Saturday, April 17, 2021

Quran- Word of God or Muhammad ?

 

Mukto-mona (Collection)

This article is mainly focused to show that when we read some of the verses in Quran, we clearly understand that those were Muhammad's own word, not Allah's.

According to the Muslims the Quran contains the words of God. Quran is to be read as if God Himself had spoken these words stated in it. It is important to emphasize this point because if Quran is the word of God then it should not contain any errors and it should hold true for all times. However, such is not the case.

He we will see how some of the content of the verses in the Quran clearly shows that these words were obviously spoken by Muhammad and Not God.

Let's start with the opening Sura of Quran.

The Opening Sura Fatihah:
(Quran 1:1-7)

In the name of the Merciful and Compassionate God.
Praise belongs to God,
The Lord of the worlds, the merciful, the
compassionate, the ruler of the day of
the day of judgment! Thee we serve and Thee
we ask for aid. Guide us in the right path,
the path of those Thou art gracious to;
not to those Thou art wroth with, nor of
those who err.

Someone need not be a rocket-scientist to comprehend that these words are clearly addressed to God, in the form of a prayer. They are Muhammad's words of praise to God ("Guide us in the right path,..." ~ 001.006), asking for God's help and guidance. Some Muslim compilers conveniently add the imperative "say" in the English translation of the Quran at the beginning of the sura to remove this difficulty. This imperative form of the word "say" occurs at least 350 times in the Quran, and its obvious that this word has, in fact, been inserted by later compilers of the Quran to remove countless similarly embarrassing difficulties. Thus, we have direct evidence that the Quran starts out with the words of Muhammad.

Let us see some other examples in Quran:

(Quran 113:1)
I take refuge with the Lord of the Dawn.

One can clearly see, its Muhammad and NOT GOD HIMSELF who is seeking refuge in God.


(Quran 6:104)

Now have come to you, from your Lord, proofs
(To open your eyes): If any will see, it will
be for (the good of) his own soul; If any will
be blind, it will be to his own (harm):I am not
(here) To watch over your doings.

In this verse the speaker of the line "I am not to watch over your doings"is clearly Muhammad. In fact Dawood in his translation adds a footnote that the "I" refers to Muhammad here. And in previous verse (Quran 6:103) it is stated - 'No mortal eyes can see Him, though He sees all eyes. He is benignant all knowing'. R. Bell said in his "A commentary on the Quran (Manchester, England: Victoria university of Manchester, 1991) vol. 1. p. 201 '-  The end of the verse shows that Phrophet is speaking his own words'.

(Quran 27:91)
For me, I have been commanded to serve the
Lord of this city, Him Who has sanctified it
and to whom (Belong) all things; and I am
commanded to be of those who bow in Islam to
Allah's Will

Again, the speaker here is clearly Muhammad who is trying to justify puning the Meccanswho were not willing to follow Muhammad's Islamic version of God. Dawood and Pickthall both interpolate "say" at the beginning of the sentence which is lacking in the original Arabic version of the sura.

(Quran 81:15)
So verily I call to witness the planets - that recede...

Again, here it is Muhammad and NOT God who is swearing by the turning planets.

 

(Quran 84:16-19)
I swear by the afterglow of sunset, and by the night, and by the moon when she is at the full.

Once again it is Muhammad and NOT God. He is unable to disguise his pagan heritage. (Omnipotent Allah should not swear, right?) Muhammad  swears again in the name of the Sun and Moon, both of which were considered as holy deities by pre-Islamic Arabs. (Dear Readers, have you noticed that YUSUFALI cleverly escaped the word "swear" while making the translation, but PICKTHAL and SHAKIR used it).

(Quran 6:114)
Should I seek other judge than God, when
it is He who has sent down to you, the
distinguishing book (Quran)?

Any sane person can comprehend that those words are not spoken by God but Mohammed himself. Yusuf Ali in his translation adds at the beginning of the sentence "say", which is not there in the original Arabic and he does so without comment or footnote. 

Do we need to give any other further evidence that Quran actually contains the words of Muhammad, not Allah ! Interested readers, may also check sura 19:9, 19:64, 37:164-166, 51:50, 53:2, 70:40-41, 86:17 to understand that those can be uttered by anybody but Allah. 

Reading above passages, researchers R. Bell and W. M. Watt who were more sympathetic towards Islam admitted :

'The assumption that God is himself the speaker in every passage, however leads to difficulties. Frequently God is referred to  third person. It is no doubt allowable for a speaker to refer to himself in third person occasionally, but the extent to which we find the Prophet apparently being addressed and told about God as a third person is unusual. It is in fact been made a matter ridicule that in the  Quran God is made to swear by himself.'

Also Suyuti, one of the great muslim philologist and commentator on Quran was able to point to the five passages whose attribution to the God was disputable. Indeed he admitted that some of the words in some verses were obviously spoken by Muhammad himself and some by Gabriel. Ali Dashti, in his famous book, '23 years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad' also points to several passages from Quran where the speaker cannot have been God.

 

References:

Ibn Warraq, Why I Am Not a Muslim, Prometheus Books, 2003

R. Bell, and W. M. Watt, Introduction to the Quran, Edinburgh, 1977

Friday, April 16, 2021

Jesus or Muhammad: Who is God's True Seal of Prophethood?


Sam Shamoun


The Quran claims that Muhammad is God's seal of prophethood, and therefore the last and final messenger to mankind:

"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things." S. 33:40

Muslims further reason that since the Lord Jesus clearly stated that false prophets would come to deceive many, this strongly argues that there would be another true prophet to come after Christ. Had there been no more prophets after Christ, there would have been no need for Jesus to give a criterion to distinguish false prophets. Christ could have simply stated that there would be no more prophets at all. (Cf. Matthew 7:15-20; 24:23-26)

The problem with such reasoning is that it completely ignores the entire context of the Holy Bible. For instance, the Lord Jesus states that God has given him his personal seal of approval, backing up all of Christ's words and deeds:

"Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placedHIS SEAL OF APPROVAL." John 6:27

This is reiterated elsewhere by the Lord:

"I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent." John 5:36-38

"But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me." John 8:16-18

"Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." John 10:36-38

"Jesus answered: ‘Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, "Show us the Father"? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.’" John 14:9-11

Part of Jesus' claims, which God has given his approval to, includes Christ's statement that he is the final messenger. This essentially means that the Lord Jesus is God's final and only perfect commentary in relation to the things pertaining to God:

"He then began to speak to them in parables: ‘A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed. HE HAD ONE LEFT TO SEND, A SON, WHOM HE LOVED. He sent him LAST OF ALL, saying, "They will respect my son." But the tenants said to one another, "THIS IS THE HEIR. Come, let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours." So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.’" Mark 12:1-8

After sending his servants the prophets, God sent his beloved Son last of all. This indicates that Christ believed that he was not just the last spokesperson sent by God to the people, but that he was also God's beloved Son and the Heir of all things. (Cf. Matthew 28:18; Luke 10:22; John 5:17-31; 10:36; 13:3; 16:13-15; 17:10; Hebrews 1:2-3)

In fact, the Father himself has personally testified that Jesus is his beloved Son:

"At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: ‘YOU ARE MY SON, WHOM I LOVE; with you I am well pleased.’" Mark 1:9-11

"After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus. Peter said to Jesus, ‘Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.’ (He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.) Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud: ‘THIS IS MY SON, WHOM I LOVE. LISTEN TO HIM!’" Mark 9:2-7

This by itself is sufficient to prove that Muhammad is not God's prophet or seal since he denies God's testimony regarding the divine sonship of Christ.

"When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: 'Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.'" Revelation 1:17-18

"'Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End ... I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star' ... He who testifies to these things says, 'Yes, I am coming soon.' Amen. Come, Lord Jesus." Revelation 22:12-13, 16, 20

The Lord Jesus claims to be the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, as well as the First and the Last. This implies that Jesus is both the source of all creation and the consummation of all things. Christ sovereignly controls and guides all creation to accomplish all he intends and desires.

In light of its Old Testament background, the title "the First and the Last" indicates that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only true God:

"This is what the LORD says - Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God." Isaiah 44:6

"Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last." Isaiah 48:12

Muhammad denied that Jesus is the source and consummation of all things and that Christ, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is the only true God. This means that Muhammad was not God's seal nor was he a true prophet sent by the true God.

Both the Old and New Testaments emphatically state that with Christ's advent both prophecy and vision have been consummated:

"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, BUT IN THESE LAST DAYS HE HAS SPOKEN TO US BY HIS SON, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven." Hebrews 1:1-3

After having spoken to the people through the prophets, God has given his final revelation through his Son. The Son has communicated this final message through the men that he appointed:

"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit-fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name." John 15:16

"He said to them (the disciples): 'It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.'" Acts 1:7-8

"Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?' 'Who are you, Lord?' Saul asked. 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' he replied. 'Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do' ... But the Lord said to Ananias, 'Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.'" Acts 9:1-6, 15-16

"In this connection I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me. And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' And I said, 'Who are you, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me AND TO THOSE IN WHICH I WILL APPEAR TO YOU, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles--to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'" Acts 22:12-18

"Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy." 1 Corinthians 7:25

"If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledgethat what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored." 1 Corinthians 14:37-38

"For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus ... Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit." 1 Thessalonians 4:2, 8

"We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will." Hebrews 2:1-4

"Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles." 2 Peter 3:1-2

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testifies to everything he saw - that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near ... On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, which said: 'Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.'" Revelation 1:1-3, 10-11

These passages establish that the holy Apostles did not speak from their own desires. Rather, these men spoke the very words given to them by the Lord Jesus Christ, having received the authority of Christ to record and pass on the very instructions of the Master.

"While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the LORD my God for his holy hill - while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. He instructed me and said to me, 'Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. As soon as you began to pray, an answer was given, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. Therefore, consider the message and understand the vision: 'Seventy "sevens" are decreed for your people and your holy city to FINISH transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, TO SEAL UP VISION AND PROPHECY and to anoint the most holy. Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One (Messiah), the ruler, comes, there will be seven "sevens," and sixty-two "sevens." It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two "sevens," the Anointed One (Messiah) will be CUT OFF and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.'" Daniel 9:20-26

According to this passage, Gabriel tells Daniel that a period of 69 "sevens" have been decreed where the Messiah would arrive on the scene, be killed ("cut off") with both Jerusalem and the second temple being destroyed by the governing authorities. During this time, both vision and prophecy would come to an end.

These events were fulfilled during Christ's first advent where he was cut off violently on the cross with the destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple occurring shortly thereafter (c. 33-70 AD). This clearly establishes that there would be no other prophet to come after Christ's advent who isn't comissioned by the Lord Jesus personally. Anyone claiming to be a prophet after Christ must prophesy solely in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, confirming the Gospel preached by Christ and his Apostles:

"Therefore I AM SENDING YOU PROPHETS AND WISE MEN AND TEACHERS. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town." Matthew 23:34

The Lord Jesus states that he will commission prophets for the people. This establishes that Jesus is God since God alone empowers and commissions prophets. This also affirms that a prophet must speak in the name of the Lord Jesus, confirming the message preached by Christ and his Apostles. Again:

"It was he (Christ) who gave some to be apostles, SOME TO BE PROPHETS, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." Ephesians 4:11-13

This passage reiterates the point made by the Lord Jesus, namely that it is Christ who would commission prophets, teachers, evangelists etc. Some of these prophets included:

"During this time some prophetscame down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.) The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea." Acts 11:27-29

"After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. Coming over to us, he took Paul's belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, 'The Holy Spirit says, "In this way the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles."'" Acts 21:10-11

"Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers." Acts 15:32

Basically what this means is that Jesus was the last One sent directly by God and from now on Christ would be the One sending out all the rest of the messengers, prophets, emissaries etc.:

"As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world." John 17:18

"So Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.’ And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.’" John 20:21-23

Christ had predicted:

"I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her." Mark 14:9

This is reiterated elsewhere:

"Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth-to every nation, tribe, language and people." Revelation 14:6

These passages affirm that the gospel is the means of salvation for all men and for all time, and will be proclaimed throughout the world. Anyone bringing a message contrary to the gospel proclaimed by the Lord Jesus is not of God. In the words of the Apostle Paul:

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel - which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" Galatians 1:6-9

Seeing that the angel that spoke to Muhammad brought a message contrary to the gospel of Christ means that this angel falls under God's eternal condemnation. This implies that this angel could not have been the angel Gabriel but a satanic counterfeit. This shouldn't surprise us since the Holy Bible clearly states that Satan is able to masquerade as an angel of light in order to deceive and prevent people from embracing the true message of salvation:

"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve." 2 Corinthians 11:13-15

This is precisely why the Holy Bible gives us a test to distinguish between false prophets and true ones, or lying spirits from the Holy Spirit of God:

"Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, 'Jesus be cursed,' and no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit." 1 Corinthians 12:3

"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist - he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father." 1 John 2:18-24

"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood." 1 John 4:1-6

According to these passages any person or spirit that denies that Jesus is God's eternal Son that became flesh or denies Christ's sovereign Lordship is not of God. Since Islam denies all these fundamental truths it therefore cannot be from the true God.

In fact, Islam makes God a liar since it denies the testimony given by God on behalf of his beloved Son:

"We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life." 1 John 5:9-12

The Lord continues:

"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning." John 15:26-27

According to Jesus, the function of the Holy Spirit is to testify about Christ. Any prophet that does not testify about the person and work of the Lord Jesus is a false prophet. In fact, the entire focus of prophecy centers on the person of Christ:

"He commands us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as the judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." Acts 10:42-43

"At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, 'Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.'" Revelation 19:10

Jesus is the very focal point of prophecy, and of history for that matter, since it is in Christ that all things hold together and are reconciled to God:

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12

"For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation - " Colossians 1:19-22

God designed it this way in order that Christ might have the preeminence over all things:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. Colossians 1:15-18 NKJV

To summarize:

  • Jesus claims to be God's final spokesperson for mankind.
  • The Old Testament affirms that at Christ's advent prophecy and vision would come to an end.
  • The whole focus of prophecy is to testify to Jesus' Deity, divine Sonship and his sovereign authority and rulership over all creation.
  • The message of the Gospel is universal, extending to all ages and for all men, being the only means of salvation.
  • Any prophet after Christ must speak in Jesus' name, confirming the message preached by Christ as recorded within the pages of the New Testament.

In light of the preceding factors, Muhammad cannot be a true prophet nor God's seal of prophethood. Muhammad denied the very core and foundation of prophecy, namely the preeminence and supremacy of God's beloved, divine eternal Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. In doing so Muhammad showed that he was not a prophet of the true God revealed in the inspired pages of the Holy Bible, Yahweh Elohim.


ADDENDUM

MUHAMMAD AS THE PARACLETE

Some Muslims have attempted to show that Jesus did predict the coming of Muhammad. Muslims often point to Jesus' promise to send another Comforter (Greek, Paraclete) as a prediction of their prophet. (Cf. John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15)

Even though the Lord Jesus clearly identifies the Comforter as the Holy Spirit in John 14:26, Muslims try to use John 16:7 to prove that the Comforter cannot be referring to the Holy Spirit:

"But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you."

Christ makes it clear that he must depart in order for the Comforter to arrive. If Christ did not depart then the Comforter would not come. It is presumed that since the Holy Spirit was already present during Christ's ministry, the Comforter cannot be referring to him. This could only be referring to Muhammad who arrived nearly 600 years after Christ had departed. (Cf. Matthew 3:16-17)

The only problem with the Muslim interpretation is that it ignores the context of Jesus' statement. For instance, Jesus wasn't claiming that the Comforter was not already present, but that the Comforter would not be present in the manner that Jesus had described earlier. Here are Jesus' words in their context:

"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever - the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, FOR HE LIVES WITH YOU AND WILL BE IN YOU." John 14:16-17

The Lord clearly states that the Comforter was already present with the disciples and that his followers knew him. The difference is that even though the Comforter was present with the disciples he would not be able to indwell and empower them until Jesus had been glorified by dying on the cross and rising from the dead. John reiterates this very point earlier in his Gospel:

"Then John gave this testimony: ‘I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him.’" John 1:32

"On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, ‘If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.’ By this he meant THE SPIRIT, whom those who believed in him were LATER to receive. Up to that time THE SPIRIT HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN, since Jesus had not yet been glorified." John 7:37-39

Hence, when John 16:7 is read within its immediate and greater context the Comforter can only be referring to God's Holy Spirit. It cannot be referring to Muhammad.

There are additional problems with viewing the Comforter as a prediction of Muhammad, some of which include:

  • According to John 14:17 the Comforter would be able to indwell all the disciples at the same time. This means that the Comforter could only be an immaterial entity, a spirit, since a physical entity cannot indwell anyone, let alone a group of men at the same time. This also implies that the Comforter is omnipresent. Since God alone is omnipresent, this means that the Comforter is God. Unless a Muslim wants to claim that Muhammad is God then there is no basis to view these references as predicting the prophet of Islam.
  • The Comforter was to glorify Christ by taking what belongs to Christ and making it known to his followers:

"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you." John 16:13-15

  • Jesus claims that everything that the Father owns belongs to him. This makes Jesus the Heir of all things. Yet the Quran claims that Allah is the Heir of all things:

"And certainly We! We it is Who give life, and cause death, and We are THE HEIRS." S. 15:23

"Lo! We, only We, inherit the earth and all who are thereon, and unto Us they are returned." S. 19:40

Taking these points to their natural conclusion would inevitably mean that Jesus is Allah, the God of Muhammad! Note the following syllogism:

  1. Muhammad is the Comforter.
  2. The Comforter was to glorify Jesus.
  3. All things belong to Christ.
  4. Muhammad glorified Allah.
  5. All things belong to Allah.
  6. Therefore Jesus is Allah!

Which Muslim would agree to this? The fact that no Muslim would or could accept such reasoning only reinforces the absurdity of trying to make Muhammad the Comforter predicted by Christ.

In the service of our risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ forever and ever. Amen. Come Lord Jesus. We love you always.


Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page

Muhammad's False Prophecies

 


Sam Shamoun


The Holy Bible gives us a test to determine a true prophet from a false one:

"But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death. You may say to yourselves, 'How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?' If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him." Deuteronomy 18:20-22

In light of what God says in the preceding passage, we will examine several predictions made by Muhammad in the Quran and Islamic traditions to see if whether he passes God's test.

On the Roman Conquest of Persia

S. 30:2-4:

"The Roman Empire has been defeated - in a land close by: But they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious - within a few years."

As the prophecy stated the Byzantines did become victorious over the Persians who had at first defeated them. Yet there are fundamental problems with this alleged prophecy:

  • According to Yusuf Ali the Arabic word for "a few years," Bidh'un, signifies a period of three to nine years; yet according to the historical records the victory did not come until nearly fourteen years later. The Persians defeated the Byzantines and captured Jerusalem at about A.D. 614 or 615. The Byzantine counter-offensive did not begin until A.D. 622 and the victory was not complete until A.D. 628, making it a period between thirteen to fourteen years, not "a few years" alluded to in the Quran.

Renowned historian and Muslim commentator, al-Tabari, places the Roman victory in 628 A.D. (6 A.H.), right after the signing of Hudaiybiya:

According to Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Muhammad b. Ishaq- Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri- 'Ubaydallah b. 'Abdullah b. 'Utbah b. Mas'ud- 'Abdullah b. 'Abbas- Abu Sufyan b. Harb, who said: We were merchant folk. The warfare between us and the Messenger of God had prevented us from journeying, so that our wealth became depleted. After the truce between us and the Messenger of God, we feared that we might not encounter security. I set out for Syria with a group of merchants of Quraysh. Our specific destination was Gaza, and we arrived at the time of Heraclius' VICTORY over the Persians who were in his land - he expelled them and regained from them his Great Cross, which they had carried off. Having accomplished this against them and having received word that his cross had been rescued from them (he was staying at Hims), he set out from there on foot in thanksgiving to God for restoring it to him, to pray in Jerusalem. Carpets were spread out for him, and fragrant herbs were strewn on them. When he reached Jerusalem and performed his worship - with him were his military commanders and the nobles of the Romans - he arose troubled one morning, turning his gaze to the sky ... (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press, Albany 1997], Volume VIII, pp. 100-101; bold and capital emphasis ours)

The translator's footnote reads:

436. "In 627 Heraclius invaded the Persian empire, and in December of that year won an important victory near ancient Ninevah, but had to retreat shortly afterwards. In February 628, however, the Persian emperor was assassinated, and the son who succeeded him desired peace. By about March 628 Heraclius could regard himself as victorious, but the negotiations for the evacuation of the Byzantine empire by the Persians were not completed until June 629. In September 629 Heraclius entered Constantinople AS VICTOR, and in March 630 restored the Holy Rood to Jerusalem." (Watt, Muhammad at Medina, 113-114). See also Ostrgorsky, History of the Byzantine State, 103-4. (Ibid., capital emphasis ours)

The hadith collection of al-Bukhari provides further corroboration that Abu Sufyan's visit with Heraclius occurred after the signing of Hudaiybiya:

Narrated ' Abdullah bin 'Abbas:
That Abu Sufyan bin Harb Informed him that Heraclius called him and the members of a caravan from Quraish who had gone to Sham as traders,during the truce which Allah's Apostle had concluded with Abu Sufyan and the Quraish infidels. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53,Number 399)

Watt places Rome's complete victory at 630 A.D., fifteen to sixteen years after the so-called prophecy was given!

  • The original Quranic text had no vowel marks. Thus, the Arabic word Sayaghlibuna, "they shall defeat," could easily have been rendered, with the change of two vowels, Sayughlabuna, "they (i.e. Romans) shall be defeated." Since vowel points were not added until some time after this event, it could have been quite possible for a scribe to deliberately tamper with the text, forcing it to become a prophetic statement.

This fact is solidified by Muslim commentator al-Baidawi. C.G. Pfander mentions Baidawi's comments on the variant readings surrounding this passage:

"But Al Baizawi shatters the whole argument of the Muslims by informing us of certain varied readings in these verses of Suratu'r Rum. He tells us that some read غَلَبَتِ instead of the usualغُلِبَتِ, and سَيُغْلَبُونَ instead of سَيَغْلُبُونَ. The rendering will then be: 'The Byzantines have conquered in the nearest part of the land, and they shall be defeated in a small number of years'. If this be the correct reading, the whole story about Abu Bakr's bet with Ubai must be a fable, since Ubai was dead long before the Muslims began to defeat the Byzantines, and even long before the victories which Heraclius won over the Persians. This shows how unreliable such Traditions are. The explanation which Al Baizawi gives is, that the Byzantines became conquerors of 'the well-watered land of Syria' (على ريف آلْشام), and that the passage predicted that the Muslims would soon overcome them. If this is the meaning, the Tradition which records the 'descent' of the verses about six years before the Hijrah must be wrong, and the passage must belong to A.H. 6 at earliest. It is clear that, as the vowel points were not used when the Qur-an was first written down in Cufic letters, no one can be certain which of the two readings is right. We have seen that there is so much uncertainty about (1) the date at which the verses were 'sent down', (2) the correct reading, and (3) the meaningthat it is quite impossible to show that the passage contains a prophecy which was fulfilled. Hence, it cannot be considered to be a proof of Muhammad's prophetic office." (C. G. Pfander, Mizan-ul-Haqq - The Balance of Truth, revised and enlarged by W. St. Clair Tisdall [Light of Life P.O. Box 18, A-9503, Villach Austria], pp. 279-280; emphasis ours)

This being the case, a Muslim cannot confidently tell us what the true reading of the text is and hence cannot insure us that this verse originally predicted the Byzantine victory over the Persians. Yet either rendering leaves us with a false prophecy within the Quran.

  • It amazes us that a prophecy from God would not specify the exact time of the victory, seeing that God is all-knowing and all-wise, declaring the end from the beginning. When God specifies a time frame as an important part of a prophecy we would expect that it be precise, not a mere guess. For God to guess that the Byzantines would win at some time within "a few years" as opposed to specifying the exact year, is inconsistent with the belief in an Omniscient, Omnipotent Being. Hence, it is unlikely that the true God would actually make such a prophecy.

Interestingly, the phrase "a few years" serves to further discredit this alleged prophecy. Abu Bakr believed the term "a few years" meant that the Byzantines were going to win in three years:

"This passage refers to the defeat of the Byzantines in Syria by the Persians under Khusran Parvis. (A.D. 615 - 6 years before the Hegira). However, the defeat of the Persians should take place soon 'in a small number of years'. In the light of this prediction, Abu-Bakr undertook a bet with Ubai-ibn-Khalaf that this prediction would be fulfilled within three years, but he was corrected by Mohammed who stated that the 'small number' is between three and nine years (Al-Baizawi). Muslims tell us that the Byzantines overcame their enemies within seven years. The fact, however, is that the Byzantines defeated Persia in A.D. 628 (Al-Baizawi commentary).That was twelve years after the prediction of Mohammed. Consequently this passage does not qualify as a prophecy, particularly as the time between prophecy and fulfilment was far too short, and in addition the event was easily predictable." (Gerhard Nehls, Christians Ask Muslims [Life Challenge, SIM International; Africa, 1992], pp. 70-71)

On Entering Mecca

Sura 48:27 makes the following promise:

"Truly did Allah fulfill the vision for His Messenger. Ye shall enter the Sacred Mosque, IF ALLAH WILLS, with minds secure, heads shaved, hair cut short, and without fear. For He knew what ye knew not, and He granted, besides this, a speedy victory."

This verse was revealed in conjunction with the Muslims' failed attempt of entering Mecca to perform Tawaf (the ritual during Hajj of running between two mountains that was supposed to commemorate Hagar's fetching of water for Ishmael).

On their way to the Ka'bah, they were met with a Meccan deputation headed by Suhail b. Amr who forbade the Muslims from completing their journey. This meeting then led to the signing of the treaty of Hudaibiya.

Several problems arise from this whole incident. First, at the signing of the Hudaibiya treaty Muhammad agreed with the pagan Meccans to return to them those who had converted to Islam. At the same time Muhammad also bowed to their demands of replacing his signature of 'Muhammad, Messenger of God' with 'Muhammad, son of Abdullah' so that he might be allowed to make pilgrimage to Mecca the following year. The following is taken from Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891:

"When Suhail bin Amr came, the Prophet said, ‘Now the matter has become easy.' Suhail said to the Prophet 'Please conclude a peace treaty with us.' So, the Prophet called the clerk and said to him, 'Write: By the Name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful." Suhail said, 'As for "Beneficent," by Allah, I do not know what it means. So write: By Your Name O Allah, as you used to write previously.' The Muslims said, 'By Allah, we will not write except: By the Name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.' The Prophet said, 'Write: By Your Name O Allah.' Then he dictated, 'This is the peace treaty which Muhammad, Allah's Apostle has concluded.' Suhail said, 'By Allah, if we knew that you are Allah's Apostle we would not prevent you from visiting the Kaba, and would not fight with you. So, write: 'Muhammad bin Abdullah.' The Prophet said, 'By Allah! I am Apostle of Allah even if you people do not believe me. Write: Muhammad bin Abdullah.' (Az-Zuhri said, 'The Prophet accepted all those things, as he had already said that he would accept everything they would demand if it respects the ordinance of Allah, (i.e. by letting him and his companions perform 'Umra.)') The Prophet said to Suhail, 'On the condition that you allow us to visit the House (i.e. Ka'ba) so that we may perform Tawaf around it.' Suhail said, 'By Allah, we will not (allow you this year) so as not to give chance to the Arabs to say that we have yielded to you, but we will allow you next year.' SO, THE PROPHET GOT THAT WRITTEN.

"Then Suhail said, 'We also stipulate that you should return to us whoever comes to you from us, even if he embraced your religion.' The Muslims said, 'Glorified be Allah! How will such a person be returned to the pagans after he has become a Muslim?'" (bold emphasis ours)

One of those forced to return to Mecca with the pagans was Abu Jandal. In Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasulullah (The Life of Muhammad, trans. Alfred Guillaume, Oxford University Press), p. 505 we are told:

'When Suhayl (the Meccan representative and the treaty's compiler) saw Abu Jandal he got up and hit him in the face and took hold of his collar, saying, 'Muhammad, the agreement between us was concluded before this man came to you.' He replied, 'you are right.' He began to pull him roughly by his collar and to drag him away to return him to Quraysh, while Abu Jandal shrieked at the top of his voice, 'Am I to be returned to the polytheists that they may entice me from my religion O Muslims?and that increased the people's dejection'" (bold and italic emphasis ours)

And:

'While they were in this state Abu- Jandal bin Suhail bin 'Amr came from the valley of Mecca staggering with his fetters and fell down amongst the Muslims. Suhail said, 'O Muhammad! This is the very first term with which we make peace with you, i.e. you shall return Abu Jandal to me.' The Prophet said, 'The peace treaty has not been written yet.' Suhail said, 'I will never allow you to keep him.' The Prophet said, 'Yes, do.' He said, 'I won't do: Mikraz said, 'We allow you (to keep him).' Abu Jandal said, 'O Muslims! Will I be returned to the pagans though I have come as a Muslim? Don't you see how much I have suffered?'

Abu Jandal had been [previously] tortured severely for the cause of Allah' (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891)

We need to ask did Moses ever return a convert (especially one who was an Egyptian) back to the pagan Pharaoh in order to please the latter in obtaining what he wanted? Did Jesus ever compromise the truth of God by agreeing with the Pharisees in turning back all gentile seekers in order to be accepted by the Jewish ruling council? Would either Moses or Jesus go so far as to deny their apostleship in order to please the demands of pagans? Would these men refuse to glorify the true God in the manner commanded by the Creator and acquiesce to the request of addressing God in a manner pleasing to the unbelievers, much like Muhammad did?

As one would expect the Muslims were enraged, especially Umar b. al-Khattab who rebuked Muhammad:

'Umar bin al-Khattab said, 'I went to the Prophet and said, "Aren't you truly the messenger of Allah?" The Prophet said, "Yes, indeed." I said, "Isn't our cause just and the cause of the enemy unjust?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Then why should we be humble in our religion?" He said, "I am Allah's messenger and I do not disobey Him, and He will make me victorious"' (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891)

The anger of the Muslims is justifiable when we realize that Muhammad promised that his followers would have access to Mecca that very same year. When that did not occur, Muhammad attempted to justify his statement by stating, "Yes, did I tell you that we would go to Ka'ba this year?" (Ibid)

In other words, since he did not specify when they would enter Mecca this cannot be considered a false prophecy! This is simply erroneous since the Muslim contingent was on their way to Mecca when a deputation from the pagan Arabs stopped them. In fact, one of Muhammad's demands in signing the treaty was that the pagans permit the Muslims to complete their journey to Mecca in order to perform Tawaf. Suhail denied Muhammad's request and instead made an agreement that the Muslims could enter Mecca the following year. Ibn Kathir further supports this in his commentary on S. 48:27:

"In a dream, the Messenger of Allah saw himself entering Makkah and performing Tawaf around the House. He told his Companions about this dream when he was still in Al-Madinah. When they went to Makkah in the year of Al-Hudaybiyyah, none of them doubted that the Prophet's vision WOULD COME TRUE THAT YEAR. When the treaty of peace was conducted and they had to return to Al-Madinah that year, being allowed to return to Makkah the next year, SOME OF THE COMPANIONS DISLIKED WHAT HAPPENED. 'Umar bin Al-Khattab asked about THIS, saying, 'Haven't you told us that we will go to the House and perform Tawafaround it?'" (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 9, Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun, Abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, London, Lahore; first edition, September 2000], p. 171; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Al-Tabari writes:

"While the Messenger of God was writing the document - he and Suhaly b. 'Amr - suddenly Abu Jandal, the son of Suhaly b. 'Amr, came walking with short steps in shackles. He had escaped to the Messenger of God. The companions of the Messenger of God had set out NOT DOUBTING that they would conquer, because of a vision the Messenger of God had seen. Therefore, when they saw what they saw - the peace, the retreat, and the obligations the Messenger of God had taken upon himself - the people felt so grieved about it that they were close to despair. When Suhayl saw Abu Jandal, he went up to him, struck him on the face, and grabbed him by the front of his garment. "Muhammad," he said, "the pact was ratified between me and you before this fellow came to you." "You are right," he replied. Suhayl began pulling and dragging [his son Abu Jandal] by the front of his garment to return him to Quraysh. Abu Jandal began screaming at the top of his voice, "People of the Muslims, shall I be returned to the polytheists for them to torment me for my religion?" This made the people feel even worse. The Messenger of God said: "Abu Jandal, count on a reward, for God will give you and those who are oppressed with you relief and a way out. We have made a treaty and peace between ourselves and these people; we have given them and they have given us a promise, and we will not act treacherously toward them." (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, Volume VIII, pp. 86-87; bold and capital emphasis ours)

This proves that Muhammad actually believed he was going to enter into Mecca, a plan that never materialized. In order to save face he had to deny admitting that he actually implied that the Muslims would enter Mecca that same year.

Second, to make matters worse Muhammad broke the treaty with the Meccans by refusing to return a Muslim convert from the Quraysh. This refusal was in clear violation of things expressly stipulated in the very document that Muhammad had agreed to sign:

"Umm Kulthum Uqba b. Mu'ayt migrated to the apostle during this period. Her two brothers 'Umara and Walid sons of 'Uqba came and asked the apostle to return her to them in accordance with the agreement between him and Quraysh at Hudaybiyya, but he would not. God forbade it." (Sirat Rasulullah, p. 509; italic emphasis ours)

Hence, Muhammad justified the breaking of his oath by claiming that it was God's will to do so. Unfortunately for Muslims, this would prove that Muhammad's God is not the God of the Holy Bible since breaking one's oath is strictly forbidden. (Cf. Numbers 30:1-2)

In light of all these considerations we are again compelled to ask the following questions. Did Moses ever bow down to Pharaoh's requests in order to bring Israel out of bondage from Egypt? Did Jesus ever deny his Messiahship to gain access to the Temple? Did any true prophet of God ever compromise with the unbelievers in order to fulfill the will of God? Did these men proceed to break their oaths and promises in order to gain an unfair advantage over the unbelievers?

One final problem with all this is that Muslims claim that every single word in the Quran was revealed directly by God to Muhammad through Gabriel. Based on this assumption Muslims further reason that one will not find Muhammad's words intermingled with the words of God. This being the case, how do Muslims explain the fact that S. 48:27 has Allah saying insha' Allah, i.e. "If Allah wills"? Does God not know what his will is? If so, is he uncertain whether his purpose shall come to pass necessitating him to then qualify his statement with the phrase, insha' Allah?

One can understand how fallible humans who are unaware of God's purpose can qualify their statements with the expression "If God wills" (Cf. James 4:13-15). But for God to make such a qualification is beyond reasoning.

Furthermore, if God is in fact speaking then whom is he referring to when he says "If Allah wills"? Is he addressing himself or someone else? If he is addressing someone else, than how many Gods are there? Or perhaps Allah is also a multi-personal Being seeing that there is more than one Person that make up the unity of Allah?

This leads us to conclude that Muhammad's prediction not only failed to materialize, but that his motives in concocting revelation were power, money and fame. This verse also proves that God cannot be the author of the Quran.

On the Appearance of the Antichrist and the End of the World

Muhammad allegedly claimed that the Antichrist (called the Dajjal) was to appear shortly after the Muslim conquest of Constantinople. The following traditions are taken from the Sunan Abu Dawud:

Book 37, Number 4281:

Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The flourishing state of Jerusalem will be when Yathrib is in ruins, the ruined state of Yathrib will be when the great war comes, the outbreak of the great war will be at the conquest of Constantinople and the conquest of Constantinople when the Dajjal (Antichrist) comes forth. He (the Prophet) struck his thigh or his shoulder with his hand and said: This is as true as you are here or as you are sitting (meaning Mu'adh ibn Jabal).

Book 37, Number 4282:

Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The greatest war, the conquest of Constantinople and the coming forth of the Dajjal (Antichrist) will take place within a period of seven months.

Book 37, Number 4283:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Busr:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The time between the great war and the conquest of the city (Constantinople) will be six years, and the Dajjal (Antichrist) will come forth in the seventh.

Accordingly, Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 636 AD. Constantinople was taken over by Muslims in May 1453 AD. Yet the prophecy regarding Yathrib (Medina) being in ruins and Antichrist's advent to take place seven months after the conquest of Constantinople did not materialize. Based on the preceding traditions Antichrist was to appear in November 1453.

Some may wish to argue that these events refer to future conquests. For instance some may wish to say that Constantinople is used as a synonym for the Roman Christian Empire. This would therefore be predicting that Muslims are to takeover Rome before Antichrist appears.

The problem with this is that if Muhammad was speaking of Rome he could have simply used the word Romans (Arabic: Ar-Rum). In fact, Romans/Ar-Rumis the name given to chapter 30 of the Quran. To call Rome either Constantinople or even Byzantium would be rather anachronistic. See above.

Hence, in light of the preceding factors we are forced to conclude that Muhammad's predictions failed to materialize, thus disqualifying him regarding his claim to prophethood.

Muhammad also believed in a young earth and that the world was about to end shortly after his advent. The following citations are taken from The History of al-Tabari, Volume 1 - General Introduction and from the Creation to the Flood (trans. Franz Rosenthal, State University of New York Press, Albany 1989), with all bold emphasis being ours:

"According to Ibn Humayd- Yahya b. Wadih- Yahya b. Ya'qub- Hammad- Sa'id b. Jubayr- Ibn Abbas: This world is one of the weeks of the other world - seven thousand years. Six thousand two hundred years have already passed. (The world) will surely experience hundreds of years, during which there will be no believer in the oneness of God there. Others said that the total extent of time is six thousand years." (Tabari, pp. 172-173; emphasis ours)

"According to Abu Hisham- Mu'awiyah b. Hisham- Sufyan- al-A'mash- Abu Salih- Ka'b: This world is six thousand years." (Ibid.)

"According to Muhammad b. Sahl b. 'Askar- Isma'il b. 'Abd al-Karim- 'Abd al-Samad b. Ma'qil I- Wahb: Five thousand six hundred years of this world have elapsed. I do not know which kings and prophets lived in every period (zaman) of those years. I aksed Wahb b. Munabbih: How long is (the total duration of) this world? He replied: Six thousand years." (Tabari, pp. 173-174; emphasis ours)

According to at-Tabari Muhammad believed that the end of the world was to occur 500 years after his coming:

"According to Hannad b. al-Sari and Abu Hisham al-Rifa'i- Abu Bakr b. 'Ayyash- Abu Hasin- Abu Salih- Abu Hurayrah: The Messenger of God said: When I was sent (to transmit the divine message), I and the Hour were like these two, pointing at his index and middle fingers." (Tabari, p. 176; emphasis ours, see also pp. 175-181)

Similar traditions are found in Sahih Muslim:

Book 41, Number 7044:

This hadith has been reported by Sahl b. Sa'd that he heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I and the Last Hour are (close to each other) like this (and he, in order to explain it) pointed (by joining his) forefinger, (one) next to the thumb and the middle finger (together).

Book 41, Number 7046:

Shu'ba reported: I heard Qatada and Abu Tayyab narrating that both of them heard Anas as narrating that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: I and the Last Hour have been sent like this, and Shu'ba drew his forefinger and middle finger near each other while narrating it.

Book 41, Number 7049:

Anas reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I and the Last Hour have been sent like this and (he while doing it) joined the forefinger with the middle finger.

At-Tabari comments on the meaning of the Hour being as close as Muhammad's index and middle fingers:

"Thus, (the evidence permitting) a conclusion is as follows: The beginning of the day is the rise of the dawn, and its end is the setting of the sun. Further, the reported tradition on the authority of the Prophet is sound.As we have mentioned earlier, he said after having prayed the afternoon prayer: What remains of this world as compared to what has passed of it is just like what remains of this day as compared to what has passed of it. He also said: When I was sent, I and the Hour were like these two- holding index finger and middle finger together; I preceded it to the same extent as this one- meaning the middle finger- preceded that one- meaning the index finger. Further, the extent (of time) between the mean time of the afternoon prayer- that is, when the shadow of everything is twice its size, according to the best assumption ('ala al-taharri)- (to sunset) is the extent of time of one-half of one-seventh of the day, give or take a little. Likewise, the excess of the length of the middle finger over the index finger is something about that or close to it. There is also a sound tradition on the authority of the Messenger of God, as I was told by Ahmad b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. Wahb- his paternal uncle 'Abd-allah b. Wahb- Mu'awiyah b. Salih- 'Abd al-Rahman b. Jubayr b. Nufayr- his father Jubayr b. Nufayr- the companion of the ProphetAbu Tha'labah al-Khushani: The Messenger of God said: Indeed, God will not make this nation incapable of (lasting) half a day- referring to the day of a thousand years.

"All these facts taken together make it clear that of the two statements I have mentioned concerning the total extent of time, the one from Ibn Abbas, and the other from Ka'b, the one more likely to be correct in accordance with the information coming from the Messenger of God is that of Ibn 'Abbas transmitted here by us on his authority: The world is one of the weeks of the other world - seven thousand years.

"Consequently, because this is so and the report on the authority of the Messenger of God is soundnamely, that he reported that what remained of the time of this world during his lifetime was half a day, or five hundred years, since five hundred years are half a day of the days, of which one is a thousand years- the conclusion is that the time of this world that had elapsed to the moment of the Prophet's statement corresponds to what we have transmitted on the authority of Abu Tha'labah al-Khushani from the Prophet, and is 6,500 years or approximately 6,500 years. God knows best!" (Tabari, pp. 182-183, bold emphasis ours)

Hence, according to these traditions Muhammad believed that not only was the world less than 7,000 years old but it was to end on the seventh day, or seven thousand years from the time it was created.

Accordingly, the world should have ended sometime between 1070-1132 AD, approximately 500 years after the birth and death of Muhammad. This is based on the fact that according to at-Tabari and others, the advent of Muhammad took place approximately 6,500 years from the time of creation. This is clearly a false prophecy.

Yet this date contradicts the one approximated by Abu Dawood in his Sunan. There, we saw that Antichrist was to appear seven months after the conquest of Constantinople, an event that took place in 1453 AD. This being the case, how could Muhammad have claimed elsewhere that the world was to end 500 years after his own birth and death? To make matters worse, the Islamic traditions claim that Antichrist was actually present during Muhammad's lifetime. In fact, according to the traditions Antichrist was a man named Ibn Saiyad:

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 437:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

'Umar set out along with the Prophet (p.b.u.h) with a group of people to Ibn Saiyad till they saw him playing with the boys near the hillocks of Bani Mughala. Ibn Saiyad at that time was nearing his puberty and did not notice (us) until the Prophet stroked him with his hand and said to him, "Do you testify that I am Allah's Apostle?" Ibn Saiyad looked at him and said, "I testify that you are the Messenger of illiterates." Then Ibn Saiyad asked the Prophet (p.b.u.h), "Do you testify that I am Allah's Apostle?" The Prophet (p.b.u.h) refuted it and said, "I believe in Allah and His Apostles." Then he said (to Ibn Saiyad), "What do you think?" Ibn Saiyad answered, "True people and liars visit me." The Prophet said, "You have been confused as to this matter." Then the Prophet said to him, "I have kept something (in my mind) for you, (can you tell me that?)" Ibn Saiyad said, "It is Al-Dukh (the smoke)." (2) The Prophet said, "Let you be in ignominy. You cannot cross your limits." On that 'Umar, said, "O Allah's Apostle! Allow me to chop his head off." The Prophet (p.b.u.h) said, "If he is he (i.e. Dajjal), then you cannot over-power him, and if he is not, then there is no use of murdering him." (Ibn 'Umar added): Later on Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) once again went along with Ubai bin Ka'b to the date-palm trees (garden) where Ibn Saiyad was staying. The Prophet (p.b.u.h) wanted to hear something from Ibn Saiyad before Ibn Saiyad could see him, and the Prophet (p.b.u.h) saw him lying covered with a sheet and from where his murmurs were heard. Ibn Saiyad's mother saw Allah's Apostle while he was hiding himself behind the trunks of the date-palm trees. She addressed Ibn Saiyad, "O Saf! (and this was the name of Ibn Saiyad) Here is Muhammad." And with that Ibn Saiyad got up. The Prophet said, "Had this woman left him (Had she not disturbed him), then Ibn Saiyad would have revealed the reality of his case."

The traditions go on to positively identify Ibn Saiyad as Antichrist:

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 453:

Narrated Muhammad bin Al-Munkadir:

I saw Jabir bin 'Abdullah swearing by Allah that Ibn Sayyad was the Dajjal. I said to Jabir, "How can you swear by Allah?" Jabir said, "I have heard 'Umar swearing by Allah regarding this matter in the presence of the Prophet and the Prophet did not disapprove of it."

Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37, Number 4317:

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:

Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir told that he saw Jabir ibn Abdullah swearing by Allah that Ibn as-Sa'id was the Dajjal (Antichrist). I expressed my surprise by saying: You swear by Allah! He said: I heard Umar swearing to that in the presence of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), but the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) did not make any objection to it.

Yet these traditions contradict the following traditions where Antichrist is described as being one eyed and as being locked up in chains:

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 553:

Narrated Ibn Umar:

Once Allah's Apostle stood amongst the people, glorified and praised Allah as He deserved and then mentioned the Dajjal saying, "I warn you against him (i.e. the Dajjal) and there was no prophet but warned his nation against him. No doubt, Noah warned his nation against him but I tell you about him something of which no prophet told his nation before me. You should know that he is one-eyed, and Allah is not one-eyed."

Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37, Number 4306:

Narrated Ubadah ibn as-Samit: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: I have told you so much about the Dajjal (Antichrist) that I am afraid you may not understand. The Antichrist is short, hen-toed, woolly-haired, one-eyed, an eye-sightless, and neither protruding nor deep-seated. If you are confused about him, know that your Lord is not one-eyed.

Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37, Number 4311:

Narrated Fatimah, daughter of Qays:

The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) once delayed the congregational night prayer.

He came out and said: The talk of Tamim ad-Dari detained me. He transmitted it to me from a man who was of the islands of the sea. All of a sudden he found a woman who was trailing her hair. He asked: Who are you?

She said: I am the Jassasah. Go to that castle. So I came to it and found a man who was trailing his hair, chained in iron collars, and leaping between Heaven and Earth.

I asked: Who are you? He replied: I am the Dajjal (Antichrist). Has the Prophet of the unlettered people come forth now? I replied: Yes. He said: Have they obeyed him or disobeyed him? I said: No, they have obeyed him. He said: That is better for them.

Someone might interject here and claim that the traditions make mention of 30 Antichrists to come into the world:

Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 37, Number 4319:

Narrated Abu Hurayrah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The Last Hour will not come before there come forth thirty Dajjals (fraudulents), everyone presuming himself that he is an apostle of Allah. (see also Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 237)

This implies that Ibn Saiyad was just one of the thirty antichrists, and not THE Antichrist that was to come right before the end of the world.

There are several problems with this assertion. First, none of the traditions claim that Ibn Saiyad is one of the thirty antichrists that were to appear. Rather, the traditions imply that he is THE Dajjal or Antichrist. Second, if we take either of the dates proposed by at-Tabari or Abu Dawood all thirty Dajjals needed to have appeared before either 1070-1132 or 1453 AD. Finally, according to the New Testament Muhammad is actually one of these Antichrists:

"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour… Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist-he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also." 1 John 2:18, 22-23

Since Muhammad denied that Jesus is God's Son he is therefore one of the many antichrists that was to come according to the apostle John.

As if the preceding weren't bad enough, other traditions have Muhammad predicting that the end was to come within the lifetime of his followers:

Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 7050:

'A'isha reported that when the desert Arabs came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) they asked about the Last Hour as to when that would come. And he looked towards the youngest amongst them and said: If he lives he would not grow very old that he would find your Last Hour coming to you he would see you dying.

Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 7051:

Anas reported that a person asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as to when the Last Hour would come. He had in his presence a young boy of the Ansar who was called Mahammad. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: If this young boy lives, he may not grow very old till (he would see) the Last Hour coming to you.

Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 7052:

Anas b. Malik reported that a person asked Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him): When would the Last Hour come? Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) kept quiet for a while, then looked at a young boy in his presence belonging to the tribe of Azd Shanilwa and he said: If this boy lives he would not grow very old till the Last Hour would come to you. Anas said that this young boy was of our age during those days.

Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 7053:

Anas reported: A young boy of Mughira b. Shu'ba happened to pass by (the Holy Prophet) and he was of my age. Thereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be apon him) said: If he lives long he would not grow very old till the Last Hour would come (to the old People of this generation).

Muhammad clearly said that the young boy wouldn't have grown very old before the Last Hour came upon the people. Now let us be generous and suppose that the young boy was ten and lived to be hundred and ten years old, implying that the Last Hour was to take place a hundred years after Muhammad made these statements. Yet, centuries have passed and the Last Hour still hasn't come upon us.

But wait, there is more! According to the narratives of al-Bukhari, Muhammad announced that everyone would be dead within a hundred years:

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 116:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
Once the Prophet led us in the 'Isha' prayer during the last days of his life and after finishing it (the prayer) (with Taslim) he said: "Do you realize (the importance of) this night? Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight will be living after the completion of one hundred years from this night."

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 10, Number 539:

Narrated Abdullah:
"One night Allah's Apostle led us in the 'Isha' prayer and that is the one called Al-'Atma by the people. After the completion of the prayer, he faced us and said, ‘Do you know the importance of this night? Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight will be living after one hundred years from this night.’" (See Hadith No. 575).

Nearly fourteen centuries have gone by and there continue to be human beings alive all around the earth! This particular hadith was so troubling that another narration tries to explain it away by arguing that Muhammad really meant that none of his generation would be alive in a hundred years:

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 10, Number 575:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:

The Prophet prayed one of the 'lsha' prayer in his last days and after finishing it with Taslim, he stood up and said, "Do you realize (the importance of) this night? Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight would be living after the completion of one hundred years from this night."

The people made a mistake in grasping the meaning of this statement of Allah's Apostle and they indulged in those things which are said about these narrators (i.e. some said that the Day of Resurrection will be established after 100 years etc.) But the Prophet said, "Nobody present on the surface of earth tonight would be living after the completion of 100 years from this night"; he meant, "When that century (people of that century) would pass away."

There are several points to note from this specific report. First, note the candid admission of the narrator that Muslims understood from Muhammad’s words that the world was going to end in a hundred years. This provides corroborating evidence that the plain meaning of Muhammad’s so-called prophecy was that the last day would occur within a hundred years.

Second, notice just how irrational this ad hoc explanation is. The hadith compiler really expects his readers to believe that what Muhammad meant was that no one of his generation would be alive within a hundred years when there is nothing amazing about such a claim. To say that one’s generation would all be dead within a hundred years doesn’t require supernatural knowledge. The only thing required to make such a claim is common sense since life expectancy was low in those days. Hardly anyone lived beyond the age of a hundred years. If it was supposed to be a statement ("prophecy") about the life expectancy of the people living around him, then it was trivial. What is the point?

Even though trivial, it would almost certainly be wrong. Muhammad said "on the surface of the earth" – that is a large place. Although centenarians are rare, they probably existed at all times. Even in the life of Muhammad there was at least one such person. Abu Afak is reported to have lived to the age of 120:

SARIYYAH OF SALIM IBN ‘UMAYR

Then occurred the sariyyah of Salim Ibn ‘Umayr al-‘Amri against Abu ‘Afak, the Jew, in Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijrah of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. Abu ‘Afak, was from Banu ‘Amr Ibn ‘Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to instigate the people against the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, and composed (satirical) verses. Salim Ibn ‘Umayr who was one of the great weepers and who had participated in Badr, said: I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu ‘Afak or die before him. He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu ‘Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn ‘Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people, who were his followers rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him. (Ibn Sa'ad's Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi - 110 002 India), Volume II, p. 31; bold and underline emphasis ours)

Did Muhammad really want to say: in a hundred years from now, there will be no more people who are older than a hundred years? Again: what would be the point of such an announcement? What has that to do with the message of Islam?

Moreover, Muhammad introduced his announcement with these words: "Do you know the importance of this night?" For that main reason, the alternative interpretation supplied by the narrator makes little sense. After all, in what sense would the observation that a time will come when nobody will be older than a hundred years be important for Muslims or Islam? It is simply irrelevant, and irrelevant is the opposite of important.

On the other hand, the proclamation of the Day of Resurrection and Allah’s judgment of all people is an essential part of Islam. If it had been revealed to Muhammad in his prayer that the world would end in exactly one hundred years, such a revelation would mark this night without question as being very important.

Only this interpretation really makes sense of the statement. The problem is, however, that the only meaningful interpretation of it has the consequence that Muhammad made a false prophecy. Muslims have tried to avert this by putting instead an utterly trivial, irrelevant – and most probably still incorrect – statement into Muhammad’s mouth.

Finally, it must be kept in mind that imam al-Bukhari collected these traditions roughly 250 years after Muhammad’s migration to Medina (c. 622/623 AD), long after the time that Muhammad said the world was going to end. In light of this, it is not surprising that he or someone else would provide an explanation in order to avoid having to admit that Muhammad was a false prophet for falsely claiming that the Day of Resurrection would take place a hundred years after his time.

Therefore, no matter from what angle one looks at it we are still left with irreconcilable contradictions and false predictions.

CONCLUSION

We have examined both the Quran and the Islamic traditions and found that both sources contain false predictions. In light of the prophetic criteria given by God in Deuteronomy 18 we discover that Muhammad fails this test. This means that Muhammad is neither a true prophet nor is he the prophet like Moses.

In the service of our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, our risen Lord forever. Amen. Come Lord Jesus. We love you always.


Several Muslims have reacted to this paper in different ways. These responses are linked from within Sam Shamoun's answers to Hesham AzmyMoiz Amjad, and Osama Abdallah.

Further articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page

How many days did Allah need to destroy the people of Aad?

 Qur'an Contradiction:

How many days did Allah need to destroy the people of Aad?


The Qur'an speaks in various passages about the people of Aad, and about their destruction by terrible tornado as punishment from Allah for their disobedience.

The Qur'an, however, contradicts itself in the number of days this wind endured.

Lo! We let loose on them a raging wind on a day of constant calamity, [54:19]

Therefor We let loose on them a raging wind in evil days, that We might make them taste the torment of disgrace in the life of the world. And verily the doom of the Hereafter will be more shameful, and they will not be helped. [41:16]

And as for A'ad, they were destroyed by a fierce roaring wind, Which He imposed on them for seven long nights and eight long days so that thou mightest have seen men lying overthrown, as they were hollow trunks of palm-trees. [69:6-7]

According to Sura 54:19, the wind continued for a single day, while 41:16 uses the plural form indicating at least three days, and 69:7 specifies exactly eight days

ANTIOCHUS IV OR ROME: PROS AND CONS

 DANIEL 8:9-14: THE LITTLE HORN:

PROS AND CONS: ROME OR ANTIOCHUS IV

By Russell Earl Kelly, PHD

July 24, 2018

 

HISTORICAL FACTS ABOUT ANTIOCHUS IV

 

Antiochus IV (D) Epiphanes (Manifest)

Original name before ascension: Mithradates

Father: Antiochus III the Great,      1 Macc 1:1-4

Mother: Laodice III

Wife: Laodice IV married 3 brothers who were Seleucid kings

323 B. C. Alexander the Great died

279 B.C. Gauls ruled Macedonia briefly

264-241 B.C. Rome won the First Punic War against Carthage

198 B. C. Laodice IV married crown prince Antiochus who died in 193 B. C.

197 B. C. Rome first defeated Macedonia and Greece

190 B. C. Rome defeated Syrian Seleucid Antiochus III the Great

188 B. C. Antiochus IV was a hostage of Rome to control his father

187 B. C. father Antiochus III died; replaced by older brother Seleucus IV

         1 Macc 1:5-7

175-164 B. C. Antiochus IV ruled Syria and Judea; 1 Macc 1:8 to 6:16

173 B. C. Antiochus IV paid off the Roman war penalty incurred by his father

172 B. C. High Priest Jason built a Greek gymnasium beside the Temple in Jerusalem; this might have begun the 2300 day prophecy

172 B. C. Antiochus IV replaced Jason

169 B. C. While Antiochus was in Egypt, Jason conquered Jerusalem except the armed citadel.

169 B. C. Antiochus IV conquered all of Egypt except Alexandria and

captured Ptolemy VI. He allowed Ptolemy VI to remain as his puppet to avoid angering Rome. 1 Mac 1:16-19

169 B.C. Egypt regained freedom; Ptolemy brothers ruled jointly (incl VIII).

169-168 B.C. Antiochus IV conquered Cyprus

168 B. C., Jun 22nd; Rome defeated Antiochus’ ally Macedonia again

168 B.C. Egypt depended on an alliance with Rome to protect it

168 B.C. re-conquest of Egypt was stopped when Roman ambassador Gaius Pompillius Laenas drew a circle around him and threatened war with Rome; Antiochus withdrew.

167 B. C. Antiochus again replaced high priest Jason, killed 40,000 Jews and enslaved another 40,000 (2 Macc 5:11-14).

Antiochus outlawed Jewish religion and ordered the worship of Zeus (2 Mac 6:1-12). The city of Jerusalem was destroyed; the military citadel of Acra was built by Antiochus. 1 Macc 1:20+

167 B. C. Mithradates I of Parthia rebelled ad split the Seleucid Empire.

Antiochus failed to regain Parthia.

163 B. C. Antiochus IV died of disease.

…………………………………

COMPARING THE TEXTS:

 

The following is an honest attempt to see arguments from both viewpoints and to analyze each. Good scholarship requires it.

 

Dan 8:8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

(1) All agree that the “he goat” was Alexander the Great who died in 321 B. C.

(2) “For it” is “in place of it (NKJ), “in its place: (NAS; NIV), “instead of it” (RSV) refers to Greeks, not Romans. Rome had existed for centuries before Alexander and did not come up into power after Alexander’s death.

(3) After Alexander’s death, his Greek empire became four Greek empires: Egypt (Ptolemies), Syria (Seleucids) Macedonia and Greece.

(4) In Daniel 7 and 8 different nations were represented by different animals. A different nation is not seen in Daniel 8:8. The large Greek horn was replaced by other Greek horns --- portrayed as one kingdom. The prophecy retains the one kingdom of Greece in four divisions. See 8:23; 11:1-4.

(5) While explaining this, Daniel 11:5 says that “the king of the south [Egypt]” will be strong. History records this to be true at first concerning Egypt.

(6) The evidence favors Antiochus IV.

Daniel 8:9a And out of one of them came forth a little horn which waxed exceeding great …”

(1) Antiochus Epiphanes IV came out of the eastern Seleucid Syrian “horn” of Alexander’s Greek empire.

(2) Rome came up out of one of the four “winds,” or directions of heaven. See also 11:4. It defeated Carthage in the three Punic Wars between 264 – 146 B. C.

(3) Although Antiochus IV was an “exceedingly great” evil towards Judah for a short time, eventually pagan Rome was a far greater evil than Antiochus IV for a much longer period of time.

(4) While Antiochus IV outlawed Jewish worship early, pagan Rome did so much later after A. D. 135.

(5)  Even today Jews celebrate the restoration of the temple with Hanukkah dating back to 164 B. C.

(6) For non-Jews the evidence for this argument is a draw.

Daniel 8:9c “…toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.”

(1) Since pagan Rome was “exceeding great” in every direction, it is odd that the other directions are not mentioned.

(2) “Toward the south,” Antiochus IV briefly conquered and sacked most of Egypt but was soon repulsed. His second invasion was stopped by threat of war with Rome. “Toward the east,” Antiochus IV lost the Parthian half of his realm and died before restoring it. “Toward the promised land,” his persecution of the Jews resulted in his expulsion and their independence.

(3) The evidence for this point is favors Rome.

Daniel 8:10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground and stamped upon them.

(1) Both pagan Rome and Antiochus IV literally fulfill this description.

(2) Since Jews interpret this as a description of Antiochus IV in both First and Second Maccabees, this evidence barely favors Antiochus IV.

Daniel 8:11a Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away …

(1) Both pagan Rome and Antiochus replaced Israel’s leaders.

(2) “Prince of the host” is an unlikely title for Jesus in the first century among Jews.

(3) “Prince of the host” is a better description of the High Priest during Antiochus’ IV time.

(4) Both pagan Rome and Antiochus caused the daily sacrificial offerings in the temple to end ---thus ending all activity.

(5) The argument favors Antiochus IV.

Daniel 8:11b … and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.

(1) If “cast down” is correct, only pagan Rome literally fulfilled that.

(2) If “brought low” is correct, both accomplished that.

(3) This argument is a draw.

Daniel 8:12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground and it practiced and prospered.

(1) Whether “the transgression” was that “of” the Jews or that “of” the little horn, both Rome and Antiochus both accomplished this.

(2) Antiochus IV attempted to destroy the Jewish religion.

(3) Pagan Rome did not at first attempt to destroy the Jewish religion.

(4) Some see papal Rome here and it did attempt to replace both Judaism and orthodox Christianity.

(5) Only Rome continued to prosper.

(6) Antiochus’ did not prosper afterwards.

(7) One the strength of “it prospered,” the evidence favors Rome.

Daniel 8:13 … How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

(1) The question is: “How long will it be before the transgression by the little horn ends?” “When will it stop?”

(2) The literal length of desolation in Daniel 8:14 strongly favors Antiochus IV between 171-164 B. C. or 168-164 B.C.

(3) There is no literal 2300 or 1150 day period of persecution by pagan or papal Rome which ended in A. D. 1844.

(4) The evidence strongly favors Antiochus IV.

Daniel 8:14 Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

         (1) “Unto” is most often translated “for” --- meaning “until.”

(2) The SDA answer of “A. D. 1844” does not answer the question of 8:13. It does not tell us when anything would end; it only tells when something would begin.

(3) The literal interpretation of the text says the defilement of the sanctuary in 8:9-13 will cease in 2300 or 1150 days.

(4) “2300 days” in Hebrew is not the extremely common word for “day” which is “yom.”

(5) “2300 evenings and mornings” refer to the “evening (ereb) and morning (boquer)” sacrificial cycles. This corresponds to either 2300 or 1150 literal days. See below on Num 14:34.

(6) The temple in Jerusalem was cleansed and rededicated in 164 BC which is about 2300 days from 171 B. C. or 1150 days from 168 BC 

(7) It is unknown how the Temple was originally defiled by Antiochus. We do know that the altar to Zeus was dedicated with a pig exactly three years before it was re-dedicated. Many other defiling events occurred before that date. The original defilement was 2300 days prior to its cleansing on the 25th day of the 12th Jewish month.

(8) The Jewish calendar during the time of Antiochus IV either added a 30-day month every third year or added 10-11 days at the end of each year in order to stay aligned with the solar year. This fact easily explains how 2300 days fits within the time frame of 6+ years (2300 days) or even 3+ years (1150 days).

(9) Since Rome’s destruction of the temple in A. D. 70 has not been cleansed by a restoration cleansing or rededication, the evidence favors Antiochus IV.

………………………………………………….

Daniel 8:19a And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation …

(1) This probably refers to “the last end of (the current) indignation.”

(2) According to Daniel 2 a renewed weaker Rome will be involved in the last days.

(3) According to Matthew 24:15 Jesus made Antiochus IV a type of the Antichrist of the last days.

(4) The evidence is a draw.

……………………………………………………..

Daniel 8:23a And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full …

(1) This is the strongest anti-Antiochus IV argument; he was in the middle of the Antiochus line of rulers which extended another 100 years

(2) The text does not say “in the latter time of the Seleucid kingdom.”.

(3) “The latter time of their kingdom” refers to ONE Greek kingdom which replaced Alexander the Great. Note that “kingdom” is singular.

(4) By the time of Antiochus IV (171-164 B. C.), most of Alexander’s divisions had become mere puppets of Rome and Egypt depended upon Rome to protect it with a military alliance. Therefore “the latter time of their kingdom” may refer to their identity as independent Greek kingdoms.

(5) The prophecy does not refer to how many kings will follow Antiochus IV as puppets of Rome.

(6) “The latter time” of Daniel could have begun in 205 B. C. when Rome defeated Macedonia.

(7) “Their” (plural) independent “kingdom, rule, reign” as Alexander’s unified heritage ended at “the latter times.”

(8) “The latter time” could also have begun in 190 B. C. when Rome defeated Antiochus IV’s father, Antiochus III the Great.

(10) Antiochus IV was part of “the latter times” of the Greek Empire. For a short time in 188 B. C. Antiochus IV had been a prisoner in Rome before being exchanged for his older brother and first heir to the Seleucid throne.

(11) On the other hand, Rome did become much greater during “the latter time” of Alexander’s Greek kingdom.

(12) The evidence is a draw.

Daniel 8:23b … a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

(1) The text describes a person and not a nation. “Fierce countenance an understanding dark sentences” applies more to a man than to a nation.

(2) The evidence favors Antiochus IV.

Daniel 8:24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.

(1) For 2300 days Antiochus IV fulfilled this prophecy.

(2) Rome needed no help to destroy Jerusalem. “Not by his on power” does not fit Rome.

(3) The evidence favors Antiochus IV.

Daniel 8:25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

(1) Antiochus IV fulfilled this for 2300 days against the Jews. He replaced the high priest and died of disease without being assassinated or overthrown (“without hand”).

(2) Rome crucified Jesus Christ, the Prince of Princes. Rome lasted far longer than 2300 days. Rome was broken both by corruption from within and by barbarian invasions in the West. Eastern Rome fell to a Muslim Turkish army in 1453 A. D.

(3) The evidence favors Antiochus IV.

2300 DAYS OR YEARS:

(1) With the exception of Seventh-day Adventists and Adam Clarke’s Commentary, “days” are interpreted literally and not as prophetic years.

(2) The Hebrew for “days” in Daniel 8:14 is “ereb-boquer” instead of the extremely common “yom.”

(3) If “days” in Daniel 8:14 referred to the Day of Atonement ritual of Leviticus 16, “day” in Leviticus 16 would also be “ereb-boquer.”

(4) Numbers 14:34 does not establish a hermeneutic that one day equals one prophetic year (“day for a year”); rather, it is a predetermined punishment sentence. The same is true of Ezekiel 4:6 which reverses Numbers 14:34 to become “a year for a day” for past sins. The Hebrew of Daniel 9:24 is able to stand upon its on Hebrew vocabulary.

(5) In 1825 William Miller interpreted the 2300 days as prophetic years and ended them in 1844 with the end of the world by fire.

(6) Also in 1825, Adam Clarke interpreted Daniel 8:9-12 as pagan Rome, interpreted the 2300 days as prophetic years, began them with the beginning of the goat vision in 334 B. C. and ended the vision in 1966.

(7) In 1844 Seventh-day Adventists interpreted the 2300 days as prophetic years, interpreted Daniel 8:9-10 as pagan Rome, interpreted 8:11-12 as papal Rome, began the vision in 457 B. C. and ended the 2300 years in 1844 with the beginning of God’s judgment of the righteous in heaven.

(8) Modern commentaries overwhelmingly interpret the 2300 days literally, begin the 2300 days in 171 B. C. or begin the 1150 days in 168-167 B. C. and end them with the re-dedication of the Jerusalem temple in 165-164 B. C. Jews celebrate this as Hanukkah.

(9) Since Jesus made Antiochus IV a type of the last-day Antichrist in Matthew 24:15, many modern conservative commentaries expect a future re-built temple in Jerusalem per Revelation 11:1-2 which will also be destroyed as the earth is destroyed in Revelation 19. A Messianic Millennial temple will be rebuilt for Christ’s literal reign for 1000 years on earth.

(10) The evidence concerning the 2300 days is overwhelmingly in favor of its initial fulfillment by Antiochus IV.

…………………………

Daniel 11:1-20 describe the wars between Seleucid Syria and Egypt before Antiochus IV.

Daniel 11:21-35 describe the wars between Antiochus IV, Egypt and Judea. There is no doubt among modern commentaries that Antiochus IV is in view.

………………………

The following text from First Maccabees demonstrate how closely Firt Maccabees follows Daniel. Any student seriously interested in determining the identity of the little horn of Daniel 8:9-14 must read First Maccabees.

1 Maccabees 1:1-4 Alexander the Great’s achievements.

1 Macc 1:5-7 Alexander divided his empire among his generals before he died in 323 B. C.

1 Macc 1:8-9 Alexander’s officers reigned many years.

1 Macc 1:10 175 B. C. Antiochus IV rules Seleucid Syria

1 Macc 1:11-13 Greek-speaking Jews in Judea voluntarily switched religions to observe Greek culture.

1 Macc 1:14-15 A Greek gymnasium was erected beside the Temple and circumcision was reversed.

1 Macc 1:16-19 Antiochus plundered Egypt [except for Alexandria] and very briefly made Ptolemy VI his vassal.

[Egypt soon regained independence. A second Syrian army turned back after being warned of war with Rome by Ambassador Pompilius Laenas.]

1 Macc 1:20-28   In 169 B. C. Antiochus plundered the Temple in Jerusalem. [desolating the temple]

1 Macc 1:29-32 In 167 B. C. Antiochus IV plundered the city, burned the city and tore down the walls. He enslaved women and children and took the livestock.

1 Macc 1:33-36 In 167 B. C. Antiochus also fortified the city: he rebuilt stronger walls and built a fortress. Victims were killed in and around the sanctuary.

1 Macc 1:37-40 In 167 B. C. the Jewish people abandoned the desolate temple and ceased observing Sabbaths and Jewish worship.

1 Macc 1:41-53 Antiochus IV commanded Greek religion in his Syrian empire.

1 Maccabees 1:54 In 167 B. C. 15th of Chislev (Dec) Antiochus IV erected an altar of Zeus inside the Temple --- the appaling abomination.

1 Macc 1:55-58 Many other altars were erected. Copies of the Law were burned and those possessing it were killed.

1 Macc 1:59 167 B. C. 25th day of Chislev offered a pig on the altar.

1 Macc 1:60-61 Killed those who allowed circumcision; hung babies from necks of mothers.

1 Mac 1:62-64 Many kept their faith.

1 Macc 2:1-69 Mattathias’ successful revolt. Died in 166 B. C., 16th year.

1 Macc 3:1 to 6:7  Judas Maccabeus, son of Mattathias, took over.

1 Macc 4:52 164 B. C. 148th year, 25th Chislev temple cleansed.

1 Macc 6:8-16 Sick from his losses, Antiochus IV appointed Philip to replace him. Died 163 B. C. 149th year.

Josephus (First century Jewish Historian): “And this desolation came to pass according to the prophecy of Daniel, which was given four hundred and eight years before; for he declared that the Macedonians would dissolve that worship [for some] time.” Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII, Chapter 4, verse 6.

Quran- Word of God or Muhammad ?

  Mukto-mona ( Collection ) This article is mainly focused to show that when we read some of the verses in Quran, we clearly understand that...

TRENDING NOW