيم "all praise to Allah, the beneficent the merciful."

The fact that there's a cognate word usage in the Bible shouldn't shock anyone. Those who insist that this is a reference to Muhammad do so in the same way that Christians insist that Jesus appears throughout the Jewish Scriptures. It's an attempt to give their religion both antiquity and legitimacy. In reality, it has neither.

Best regards,
Yonah (after a long break from this forum)

 

[yonah_mishael]

I was invited to post the above after someone asked about this on my own forum. I just copied and pasted without noticing that the Muslims on this forum had already stopped posting on the topic or claiming that מחמדים was a proper name for Muhammad in this verse. It most certainly isn't, though HM is correct in stating that both terms (מחמדים and ממתקי&#1501 are nouns. In fact, ממתקים is used daily still in Israel to refer to sweets -- something you might buy for your girlfriend on Valentine's Day or for your children because they won't hush while you're shopping!!

 

[Catherineanne]

I was invited to post the above after someone asked about this on my own forum. I just copied and pasted without noticing that the Muslims on this forum had already stopped posting on the topic or claiming that מחמדים was a proper name for Muhammad in this verse. It most certainly isn't, though HM is correct in stating that both terms (מחמדים and ממתקי&#1501 are nouns. In fact, ממתקים is used daily still in Israel to refer to sweets -- something you might buy for your girlfriend on Valentine's Day or for your children because they won't hush while you're shopping!!

Thanks for your input, ym. Regardless of whether the Moslems have given up this particular dead horse flogging, your contribution is still of interest.

Hmm. Sweeties; yummy!! I don't suppose you brought any with you ... ?

 

[Catherineanne]

Those who insist that this is a reference to Muhammad do so in the same way that Christians insist that Jesus appears throughout the Jewish Scriptures. It's an attempt to give their religion both antiquity and legitimacy. In reality, it has neither.

Best regards,
Yonah (after a long break from this forum)

Funnily enough, I can accept this as 100% true for Judaism, while also accepting another 100% truth for my faith.

I really would not expect a Jewish person to believe anything else, nor would I hold it against them in any way that they do. As a Christian, I find it harder not to take Moslem views personally, and I am not sure why this is. Perhaps it is something to do with how their views are asserted; as if no other pov is valid. But Christians fall into this trap as well, far too often.

Can I ask about your emotional response to Christian claims about Jewish Scriptures containing references that we say are to Jesus? Does this irritate, or offend or whatever, or do you really not much care? I am not trying to pick a fight, or get into an, 'Oh yes it does', 'Oh no it doesn't' pantomime. I am just wondering what this looks like from your side.

 

[ChavaK]

Can I ask about your emotional response to Christian claims about Jewish Scriptures containing references that we say are to Jesus? Does this irritate, or offend or whatever, or do you really not much care? I am not trying to pick a fight, or get into an, 'Oh yes it does', 'Oh no it doesn't' pantomime. I am just wondering what this looks like from your side.

It doesn't bother me if Christians choose to believe this as a part of their faith.
Where it is irritating and offensive is when Christians try to use this tactic
as a way to convert Jews.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Funnily enough, I can accept this as 100% true for Judaism, while also accepting another 100% truth for my faith.

I really would not expect a Jewish person to believe anything else, nor would I hold it against them in any way that they do. As a Christian, I find it harder not to take Moslem views personally, and I am not sure why this is. Perhaps it is something to do with how their views are asserted; as if no other pov is valid. But Christians fall into this trap as well, far too often.

Can I ask about your emotional response to Christian claims about Jewish Scriptures containing references that we say are to Jesus? Does this irritate, or offend or whatever, or do you really not much care? I am not trying to pick a fight, or get into an, 'Oh yes it does', 'Oh no it doesn't' pantomime. I am just wondering what this looks like from your side.

Thanks for the response, CatherineAnne. I would reiterate what ChavaK said above and add my own personal response. We aren't dealing with these issues in a vacuum, as much as I like to think about them without worrying about where they came from, etc. I like mental exercises, and so I bring these issues up to myself for investigation midei paam (from time to time).

Because of my level of interest in these issues, I get kinda frustrated when people are flippant and don't look at things with any degree of perspective. I guess it's a personal issue, and I need to get over it and not let myself get worked up over other people's arguments. As Jews, though, we are often confronted outright with claims that are simply uninvestigated. The people who make the claims and insist that we need to convert and "accept your Messiah" generally don't really know what is behind their claims or the misunderstanding that allows the claims to be continually used as tools (read: "weapons") for Jewish conversion to Christianity.

If conversion attempts would stop (and I realize that they won't -- since it's part of the "Great Commission"), we would be able to get along on all levels and have great dialogues. Until that day, we have to be on guard against conversion pushes and arguments that need to be put into proper perspective by those who know the issues and can defend their faith -- from the side of the "underdog."

Regards,
Yonah

 

[yonah_mishael]

I guess I didn't say this part clearly enough, though: You are free (as is everyone else) to believe whatever you wish. I won't try to convert you or win you over. I'm into defense, not offense, in religious polemical engagements. I respond when people make claims and am rarely (if ever) one to start an argumentative discussion.

 

[Hanukh]

יִשְׁמָעֵאל IS one of Abraham sonne for Muhammad PBUH is his family three for LordGod mentioned in the Last Revelation to recover the righteous of The Jews oriented scripture of LordGod to cure goodness to tell the truth of him so that people returned to LordGod especially LordGod mentioned the Jews to purefy their hearts

 

[LoAmmi]

יִשְׁמָעֵאל IS one of Abraham sonne for Muhammad PBUH is his family three for LordGod mentioned in the Last Revelation to recover the righteous of The Jews oriented scripture of LordGod to cure goodness to tell the truth of him so that people returned to LordGod especially LordGod mentioned the Jews to purefy their hearts

What?

 

[amorly]

‫فيلم امريكي يعترف بوجود النبي محمد في الانجيل الجزء1.‬‎ - YouTube


‫فيلم امريكي يعترف بوجود النبي محمد في الانجيل الجزء2‬‎ - YouTube