19 replies
Trackbacks
- Muhammad in the Song of Songs – The Quran and Bible Blog
- Allan Ruhl and the Song of Songs – The Quran and Bible Blog
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Blogging Theology 
Subhaanallah!
#IslamIs4TruthOrSilence
Keep on striving… alhamdulillah
LikeLiked by 1 person
May Allaah(sw) reward brother Zakir and support him. He’s really doing a great job.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Salamun alaikum,
if we want to find prophecies of our prophet(s) in the Bible we should focus on John 16, Dt 18 and Isaiah 42.
Sorry, but this one with the song of Solomon is just flawed.
Nevertheless, may God(swt) reward those who study the Bible trying to find such possible prophecies.
God (swt) knows best!
LikeLike
I tackle the Song of Solomon argument on my blog.
http://allanruhl.com/is-muhammad-in-song-of-solomon-516/
LikeLike
Allan,
I notice how you went after the context of the Song of Songs in your attempt to refute the claim that Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned there. I find this to be rather ironic. When Christians claim that Jesus (pbuh) was prophesied in the Tanakh, they refer to isolated verses (like Hosea 11:1), and completely ignore the context of such verses. But now, when confronted with the Muslim claim that the Song of Songs mentions Muhammad (pbuh), all of a sudden, the context becomes important! I think this is evidence of double standards.
Now before you say that Christians are on “very solid ground” (as you claim in your article “The Christian says that Muhammad is not in the Bible. The Jew says Jesus is not in the OT. Are these even claims?”) just because your scripture says that Jesus and his disciples referred to these isolated verses, let me preempt you by pointing out that this is simply a circular argument. Even IF (and that is very big IF) Jesus and his disciples made these claims, it does not necessarily follow that they were right (I mean this from a secular point of view). Jesus could simply have been mistaken, so appealing to him does not strengthen your claim.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regarding Hosea, Christians have always understood that the first few Chapters in Matthew are written to show how Jesus parallels Israel and it was Israel that came out in Hosea so this is consistent with what Matthew is saying. All major Bible commentaries on Matthew know this. I would recommend Craig Keener.
The problem with Muslims using Song of Solomon is that they claim it is a prophecy. While Jesus is the representation of Israel and the King of Israel, Muhammad has no connection to Solomon in Classical Islamic literature. He is not a type or a parallel or anything regarding to Solomon. In fact, Muhammad seems to have no knowledge of the Temple either in the Quran or Hadith. How does he relate to Solomon?
If Jesus and His followers made this claims, were they correct? Jesus is a Muslim prophet and his followers were Muslims according to your faith – unless you’re a secularist since you mentioned the secular point of view. Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church. If you believe Christ is Prophet and Messiah, you have to believe that. Why would a Prophet and Messiah and his immediate followers be wrong? If you’re a secularist, you can dodge this, if you’re a Muslim, you have to believe what Christ says.
LikeLike
This is a cop-out. Matthew clearly says:
“And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.””
This is a clear appeal to prophecy and not simply a “parallel”. Yet, there is no prophecy in Hosea 11:1.
As for Solomon (pbuh), he is mentioned several times in the Quran. He was a prophet, so that is the only parallel with Muhammad (pbuh) we would need.
I said that the appeal to what Jesus and his followers allegedly said does not preclude the possibility that they were wrong, at least from a secular point of view. I also said that this would be the case IF they even said this. You say that the NT says that Jesus said he was prophesied in the Tanakh. But what if Jesus never actually said that? What if this reflects more the understanding of the post-apostolic church rather than Jesus and his disciples? You are assuming the reliability of the NT from the start without establishing that it is even reliable.
Now, given the claims in the NT, when we compare the alleged prophecies to what actually transpired in the gospel accounts, then more often than not, we find either that there was either no prophecy at all (as in Hosea 11:1) or that the prophecy failed outright. I have discussed Matthew’s appeals to the Tanakh in one of my articles. You may read it here:
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/the-gospel-of-matthew-and-tanakhic-prophecies-of-the-messiah/
LikeLike
This seems like a cop out to a 21st Century trained mind but to 1st Century Jews, this wasn’t a problem at all. This makes sense as Matthew was a highly educated Jew writings for other highly educated Jews at the time.
As Keener says:
“Matthew expects all his readers to understand the primacy of Scripture and the centrality of Christ’s mission in Scripture; but he expects his more sophisticated readers to catch his allusion to Israel’s history as well.”
Hosea 11 was a description of how Israel started it’s mission and Matthew sees that as Messianic typology(a kind of prophecy) of how Israel’s Messiah was in the early stages of His Mission. There are seven other typological parallels in Matthew’s Gospel alone! It’s actually quite beautiful read.
In my post which you mentioned before, this is part of the third point that I made. We Christians aren’t afraid of giving the whole context as we hand out both testaments together. The Muslim doesn’t hand out the previous scriptures with the Quran.
You also didn’t attempt to debunk my Song of Solomon post. In Classical Islamic literature there is no typologies between Solomon and Muhammad. You claim that they are both Prophets. Okay, but where in Classical Islamic literature is this rich parallel that you find with Jesus and Israel in the NT, especially Revelation. I don’t see it in the Quran, Hadith, Sira, early Tafsir, etc. However, if you provide me evidence to the contrary, I will concede the point.
LikeLike
“This seems like a cop out to a 21st Century trained mind but to 1st Century Jews, this wasn’t a problem at all. This makes sense as Matthew was a highly educated Jew writings for other highly educated Jews at the time.”
You are again resorting to circular arguments and non-sequiturs. How do you know that “Matthew” (note the quotation marks) was “highly educated”? How do you know that “Matthew” was the same Matthew as the disciple of Jesus? You are arguing from a preconceived premise which has not been proven.
Also, I think many Jews would have found “Matthew’s” prophecy-hunting technique to be flawed. If, for example, Hosea 11:1 was seen as a symbolic representation of the Messiah coming out of Egypt, then there would have been some indication of this in the Jewish sources. Is there? And how come Mark didn’t make the same connection? Mark was a Jew wasn’t he?
Also, what “typology” was responsible for the Jews’ expectation of “the prophet” in John 1? Who was this prophet? It is obvious from the questions the people asked to John the Baptist that they were expecting three figures: the Messiah, Elijah and the “Prophet”. Since this implies that the Messiah is a different person from the Prophet, who was the Prophet? Was this the “prophet” identified in Deuteronomy 18?
“As Keener says:
“Matthew expects all his readers to understand the primacy of Scripture and the centrality of Christ’s mission in Scripture; but he expects his more sophisticated readers to catch his allusion to Israel’s history as well.”
Hosea 11 was a description of how Israel started it’s mission and Matthew sees that as Messianic typology(a kind of prophecy) of how Israel’s Messiah was in the early stages of His Mission. There are seven other typological parallels in Matthew’s Gospel alone! It’s actually quite beautiful read.”
This is an example of yet another double standard on your part. I have read your past comments where you criticize Muslims’ appeals on Biblical scholars. But here, when it suits your purpose, you appeal to conservative and like-minded scholars! Why the double standard?
In any case, as I already mentioned, I have already dealt with the alleged “typographical parallels” in the gospel of Matthew. In my article, I considered each “parallel” and debunked it by going to the original text in the Tanakh. Needless to say, I was not at all impressed.
Also, Matthew NEVER says that the Tanakh has “parallels” to Jesus. Rather, he directly appealed to prophecy. Hosea 11:1 was one such appeal.
“In my post which you mentioned before, this is part of the third point that I made. We Christians aren’t afraid of giving the whole context as we hand out both testaments together. The Muslim doesn’t hand out the previous scriptures with the Quran.”
Actually, you don’t “hand out both testaments together”. As I already showed, you selectively quote one testament in order to confirm the other. That is not very impressive and it shows your double standards.
“You also didn’t attempt to debunk my Song of Solomon post. In Classical Islamic literature there is no typologies between Solomon and Muhammad. You claim that they are both Prophets. Okay, but where in Classical Islamic literature is this rich parallel that you find with Jesus and Israel in the NT, especially Revelation. I don’t see it in the Quran, Hadith, Sira, early Tafsir, etc. However, if you provide me evidence to the contrary, I will concede the point.”
Actually, there are such “parallels”. For example, Suzanne Haneef mentions a tradition in her book “A History of The Prophets of Islam, Vol. 2” in which the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was asked about which mosques were built first. The first was the Kaabah, and then “the Farthest Mosque”, which is Masjid Al-Aqsa (on the Temple Mount; note that this shows that the site of the temple was considered sacred even before Solomon built the temple). So there is a parallel between the location of the most sacred mosque in Islam, the Kaaba, and the location of Solomon’s temple. Thus, there is a parallel between Muhammad and Solomon (pbut), according to your own standards.
LikeLike
I know that Matthew is highly educated because it is very sophisticated Greek and rhetorical technique. If you’ve studied ancient literature you’d agree with me.
You said: “How do you know that “Matthew” (note the quotation marks) was “highly educated”? How do you know that “Matthew” was the same Matthew as the disciple of Jesus? You are arguing from a preconceived premise which has not been proven.”
Although there is good evidence that this is Matthew the tax collector, this wasn’t even part of my argument. You brought up Matthew, not me. Why are you even bringing this up? Complete red herring.
Mark didn’t make the connection because Mark(though he was a Jew) is writing for gentiles and they would not have appreciated the argument as much.
Typology in John 1 is a red herring. That’s a whole other topic, moving on.
I did quote Keener but this is not a double standard. I was making an argument and I liked the quote as I believe it to be brilliant so I cited my source to avoid plagiarism. I’m not quoting him as an authority, I’m quoting the argument. If you protested the quote and I respond with flaunting his credentials then I would be using double standards. When a Muslim quotes Raymond Brown, or Bart Ehrman or the “majority of scholars” using their name(s) as an authority, there is the double standard. Whenever I challenge quotations from these scholars with arguments, facts and logic and Muslims can’t defend them with the same, they just flaunt the credentials and authority of the scholar or “majority of scholars”. There is where the double standard lies.
You dealt with a bunch of stuff in your article. Some was typology, some wasn’t. Either way, I wasn’t very impressed.
Matthew doesn’t say parallels but implies messianic typology as a kind of prophecy. This is not a problem at all.
How exactly do we not hand out both testaments together? Every Bible that I own has both testaments. We have nothing to fear. Islam doesn’t hand out both.
Interesting parallel with Solomon. Is there a quote from Muhammad that says the location of where this mosque is to be built is to be the temple mount? It was built there but did Muhammad specifically say the Temple Mount in Jerusalem? After all, if Umar just built it there because he liked the location or some other reason, Muhammad has no connection to the parallel. Muhammad had to specify the location.
LikeLike
“I know that Matthew is highly educated because it is very sophisticated Greek and rhetorical technique. If you’ve studied ancient literature you’d agree with me.”
You know as well as I do that church tradition states that Matthew wrote his alleged gospel in Hebrew for a Hebrew audience. Therefore, how could he have written a “very sophisticated Greek” translation? You assume I haven’t studied “ancient literature” but I am fully aware of your church’s traditions and the early status of your gospels. 😉
“Although there is good evidence that this is Matthew the tax collector, this wasn’t even part of my argument. You brought up Matthew, not me. Why are you even bringing this up? Complete red herring.”
You are the one who claimed he was “highly educated”. I only brought up Matthew to show the double standards Christians use when appealing to the Tanakh for prophecies about Jesus (pbuh). Now I am asking you to defend your heretofore unproven assertion that “Matthew” was “highly educated”. What makes you so sure that Matthew the Jew was “highly educated” and could write “sophisticated Greek”?
“Mark didn’t make the connection because Mark(though he was a Jew) is writing for gentiles and they would not have appreciated the argument as much.”
How do you know he was writing for Gentiles? If anything, given his rather poor Greek (compared to Matthew and Luke), it seems clear that he was writing for a Jewish audience. Indeed, it makes more sense to say that both Mark and Matthew were writing for primarily Jewish audiences.
“Typology in John 1 is a red herring. That’s a whole other topic, moving on.”
How is it a “red herring”? You brought up typology. Now I want you to defend it. You perpetuate double standards and then fail to defend those standards. So I ask again: what “typology” was leading the Jews in John 1 to ask about the “Prophet”? Who was he, if not the Messiah?
We know that the Qumran community was expecting two Messiah figures (a king Messiah and a priestly one). But they were also expecting a prophet as well. This seems to be the same prophet that the Jews in John 1 were expecting.
“I did quote Keener but this is not a double standard. I was making an argument and I liked the quote as I believe it to be brilliant so I cited my source to avoid plagiarism. I’m not quoting him as an authority, I’m quoting the argument.”
Actually, by referring to Keener to support your own assertion, you are using him as an “authority”. If you weren’t, then why even refer to him? He basically says the same thing you did, so if you weren’t using him as an “authority”, then you were just being repetitious.
“If you protested the quote and I respond with flaunting his credentials then I would be using double standards. When a Muslim quotes Raymond Brown, or Bart Ehrman or the “majority of scholars” using their name(s) as an authority, there is the double standard. Whenever I challenge quotations from these scholars with arguments, facts and logic and Muslims can’t defend them with the same, they just flaunt the credentials and authority of the scholar or “majority of scholars”. There is where the double standard lies.”
Um no. I just showed why you are guilty of double standards. It is clear you brought up Keener and other “major Bible commentaries” only to buttress your own claim. That is an appeal to authority. Therein lies the double standard.
“You dealt with a bunch of stuff in your article. Some was typology, some wasn’t. Either way, I wasn’t very impressed.”
So, in other words, you are going to brush aside anything that challenges your world view.
“Matthew doesn’t say parallels but implies messianic typology as a kind of prophecy. This is not a problem at all.”
How so? Because your scholars say so?
“How exactly do we not hand out both testaments together? Every Bible that I own has both testaments. We have nothing to fear. Islam doesn’t hand out both.”
You guys selectively quote the Tanakh when it suits your purpose. You deliberately avoid the context and then claim its “typology”. So, while you may literally have both testaments in your Bible, your appeal to the Tanakh is selective and biased. That is why non-Christians are usually not very impressed.
“Interesting parallel with Solomon. Is there a quote from Muhammad that says the location of where this mosque is to be built is to be the temple mount? It was built there but did Muhammad specifically say the Temple Mount in Jerusalem? After all, if Umar just built it there because he liked the location or some other reason, Muhammad has no connection to the parallel. Muhammad had to specify the location.”
This is a typical apologetic response. You posed a challenge, which was met, so now you move the goalpost and pose yet another challenge. You asked for a parallel and you were given one. Why do you now move the goalpost?
The phrase “farthest mosque” refers to Masjid Al-Aqsa, which is in Jerusalem. Muslims even prayed in the direction of Jerusalem until the Qiblah was changed to face towards Mecca. So there is another parallel for you.
And yes, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did mention the site of the temple:
“I was brought al-Buraq Who is an animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule, who would place his hoof a distance equal to the range of version. I mounted it and came to the Temple (Bait Maqdis in Jerusalem)…” (Sahih Muslim)
Do you now acknowledge that there is a clear parallel between Solomon and Muhammad (pbut) in Islamic sources?
LikeLike
Allan,
Do you acknowledge that there are parallels between Solomon and Muhammad (pbut) in Islamic sources?
LikeLike
Hi Faiz,
Sorry for the late reply, on a business trip. I’ll respond to some other stuff later but you seem to want an answer now on the Solomon thing.
The answer is no because the hadith says he went to the Temple. It could not have been Solomons temple as that was destroyed over a millennia before.
Here’s my review of Zakir Hussain vs White btw
http://allanruhl.com/james-white-vs-zakir-hussain-on-the-crucifixion/
LikeLike
That is a very disappointing reply. You seem to think that the temple had to be physically there, but as I already made clear, the physical building need not be there, because it is the site itself which is sacred. This is what I wrote earlier:
“Note that this shows that the site of the temple was considered sacred even before Solomon built the temple.”
So, your continuous attempts to move the goal post once your challenge has been met reflects your own refusal to acknowledge the facts and admit that you are mistaken. That is very disappointing.
By your own standards, we find clear parallels between Solomon and Muhammad (pbut). Thus, using your appeal to “typology”, we can say that there is no reason to consider the context of Song of Songs 5, just like there is no reason to consider the context of Hosea 11.
LikeLike
I’m not moving any goal posts, only clarifying where they are.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, I think you are moving the goalpost. You asked for a “parallel. I gave you multiple parallels.
LikeLike
Here is my formal response to Allan on his objections to the Muslim appeal to Song of Songs 5:16.
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2017/08/20/muhammad-in-the-song-of-songs/
LikeLike