Biblical Prophecies About Muhammad

jamal badawi wrote (as quoted by akmf):

"An additional confirmation which leaves no iota of doubt is found in the Book of Isaiah (Ch. 11:1-2):

�And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord.�

The profile given in this chapter is of someone who will be a prophet, a statesmen and a judge and is of the descendants of �Jesse�. Who is �Jesse�? And who met these descriptions?

Some contend that �Jesse� is a reference to David�s father. According to Encyclopedia Biblica, however, we read: �Jesse is contracted from Ishmael.

The only one who came from Ishmael�s �stem� who was a prophet, statesmen and judge was Prophet Muhammad."

let us be quite clear about this business.  note that he says there is "no iota of doubt" as to the "truth" of what he is saying.  yet even on the page you yourself have drawn to my attention to, the question mark is also there.  thus badawi is deliberately falsifying the evidence. i fail to see how he could not have spotted the question marks or the alternative name abishai given in the entry for jesse.  furthermore, there is no indication that ishmael was ever called jesse, or jesse ishmael

let us also look more closely at isaiah 11.  it is, of course a prophecy yet to be fulfilled, concerning the glorious future kingdom of Christ on earth, to be set up when he returns in glory, that he be fully vindicated here in the scene of his rejection. v.3 indicates that "he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears" - would you say muhammad did not require witnesses when he judged?  ----also v.6-8 describe conditions on the earth which were certainly not in evidence during the life of muhammad.  -----look at v.9 - would you say that the earth "was full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea" when muhammad had done his "work"?

look at v.11, and also verses 1 and 4 of chapter 12 - they contain the phrase "in that day" - in what day? - in the day that has been getting described in the first 10 verses of chap.11 - the remaining verses of chap.11 and chap.12 reveal further characteristics of the "day" in question.  chap.11 v.12 shows us that it will be a great time of regathering of israel, from the four corners of the earth - did this happen during the time of muhammad?

let us also consider v.1 again, in particular "the Branch" and who he is. ---this is also prophesied in jeremiah 23: 5-8 - note here that the Branch will be raised unto david, therefore jesse.  note that he is a king.  note that in his days judah shall be saved, and israel shall dwell safely.  note that he shall be called "the Lord our righteousness".  note that the seed of the house of israel shall be brought "from all countries whither i had driven them" -----i fail to see how this can ring any bells with students of the life and times of muhammad

the "Branch" is referred to in other scriptures, notably in zechariah 6: 12, 13 --- note that he shall build the temple of the Lord.  note that he shall bear the glory.  note that he shall sit and rule upon a throne.  note that he shall be a priest upon his throne.  now muhammad was neither a king, nor a priest.  but Christ is both - the only one who is both king and priest (apart from melchisedec, which is why we have "thou art a priest forever after the order of melchisedec" -hebrews 7: 17) - look at what happened to uzziah when he tried it - 2 chronicles 26: 16-21

now i was deeply moved when i reread the words "he shall bear the glory" - glory becomes Christ, his is all the glory, it is his by right, and the knowledge that the day is coming when it will be fully accorded to him, and will be manifested throughout the world which presently hates him, is thrilling to the soul.  this could not be said of muhammad, who would have said himself that all glory belonged to God (sadly not realising that Christ is God).  muhammad would not accept the glory that is Christs --(although i did note that in his "treatise", badawi admitted that muslims praise muhammad as well as allah)

Edited by fredifreeloader

"servetus - "the resident ishmaelites" - well it may have been, but it could have been the resident dedanites, the resident midianites, or the resident predecessors of hagar (if a certain website, which we are no longer allowed to mention, is to be believed) --- as well as a few other abrahamic -ites."

 

 

Call this �fun with genealogy� and with climbing the family tree.  How they did so climb makes an interesting chapter in Heinrich Graetz�s History of the Jews, as I mentioned, largely in response to your inquiry concerning proofs which link Muhammad to Ishmael.  To take the broader, in this case exclusively patrilineal view, one could always continue to trace Eber to Shem and to then identify all the sons of Shem, including Arabs, Jews, Berbers, etc., as Shemites, or Semites.      

 

Servetus

yes servetus - my point is that ishmael cannot be viewed as the father of arabs, and that the "great nation" which God promised would issue from him, is not in fact the arab nation.  the reason for this is found in genesis 25: 1-4.  abraham had 6 other sons to keturah.  midian is the name that stands out as it is very much associated with the north-western area of arabia, where the midianites lived.  but jokshan had two sons, sheba and dedan, whose descendants also lived in arabia.  these nations were therefore not the offspring of ishmael.  the dedanites are referred to in the bible, as is the queen of sheba.  also, hagar is called an egyptian in the bible.  i do not know why muslims are objecting to this.  badawi is claiming she was a bedouin (by implication a nomad in the desert) and the now-banned website states categorically that she was an arab, indicating there was at least one nation living in the desert before ishmael.  in fact taking all this into account we have midian, dedan, sheba and the people of hagar (according to muslims).  this makes at least 4 nations in arabia who were not ishmaelites.  (well from my point of view it is only 3, as hagar was an egyptian.)  we cannot reasonably assume that there were not even more than this.

now it is clear that not all arabs are descended from ishmael, and the proportion of those who are is not at all clear.  on the subject of the genealogy of muhammad, do we find such a thing in the quran? i dont remember reading one

Edited by fredifreeloader

Fredifreeloader wrote: yes, ahmad, i know youre not.  but i am referring you to the page you brought to my attention, as i clearly stated, namely p3292, section 52.  the question mark is also there, in the parenthesis containing ishmaels name in hebrew characters.  you then continue to quote "in many cases the contraction is such as to render the discovery of the original form impossible" - yes indeed. all the more reason to avoid the supreme folly committed by badawi in making the crass assumption he has made.

Bro Fredi, as I have already stated before, that if "?" in the above description is of any significance of a caution for Dr. Bedawi, it is equally significant for my Christian brothers as well, though you don't seem to admit it.

Fredifreeloader wrote: the possibility that jesse is a contraction of ishmael is in any event an irrelevance, but i will say this - it does not take into account the difference in meaning of the two names.  now elizabeth means "oath of God" its also incidentally a hebrew name.  now in all its various forms, contractions and derivatives, such as betty, beth, bethie, lisa, liza, liz, lizzy, lizzie, elspeth, eliza, lise, libby, elise etc., i am unaware that any of the contractions is given  a different meaning.  however ishmael (ishma-el) means "God will hear" - but jesse (yeshai) means "wealthy".  but of course its all a big red herring isnt it.  even if jesse is a contraction of ishmael, it doesnt alter the fact that davids fathers name was jesse, and that the branch in question is Christ.

 Here I would say, that differences in meanings can't be a significant factor, especially once we are dealing with mulitple centuries of generations between "Jesse--Ishmael" and "Jesse--father of David" along with transfusion of numerous local dialects in the languages with time that ultimately (by the time Jesus arrived) resulted into the replacement of Hebrew language for the Israelities to Aramaic. For example, you provided the meaning of 'jesse' as equivalent to 'wealthy', where as there are other multiple meanings of the same word; one source says it mean "the Lord exists", something closer to "Lord hears", and another one says it mean "firm, or a gift". It is also curious to know when we read such illustrations from Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Moody Press Chicago, 1980 (TWOTOT) page 210, "There are many places in the OT where it is now recognized that the parallel of a name and its meaning is not necessarily etymological." Just as an example "The name Abraham, for instance, comes as a result of him being the father of many nations, and although the phrase Father Of Many (ab-hamon) vaguely looks like Abraham, the name, in a literal fashion, means something completely different."

Fredifreeloader wrote: your riposte to my remarks on isaiah 11 is very weak indeed - "and he will delight in the fear of the Lord" cannot be viewed as a negation of your "christian brothers" notion of the trinity.  it may well, however be a negation of your muslim brothers notions of the trinity.

Now this is really what is not at all strange to me, at least. Simply because, the identity of Jesus is such a controversial issue, more among my Christian brothers than for others, that I must admit now that it really depend upon which Christian individual  you ask and when you ask about it. Ok, now let us hear your latest version of it as how do you now see Jesus when, elesewhere on this forum you said "...... it also teaches us the blessed truth of the holy trinity, father, son and holy ghost, three persons, but one God, blessed forever.  please note that it does not say in the names of , but in the name of.  so these three persons together have one name.  they are not three gods, as muhammad falsely claimed (see my previous post on this thread) - they are one God. ".

This is really getting interesting indeed.

Fredifreeloader wrote: you have also no answer it would seem to the rest of the chapter, and like badawi, are unable to link it in any rational way to muhammad.

Though I have already shown, as an example, as how justice done by Prophet Mohammad can be equated as the one described in verse 4, however, it is really a curious interpretation tht you are suggesting for this verse.

Do you intend to take the position that your proposed "Massaih to come" would be simply killing the people on this earth on the basis of faith alone? This is really more astonishing to hear from rationalistic person that you appears to be. Are you literally expecting a God descent on this earth? This Isaiah  is then, for sure, not refering to such a divine personality. Look at the v5 which says "5 Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash around his waist. " which quite reasonably resembles with a human Prophet than a divinely figure, more closely with the traits of Prophet Mohammad. So, I think, the notion of Trinity has a real yoke on your interpretations, the absence of which can only make these prophesies sensible to understand and not in the presence of it.

Fredifreeloader wrote:   all you have to go on is the dodgy link between jesse and ishmael which is in any case irrelevant.  the Lord did not require to hear the evidence of witnesses, for "he needed not that any should testify of man, for he knew what was in man" john 2: 25 - muhammad could not judge like this

Well, my brother, suffice is to say that if the link between "jesse" and "Ishmeal" is dodgy, as you say, it is equally or even more dodgy between "Jesse" and "Your divine Jesus".

Edited by AhmadJoyia