MUHAMMAD ﷺ AND MADINAH IN THE BIBLE

[SAM]

[manfred]

Here is the opening part of Isaiah that your clip mentions:

“Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen one in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him,
and he will bring justice to the nations.
2
He will not shout or cry out,
or raise his voice in the streets.
3
A bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.
In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;
4
he will not falter or be discouraged
till he establishes justice on earth.
In his teaching the islands will put their hope.”

This has been interpreted in Jewish circles as referring to the Messiah.
Christians, or at least many of them, will draw a parallel to this passage and the account of the gospels of the baptism of Jesus, and the resurrection.

So, Mohammed was filled by the "holy spirit" and he brought "justice"?

And when Isaiah says:

I will keep you and will make you
to be a covenant for the people
and a light for the Gentiles,
7
to open eyes that are blind,
to free captives from prison
and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.

He is talking about Arabs???

And because it contains the Hebrew word for servant, עֶבֶד which, by the way is read "ebed", not "abd" and because Mohammed's father was called Abdullah, Isaiah mentions Mohammed in any way?

SAM, this is not tenable. Using this guy's method I can "prove" that my great Aunt Augusta, God rest her soul, was in fact a) a chicken, or b) the seven headed monster of the apocalypse.... or c) anything you would like me to so "prove".

It is not a serious piece of work, and I am surprised to support that SAM. It is based on a whole host of assumptions we know to be false, for example Paran is the eastern part of of Sinai, and not Arabia. Do you want me to go through the whole thing?

Perhaps this will suffice to clear it up: Isaiah clearly speaks in this passage of the Messiah. To a Jew, is a someone who has not yet walked the earth, to Christians AND MUSLIMS this is Jesus. Therefore, this cannot possibly refer to Mohammed, not even in the wildest imagination of a Muslim.

[Takeiteasynow]

Mr. Sam may have a point to a certain degree, The verses of Isaiah are part of Jewish eschatology that predicts the coming of a Messiah, a Jewish prophet, who will start a new kingdom, bring peace upon all nations and restores the Temple tradition. Just 8 years before the Hijra Jewish lineages were sorted out as only families with the right ancestors could serve in the temple. This indicates that something big was about to happen – but maybe a bit different then tradition tells us.

The hypothesis that Paran relates to Sinai is especially popular amongst scholars. Early accounts from Eusebius, Jerome and Sebeos suggest a location in Arabia Deserta or Arabia Nabataea (that once stretched deep into the Hijaz). They may both be right as the god of the bible probably is a blend of Yah (Sinai) and Qos or Qaus (Southwest Arabia Nabataea). Thus the god of the Old Testament could have been born on Mount Sinai, then 'shreds forward' to the borderland of Arabia Deserta/ Nabataea before arriving in Israel/Samaria.

[manfred]

But do Muslims claim Mohammed to be the Messiah? Is he some sort of eschatological figure?
Also Isaiah says that this Messiah is a descendant of David, and obviously, therefore, not an Arab.

[Takeiteasynow]

Maybe not literally - but the name Muhammad refers to the qualities of the final Messiah in Jewish eschatology. The one who brings the new and final kingdom is also known as the 'blessed one' or 'anointed one 'and the Muhammad derives from the Arab root of 'to bless'.

Also Isaiah says that this Messiah is a descendant of David, and obviously, therefore, not an Arab.

Well yes, 'Muhammad', in my opinion a honorary title, was a descendant of David as Jewish eschatology prescribes. The final king becomes the final prophet in Islam.

[manfred]

Ehm, that is a rather weak reason though, as there are are many people whose name refer to a root meaning to bless, for example the former Dutch Queen Beatrix qualifies, or "Barack" Obama, too. What is good for the goose must be good for the gander. So why is Queen Beatrix or Brarack Obama not the Messiah? Or what about the actor Benedict Cumberbatch? His name also means "Blessed"...

For Mohammed to uniquely qualify as a "Messiah candidate" we need rather more than just his name, I think. Also, the Qur'an states that Jesus is the Messiah, and ONLY Jesus has that title in the Qur'an, never Mohammed. So, if we take Islamic belief as it is, it would be contradictory to use a Messianic passage from Isaiah and apply to Mohammed, and at the same time affirm that Mohammed was NOT the Messiah....

[Takeiteasynow]

No actually it is exceptionally strong:) But then it is a matter of view. You obviously reason from a theological background where our research takes the theological state at the beginning of the seventh century as a snapshot that may help explaining what happened.

So what comes afterwards is not that really interesting as theological definitions develop over time - for instance 7th century Judaism was very different to that of today. This snapshot helps understanding how people were triggered.

[frankie]

No actually it is exceptionally strong:) But then it is a matter of view. You obviously reason from a theological background where our research takes the theological state at the beginning of the seventh century as a snapshot that may help explaining what happened.

So what comes afterwards is not that really interesting as theological definitions develop over time - for instance 7th century Judaism was very different to that of today. This snapshot helps understanding how people were triggered.

Takeiteasynow

If Mohammed was the expected Messiah, the Quran would have named him as such,but Jesus is given the title, and all Muslims follow the example of Mohammed not Jesus.

If you want to use the Bible as a reference, then you must accept the Bibles criterion for recognising a false prophet, of which Mohammed meets.

He was not Jewish, he spoke in the name of a different god, and he came with a different message.

Mohammed was a man of his time,who wanted all what the world can offer, power, wealth and women, at the expense of gullible people who took him as a prophet.

[Takeiteasynow]

If Mohammed was the expected Messiah, the Quran would have named him as such,but Jesus is given the title, and all Muslims follow the example of Mohammed not Jesus.

If you want to use the Bible as a reference, then you must accept the Bibles criterion for recognising a false prophet, of which Mohammed meets.

He was not Jewish, he spoke in the name of a different god, and he came with a different message.
.

That's preciously what I mean. Mr Sam's video interpreters Isaiah form an Islamic view that developed over centuries, as even Islamic scholars admit. This view is attacked with the Christian interpretation of Isaiah where I take the main Jewish interpretation as it was at the beginning of the seventh century. Let's not forget that Isaiah is a Jewish source. Not Christian nor Islamic.

[manfred]

Yes, the idea of using Isaiah 42 by Muslims is not new. We have this hadith:

Sahih Bukhari, 3, 335

Ata bin Yasar reported:

I met Abdullah bin `Amr bin al-`Aas and asked him, "Tell me about the description of the Messenger of Allah which is mentioned in the Torah." He replied, 'Yes. By Allah, he is mentioned in the Torah with his qualities found in the Qur'an as follows, 'O Prophet! We have sent you as a witness, and a giver of glad tidings, And a warner, and guardian of the illiterates. You are My slave and My Messenger. I have named you 'al-Mutawakkil' (meaning 'Allah's dependent'). You are neither discourteous, harsh, nor a noise-maker in the markets; You do not do evil to those Who do evil to you, but you deal With them with forgiveness and kindness. Allah will not let him die till he makes upright the crooked people by making them say: None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, with which will be opened blind eyes, deaf ears and enveloped hearts."

This is a loose paraphrase of the beginning of Isaiah 42.

There are also some interesting differences: If you look at the end, Mohammed is said to "open blind eyes and deaf ears" by saying none has the right to be worshipped but Allah. Isaiah does not say that, and this is is an "edit".
The equivalent passage in Isaiah is:

I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.

Note that Isaiah leaves it open if the eyes to be opened are real or metaphorical. The NT claims that Jesus in fact open both real blind eyes as well a metaphorical ones.

But, to make it fit better with Mohammed, the paraphrase had a subtle change to the original.

In fact, if you read Isaiah fully, instead of just snippets, it is quite clear that whatever Isaiah meant with this passage, it was not any 7th century Arab.

These are the things Isaiah says about this "servant":


He is a descendent of Jesse through his son David. This proves that God’s servant is an Israelite, not an Arab.
He is called Israel and distinct from national Israel. This provides additional proof that the servant is an Israelite and not an Arab.
He is the Mighty God and eternal king.
He is empowered by God’s Spirit.
He will restore national Israel.
He will be a light to the Gentiles and the Savior of the entire earth.
He will be a covenant to the people.
He will bring a law which all the peoples will follow.
He will at first be rejected and despised by both the nation of Israel and other nations.
He will offer himself as a sacrifice for sin.
He will see offspring and carry out the Lord’s will.
He will intercede and justify sinners.


Furthermore, medieval Judaism was indeed different from modern Judaism in some way... one main issue was around the "Messiah" question. To much attention and too easy acceptance of various Messiahs had brought about the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans. So early Rabbis steered clear of that topic generally. Only in recent day it has found a relative revival...

Few Jews contemporary to Mohammed accepted his claims, many even laughed at him.

[Takeiteasynow]

Whether a candidate matches the predictions or qualifications of Isaiah is a matter of theological interpretation. That being said I consider the Islamic Muhammad as a literal version of a Jewish leader that restored the Temple Mount tradition, the prototype for Islamic profiling of this leader. After this death he became a prophet and it was only under the Abbasids that he got an exclusive Arab signature.

The development of Judaism, like other religions, shows a lot of what I call quantum leaps. Texts were harmonized afterward to present a continuous and logical time-line for the believer. Archeology shows a complete different and very interesting picture. But then after all, a dogma can not be doubted. This implies that using theological arguments may lead to circular argumentation- you never know if the argument was harmonized or original.

Few Jews contemporary to Mohammed accepted his claims, many even laughed at him.

That's the tragedy of text harmonization. Actually the claims of the real 'Muhammad' were widely accepted in the Jewish communities and diaspora; from Cyprus to Persia. So then who is the real Muhammad? Let's discuss that after finalizing the Mecca-Petra hypothesis.

[manfred]

Whether a candidate matches the predictions or qualifications of Isaiah is a matter of theological interpretation.

Sure.

That being said I consider the Islamic Muhammad as a literal version of a Jewish leader that restored the Temple Mount tradition, the prototype for Islamic profiling of this leader. After this death he became a prophet and it was only under the Abbasids that he got an exclusive Arab signature.

Mohammed was a Jewish leader???

Actually the claims of the real 'Muhammad' were widely accepted in the Jewish communities and diaspora; from Cyprus to Persia. So then who is the real Muhammad?

I look forward to that.

[frankie]

If Mohammed was the expected Messiah, the Quran would have named him as such,but Jesus is given the title, and all Muslims follow the example of Mohammed not Jesus.

If you want to use the Bible as a reference, then you must accept the Bibles criterion for recognising a false prophet, of which Mohammed meets.

He was not Jewish, he spoke in the name of a different god, and he came with a different message.
.

That's preciously what I mean. Mr Sam's video interpreters Isaiah form an Islamic view that developed over centuries, as even Islamic scholars admit. This view is attacked with the Christian interpretation of Isaiah where I take the main Jewish interpretation as it was at the beginning of the seventh century. Let's not forget that Isaiah is a Jewish source. Not Christian nor Islamic.

Takeiteasynow

Mohammed meets the Bibles criteria for being a false prophet, bringing up verses from the Bible to justify Mohammed's existence, non existence, or anything else for that matter, is therefore rendered irrelevant.

[glitch]

Whether a candidate matches the predictions or qualifications of Isaiah is a matter of theological interpretation.

Don't you love that muslims want to show us all the things that connect, but if somethingdoesn't its open to interpretation.

[Takeiteasynow]

Whether a candidate matches the predictions or qualifications of Isaiah is a matter of theological interpretation.

Don't you love that muslims want to show us all the things that connect, but if somethingdoesn't its open to interpretation.

Haha - I couldn't care less if Muhammad is a false prophet or not. I just pointed out that Isaiah is a Jewish source and part of Jewish eschatology. That way you can understand what happened in the seventh century - as eschatology, triggered by epidemics, endless wars, forced migrations and a real climate change was the forcs behind the radical changes in this century - and identify the leader who become known as the blessed one M'hmmd.

The prototype for the Islamic Muhammad was a Jewish leader, born in the Galilee, son of Julius – a very rich textile merchant, buried nearby Haifa, who restored the Temple mount tradition, governed the Jewish territories of Galilee, Tiberias and Nazareth, conquered Jerusalem in 614 with Nehemia Ben Hushiel, commanded an enormous army of Jewish fighters from Syria, Persia, Tiberias and Galilee after 619, reconquered Jerusalem with Byzantine emperor Heraclius in 630 and, after the break with Byzantium, once again in 633 to govern until 655.

That's all for now folks!

[SAM]

Haha - I couldn't care less if Muhammad is a false prophet or not. I just pointed out that Isaiah is a Jewish source and part of Jewish eschatology. That way you can understand what happened in the seventh century - as eschatology, triggered by epidemics, endless wars, forced migrations and a real climate change was the forcs behind the radical changes in this century - and identify the leader who become known as the blessed one M'hmmd.

The prototype for the Islamic Muhammad was a Jewish leader, born in the Galilee, son of Julius – a very rich textile merchant, buried nearby Haifa, who restored the Temple mount tradition, governed the Jewish territories of Galilee, Tiberias and Nazareth, conquered Jerusalem in 614 with Nehemia Ben Hushiel, commanded an enormous army of Jewish fighters from Syria, Persia, Tiberias and Galilee after 619, reconquered Jerusalem with Byzantine emperor Heraclius in 630 and, after the break with Byzantium, once again in 633 to govern until 655.

That's all for now folks!

You claim that Islamic Muhammad was a Jewish leader, born in Galilee, son of Julius. You make them more stupid, id*ot, moron...

[manfred]

SAM!! Stop that.

[SAM]

SAM!! Stop that.

[manfred]

Do not call people names. Also, before you dismiss something, It is a good idea to hear him out first.

[Takeiteasynow]

You claim that Islamic Muhammad was a Jewish leader, born in Galilee, son of Julius. You make them more stupid, id*ot, moron...

LOL. Actually the evidence is overwhelming and the reconstruction from Arabian, Persian, Maronite, Jewish, Christian sources is almost completed. The adventures of this Jewish leader are very well documented, especially the diplomatic communication between the Exilarch, Isfahan, Tiberias and Kosra II, the Sassanid king of Persia, which explains how this all started.

The underlying issue with traditional scholarship is enormous. A lack of consistent and modern methodologies for data analysis produces a lot of bad results, as if they adhere to dogmatic religious templates and prefer to quote other scholars who merely guess or speculate. Basically comparative historical research, historical social research and historiography produce not much more than what can be described with a rather dirty four-letter word. This may include other disciplines in social science.

But Mr. Sam, there's always a choice. You can have a real prophet that becomes, step-by-step the Islamic Muhammad as servant of the one true god. The consequence is that the hatred verses from the tradition become irrelevant. The other option is that there will be nothing left - and don't be mistaken: nothing.

No worries, I know what you would choose. You're to dogmatic to change. That's why I will choose for you.