Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel… [Al A’raaf 157]
It comes to my attention, initially brought by brother Abdullah (hafidzahullah) in his comment thread in my post (on the prophecy of Prophet Muhammad in the Qur’an), a very interesting research written by a researcher by the name of Faisal Al Kamily who argues using linguistic argument that Hosea 9:6 a clear prophecy about Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) so I thought it will be beneficial to make this research accessible in English. However I believe this post is for open minded people and those who are honest in asking, the evidence that prophet Muhammad was indeed prophesied in the TaNaKH as it speaks for itself, but for one who has bigotry on Prophet Muhammad and Islam, no amount of evidence will be convincing.
NB: <<The research is originally in Arabic and I translated it myself to make it accessible for english readers but I’m not a professional translator, so my apologies if my translation causes anyone’s eyebrows raised. Corrections welcome.>>
Christian and Jewish scholars claim that the name محمد “Muhammad” was not written in their so called “holy” books whatsoever. Thus the the saying of Allah in the Quran Al A’raaf 157 merely just an effort to legitimize and sanctify the final prophethood the message of Islam as a religion which supersede Judaism and Christianity. We will see that despite of these false allegations however if the claim is true, the story in the so called holy bible is actually not the story taken from the true Torah and the Gospel which are revealed from God, accordingly, if the name of “Muhammad” is not mentioned in the holy books ie previous revelation it would be a deciding factor in refuting the holy Quran.
“Holy Bible” is divided into two main parts: Old Testament which is equally believed by the Jews and the Christians, and contains laws and stories from time span the beginning of creation to the fifth century BC approx. It was written by a number of unknowns whom we know nothing about them, the New Testament is accepted only by the Christians and it includes the story of Christ, the book allegedly has been composed by: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in addition to that there are some are letters some attributed to Paul the Jew and some to others.
To reassure the hearts of the believers and to make the unbelievers more broken hearted, and for muslims are not accused of being impartial in any way in this response. Here are passages from the Old Testament that Jews and Christians have to accept that the name of “Muhammad” is still intact , despite the tampering. Regardless of the authenticity or inaccuracy of the (old testament) text attributed to a prophet among the Israelite prophets, there remain the evidence of the historical background of the Prophet (Muhammad) mission — as well as evidence of the mention of his noble name from the time of authentic revelation hidden by rabbis and monks, like they did in other books. In this part of the article, I shall present a clear case of distortion (Taḥrīf), a case where accepting the text despite lacking its coherence original meaning, which I will seclude in the second part (of this article), God willing.
These passages appear in the book of Hosea – It is one of the books of the Old Testament canon – In the context of rebuking of the Israelites for the wrongdoings and sins they committed “the Lord” says:
1 Rejoice not, O Israel, As other peoples exult; For you have strayed Away from your God: You have loved a harlot’s fee By every threshing floor of new grain. 2 Threshing floor and winepress Shall not join them, And the new wine shall betray her. 3 They shall not be able to remain In the land of the LORD. But Ephraim shall return to Egypt And shall eat unclean food in Assyria. 4 It shall be for them like the food of mourners, All who partake of which are defiled. They will offer no libations of wine to the LORD, And no sacrifices of theirs will be pleasing to Him; But their food will be only for their hunger, It shall not come into the House of the LORD. (Hose 9:1-4)
After the passages of rebuke, the Lord asks them, saying:
Mah-ta’asu leyom mo’ed; uleyom chag-yahuwah.
Ki-hinneh halechu mishod, mitzrayim tekabbetzem mof tekabberem; Mahmad lechaspam, kimmos yirashem, choach be’oholeihem.
Ba’u yemei happekuddah, ba’u yemei hashillum, yede’u yisra’el; evil hannavi, meshugga ish haruach, al rob avonecha, verabbah mastemah.
And its translation in accordance with most of the Arabic and non-arabic translations (this is my own translation based on Van Dykes Arabic bible – Eric Kisam):
5What will you do in feast days, in the festivals of the LORD 6Behold, they have gone because of destruction, Egypt gather them, Mof bury them, The desirable things of their silver, Weeds are their heirs; Prickly shrubs occupy their [old] homes. 7Come in have the days of inspection, Come in have the days of recompence, Israel do know! a fool [is] the prophet, Mad [is] the man of the Spirit, Because of the abundance of their sins, And great [is] the hostility.
Most of the Arabic and non arabic translations exegetes this text as a some kind of weird situation that hardly expresses any useful benefit, but is it merely contradictory sentences with no connection?. What is the “day of the season”? What is the “day of the Lord’s Day”? What is the meaning of “Let Israel know it! The prophet is a fool, The inspired man is mad because of the abundance of their sins and hatred”?
Here are examples of the translations and their discrepancies:
Therefore, behold, they go forth from the trouble of Egypt,… 
New International Version
Even if they escape from destruction, Egypt will gather them,…
Revised Standard Version
For behold, they are going to Assyria; Egypt shall gather them…
This puzzle of this discrepancy quickly fades away if the examiner returns to the Hebrew text in the book of Hosea to see why the various translations are far from accurate, because it depends on those who are not specialist in the “Semitic” languages although being the expert in the field you see they sometimes skip the Hebrew lexical meaning and rush to any meaning which bear the context, and they do not posses intuitive skill to present the desired meaning from among dozens of meanings sometimes because most of the translations were done by non semites.
The Greek Septuagint added the word “talaiporias,” which means distress and trouble (or sometimes ruinned) to the word “Aiguptou” (ie, “Egypt”) to become the phrase “the trouble of Egypt.” Although this meaning is acceptable in itself, yet it doesn’t go with the intended rhyme in the original the text, as will be explained shortly.
We also note that what the Greek version (Spetuagint) is contrastly different with “the new international version” (NIV) on two key words “trouble” and “destruction”, so “from the trouble of Egypt” becomes “destruction, Egypt …”
The RSV version have been greatly exaggerated that one left to wonder: which clumsy hand did it? The letter “m” (meaning “from” «min») was translated into “to” «ilā», which is exactly the antonym of the meaning! Then the word “shud” שֹּׁ֔ד is translated as “Assyria”, and become “they are going to Assyria”. What is the similarity between (שׁ – ד) and (ע – שׁ – ו – ר) in Hebrew such the reasoning of the interpreter to arrive at such translation? Is it an example of the tampering by the translators?, this can not be interpreted as such except this is a deliberate bias or sheer ignorance. Perhaps the readers haved warned the publishing house of this fatal flaw, so in the new revised standard version (NRS) it now becomes “For even if they escape destruction” similar to the new international version (NIV).
The Hebrew language was a dialect of ancient Arabic dialects, such as Sab’iyah and Tsamudiyah, spoken by the Canaanite Arabs who inhabited Palestine. Then the Jews took their tongue for them, and called “Siffat Kana’an“; that is “Sefat kena’an שְׂפַ֣ת כְּנַ֔עַן” “the tongue of Canaan” as attested in the Book of Isaiah (19:18). However, since it has lost its syntax case markings (the I’rab) – like many of the ancient Arabic dialects – it has became difficult to define the meanings precisely as in the above text. If the word “Masraim” was read as nominative case, it would not be related to “shud” (ie: trouble), in fact it is is a resumed sentence (musta’nifa). British Encyclopedia states: In semitic language [like the classical arabic] there are originally three case endings: Nominative (rafa’), Accusative (nasb), and Genitive (jar). However, those cases markings were not fully preserved except in some Akkadian dialects and in classical Arabic. “
as I mentioned: The reader of two passages (v5 and 6) shall automatically notice in their original Hebrew, that in them the symmetry and rhyme is always in the sentences without use or being irregular.
The text says:
Mitzrayim tekabbetzem (Egypt shall gather them )
Mof tekabberem (Mof shall bury them)
Mahmad lechaspam (their precious silver?)
Kimmos yirashem (thorny weed shall inherit them)
Choach be’oholeihem (Prickly shrubs occupy their places)
Notice in short that the first three sentences begin with “Mem”, and each sentence ends with the plural construct “mem” which corresponds to “them” in Arabic, which reminds us of the rhyme of Andalusian poetry.
When the correct rule of the text were followed, it turns out that the word “mitzrayim” should be as nominative possessive composite (rafa’ mubtada) and not as the genitive/ (mudāf ilayhi) as suggested by the Septuagint version. The mistake in Septuagint is it view “(mi)shod mitzrayim” as mudāf – mudāf ilayhi construction, thus the wordings of the two paragraphs were re-arranged as follows:
Tekabbetzem mof (Mof shall gather them)
Tekabberem Mahmas (Μέμφις) (?) shall bury them)
Lechaspam kimmos yirashem ( And their silver thus turn into ruin)
Choach be’oholeihem (Prickly shrubs occupy their tents)
In this way, the septuagint version has lost the pattern and the intended rhyme even more it has violated the rules of case ending (I’rab) in the third sentence, as I will show in the second part of the article, God willing.
 «διὰ τοῦτο ἰδοὺ πορεύσονται ἐκ ταλαιπωρίας Αἰγύπτου dià toûto idoù poreúsontai ek talaipōrías Aigýptou».
 “Even if they escape from destruction, Egypt will gather them.”
 «For behold, they are going to Assyria; Egypt shall gather them…».
 Coining the term “semitic” is on language despite its mistake, it is correct to say: «Ancient Arabic» or so
 Encyclopedia Britannica. “Semitic Languages”.
 from the the Hebrew “qabats קָבַץ” (equivalent with arabic “qabada قبض” meaning ”to seize”) in the sense of “to gather” or ”to hold”.
 A nettle i.e. a plant.
 Which is a distortion of the original word «M – H – M – D» as I will show in the second part, God willing.
It was mentioned in the first part of this article, a text from the Old Testament which refer to “Muhammad” (pbuh) by name explicitly in the books of the jews and christians, but there are proof the deliberate distortion in the hebrew translation of the text, and I have shown some instances, now more importantly is to prove that the quoted paragraph should be read in the following order, taking into account the commas/separations:
Mah-ta’asu leyom mo’ed; uleyom chag-yahuwah?
Ki-hinneh halechu mishod:
And I have proven that this reading is the only one that maintains the symmetry of the sentences and its rhyme. But in this part, I will focus on the meaning of the text to see how the translators manipulated text who refer clear prophecy of the Al Mustafa (Muhammad pbuh) – to become sentences that are very incohesive and meaningless.
The exegesis of the text
As for the saying: “Mah-ta’asu leyom mo’ed; uleyom chag-yahuwah?” It has nothing to do with the feast days and festivals. This is apparent from the context; it is an intimidation and warning for the Israelites who have departed from God’s way and disobeyed His messengers.
The translation says <> it took away the goal and change the threat to festival. The Hebrew text says: (le-yom לְ-י֣וֹם) meaning «for the day» and not (be-yom ב-י֣וֹם) «in a day». Therefore, the correct translation is: “What are you doing (preparing) for the day of the promise  and the day that the Lord will gather you?” The word Hag ”חַג” in Hebrew is pertaining to “mass gathering”; The meaning of the sentence is mentioned in the words of God (The Qur’an) – the Almighty – addressing the children of Israel:
وَاتَّقُوا يَوْمًا لاَّ تَجْزِي نَفْسٌ عَن نَّفْسٍ شَيْئًا وَلا يُقْبَلُ مِنْهَا عَدْلٌ وَلا تَنفَعُهَا شَفَاعَةٌ وَلا هُمْ يُنصَرُونَ
And fear a Day when no soul will suffice for another soul at all, and no compensation will be accepted from it, nor will any intercession benefit it, nor will they be aided. [Al-Baqarah: 123].
As for the saying, “Ki-hinneh halechu mishod: mitzrayim tekabbetzem, mof tekabberem”
And it is interpreted it as: < will bury them [or] hide them>>
It is a very close meaning to the Words of Allah – the Almighty – in the Qur’an Al Karīm:
وَإذْ نَجَّيْنَاكُم مِّنْ آلِ فِرْعَوْنَ يَسُومُونَكُمْ سُوءَ الْعَذَابِ يُذَبِّحُونَ أَبْنَاءَكُمْ وَيَسْتَحْيُونَ نِسَاءَكُمْ وَفِي ذَلِكُم بَلاءٌ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ عَظِيمٌ
And [recall] when We saved your forefathers from the people of Pharaoh, who afflicted you with the worst torment, slaughtering your [newborn] sons and keeping your females alive. And in that was a great trial from your Lord. [Al-Baqarah: 49].
But the persecution of the Egyptians is not in all the paragraphs which says about the affliction of the Israelites. It continues: “Mahmad lechaspam מַחְמַ֣ד לְכַסְפָּ֗ם ,” and here is the bottomline. This phrase was translated as “the precious thing of silver”, which is an apparent distortion of two main things:
The first is that the phrase (idāfa) of “Mahmad” (meaning “precious”) to “chaspam” (ie, “their silver” or “their money”) is of great importance, for the occurence of the preposition (harf ul ĵar) <<לְ>> between them. In the Grammar of Hebrew Language by Wilhelm Gesenius, it is cited that the proper term of the phrase is (Mahmad chaspam), and thats the joint wording of the phrase in Hebrew.
Secondly, if we accept the validiy of the argument in “mahmad lechaspam”, as “their preciousness silver [or their money]” is nevertheless not a useful sentence, it is a construct contains subject (mubtada) who lacks the predicate (Al khabar), or the predicate has been omittedt we do not know. This forced the translator to connect with (kimmos yirashem קִמּוֹשׂ֙ יִֽירָשֵׁ֔ם ), as follows, and said: “Their preciousness (of) silver will be taken over them by thorny weed” It is an awful attempt to escape the problem, but the sentence is not improved despite this fix; because if we translated the Hebrew text literally it would have become “the preciousness (of) their silver thorny weed shall inherit them”; meaning the plural sentence ”הם” return the singular “preciouness,” which is not correct in the Hebrew language. Rather, it is said: “the preciousness (of) their silver thorny weed shall inherit it “, If we assume that the pronoun refer to “silver”- which is very unlikely – the objection is valid; it is singular and not plural in its Hebrew original. This indicates that they are two sentences rather than one sentence.
What is the meaning of the sentence then? a brief, concised term of “mahmad lechaspam” in its literal meaning, is “Muhammad is their wealth,” as “Muhammad” is a proper noun which refers to the Prophet – and not an adjective “precious” – This testify to at least two things:
First: The sentence without this form is not complete, there is no meaning and no word declension (mabnī), as stated above.
Second: When the translators of the Septuagint were exposed to this paragraph, they realized that Muhammad was a proper name, so they did what they did they tried to change the name to Machmas/Μαχμας (the city of Machmas). Perhaps one can excuse the translators on the possibility for not being able to recognize letter “Dalet ד” in the Hebrew origin, I say:
First: The letter of ש “Shin” and ד “Dalet” in Hebrew nothing resemble the mixture and the confusion between them is unlikely; the former is similar in form to number (5) and the latter is similar to number (6).
Second, suppose we follow this speculation, the city of Machmash as the translators want here, in Hebrew it is not written as “mahmas / מחמשׂ, ” but rather “makmas”/ מכמשׁ with Kaf כ and Shin שׁ. The distortion was not only in one letter, but in two letters.
The critic may object: “Mahmad is not the same with Muhammad.” The answer: that the Hebrew text remained for more than a thousand years were without vowel signs until added by the “masoretes” the Jewish scholars between the sixth and ninth century AD, according to their judgement and made some mistakes. The word before the distortion of the masoretes was “MHMD” without vowel signs, and it was not “Mahmad“, and this is what the scholars of the Old Testament gather with acquiescence in order to hide the trace of «Muhammad» knowing about the Prophet (pbuh).
And the intention of the passage (is to show) that Muhammad (pbuh) will discipline them with their wealth, and this happened when the sons of Nadeer were expelled to Syrian and Khayber, so even one of them destroy the door of his house and roof in the night abandon it behind, as mentioned in Surat Al-Hashr:
هُوَ الَّذِي أَخْرَجَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ مِن دِيَارِهِمْ لأَوَّلِ الْـحَشْرِ مَا ظَنَنتُمْ أَن يَخْرُجُوا وَظَنُّوا أَنَّهُم مَّانِعَتُهُمْ حُصُونُهُم مِّنَ اللَّهِ فَأَتَاهُمُ اللَّهُ مِنْ حَيْثُ لَمْ يَحْتَسِبُوا وَقَذَفَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمُ الرُّعْبَ يُخْرِبُونَ بُيُوتَهُم بِأَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَيْدِي الْـمُؤْمِنِينَ فَاعْتَبِرُوا يَا أُوْلِي الأَبْصَارِ
It is He who expelled the ones who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think they would leave, and they thought that their fortresses would protect them from Allah ; but [the decree of] Allah came upon them from where they had not expected, and He cast terror into their hearts [so] they destroyed their houses by their [own] hands and the hands of the believers. So take warning, O people of vision. [Al-Hashr: 2].
وَمَا أَفَاءَ اللَّهُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ مِنْهُمْ فَمَا أَوْجَفْتُمْ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ خَيْلٍ وَلا رِكَابٍ وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ يُسَلِّطُ رُسُلَهُ عَلَى مَن يَشَاءُ وَاللَّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ
And what Allah restored [of property] to His Messenger from them – you did not spur for it [in an expedition] any horses or camels, but Allah gives His messengers power over whom He wills, and Allah is over all things competent. [Al-Hashr: 6].
As for saying: “kimmos yirashem, choach be’oholeihem” I will rely the translation on the Arabic versions: “thorny weed shall inherit them, and prickly shrubs occupy their places” for the sake of argumen will not be accepted, in order to not to take up too much time of the reader.
Then the Lord returns to the warning of the children of Israel from the consequences of their kufr, and that the days of reckoning have arrived. He Says “Ba’u yemei happekuddah, ba’u yemei hashillum” which The days of punishment have come, the days of recompense have come. The use of past tense here is an indication of assurance of that it is inevitably occurring, as the saying of God Almighty -:
أَتَى أَمْرُ اللَّهِ فَلا تَسْتَعْجِلُوهُ
The Command of Allah has come up; so do not seek to hasten it. [AnNahl: 1].
Then (God) explained the justification for this threat and ultimatum, and said: “yede’u yisra’el; ewil hannavi“. And translated as in Van Dyke translation: “Israel will know, the foolish prophet, the man of crazy spirit.” You notice the ending is weak and ambiguous, most of the Arabic and non arabic translations considered the Hebrew verb «Yada יָדַע» derived from «Yod – Dalet – Ayin ד – ע » which mean “knowing” , however it is plausible to suggest that it is in fact derived from « Dalet – Ayin – He ד – ע – ה » which cognate with Arabic Da’ā «دعا» which mean « to call». This is consistent in hebrew with what James Barr has classified in his book “Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament”. Thus the sentence (yede’u yisra’el; evil hannavi, meshugga ish haruach) consists of a transitive verb with two objects, a doer/subject with its initial part second object, and latter part first-object, then a second possessed object with its latter part first-object. Therefore, the literal translation of the paragraph is: “Israel calls the prophet a fool, and the man of the mad spirit”, and “Israel” here is meant to be the children of Israel.
God Almighty said -:
كَذَلِكَ مَا أَتَى الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِم مِّن رَّسُولٍ إلاَّ قَالُوا سَاحِرٌ أَوْ مَجْنُونٌ * أَتَوَاصَوْا بِهِ بَلْ هُمْ قَوْمٌ طَاغُونَ
Similarly, there came not to those before them any messenger except that they said, “A magician or a madman.” * Did they suggest it to them? Rather, they [themselves] are a transgressing people. [Adh-Dhāriyāt 52-53]
Then the text which the Jews had paid for this insults and rejection, it said: al rob awonecha, we rabbah mastemah “to the multitude of your sins and the excess of your hostility”. The reason for the Jews denying the Prophet as well as insulted them – attested by their journey – their excessive hostility, which God – the Almighty – Said:
لَتَجِدَنَّ أَشَدَّ النَّاسِ عَدَاوَةً لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُوا
You will surely find the most intense of the people in hostility toward the believers [to be] the Jews and those who associate others with Allah (the Pagans) [Al-Mā’idah: 82].
In the story of Safiya bint Huyay ibn Akhtab – she said: “”I was the sweetheart of my father and uncle, Abu Yaser. Whenever they are with their children and see me, they take me and leave them. When the Prophet – peace be upon him – came to Medina, my father and uncle went to him from the morning and did not come back until the sunset time. They were very tired and walking slowly. Seeing that, I met them courteously as I usually do, but no one cared about me due to their dejection. I heard my uncle, Abu Yasser, saying to my father: Is it he? My father said: yes he is (the Prophet). My uncle said: do you know him surely? My father said: yes. My uncle said: then what will you do? My father said: He will be my enemy forever “.
Here I conclude the exposition with above mentioned Van Dykes Arabic translation of the text, followed by my translation of the original Hebrew original and leave the readers decide.
Van Dyke translation
(my adaptation to english – Eric Kisam):
The seeker translation
What will you do about feast days, About the festivals of the Lord Behold, they have gone because of destruction, Egypt gather them, Moph buried them, The desirable things of their silver, Weeds are their heirs; Prickly shrubs occupy their [old] homes. Come in have the days of inspection, Come in have the days of recompence, Israel will know! a fool [is] the prophet, Mad [is] the man of the Spirit, Because of the abundance of their sins, And great [is] the hostility.
“What are you doing (preparing) for the day of the promise, and the day that the Lord will gather you? They are the ones who survived the afflictions: Egypt captures them, and Moph bury them, and (the Prophet) Muhammad will plunder them, and the weeds will inherit them, and Prickly shrubs will be in their houses. The days of punishment shall come, and the days of recompense shall befall. The children of Israel will call the Prophet a fool, and his revelation as mad, due to the magnitude of their sin and their persistent hostility.
الَّذِينَ آتَيْنَاهُمُ الْكِتَابَ يَعْرِفُونَهُ كَمَا يَعْرِفُونَ أَبْنَاءَهُمْ وَإنَّ فَرِيقًا مِّنْهُمْ لَيَكْتُمُونَ الْـحَقَّ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ * الْـحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكَ فَلا تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْـمُمْتَرِينَ
Those to whom We gave the Scripture know him as they know their own sons. But indeed, a party of them conceal the truth while they know [it]. The truth is from your Lord, so never be among the doubters. [Al-Baqarah: 147-147]
 Mo’ed מוֹעֵד in the hebrew text.
 Moph: an ancient Egyptian city.
 Barr, James. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1987), p. 23.
 This is shift from the third person to second person; in other words a shift from the third person form “Israel calls” to the second person construct, “your sins” and “your hostility”, This is a rhetorical device that drew the listener or the reader into something significant. It has been used previously when saying “What are you doing?…They are the ones who survived the afflictions”. ” while the basis should be ” You are the ones who survived the afflictions.” This does not concern us very much here, but I just wanted to show variation of the use of pronouns and that does not alter the original meaning of the text at all.
 Seerah Ibn Hisyam 915/1.
”Ish Haruach אִ֣ישׁ הָר֔וּחַ ” translated as “man of the spirit” meaning: «with revelation» which is a description of Muhammad — in the exalted Qur’an which was revealed to him his revelation was termed as a «rūḥan روحاً ie. spirit» God says –
: وَكَذَلِكَ أَوْحَيْنَا إلَيْكَ رُوحًا مِّنْ أَمْرِنَا مَا كُنتَ تَدْرِي مَا الْكِتَابُ وَلا الإيمَانُ وَلَكِن جَعَلْنَاهُ نُورًا نَّهْدِي بِهِ مَن نَّشـَـاءُ مِنْ عِبَادِنَا وَإنَّكَ لَتَهْدِي إلَى صِرَاطٍ مُّسْتَقِيمٍ [الشورى: 25].
And thus We have revealed to you an inspiration «rūḥan روحاً» of Our command. You did not know what is the Book or [what is] faith, but We have made it a light by which We guide whom We will of Our servants. And indeed, [O Muhammad], you guide to a straight path – [Ash Shurā 25]