CAPÍTULO II SITUACIÓN ACTUAL
2.1.2 Recopilación de la información
6#o'he&y
G6#o'hetO said I Fthin" o) e$ilO - '#o'het still i) bi#d o# de$ilO Whethe# tem'te# sent o# ,hethe# tem'est tossed thee he#e asho#e
Desolate yet all undaunted on this dese#t land en&hanted 9n this home by ho##o# haunted tell me t#uly I im'lo#e -Is the#e - is the#e balm in ilead; - tell me - tell me I im'lo#eO
uoth the #a$en Fe$e#mo#eO
- Ed"a# Allan 6oe
$he 8aven
• Bibli&al 6assa"es That Muslims Misuse to 8laim that Mohammed ,as 7o#etold
• 6#o'he&ies 7ul)illed by the 8#u&i)i:ion o) esus 8h#ist
• 9the# 6#o'he&ies 7ul)illed by 8h#ist
Many Muslims ,ill &laim that Mohammed ,as )o#etold in ea#lie# %&#i'tu#es i.e. the Bible and thus 8h#istians and e,s ou"ht to #e&o"ni*e that he ,as The 7inal 6#o'het o) od. To substantiate this &laim they 'oint to se$e#al 'assa"es in the 9ld and e, Testaments that su''osedly s'eak o) Mohammed. In )a&t this line o) in(ui#y has a $e#y lon" yet not ,ell-e$ol$ed #e&o#d in the histo#y o) Muslim 'olemi&s a"ainst 8h#istianity. In many #es'e&ts the same &laims that the Muslims ,e#e makin" a"ainst the By*antines in the 11th &entu#y a#e those that a#e bein"
used by Muslims in the 21st. Pittle inno$ation has been int#odu&ed into most o) these &laims o) '#o'heti& )o#etellin" )o# Mohammed. This is not be&ause o) the
"#eat su&&ess that these Muslim a#"uments ha$e had ,ith those ,ho a#e
kno,led"eable o) the Bible ?indeed these a#"uments tend to se#$e bette# )o#
bolste#in" Muslims in thei# o,n belie)s than in &han"in" anyone elses@. !athe# it is be&ause o) the sta"nan&y that has been int#odu&ed into Muslim 'olemi&s on this 'oint. This sta"nan&y e:ists be&ause o) the Muslim t#uism that the Bible ?the To#ah and the os'els@ ,as alte#ed by the e,s and 8h#istians so as to deny the t#uths o) Islam that ,ould othe#,ise still be )ound in these te:ts. Thus ,hen the Muslims )ind $e#ses in these %&#i'tu#es that thei# mo#e &#eati$e theolo"ians &an #e&ast as '#o'he&ies about Mohammed it be&omes an a#ti&le o) )aith that these
='#o'he&ies= a#e still )ound ?des'ite e,ishQ8h#istian tinke#in"@ be&ause o) '#o$idential '#ese#$ation on the 'a#t o) Allah.
/o,e$e# the e))o#ts at #eadin" Mohammed into the Bible that ,e#e made by the ea#ly Muslim a'olo"ists ,e#e based me#ely u'on a "ene#al i"no#an&e o) the Bibli&al ,#itin"s. Mu&h o) the Muslim &ontention about Bibli&al &o##u'tion by 8h#istians at least stemmed )#om the #e)usal o) 8h#istians to a"#ee that Mohammed ,as )o#etold in the 9ld and e, Testaments. The &laims about the 6a#a&lete the #ide#
o) the &amel ?Isaiah 21N@ and the '#o'het like Moses ?Deute#onomy 14N14@ &an be dated as )a# ba&k as the &ali'h al-Mahdi ,ho had a dis&ussion ,ith the esto#ian 8atholi&os Timothy about the ="ene#al alte#ation= o) the %&#i'tu#es to &on&eal
#e)e#en&es to Mohammed in 42 AD. A)te# this Muslim ,#ite#s a''ea# to ha$e de$oted a mu&h "#eate# amount o) time to sea#&hin" the Bibli&al te:ts )o#
#e)e#en&es to Mohammed. A)te# ite#atin" the abo$e 'oints Watt then 'oints out that des'ite thei# e))o#ts at '#esentin" bette# a#"uments )o# Mohammeds a''ea#an&e in the Bible the ea#ly Muslim a'olo"ists ,e#e still ham'e#ed in thei#
e))o#ts by a "ene#al la&k o) bibli&al kno,led"e
=....but as ,as also 'ointed out by oldhi*e# e$en the best Muslim s&hola# had only a $e#y sli"ht a&(uaintan&e ,ith the Bible and they still #etained some o) the old )ables.=1
As ,as mentioned in a '#e$ious &ha'te# the u#an itsel) makes se$e#al
statements that Muslims inte#'#et as #e)e##in" to &o##u'tion o) the a&tual Bibli&al te:t itsel). This ho,e$e# does not seem to be the t#ue intention o) eithe# the (u#ani& 'assa"es no# o) the ea#ly &ommentato#s o) the u#an
GThe &on&lusion o) this e:amination o) 'assa"es is that the u#an does not 'ut )o#,a#d any "ene#al $ie, o) the &o##u'tion o) the te:t o) the 9ld and e, Testaments. It makes &lea# alle"ations o) the &on&ealment o) 'assa"es. It also makes the a&&usation o) tah#i) ?F&o##u'tion o# Falte#ation@ but by this does not mean tam'e#in" ,ith the ,#itten te:t ?e:&e't 'e#ha's in &o'yin" it@ but - to
<ud"e )#om the e:am'les - means the em'loyment o) $a#ious t#i&ks in the &ou#se o) dealin" ,ith Muslims.H2
Amon" these t#i&ks ,e#e the alte#ation by the s'oken ,o#d ?i.e. mis(uotin"@ and e$en a&tual &on&ealment o) a te:t usin" the handO By means o) su&h Gt#i&ksH the ea#ly Muslims belie$ed that the ea#lie# G6eo'les o) the BookH delibe#ately attem'ted to sideste' the Gob$iousH #e)e#en&es to Mohammed in the 9ld and e, Testaments.
>'on e:amination ho,e$e# it is (uite &lea# that Mohammed is not dis&ussed in these $a#ious 'assa"es and indeed the Bible is silent about him. A look at the a&tual &onte:t o) these 'assa"es both in the te:t and in the histo#i&al and so&ial settin"s dis'els the myth that these 'assa"es #e)e# to Mohammed. While any 8h#istian ,ho has s'ent a #easonable amount o) time studyin" the Bible is unlikely to be s,ayed by the a#"ument that Mohammed is )ound in these 'assa"es it may still be hel')ul )o# ne, 8h#istians to see the e##o#s in the Muslim &laims )o# these
$e#ses and &an also be o) bene)it to all 8h#istians ,ho deal ,ith Muslims by hel'in" to systemati&ally dis'el and debunk these &laims in the minds o) the Muslim )#iends and nei"hbo#s ,ith ,hom ,e inte#a&t. As su&h I '#esent a dis&ussion o) the most &ommon 9ld and e, Testament $e#ses that a#e abused by Muslim 'olemi&ists.
2iblical 4assages That Muslims Misuse to
2iblical 4assages That Muslims Misuse to Claim that Mohammed asClaim that Mohammed as :oretold
:oretold /enesis B%?7 /enesis B%?7
=The s&e't#e shall not de'a#t )#om udah no# a la,"i$e# )#om bet,een his )eet
until %hiloh &omeJ and unto him shall the "athe#in" o) the 'eo'le be.=
Muslim a'olo"ists &laim that be&ause =udah= is a /eb#e, name ,hi&h means
='#aise= and be&ause =Mohammed= means =he is to be '#aised= in A#abi& that this is a '#o'he&y 'ointin" to Mohammed. This inte#'#etation has se$e#al )undamental )la,s. 7i#st ,e should note a"ain that the name =Mohammed= '#obably did not o#i"inally e$en mean ='#aised one= ?thou"h it ,as #ede)ined to mean this by late#
A#abi& "#amma#ians@ but had a meanin" &lose# akin to =&hosen one=. It did not take on any a''a#ent as'e&t as a 'e#sonal name )o# the A#ab '#o'het in A#abi& ,#itin"s until the )i#st hal) o) the 4th &entu#y AD3. Be)o#e this the te#m ,as used as a titula# des&#i'tion a "ene#al te#m ,hi&h ,as int#odu&ed into the de$elo'in" A#ab monotheism as the need )o# a messiani&Q'#o'heti& )i"u#e a#ose. I ,ould #e)e# the
#eade# ba&k to the dis&ussion o) this issue in 8ha'te# 5 )o# a )ulle# e:'osition o) this matte#.
Those Muslims ,ho make the a#"ument )o# this $e#se ho,e$e# miss the )a&t that it is not>udah>udah ,ho is the ob<e&t o) this '#o'he&y but the one &alled G%hilohH. As su&h the matte# o) ,hat the names GudahH and GMohammedH mean in thei#
#es'e&ti$e idioms is i##ele$ant. %hiloh is not so mu&h a name as it is a title o# a te#m o) des&#i'tion one ,hi&h means Gt#an(uilG it &omes )#om the /eb#e, #oot ,o#d
shalah
,hi&h means Gt#an(uil se&u#eH. esus 8h#ist ,as the )ul)illment o) this Messiani& title /e ,ho e$en in the midst o) the #a"in" sto#m &ould slee' and then sim'ly say G6ea&e be stillH and &ause the ,ind and ,a$es to &ease. /e like,ise bo#e /is bu#den o) s&ou#"in" mo&ke#y and &#u&i)i:ion ,ith #ema#kable e(uanimity. This so#t o) t#an(uility and se&u#ity &annot #i"htly be said to a''ly to Mohammed )o# ,hom Islami& t#aditions #e&o#d a li)e &ha#a&te#i*ed by $iolen&ebloodshed #e$en"e and st#i)e.
7u#the# the &onte:t o) this 'assa"e &lea#ly indi&ates that this '#o'he&y ,as di#e&ted s'e&i)i&ally to,a#d a des&endant o) Is#aels son udah ,ho ,as the
lite#al ante&edent o) the t#ibe o) udah. As su&h the#e is no &onte:tual ,a##ant )o# the alle"o#y that Muslims t#y to s'in into this $e#se. This '#o'he&y sa, the )i#st 'a#t o) its )ul)illment some C00 yea#s a)te# it ,as "i$en ,hen Da$id o) the t#ibe o)
udah be&ame kin" o) Is#ael thus #e&ei$in" the #oyal 'o,e# and autho#ity
symboli*ed by the te#m =s&e'te#=. esus ,as o) the t#ibe o) udah as a des&endant o) Da$id and it is indeed to /im that the "athe#in" o) the 'eo'le both ,as
?Matthe, N25 Puke 5N1 ohn CN2@ and ,ill be in the )utu#e ?!e$elation 21N2@.
Mohammed o) &ou#se ,as A#ab and not e,ish and &ould not ha$e been o) the t#ibe o) udah the#eby makin" him &om'letely un(uali)ied to )ul)ill this '#o'he&y in its 'lain and lite#al sense.
Deuteronomy ?1%?5"?1 Deuteronomy ?1%?5"?1
=The P9!D thy od ,ill #aise u' unto thee a 6#o'het )#om the midst o) thee o) thy b#eth#en like unto meJ unto him shall ye hea#ken....I ,ill #aise them u' a 6#o'het )#om amon" thei# b#eth#en like unto thee and ,ill 'ut my ,o#ds in his mouthJ and he shall s'eak unto them all that I shall &ommand him.=
Muslim a'olo"ists &laim that this 'assa"e #e)e#s to Mohammed and su''o#t this by 'ointin" out that the %e'tua"int ?#eek 9ld Testament@ and the e, Testament
&itation o) this 'assa"e in A&ts 3N22 la&k the 'h#ase =)#om the midst o) thee=.
Be&ause o) this they say the =b#eth#en= s'oken o) ,e#e Ishmaelites ,ho ,ould ha$e been distantly #elated to the /eb#e,s by $i#tue o) thei# des&ent )#om Ab#aham th#ou"h Ishmael. This a#"ument is (uite inade(uate )o# a numbe# o)
#easons. As seen ea#lie# the#e is no #eal #eason to su""est that the %e'tua"intal te:t-ty'e is #eally olde# than the Maso#eti& te:t-ty'e ?and the#e)o#e =bette#= o#
=mo#e authenti&=@ and "i$en the 'oo# (uality o) the %e'tua"intal t#anslation in
"ene#al it is inade(uate )o# &#iti&i*in" the Maso#eti& te:t. 7u#the# thou"h the#e is no e:tant &itation o) Deute#onomy 14N15 in the Dead %ea %&#olls Deute#onomy 14N14isis &ited es'e&ially in the so-&alled
$estimonia
manus&#i't 15 ?dated to the ea#ly 1st &entu#y B8@ and this &itation is o) the Maso#eti& ty'e. This su""ests that the &itation ,as d#a,n )#om a Maso#eti&-ty'e te:t e:istin" at the latest nea#ly 100 yea#s be)o#e 8h#ist sho,in" at least this mu&h anti(uity )o# the Maso#eti&#eadin" o) Deute#onomy 14.
7u#the# the assum'tion that the la&k o) =)#om the midst o) thee= must the#e)o#e mean that the '#o'het s'oken o) in the 'assa"e ,ill a#ise )#om amon" a mo#e distantly #elated 'eo'le to Is#ael and that this "#ou' ,ould ne&essa#ily be the Ishmaelites ?as o''osed say to the Midianites o# the Edomites ,ho ,e#e also as
&losely #elated to the Is#aelite line as ,as Ishmael@ a''ea#s to be a &ase o) s'e&ial 'leadin" on the 'a#t o) the Muslim a'olo"ists. This is es'e&ially t#ue ,hen
su##oundin" &onte:tual e$iden&es )#om ,ithin Deute#onomy itsel) indi&ates that
#e"a#dless o) this '#esen&e o# la&k o) =in the midst o) thee= any '#o'het a#isin"
,ithin Is#ael ,ould ne&essa#ily be 97 Is#ael. Else,he#e in Deute#onomy the te:t s'e&i)i&ally states that the Is#aelites ,e#e ea&h othe#s b#eth#en ?3N14@ and d#a,s a distin&tion bet,een themsel$es as =b#eth#en= and )o#ei"ne#s as =st#an"e#s= ?2N1@.
In a 'assa"e ?1N15@ that has $e#y simila# ,o#din" to that o) Deute#onomy 14N15
od tells Is#ael that they a#e to #aise u' kin"s only )#om =amon" thy b#eth#en= and not )#om amon" st#an"e#s. The histo#y o) Is#ael '#esented in the 9ld Testament uni)o#mly sho,s that the#e ne$e# ,as e$en one time a kin" o$e# Is#ael and udah
,ho ,as not Is#aelite. The #easonable and &ommon sense unde#standin" o) =amon"
thy b#eth#en= must be that o) bein" )#om amon" Is#ael he#sel). As 6)ande#
elo(uently 'uts it
=Who at the '#esent day amon" Muslims i) told to summon one o) his =b#eth#en= to
#e&ei$e some im'o#tant 'ost ,ould &on&lude that membe#s o) his o,n )amily ,e#e e:&luded and that he must )ind a man ,hose an&esto#s had hund#eds o) yea#s be)o#e been kind#ed to his o,n;=
The u#an itsel) e$en su""ests that this is t#ue. In the u#an ,e see the sto#ies o) th#ee '#o'hets ,ho ,e#e sent to th#ee di))e#ent A#abian t#ibesN /ud to the t#ibe o)
Ad ?
Surah
NC5@ %alih to the t#ibe o) Thamud ?N3@ and %huaib to the t#ibe o) Madyan ?N45@. Ea&h one o) these th#ee '#o'hets is said to ha$e been =one o) thei#o,n b#eth#en= and ea&h add#esses his #es'e&ti$e audien&es as =9 my 'eo'leO=. The
u#an like,ise o'enly states that '#o'hethood and #e$elation ,e#e "i$en to the
&hild#en o) Is#ael ?
Suwar
2N2 5N1C-1@. As su&h e$en the (u#ani& unde#standin"o) ,hat is meant by the te#m =b#eth#en= seems to be that o) ones o,n 'eo'le not anothe# "#ou' that may be #elated but mo#e distantly.
Also the#e is no &on&lusi$e e$iden&e that A#abs o# at least most o) them a#e e$en des&ended )#om Ishmael. We must kee' in mind that the ,o#d =A#ab= is not so mu&h a s'e&i)i& ethni& name as it is a des&#i'tion. It &omes )#om a &ommon %emiti&
#ootc
r(
,hi&h has se$e#al meanin"sJ most '#ominent amon" them a#e the ideas o) ste#ility ?'#obably #elatin" to the dese#t ,astes that these t#ibes inhabited@duskiness o# &o$e#in" ?i.e. to make somethin" da#k by &o$e#in" it@ and
inte#min"lin" ?lite#ally inte#t,inin" o# b#aidin"@. The Bible itsel) &alls the notion o) A#abian des&endent )#om Ishmael into (uestion and seems to su""est )o# the A#abs a mi:ed ba&k"#ound #elated to the last o) the meanin"s )o# the #oot "i$en abo$e. In e#emiah &ha'te# 25 #i"ht in the middle o) a list o) $a#ious nations that ,e#e to be <ud"ed by od &omes $e#se 2 =And all the kin"s o) A#abia and all the kin"s o) the min"led 'eo'le that d,ell in the dese#t.= Thus ,e see that A#abia is intimately &onne&ted ,ith these min"led 'eo'les "#ou's that had inte#ma##ied to the 'oint that thei# o#i"inal o#i"in &ould not be easily dete#mined.
!ets^ has an inte#estin" dis&ussion about the t#aditional di$ision made by the an&ient A#abs bet,een thec
ra(
?t#ue A#abs@ and themusta
cri(a
?A#abi&i*ed"#ou's@ ,hi&h su""ests this min"lin" as ,ell5. The#e ,e#e a numbe# o) t#ibes in both %outh and o#th A#abia that ,e#e not &onside#ed to be indi"enous to A#abia
but had mi"#ated the#e and "#adually be&ome inte"#ated as
musta
cri(a
many o) them &laimin" "enealo"i&al des&ent )#om one o# mo#e 'at#ia#&hs ,ho also a''ea#in the Bible su&h as A,s ?>*@ Pa,udh ?Pud@ Imli( ?Amalek@ o# A#)akhshadh
?A#'ha:ad@. In addition a#&haeolo"i&al e$iden&e su""ests that the des&endents o) 8ush a son o) /am t#a$eled a&#oss the A#abian 'eninsula du#in" thei# mi"#ation )#om Meso'otamia to the #e"ion o) Ethio'ia lea$in" "eneti& as ,ell as a#ti)a&tual
#emains a&#oss the ,hole #e"ionC. E$iden&e links many t#ibes all o$e# the A#abian 'eninsula to se$e#al o) the sons o) 8ush - %ebah /a$ilah %abta !aamah %heba
Dedan and %abte&ha. The '#esen&e o) names #elatin" to 8ush in o# nea#
Meso'otamia ?=ish= a %ume#ian &ity and hu*istan a #e"ion in south,este#n I#an that is immediately east o) Meso'otamia@ and also a&#oss A#abia into A)#i&a ?e.".
the E"y'tians #e)e##ed to the a#ea o) '#esent-day Ethio'ia and %udan as =esh= the
/eb#e,s used the te#m =u,sh= to #e)e# to the same@ also su""est this 8ushite mi"#ation. Inte#estin"ly the Bible also indi&ates that Moses ,i)e ,as a 8ushite. In
umbe#s 12N1 it says =And Mi#iam and Aa#on s'ake a"ainst Moses be&ause o) the Ethio'ian ,oman ,hom he had ma##iedN )o# he had ma##ied an Ethio'ian ,oman.=
The En"lish ,o#d =Ethio'ian= is he#e t#anslated )#om the /eb#e, ,o#d
'uwshiyth
meanin" =8ushite=. et ,e kno, )#om ea#lie# in the sto#y o) Moses li)e ?E:odus 2N1C-22@ that Moses ,i)e ,as the dau"hte# o) =the '#iest o) Midian= namedeth#oQ!euel Midian bein" a dese#t #e"ion a#ound the ul) o) A(aba immediately south o) the T#ans<o#dan. In /abakkuk 3N Midian and 8ush a#e asso&iated ,ith ea&h othe# th#ou"h the 'a#allelism o) the $e#se =I sa, the tents o) 8ushan in a))li&tionN and the &u#tains o) the land o) Midian did t#emble= su""estin" that the t,o a#e at least some,hat analo"ous. As su&h this ,ould su""est a =8ush= in no#th,este#n A#abia as ,ell as in Meso'otamia and in easte#n A)#i&a. It seems likely that the late# %emiti& Midianites ?des&endants )#om Ab#aham@ dis'la&ed the ea#lie# 8ushiti& inhabitants o) the a#ea that ,ould late# be kno,n as Midian
'e#ha's min"lin" ,ith them and assimilatin" them as seems to ha$e ha''ened else,he#e in A#abia bet,een 8ushites and the %emiti& t#ibes o) the A#abian 'eninsula.
It is this autho#s studied dete#mination that a)te# the To,e# o) Babel and the end o) im#ods ?the son o) 8ush@ #ebellion that at least some o) the 8ushites de'a#ted
It is this autho#s studied dete#mination that a)te# the To,e# o) Babel and the end o) im#ods ?the son o) 8ush@ #ebellion that at least some o) the 8ushites de'a#ted