I've decided to look up some of this 'proof'.
"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not harken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him."
The passage refers to Moses and future prophets. Not necessarily to Mohammed or any other specific person. Indeed many prophets and their writings came after Moses. Isaiah, Daniel, Obadiah, Ruth, Jeremiah etc etc. Jewish tradition lists 48 prophets (7 prophetesses). "His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is ogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem." Song of Solomon chapter 5 verse 16: The translation I have here is as follows (Tanakh, Stone Edition, ShirHa Shirim: The words of his palate are sweet and He is all delight. This is my Beloved and this is my Friend, O nations destined to ascend to Jerusalem. "Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem." This is the Arabic translation, not Hebrew.
The plural in the original Hebrew text ('marchmadim'), which the article claims is a respect form for Muhammed, is just a grammatical form of saying 'he is all delight(s)'. Indeed, if its in its original language, instead of an Arabic translation like above, the word doesn't look like 'Mohammed' at all.
First of all, I find it funny that a Muslim is quoting the Song of Songs. They're generally the first to criticize it as being pornographic and undivine. Second of all: This passage according to the scholars, is an allegory of Israel and Gd. The friend and beloved is Gd and the Torah. The word that the article is pointing out is 'marchmadim' meaning 'delight'. Personally, if you think that the similarity of words is enough to prove anything. Sure. Knock yourself out. People must have been scanning eveywhere and this is the best they could come up with to 'prove' that Mohammed is mentioned in the Tanakh. Weak, to say the least. This is all taken from the original Hebrew. It is mentioned in the book of Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12: "And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned." It probably helps to look at the rest of the passage, which is clearly an allegory for the way prophesy is transmitted, not a literal description of what is going to happen: 'To you all the true prophecy is like the words of a sealed document, which one gives to a literate person, saying, 'Please read this', and he says, 'I cannot, for it is sealed'. Then the document is given to an illiterate person, saying ' Please read this'. and he says 'I am not literate'. (Isaiah 29:11-12)
The other thing one has to ask is: If the Muslims believe that the holy books are corrupted, how is it that somehow, these tiny details inside these 'corrupted' books are apparently proof of Mohammed? And if these parts were uncorrupted, telling of his coming, why would he have needed to come to clarify anything at all?
|