C. G. Pfander, D. D

P

« Sflrah v. 85.
That the language and the teaching of the


Qur'in are without a parallel, and that thus the Qur'An alone is a sufficient proof of the truth of Muhammad's claims.

3. 
   That Muhammad's miracles are a seal set by God Most High on his claims.
   
4. 
   That his life and character prove him to have been the last and greatest of the prophets.
   
5. 
   That the rapid spread of Isl&m shows that God Most High sent it as His final Revelation to men.
   

Now without doubt these alleged proofs or arguments are deserving of great and careful consideration. If they are well-founded, they most undoubtedly do prove the truth of Isl&m.and all men should therefore accept it. But before we can admit their truth, we must examine them more carefully than a merchant does the coins he receives, for our happiness here and hereafter depends in large measure upon the decision to which we come. For the question at issue is, "Who is in our day the Saviour of the world: the Lord Jesus Christ, or Muhammad ?" This is not a subject for strife and quarrelling and bitterness, but for reverent, candid, fearless, and prayerful inquiry. Muslims and Christians are alike interested in the search, and- the result will be to God's glory and their good, for the truth cannot be for ever hid, but must at last shine forth brighter than the sun at noonday.

In the following chapters we proceed to undertake this inquiry, " speaking truth in love," as is enjoined upon Christians (Eph. iv. 15). We shall endeavour so to write that we may not intentionally hurt the feelings of any earnest Muslim. But should any single word or phrase seem unfitting, or not in accordance with the rules of courtesy and brotherly affection, we here most sincerely apologize for it, trusting that the respected readers of these pages will realize that the offence has not been willingly given, and that it is human to err, while readiness to forgive is worthy of all who believe in the Most Merciful God.

CHAPTER II

DOES THE BIBLE CONTAIN PROPHECIES CONCERNING

MUHAMMAD ?

There can be no question that Christ's coming was foretold in the Old Testament in many different places. If, therefore, God Most High had intended to send into the world a Prophet far greater than He was, we should naturally expect to find predictions concerning this future Prophet in the Old Testament, and still more in the New. It is natural therefore for Muslims to seek for such prophecies regarding the Founder of their religion. For, if Muhammad was the Seal of the Prophets, the person on whose account God created the universe, it would be very strange had God con­cealed from men the fact that they should look for and obey the coming Prophet. Hence those who believe in Muhammad tell us that clear and unmistakeable predictions regarding him are to be found in the Bible : though they often add that others were once there, but were struck out by Jews and Christians.

We need not concern ourselves with this latter assertion, since in Part I we have proved that the Old Testament and the New remain in our hands in their original languages and in the same form in which they existed in Muhammad's time and for many centuries previously. They have not been corrupted either before or after Muhammad's time. It follows from this that we have nothing to do with mere assertions, but that, if in the text of the Bible as we now have it there do exist true and genuine predictions of Muham­mad's coming, we Christians must admit it to be so. We cannot get rid of the force of this argument by saying that such passages are interpolations. On the other hand, should it become clear that the passages

P 2

which Muslims quote do not refer to Muhammad, it will not be allowable for Muslims to say, " Well, the Bible did once contain such prophecies, but you People of the Book have expunged them."

The appeal to the Bible in this matter implies that those who refer to it and adduce from it passages which they think to refer to Muhammad thereby admit that it is (i) Divinely inspired, and (2) uncorrupt: otherwise of what use would it be to refer to such a book as authoritative ? If our Muslim brothers admit these two points, then an inquiry into the alleged Biblical prophecies regarding Muhammad may be very interesting and instructive. But if they do not admit these points, it is difficult to see what use it is for them to refer to the Bible at all in proof of the Mission of their prophet. Of course many learned Muslims—all, in fact, who have carefully studied the matter—do admit these two facts. We may hope too that our honoured readers will grant that what has been said in Parts I and II of this Treatise is in accordance with the teach­ing of Holy Scripture.

It will be granted that we are justified in explaining one passage of the Bible by another. Wise men will admit that this is the correct method of proceeding in case of doubt, difficulty, or dispute about the meaning of any verse or passage not only in the Bible but in any other Book. Obscure passages can often be cleared up by plainer verses and by the context. If a later passage explains an earlier prophecy, for in­stance, it is unworthy of an unprejudiced man of learn­ing to refuse to accept the explanation thus given by an inspired writer, and to expect us to receive instead some commit which does not suit the context and which is in contradiction to many other passages in the book.

We now proceed to examine the chief passages¹ of

¹ Many of the passages which are here dealt with are adduced in the Izhdru'l Haqq and are fully explained in the Ibhdtul Mujtahidin, the five volumes of the Hiddyah, and other Christian works.

the Old Testament in the first place in which our Muslim brethren claim to find predictions regarding Muhammad.

1. 
   Gen. xlix. 10. This is asserted to refer to Mu­hammad, especially as " Judah" in ver. 8 comes from a verb meaning " to praise as does the name " Mu­hammad ". But the context shows that Shiloh was to be born among the descendants of Judah. Muhammad was of the Arabian tribe of the Quraish. He was not a Jew. The passage cannot therefore refer to him. Moreover, the sceptre had departed from Judah more than 550 years before Muhammad was born. The verb " to praise " in ver. 8 has no possible connexion with the Arabic verb hamada (iH). The Jewish commentaries explain that Shiloh is a title of the Messiah, and the Samaritan Targum implies this also. Jesus was born of the tribe of Judah, and the Gentiles have already in large measure become obedient unto Him.
   

2. 
   Deut. xviii. 15, 18. It is urged that the promised prophet was not to rise among the Israelites ("from the midst of thee" in ver. 15 does not occur in the Septuagint or the Samaritan Pentateuch, nor in Acts iii. 22) but among their "brethren" the Ishmaelites (compare Gen. xxv. 9, 18): that no such prophet did rise among the Israelites (Deut. xxxiv. 10) : that Muhammad was like Moses in many points, e.g., both were brought up in their enemies' houses, appeared among idolaters, were at first rejected by their own people and afterwards accepted by them, each gave a law, fled from their enemies (Moses to Midian, Muhammad to Medinah, a name of a similar meaning), marched to battle against their enemies, wrought miracles, and enabled their followers after their own decease to conquer Palestine. In reply it may be said that Deut. xxxiv. 10 refers only to the time at which it was written, and the word " since" may be said to imply the expectation that such a prophet would arise " in Israel", not outside. The words " from the midst of thee " are almost certainly genuine, though even without them the meaning is clear. It is true that Ishmael was Isaac's half-brother : but, if the Ishmaelites may be called the brethren of Israel, assuredly, the Israelite tribes may more correctly be called one another's brethren. (Compare¹ S&rah vii, AI A'raf, ver. 83, " their brother Shu'aib.") Israelites are called one another's brethren in this very book of Deuteronomy, e.g., in chapters iii. 18 ; xv. 7 ; xvii. 15; xxiv. 14. In ch. xvii. 15 we have an exactly parallel passage in reference to the appointment of a king: " one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee." Most, if not all, the kingdoms of Europe are ruled by kings who belong to families which are or were originally foreign : but in all history we never hear of the Israelites appointing over themselves a foreigner as king. They should have gone to the Ishmaelites for their kings, if the Muslim explanation of " from among their brethren" in Deut. xviii. 18 is correct. They did not do so, because they understood their own language. Who at the present day among Muslims, if told to summon one of his " brethren " to receive some important post, would conclude that members of his own family were excluded, and that he must find a man whose ancestors had, hundreds of years before, been kindred to his own ? Moreover, the Taur&t clearly says that no prophet was to be expected from Ishmael, for God's covenant was made with Isaac, not with him (Gen. xvii. 18-21; xxi. 10-12). The Qur'dn also in several places speaks of the prophetic office as having been entrusted to Isaac's seed (Stirah xxix, Al Ankabtit, ver. 27; SGrah xlv, AI Jathiyyah, ver. 15). The promised prophet was to be sent unto Israel-, but
   

Muhammad professed to be sent to the Arabs among whom he was born. As for a likeness to Moses, we learn from Deut. xxxiv. 10-12, that the two points in which the Israelites expected the coming prophet to resemble Moses were : (1) personal know­ledge of God, and (2) mighty works. As regards the former, is there not a tradition that Muhammad said, " We have not known Thee in the truth of Thy know­ledge {or as Thou shouldest be known)"? With refer­ence to mighty works,¹ the Qur'än tells us that Mu­hammad was not² given the power of working miracles (Sürah xvii, Al Asrd, ver. 61: see Baiziwi's and 'Abbisl's commentaries: Sürahs ii. 112; vi. 37, 57, 109 ; vii. 202 ; x. 21; xiii. 8, 30; xxix. 49, 50). The points of resemblance between Moses and Muhammad which Muslims adduce might be found in Musailamah and in Mint for the most part, but do not prove that these men were prophets. Finally, God Himself has explained in the Gospel that this prophecy referred to Christ, not to Muhammad (compare Deut. xviii. 15, 19, " Unto Him ye shall hearken," &c., with Matt. xvii. 5 : see also Mark ix. 2, and Luke ix. 35). Jesus explains that this and other passages in the Taurit refer to Himself (John v. 46: see Gen. xii. 3 ; xxvi. 4 ; xviii. 18; xxii. 18; xxviii. 14). He was descended from Judah (Matt. i. 1-16; Luke iii. 23-38; Heb. vii. 14), was born in Israel, and spent almost all His life among the Jews, and sent His disciples in the first place to the latter (Matt. x. 6) and only secondly to the Gentiles (Luke xxiv. 47 ; Matt, xxviii. 18-20). In Acts iii. 25, 26, the prophecy we are considering is definitely referred to Christ.

3. Deut. xxxii. 21: " They have moved Me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have pro­voked Me to anger with their vanities." This, we are told, refers to the Arabs, to whom Muhammad was

¹ Those of Moses are referred to in the Qur'än (Sürah vii. 101-116, 160).

* See Chapter V below.

sent. It cannot (Muslims say) refer to the Greeks, to whom St. Paul and the other Apostles of Christ went, for they were wise and learned. But this verse cannot be said to refer to any prophet at all. It tells how God will call the Gentiles, not the Greeks only, but the Arabs, the English, and all others, to become one spiritual brotherhood in Christ. This is the explana­tion of the passage given in i Pet. ii. 9, 10 : compare Eph. ii. 11-13. As for the wisdom of the Greeks, it was not true wisdom, for they had no knowledge of the One True God, and the very beginning of wisdom consists in revering Him (Ps. cxi. 10; Prov. i. 7; ix. 10). " The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God" (1 Cor. iii. 19).

4. 
   Deut. xxxiii. 2. Here the words, " The Lord came from Sinai " are said to refer to the giving of the Law to Moses: " And rose from Seir unto them," to the " descent" of the Injll: while " He shined forth from Mount Paran " is claimed as a prophecy of the bestowal of the Qur'&n, since it is said that one of the hills near Mecca is called by a similar name. But the context shows that Moses is here making no reference either to the Injtl or to the Qur'&n. He is reminding the Israelites how widely God's glory was seen when they were encamped near Mt. Sinai. The map shows that Sinai, Seir,.and Paran ¹ are three mountains quite close to one another. They are in the Sinaitic Penin­sula, many hundreds of miles from Mecca. This is clear from the other places where Paran is mentioned (Gen. xiv. 6 ; Num. x. 12 ; xii. 15 ; xiii. 3; Deut. i. 1 ; x Kings xi. 18).
   
5. 
   Ps. xlv. is said to be a prophecy regarding Muhammad, since he is called " the Prophet with the sword ", and it is thought that verses 3-5 are especially applicable to him. But there are two answers, either one of which alone would suffice to refute this theory. One is that in ver. 6 we read, " Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." Muslims never claim that
   

¹ See a full answer in IlMtul Mujtahidin, pp. 84 sqq.

Muhammad was God. The other is that in Heb. i. 8, 9, it is clearly stated that ver. 6 is an address to Christ. The " King's daughter " of ver. 13 is the spiritual bride of Christ, that is, the Christian Church (compare Rev. xxi. 2), and the foes defeated are Satan and all his hosts and those men whom he has stirred up to oppose Christ's Gospel (see Rev. xix. 11-21). Other similar prophecies about Christ are found in Pss. ii, lxxii, ex. Probably first of all the psalm had reference to Solomon's marriage with Pharaoh's daughter (1 Kings iii. 1), and this wedding is taken as a type of the spiritual union between Christ and His Church.

4. 
   Ps. cxlix. is also claimed as a prophecy about Muhammad. The " New song" (ver. 1) is said to be the Qur'&n, and the " two-edged sword " (ver. 6) suits the " Prophet with the sword". 'All too had such a sword, and used it in Muhammad's service. The "king" in ver. 2 is said to be Muhammad. But the Muslims do not use singing in their worship, and the Qur'&n cannot be described as in any sense a " song ". The sword is not said to be in the king's hands, but in that of the Israelites, and with it they were to avenge themselves upon their enemies. The " king " in ver. 2 is in the first part of the verse said to be the Creator, and in ver. 4 He is called the Lord. In no sense can it be said that Muhammad was King of Israel. Nor could the Israelites "rejoice" in him, as we shall see, if we remember how he treated the Band Nadhir, the Banft Qainuqi', the Banil Quraizah and other Jewish communities.
   
5. 
   Some refer chapter v. 16, of the Song of Songs, to Muhammad, simply because in the Hebrew the word ntahamaddtm, " delights," " delightfulriesses," occurs there, and is derived from the same root. But we find that the word in Hebrew is a common, and not a proper noun, as the use of the plural here shows. The same word occurs again as a common noun in Hosea ix. 6, 16 ; 1 Kings xx. 6 ; Lam. i. 10, 11; ii. 4; Joel iv. 5 ; Isa. lxiv. 10 ; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 19; Ezek. xxiv.
   

16, 21, 25. In the last passage (Ezek. xxiv. 16, "the desire of thine eyes") it is applied to a woman, Ezekiel's wife (compare ver. 18), and to the sons and daughters of the idolatrous Jews (ver. 25). It would be just as wise to apply the word to Muljammad here as in the Song of Songs. In Arabic many words are formed from the same root x**., but they do not on that account denote Muhammad. An ignorant Muslim might just as well assert that Muhammad's name occurred in SGrah i, AI Fdtihah, ver. 1 : AI hamdo lillahi Rabbi Talamin (" Praise be to God, the Lord of the worlds"). In the same way a Hindil might assert that the name of R£m or some other of his deities was mentioned in the Qur'in, because in Stirah xxx, Ar Rilm, ver. 1, we read j^pf ^.lii, " the Romans have been overcome," where Arabic dictionaries give RUm as if derived from the root rdm. This kind of argument is unworthy of men of learning and judge­ment.