Is Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) mentioned by the name in the Bible?

Screenshot 2018-03-07 15.54.39

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.>>

Part I

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:

Screen Shot 2018-03-03 at 11.13.06


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:

The Septuagint

Therefore, behold, they go forth from the trouble of Egypt,… [1]

New International Version

Even if they escape from destruction, Egypt will gather them,…[2]

Revised Standard Version

For behold, they are going to Assyria; Egypt shall gather them…[3]

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[4] 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. “[5]

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[6] (Egypt shall gather them )
Mof tekabberem (Mof shall bury them)
Mahmad lechaspam (their precious silver?)
Kimmos[7] 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) (?)[8] 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.

[1] «διὰ τοῦτο ἰδοὺ πορεύσονται ἐκ ταλαιπωρίας Αἰγύπτου dià toûto idoù poreúsontai ek talaipōrías Aigýptou».
[2] “Even if they escape from destruction, Egypt will gather them.”
[3] «For behold, they are going to Assyria; Egypt shall gather them…».
[4] Coining the term “semitic” is on language despite its mistake, it is correct to say: «Ancient Arabic» or so
[5] Encyclopedia Britannica. “Semitic Languages”.
[6] from the the Hebrew “qabats קָבַץ” (equivalent with arabic “qabada قبضmeaning ”to seize”) in the sense of “to gather” or ”to hold”.
[7] A nettle i.e. a plant.
[8] Which is a distortion of the original word «M – H – M – D» as I will show in the second part, God willing.

Part II

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:

Screenshot 2018-03-05 15.54.37


Mah-ta’asu leyom mo’ed; uleyom chag-yahuwah?

Ki-hinneh halechu mishod:
mitzrayim tekabbetzem,
mof tekabberem,
mahmad lechaspam,
kimmos yirashem,
choach be’oholeihem..

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 [1] 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: <[2] 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”[3]. 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”[4]. 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 “[5].

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]

[1] Mo’ed מוֹעֵד in the hebrew text.
[2] Moph: an ancient Egyptian city.
[3] Barr, James. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1987), p. 23.
[4] 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.
[5] Seerah Ibn Hisyam 915/1.
[6]”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]


Categories: Christianity, Islam, Judaism

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

88 replies

  1. Jazak Allah Khyran, Akhi. I know the translation needs a lot of work. It’s really a hard job. May Allah bless you.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Yes- the antichrist

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Some points with the translation I think they should be corrected.
    For first article :

    “Although this meaning is acceptable in itself, it is never consistent with the intended meaning of the text, as will be explained shortly.”

    Although this meaning is acceptable in itself, yet it doesn’t go with the intended rhyme in the original text.

    “In this way, I changed the Septuagint text composition and rhythm, but it is not violating, like other versions, the rules of case ending (I’rab) in the third sentence, as I will show in the second part of the article, God willing.”
    He meant the Septuagint not himself, so the correct translation will be
    In this way, the Septuagint version has lost the pattern and the intended rhyme and even more! It has violated
    the rules of case ending (I’rab) in the third sentence.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. you have rightly given up on the crazy idea that Deuteronomy 18 or Song of Solomon 5:16 or John 14 or 16 is about Muhammad. Since those arguments are goofy and ridiculous, you are trying desperately to find Muhammad in Hosea 9:5-6. You have to contort and distort big time to get even close to anything that would hint at him.

    You cannot use the argument about the vowel pointing, because the vav/waw ו (for “w”, or “v”, or “u” or “o”)
    is a consonant and in the older Hebrew texts before Masorites added vowel pointing.
    ו is a consonant and so it does not matter if the vowel pointing comes later in Masoretic scribes texts.

    It would have been this:
    or this:

    Allan Ruhl completely demolished Muslim’s attempts to find Muhammad in the Bible. Poor little Faiz got really frustrated and could not handle the truth. (latter in the comboxes)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Allan Ruhl’s work is not very impressing.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yes it is; and on that article he nailed it.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Wow Kenny is getting triggered.

      I just have to LAUGH at how these xtians think that they have valid prophecies in their faith!
      Like Isaiah 9:6 or Psalms 22!
      It’s just RIDICULOUS!!! How far they are willing to go to try and justify their pagan faith and then turn around and say ‘Muhammad is in no way prophesied in the OT’. If these crusaders are willing to present the most pathetic attempts to try and pretend as if most of their ‘prophecies’ are right and then try and say that the prophecies about Muhammad being in the OT then there is just no way you can reason with them.

      Liked by 1 person

    • like how clear Isaiah 52:13-15 & 53:1-12 is about Jesus the suffering servant – Messiah; and Daniel 9:24-27.

      Liked by 1 person

    • What make you think muslims have given up on the prophecy of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in Deuteronomy 18 or Song of Solomon 5:16 or even John 14 or 16?? Thats crazy claim on your part. Prophet Muhammad is clearly mentioned in Song of Solomon 5:16 by name like sun in the blue sky…

      Liked by 3 people

    • It cannot be about Muhammad, since the context is about 2 lovers, a man and a woman and their passion and love within marriage. Solomon before he started marrying more wives. Dr. White demolished all of Zakir Hossein’s (and all other Muslim arguments) arguments for Muhammad in the Bible.

      Liked by 1 person

    • as clear as language about sexual romantic love between a man and a woman = Song of Solomon.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Sexual romantic?? I dont think so. He is a holy man whom God desire to be the chosen one

      His mouth is sweet, and he is in all respect Muhammad peace be upon him

      HMD- Muhammad
      – Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament

      Liked by 3 people

    • look at the context of Song of Solomon – the whole thing is about sexual romantic love.
      David Wood was right on that.

      Liked by 1 person

    • What David Wood got to do with this?? what matter is what God says here not a speculation from silly psycopath who tried to hammer his own father to death

      Liked by 1 person

    • That was before he got saved and forgiven by Christ. You don’t believe in forgiveness, do you? He repented of that sin.

      Liked by 1 person

    • מוחמד
      No, the Hebrew letters would have been above, but the context shows otherwise, both with the wrong word.

      Liked by 1 person

    • This is silly and shows your lack of understanding of hebrew, we are not talking about modern spelling here but an ancient root. Even your own scholars have recognized like in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, that the hebrew word מחמד cognate with the the arabic Muhammad, letter vav does not have significance here as it is only the vocal sign in modern spelling. Even so Any good Dictionary recognice the alternate spelling for Muhammad in hebrew is מחמד.

      Screen Shot 2018-03-08 at 00.32.01

      Liked by 2 people

    • “like how clear Isaiah 52:13-15 & 53:1-12 is about Jesus the suffering servant – Messiah”

      Except it doesn’t say ANYTHING about the Messiah. The servant is said to have literal offspring, he would not open his mouth (although jesus allegedly did open his mouth quite a few times on his way to crucifiction), etc etc. I know you’ll try and do verbal gymnastics to try and work your way around it but remember you’re talking to people that can actually THINK. In other words: don’t bother!

      Liked by 3 people

    • Mark 10:45 shows Jesus knew Himself to be the suffering servant of Isaiah 52-53 & the Messiah – Matthew 16:13-19; Daniel 9:24-27; Psalm 110. proved in Mark 14:60-64

      Liked by 1 person

    • And poor lil jimmy barely refuted anything. He was on his dl show again spreading his garbage about the supposed Muhammad (saw) believing the Injeel was there at the times and that he believed the trinity was Allah, Jesus and Mary (even though there is NOTHING that says that and you along with jimmy cannot backup your lies with a SINGLE source).
      Here is the excellent article of Bassam Zawadi dealing with those Christians that say that the Prophet believed that the Injeel and Torah were still intact and followed.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Isaiah 53:5
      “But he was pierced for our transgressions,
      he was crushed for our iniquities”
      Wrongly translated and I HIGHLY doubt it was by accident!
      The word ‘for’ is a mistranslation. It should be ‘from’ or ‘as a result of’.
      So he was punished BECAUSE of the wickedness of others.

      Isaiah 53:10
      “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
      and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
      he will see his OFFSPRING and PROLONG HIS DAYS,
      and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.”

      He will see his OFFSPRING and PROLONG HIS DAYS! Neither of these two happened according to Christian theology.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken,
      What are you bluffing? The crazy ideas have been always linked with christianity and christians.
      You are not sincere nor truthful in your judgment at all.

      Muslims have presented proofs as the sun in Duet 18, Isaiah 42, Daniel 2, and John 14/16. In fact, they have presented the proofs from independent sources. You, on other hand, couldn’t present any real argument for any prophecy. And this is not muslims’ judgement, but this has been said by NT scholars.

      Let’s not deal with your ideas about what so called prophecies for Jesus because they are not worthy. They are just nonsense interpretations which have no basis whatsoever as your religion as whole. However. let’s deal with the “prophecies” presented in your scriptures. This is the real test.
      Let’s see
      1) “and remained there until the death of Herod. (((This was to fulfill))) what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.” [Matthew 2:15]
      Where is this prophecy? 🙂

      2) “He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, (((just as the Scriptures said)))”
      [1 Corinthians 15:4]
      Where’s this prophecy?

      I’m telling you, before you point your finger at muslims’ arguments which are very reasonable and have very strong basis;e, try to deal with your problem regarding the “prophecies” in the level of your Scriptures. Again, what so called prophecies that christians try to present more than what their scriptures did are not really worthy to look at.

      Then why do you make all this noise about sogs of Solomon as if the Muslims are the first people who present it as a prophecy? I mean how sly you are!

      Let me remind you that the passage has been always a prophecy about Jesus for christians. You may find that in many commentaries such as Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, Matthew Henry commentary, and even in the introduction of the New American Bible.

      Liked by 3 people

    • that Jesus the Messiah would be raised is from Psalm 16:10-11 and Isaiah 52:13.
      The idea of the 3rd day is from the book of Jonah, Jonah 1:17 – we discussed this before – “three days and three nights” are a Hebrew idiom, and equal to “on the third day”. Part of one day (Friday) counts for the whole day, Sat. the whole day, and part of Sunday counts for the whole 24 hours.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Playing dumb has never been a good tactic, Ken.

      Paul was talking about (((Scriptures))) which said that Messiah must die for 3 days and be resurrected in the third day. I’m not talking about how 3 days and 3 nights work. I’m talking about where the prophecy is in the Scriptures to begin with. Got it?
      Also, I know that you tried to solve the problem of 3days and 3 nights before in which you have failed miserably, yet this is not my point.

      Again, the prophecies that christians try to make ,which are not in their Scriptures are not even worthy to be looked at.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Peter and John (whom you cannot argue against because they are 2 of the 12 disciples eyewitnesses during Jesus lifetime) quoted Psalm 16:10; Psalm 110:1, in Acts 2:24-35 as proof of the prophesies of the resurrection of Messiah. Jesus Himself also quoted Psalm 110:1 in Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36 and Luke 20:42.

      Apostle Paul was also referring to that, along with Jonah.

      Liked by 1 person

    • that Messiah would die for sins is in Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12 and Daniel 9:24-27 (word Messiah is used there). Also the NT looks back at the OT sacrificial system as symbols/prophesies of the Messiah to come – Genesis 22; Exodus 12 (passover); Leviticus chapters 1-7; 16-17; Isaiah 52-53; I Kings 8 (temple sacrifices), etc.

      Liked by 1 person

    • All passages of Psalms that christians try to make a point by are talking about a servant who will be rescued from death, and he doesn’t die, which speaks volumes. In fact, dr. Ally has already destroyed all these arguments.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Peter and John (whom you cannot argue against because they are 2 of the 12 disciples eyewitnesses during Jesus lifetime) quoted Psalm 16:10; Psalm 110:1, in Acts 2:24-35 as proof…”

      Oooow boy!!! Here we go again!!!

      What proof??? Your NT is unreliable to the core. Acts, really? Who wrote it? How do we know the writer is reliable? You don’t even know his name for God’s sake. And don’t say Luke (the companion of paul)!
      Not in the mood for games!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Luke wrote Acts and the Gospel according to Luke. I say “Luke”.

      14 Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings.
      Colossians 4:14

      Liked by 1 person

    • Speculation and hearsay, no evidence. Kenny’s at it again!

      Liked by 1 person

    • established Christian history for centuries.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Atlas.

      We don’t even know your name. Why should we trust you as reliable? By your own criteria you disqualify your comment.


      Liked by 1 person

    • “We don’t even know your name. Why should we trust you as reliable? By your own criteria you disqualify your comment.


      BWHAHAHAH, classic Cerbian-logic and a desperate attempt to move the goalpost. Atlas is not anonymously writing a book. Moreover, if need be, he can easily provide you his name if he wants to. On the other hand, your nameless Gospels were written by unknown people who died 2000 years ago and who clearly went out of their way to remain anonymous. There is no way to verify who they were anymore.


      Liked by 1 person

    • “Allan Ruhl completely demolished Muslim’s attempts to find Muhammad in the Bible. Poor little Faiz got really frustrated and could not handle the truth. (latter in the comboxes)”

      Actually Ken, if you pay attention, you will notice that Allan got very defensive and would not answer my questions. This is typical of Christian apologists.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “who clearly went out of their way to remain anonymous“

      “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

      Yes, sounds like Luke was definitely trying to remain anonymous, haha. As I keep telling you. When you rely upon lies and hyperbole you will always get caught out.

      Back to your masjid course little muhammadan and learn a bit more about how to practice your taqiyyah a little more effectively.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hahaha, awww is poor Cerbie so embarrassed he can’t think straight? The last time I checked, there are FOUR gospels in your NT, right? So, which authors identify themselves in those gospels? And did Jedi Master “Luke” identify himself in Acts?

      Back to your empty church to contemplate another way to save yourself from more humiliation.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Things go from bad to worse for poor Cerbie:

      “…neither the Gospel of Matthew nor the Gospel of John was actually written by the apostle whose name it bears – a position held by almost all the major Catholic commentary writers today” (Raymond Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible: How a Modern Reading of the Bible Challenges Christians, the Church, and the Churches (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 70).

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yawn… back to appealing to liberal scholarship I see. Ironic given your fundamentalism on the other thread re secularism. I’ve seeb pigs act more consistent than you

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yaaawn, oh sorry. Your usual insipid and pathetic response is making me sleepy. A sheepish appeal to the “liberal” scholarship card as usual.

      Irony abounds in Cerbie’s responses! Rejecting “liberal” scholarship, then accusing me of being “inconsistent”, and yet appealing to secularist ideals in the other post! Oh Cerbie, when will you learn? I am sure there are a lot of pigs and dogs who are more consistent and less self-contradictory than you! ROTFL!!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Tell me Cerbie, what is so special about “conservative” NT scholarship that we should blindly trust like you do? If anything, “conservative” NT scholars are more biased and the least trustworthy. So why should we trust them?

      Liked by 1 person

    • You’ll probably find conservative scholars share many of the same presupposition that you do. But because you are taught to hate Jews and Christians from infancy, you’ll do everything in your power to attack those two faiths, even if it means cosying up with liberals.

      Liked by 1 person

    • LOL, so no answer again. Just a deflection.

      It’s obvious that you hate Muslims. It’s no wonder your comments showcase such pathetic rhetoric and no answers.

      I don’t hate Jews and Christians, idiot. I don’t even hate you! How could I when you make me laugh so much? Don’t get me wrong. I think you’re a brainwashed idiot with an agenda. You are incapable of having an honest and civilized discussion. Your hate blinds you and keeps you from having a substantive discussion. I respond to you mainly for kicks. It relieves the stress from a hard day’s work.

      Now be a dear and do try and answer my questions.

      Liked by 1 person

    • You asked why we should trust conservative scholarship and I answered you.

      Then you moan that I didn’t answer?

      Now it’s obvious why muslim women have no rights with Muslim men like you.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Cheerio back to your pagan prayers now…

      Liked by 1 person

    • “”You asked why we should trust conservative scholarship and I answered you.

      Then you moan that I didn’t answer?

      Now it’s obvious why muslim women have no rights with Muslim men like you.”

      LOL, you didn’t answer anything. You’ve been running back and forth like a rabid dog. I asked why we should trust conservative scholars. You seem to be very high on them. Why?

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Cheerio back to your pagan prayers now…”

      Come back soon, ya hear? We can talk more about pagan Canaanite god! 😉

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Now it’s obvious why muslim women have no rights with Muslim men like you.”

      “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” – Paul the false apostle


      Liked by 1 person

    • “established Christian history for centuries.”

      Actually, it’s established Christian “hearsay” for centuries. Just wanted to correct you there. 😉

      Liked by 1 person

    • Even Bart Ehrman knows the crucifixion and death of Jesus on the cross is established history.

      Even Shabir Ally knows the Qur’an is weak historically on this issue, and has to adopt the Ahmadiye (Qadiani) heretical view that Jesus was crucified, but swooned and survived. Amazing.

      Liked by 1 person

    • And, aside from the crucifixion and death of Christ, Luke as the author of Luke and Acts is also established history. The “we” sections start at the time Luke joins Paul’s missionary team, etc.

      Liked by 1 person

    • LOL, yeah you cling to that issue and have mentioned it a few thousand times already, but it doesn’t make it a good argument. You have been refuted on this point many thousands of times. The Quran does not deny a crucifixion occurred. It merely says that someone else was crucified. Miracles are not included in “established history” because historians cannot prove supernatural events.

      As for the rest of your rant, the belief in the apostolic authorship of the gospels is “established hearsay” among Christians. It is not “established history”. In fact, the “established history” is that the apostles did not write the gospels. Sorry to disappoint you. Now go on acting like a pouty, whiny little child.

      Liked by 2 people

    • “Atlas.

      We don’t even know your name. Why should we trust you as reliable? By your own criteria you disqualify your comment.


      What a pathetic repsonse from a crossworshiper. Doing false equivocation like a braindead moron. I’m not writing an account of someone 2000 years ago. Try and put more than 2 braincells on active duty for once.
      (If you even have those cus most of them got molested by your moronic trinity and mangod bs)

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Why does the Hebrew use ח ? for ح ؟

    ח = خ

    ה = ح

    Liked by 1 person

    • Wrong!!!

      Please perform the below excercise.

      Google the words

      Raham = Mercy/womb= رحم
      Ruh= Spirit روح

      Then check their Hebrew counterparts .

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, I realize that; my question is why does the hard ח in Hebrew correspond to the softer ح , when there is a softer h in Hebrew – ה, and there is a “kh” in Arabic = خ ?

      I am asking why do the parallels go that way in the cognate languages, when the sounds are different, and each language has both the softer and harder sounds?

      Liked by 1 person

    • I realize that for Ruh روح – Hebrew: רוח and Rahem (womb), رحم and רחמ; but why do they correspond that way, when there is a softer H in Hebrew and the sound of ح in Arabic is softer than the خ, which is similar in sound to the hard h in Hebrew – ח – ?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Interesting question Ken.

      Don’t really know why.

      But if I am not mistaken even the pronunciation of Chet varies as Yemenite Jews pronounce the letter like the Arabic.

      Liked by 2 people

    • The letter ح has disappeared in Modern Hebrew since those white jews from Europe cannot pronounce it. The same with the letter ع Ayen. They’re very hard for them. It’s pure Semitic or as Faisl Al Kamily said ( Old Arabic) instead of Semitic.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Modern Hebrew still has ה/ ح and ח/ خ and ע (Ayen ع)

      Liked by 1 person

    • Bro Abdullah is talking about the phoneme of hey and ayin as in Arabic, hebrew for most part has dropped the original pronounciation of hey to a mere voicelless glottal stop, and as for ayin, modern hebrew has also dropped it pronounciation the way Mizrahim and Arabs do: a pharyngal voiced fricative /ʕ/.

      Liked by 2 people

    • ok; meaning the vocalization of those letters. Yes, that is what we also were taught in Hebrew class – a softer pause – voiceless glottal stop, etc. agreed. My point is that the letters are still there in the writing / texts. I agree with you on the vocalization.

      Liked by 1 person

    • ח and ح are the emphatic ‘h’ ה. The Arabic خ phonetically corresponds to the Hebrew Kaph without dagesh but they are not equivalent linguistically. What is خ in Arabic is ح in Hebrew because the Hebrew language lost the original خ.

      So you have:

      خ , ح = ח
      ه = ה

      Liked by 5 people

  6. ibn issam two more for you you can order material by phone if you are at usa

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Jazakal-Lahu Khaira brotther.

    A small correction if I may:

    “ليوم الميعاد” does not mean “for the day of the appointed”
    rather it means:
    “for the day of the appointment/promise”
    meaning the day of judgement.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. It seems I can’t edit. So, I’ll make a new comment.

    It’s similar to the second ayah of Surat Al-buruj:

    “واليوم الموعود”

    meaning “By the promised/appointed day”

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Brother Eric,
    I’ve read that Maimonides, in his epistle for Yemen, wrote that this verse (Hosea 9;6) states the proper name of the prophet ﷺ, yet he referred to the prophetﷺ as a ‘false prophet’ based on the verse 7!
    If he really wrote that, then this verse is talking about jews like Maimonides himself. The verse is talking about Israelites who accuse the [true prophet] as a false one because their sins are so many and their hostility so great.

    Can you confirm?

    Liked by 1 person

    • I don’t think Maimonides ever called Prophet Muhammad  , as a “false prophet”, he  did call him  ha-meshugga המשגע, the term which was rooted in the prophecy of Hosea (9:6), …but.. this term has now misunderstood as something deregatory and jews and christians always point this as to appear that Mainonides ever said that Prophet Muhammadﷺ was a madman and thus a false prophet. I dont think this was the case, on the contrary,  most likely Maimonides was fully aware of prophetic quality of the term Meshugga, and he did not mean a “madman” per se but more for a above rational condition when prophets receive revealation.

      How do I draw this conclusion?

      Maimoindes ever wrote in Yesodei Hatorah 7:12 (which is one of the most important Code of Jewish Law writing in medieval Jewish period) a description of how prophets receive their revelation:

      When any of them prophesy, their limbs tremble, their physical powers  become weak, they lose control of their senses, and thus, their minds  are free to comprehend what they see, as [Genesis 15:12] states concerning Abraham: “and a great, dark dread fell over him.” Similarly, Daniel [10:8] states: “My appearance was horribly changed and I retained no strength.

      So Maimonides  is unlikely to understand that Meshugga refers to the mode of speech of the prophets. Maimonides also wrote:

      When the spirit rests upon him, his soul becomes intermingled with the angels called “ishim”, and he will be transformed into a different person and will understand with a knowledge different from what it was previously. He will rise above the level of other wise men, as the prophet, Samuel told Saul: “[The spirit of G‑d will descend upon you] and you shall prophecy with them. And you will be transformed into a different person.” (Samuel I 10:6)

      This interestingly fit a description on how the Prophet ﷺ received his revelation from Gabriel.

      Yes,  I believe that Hosea 9:6  the verse is talking about Israelites who were prophecised to accuse the [true prophet] as mad because their great sins and hostility but whether or not Maimoindes really believe that or if he think that the Prophetﷺ was indeed as true prophet  (Of course Maimoindes will never openly admit this) that no way we can know for sure.

      Wallahu A’lam Bishawab

      Liked by 2 people

    • Thank you!
      Can you confirm whether or not he mentioned that Hosea 9:6 indeed states the proper name of the prophetﷺ?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Unfortunately no, I dont think he refer that in his epistles to yemen but to be honest I really haven’t seen Maimonides original letter in arabic.

      Even so some experts doubts the tranaslation are based on authentic letter and some thinks that the translators have manipulated some key text in order to discredit the Prophet ﷺ,

      Expressions such as “madman” (ha-meshugga‘) for the Prophet of Islam are almost certainly by translators. Maimonides called Muhammad al-shakhs (“the individual” or “that person”) in his Epistle to Yemen, which translators replaced with ha-meshugga

      Check out this book:
      Maimonides: The Life and World of One of Civilization’s Greatest Minds ISBN=0385528515 by Joel L. Kraemer


      Liked by 3 people

    • It still very interesting that he labeled the prophet ﷺ as a “madman” which according to Hosea 9:7
      is the very false accusation that Israelites will use against the true prophet, which I think it affirms that Hosea 9:6 contains the proper name of our beloved prophet ﷺ. And as the reaserch by Faisal says, the Septuagint done by 27 jewish scholars knew that this verse contains a proper name, yet they put it as cit’s name.
      The irony here is that Maimonides was like he testified against himself by his own hand.

      Also, although what you said might be true, but I really doubt that there’s a misunderstanding or a mistake by the translators for his word. After all, he’s a zealous jewish Rabbi. Also, the playing with words to attack the prophet ﷺ is an old method used by jews.
      Allah عزوجل has told that in [Surah 2:104]
      And in hadith Narrated Ibn Abi Mulaika:
      Aisha said, “The Jews came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said to him, “As-Samu ‘Alaika (i.e., Death be upon you).” He replied, ‘Walykum (i.e.the same be upon you’ ” `Aisha said to them, “Death be upon you, and may Allah curse you and shower His wrath upon you!” Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “Be gentle and calm, O `Aisha! Be gentle and beware of being harsh and of saying evil things.” She said, “Didn’t you hear what they said?” He said, “Didn’t you hear what I replied (to them)? I simply have returned their statement to them, and my invocation against them will be accepted but theirs against me will not be accepted.” Sahih Al Bukhari.

      Moreover, the label Muhammad al-shakhs (i.e. Muhammad the person), what does it mean?
      I don’t want to jump to any conclusion, but I doubt that there’s a mistake because of the translators.
      He is likely wrote (Meshugga ) even though his letter originally in Arabic, and Allah عزوجل will judge him.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Some corrections if I may:

    1- “What do you do to the day of the promise” should be “What are you doing/preparing for the day of the promise”

    2- > should be “There they are survived from affliction: Egypt captures them, Mof buries them”

    3- “Muhammad to their lord” should be “Muhammad’s is their money”

    Liked by 1 person

  11. will bury them [or] hide them>>*

    Liked by 1 person


  1. Christian Fanatic “Cerbie” (Paulus) Takes a Double Beating! – The Quran and Bible Blog

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: