IS MUHAMMAD PROPHESIED IN THE TORAH?
|
|
Raghbir Singh Roudh contacted Islam-Sikhism
in July 2010 claiming to have discovered a
contradiction in the Qur'an. Based on this contradiction, Roudh thus
asserts
that Islaam is not a true religion of God, Prophet Muhammad
(upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) is not a true Prophet, and,
as he boasts, "the superiority that Muslims feel over the
people of other faiths comes from ... delusion".
Before we respond, let it be known that there are no contradictions in
the true message of God.
Allaah declares emphatically:
Have they (the disbelievers) not considered the Qur'an with deep
deliberation? Had it been from anyone other than Allaah, then indeed they would
have
found in it many
contradictions.
(Qur'an 4:82).
Raghbir Singh Roudh's
feedback - black
Our reply - blue
Dear Sir,
I am writing in response to an article I read on your
website in which you state that all claims of contradictions in the Quran have
been thoroughly refuted. I must disagree with you on this point. I believe there
are contradictions in the Quran which have never been refuted, as I will explain
with reference to relevant evidence. Furthermore, I will provide evidence from
the Jewish Bible to prove that Islam cannot be a true religion. Please note that
the following does not proceed from any particular religious perspective. It is
simply based on the evidence that I have before me. I have assumed that the
reader has some knowledge of the Jewish scriptures i.e. the Torah, psalms, etc.
Now the Quran claims that Muhammed is mentioned in the
Torah: (sura 7:157). Therefore, for the Quran to be true, Muhammad must be found
in the Torah.
The significant part of the
verse reads: "...the Prophet who can neither read nor write whom they find
written of with them in the Torah and the Gospel ..." Hence, it
includes both the Torah and the Gospel; though Roudh intends to restrict it to
the Torah only.
The problem with this argument
is that it is too vague; what does Roudh mean by "mentioned" and "found" in the
Torah vis-á-vis his interpretation of this ayaah (not "sura" [sic]
as surah means a whole Qur'anic chapter while ayaah means a single
Qur'anic verse)?
1.
Does he mean explicitly by name, i.e.
Muhammad, and if so, then in which Semitic language: Hebrew or Arabic?
2.
Or that he is mentioned descriptively?
3.
Or both?
4.
Is this argument premised on the
assumption that the Torah has remained intact and uncorrupted since its
revelation?
The importance of question four
cannot be understated because if the Torah has been changed and corrupted by the
hand of man, then it raises the inevitable question over whether Muhammad's
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) name and/ or description was part of
this textual corruption. The question over whether this distortion took place
before and/ or after the revelation of verse 7:157 also needs to be addressed. If
this textual corruption did indeed involve the Prophet's (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him) name and/ or description, then said verse could be referring
exclusively to the uncorrupted Torah and Gospel.
Today's Bible differs depending
on which version one picks up. The Roman Catholic's version comprises 73 books,
while the Protestant's comprises 66 with seven having been expunged as
non-canonical (apocrypha). There are a number of verses in both the Old and New
Testaments that are considered interpolations: verses that some consider were
not part of the original. But, what does original mean to Muslims in terms of
what is referred to as the Old and New Testaments?
When Muslims refer to the Torah, they are certainly not referring to the extant
Old Testament that comprises a number of works, by both known and unknown
authors, which contain blasphemous and heretical theological beliefs and
concepts. And when Muslims refer to the Gospel, they are certainly not referring
to the extant New Testament and its 27 books comprising of works ascribed to authors
unknown and Paul of Tarsus,
whose apostleship Muslims reject. Thus, we reject the four Gospels ascribed
to four pseudonymous authors since we believe in only a single Gospel revealed by God
and disseminated by one man only: Jesus, son of Mary (who is not considered the Son of God nor
part of the fictitiously illogical concept of a Triune God-head).
What we can say in regards to the textual corruption of the Torah from an Islamic point of view is that the Prophet's description and traits were
distorted by the unscrupulous hands of the Jewish and Christian scribes and
copyists.
We will suffice ourselves with
what Bassam Zawadi has delineated in his response to a similar objection raised
by a Christian evangelist. Zawadi begins by correctly making a distinction
between what the Qur'an refers to as the Torah and Gospel originally revealed to
Moses and Jesus, respectively. This information, he says, found itself in what
is today called "[T]he Bible, which also contains much falsehood according to
Islamic teachings". He then
cites one of the leading interpreters of the Qur'an and
a companion of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), Ibn
Abbaas:
(Therefore woe) severe punishment, and it is said this means: a valley in Hell
(be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands) [and] change the
description and traits of Muhammad (pbuh) in the Book (and then say, "This is)
in the Book that has come (from Allah", that they may purchase) through changing
and altering it (a small gain therewith) a small gain in terms of means
of subsistence and surplus of property. (Woe unto them) theirs is a severe
punishment (for what their hands have written) have altered (and woe unto them)
and theirs is a severe punishment (for what they earn thereby) of unlawful
earnings and bribes. (Ibn Abbaas, Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn 'Abbas,
Commentary on Surah 2:79,
Source)
He also quotes
"early Qur'anic
commentator Muqatil bin Sulaiman" who says of the Qur'anic verse 2:79:
The
leaders of the Jews in Medina erased the descriptions and traits of
Muhammad peace be upon him from the Torah, and they wrote other traits
and descriptions (Source)
Zawadi concludes:
Thus, it is not a surprise for a Muslim to find that the predictions
of Muhammad (peace be upon him) are vague and some how isolated from the context
of the entire Bible. The reason for this is because there is also falsehood in
the Bible, which would distort the truth.
Thus, the Muslim is not required in any way to prove that Muhammad (peace be
upon him) is clearly predicted in the Bible by taking all the verses in the
Bible into consideration. This is simply the Muslim position regardless of [sic]
one likes it or not.
In addition, we can also
confirm that there exists evidence in the historical tradition of Islam to
suggest that the Torah in the hands of the Jewish community in Arabia during the
time of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) must have gone
through some textual corruption given that it differs to the Torah we have
today.
Zawadi observes that "it
is also possible that parts of the true Torah and Injeel [Gospel] existed until
the 7th century [during Muhammad's time] and are not found in the
Bible today". He supports this claim by citing five authentic Islamic traditions
that point to references and injunctions apparently present in what the Jews in
that area and epoch referred to as the Torah, but which "we
don't find ... today with us in the Bible", and "[t]herefore ... must have been
removed, thus indicating textual corruption".
Having said this, however, the
textual corruption vis-á-vis Muhammad's (peace and blessings of Allaah be
upon him) name and/ or description has not been
expunged in toto. This is based on two observations.
The first is from the angle of
interpretation. According to the commentary of Ibn Kathir, the portion of the
verse in question: "...the Prophet who can neither read nor write whom they
find written of with them in the Torah and the Gospel ..." was understood to
mean:
The
characteristics and attributes (Arabic: sifah)
of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
And
the answer to the question of what was specifically meant by
"characteristics and attributes" is to be found in the famous
hadith collection of Imam al-Bukhari's Jami'
as-Sahih:
On the authority of Ata' Ibn Yasar, al-Bukhari reported in his Sahih:
"I met
Abdullah Ibn 'Amr Ibn Al-'Aa's and asked him, 'Tell me about the description of
Allah's Messenger which is mentioned in Torah.' He replied, 'Yes. By Allah, he
is described in [the] Torah with some of the qualities attributed to him in
the Qur'an as follows: "O Prophet! We have sent you as a witness, a giver of
glad tidings, and a warner." (33:45)
(bold ours)
Hence, a description of his
mission and/ or general qualities is alluded to in the Torah and the Gospel.
The second is that many Muslim
academics and proselytisers, both in the past and in recent times, have argued
that although an explicit mention of his name is no longer present in the Bible,
there are to be found descriptions in both the Torah and the Gospels that
strongly match the characteristics and/ or historical mission of Prophet Muhammad (peace
and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
Both these reasons support the
understanding that, despite the textual corruption of the Torah and Gospel, the
Jews and Christians failed to completely purge the original
of all references and allusions to Muhammad
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
Having said
all that, it is
impossible for us to settle this matter conclusively with Roudh's given argument until he
satisfactorily answers the four aforementioned questions.
Muslims claim that they have found prophecies of
Muhammad in the Torah. The most frequently quoted 'prophecy' is in Deuteronomy
18:17-20.
The fallacy in this instance is
Roudh's assumption that a premise can be valid by simply appealing to authority,
in this case: a number of unknown Muslims. Further still, Roudh also begs the question by assuming that said verse is indeed a prophecy
accepted by all Muslims, and thus citable as proof. The counter we throw in
response is to simply ask how Roudh knows we here at Islam-Sikhism accept
this verse to be a prophecy? If we do not, then poor Roudh has wasted his time
arguing a strawman.
"YHWH said to me, 'What they
say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their
brothers. I will put my words in his mouth and he will tell them everything I
command him. If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my
name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes to speak in
my name anything that I have not commanded him to say or a prophet who speaks in
the names of other gods must be put to death."
Notice that Moses here speaks this prophecy in the name
of his God YHWH i.e. "YHWH said to me" (not Allah). Moses wrote the name YHWH
1600 times in his Torah.
Moses gives no other name for God. The name Allah does
not appear in the Torah once.
Roudh presupposes that the Arabic name of God: Allaah, is immutable in the sense
that it must be
consistently used to address Him for all time and in all
languages. But as stated above, since languages
differ grammatically, the name of God cannot, therefore, be the same,
phonetically speaking, across the board. For example, the titles: El, Eloah, Elohim,
and Allah'im used
by Jews for God in the Tanakh bare a
striking resemblance not only to the proper name Allaah, but also the name, as
suggested by Muslim scholars such as Ibn al-Qayyim
et al., from which
it was derived: al-Ilaah (the God). Similarly, Jesus is recorded in
the Gospels to have called upon God in Aramaic: Eli and Eloi, which again sounds
remarkably similar to Allaah and al-Ilaah. Hence, Muslims
would have no qualms in accepting the possibility
that Allaah could have revealed his name to other
non-Arabic speaking nations that would be distinguished by an obvious difference
in pronunciation.
As for the proper name YHWH in
the Tanakh, then we wish to ask Roudh to provide the vowel points in order so
that God's name can be pronounced correctly. The reason why we ask is
because of the opinion that no one can say for certain what the correct
pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) is, which came about due to the
nonsensical ancient
Judaic rule that it was
forbidden to pronounce His name outside the Temple in Jerusalem. The
irony here is that Roudh acknowledges this crucial point nearing the end of his
missive, but fails to recognise its dire implications. Moreover, ignorance of
the alleged true name of God is further proof of the Torah having been distorted
and, thus,
corrupted.
Now this prophecy clearly says that the true prophet
will speak in YHWH's name.
Since Muhammad never spoke in YHWH's name, he cannot be
the prophet mentioned here. In addition, this prophecy says that if a prophet
speaks in a name other than that of YHWH, then that prophet must be put to
death. This last point also has serious implications for Muhammad's claim to be
a true prophet.
As stated before, this entire
line of argumentation is fallacious since it is built on the assumption that we
somehow accept Deut 18:18 to be a prophecy of Muhammad (upon whom be peace and
blessings of Allaah).
One Muslim writer, Al Kadhi, who tried to extricate his
prophet from the difficulties posed by this prophecy, wrote:
"But the prophet which shall presume to speak a word in
my name which I have commanded him not to speak, or that shall speak in the name
of other gods even that prophet shall die": Deuteronomy 18:20
"Muhammad (PBUH) spoke not just a single word, but
dictated a whole book in God's name. For twenty three years, he spoke
exclusively in the name of God Almighty. He was given 114 chapters, all of which
were, and are today, recited day after day in God's name. Chapters in the Quran
begin with the words "In the name of God, the Gracious, and the Merciful". Yet
he did not die, but lived to fulfil his message completely".
But Al Kadhi has missed the point completely. It is
irrelevant whether Muhammad lived or died. Just as it is irrelevant how many
aubergines are found with the name Allah written in them. Or how many numerical
miracles are discovered in the Quran. What is relevant is that if this prophecy
(whose authenticity has been vouched for) finds Muhammad speaking in the name of
a god other than YHWH, then he cannot be a true prophet.
The conclusion is inescapable: since Muhammad spoke in
the name of Allah, he therefore spoke in the name of a god other than YHWH, and
thus he falls into the category of prophets considered false by this prophecy.
Both Al Kadhi's and Roudh's
fault here is to assume that Deut 18:18 was part of the original Torah revealed
to Moses. Until Roudh addresses the four questions vis-á-vis verse 7:157
we posed above, his entire line of argumentation is flawed.
The Quran further claims that Allah revealed both the
Torah and the Quran. The Quran also claims to confirm the Torah. But the two
books cannot even agree as to what the name of God is. Neither book recognises
the other book's name(s) for God.
Ibid.
According to the Torah, God has only one name
- YHWH.
Allah, a name for deity in the Quran, is never found in the Torah. According to
the Quran, God has at least 99 names but the Quran never recognises YHWH as a
name for God.
As a side note, the
Tetragrammaton is unpronounceable because it has no
vowel points. Instead, the titles Adonai (mentioned during prayer) or HaShem
(mentioned at all other times) are used as substitutes in Judaism.
The two books could not be further apart. Therefore the
Quran contradicts the book it claims to confirm. Two books 'revealed' by the
same deity cannot be contradictory to the point of being opposites, as God
cannot be the author of utter confusion. Therefore the Quran's claim has to be
rejected as false.
As we have shown, the Qur'an
does not contradict the Torah in this regard precisely because it does not
"confirm" it in toto. Hence, Roudh is correct this time round in
recognising that "[t]he two books could not be further apart".
Finally, I would like to give some background
information for the benefit of those who may not know. The name YHWH appears in
the Jewish scriptures more than 6000 times - 1600 times in the Torah alone. It
is also known as the Tetragrammaton, and within Judaism as Ha Shem, The Name. At
some point in their history, out of reverence, the Israelites stopped
pronouncing this name. It is feared that the pronunciation of this name might
now be lost. But it is the only noun that the Jewish scriptures give for the
name of God. Muhammad claimed that he received his revelation from the God of
the Jewish scriptures. His ignorance of this name is irrefutable proof that he
lied.
It seems somewhat disjointed
for Roudh to readily affirm that the Tetragrammaton's correct pronunciation has
been lost to Judaism, and yet find fault with Prophet Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) for being ignorant of a name lost to posterity
centuries before. As stated earlier, this lost knowledge would come under the
classification of scriptural corruption.
Hence, Roudh is mistaken to say
that Allaah is the "God of the Jewish scriptures". This assertion may reveal why
Roudh's entire line of reasoning is so jumbled and absurd. If he understood that
Allaah is the God of the Torah originally revealed to Moses before it was
textually corrupted (not the extant Tanakh, Pentateuch or the Bible), then perhaps he
might have saved himself all this trouble.
For God not to reveal his identity in his revelation, is
not only inconceivable, but defeats the purpose of revelation. And the
superiority that Muslims feel over the people of other faiths comes from the
delusion that the sources of their faith (i.e., their prophet, their scriptures
and their god) are superior to the sources of other faiths.
I hope it will be seen that the conclusions drawn above
have been compelled by evidence. Although offence may be taken, please know that
none was intended
Our sincere advice to Roudh
would be to not only thoroughly familiarise himself with Islaam, if he truly
intends on living up to the boast of disproving its superiority, but also
Judaism.
Allaah yahdeeka
The Muslims call him Allah and
Israelites call him Hashem, Adonai, or Allah'im (elohim) or YAH.
(bold ours)
(S.Y. Halahawi
(2007),
The Way! The Prophetic Messianic Voice to the Path of the Edenic
Kingdom Redemption,
(Lulu.com), p.344.)
RELATED ARTICLES
FEEDBACK
- Raghbir Singh Roudh -
Are the Torah & Gospel Uncorrupted?
BACK TO TOP
| 
