![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Curious on opinions about this. Having the name of Muhammad inside psalms seems more important than any prophecy that might alude to him. If no one has a problem, I'd like to add Psalms 5:16 to the article mistknight ( talk) 22:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm3sZfPwv1g
One source referred to is Shi'ite World. Is the idea that Muhammad is prefigured in the Bible a specifically Shi'ite belief? Michael Glass ( talk) 23:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. my first language is farsi and this article there is in wiki farsi and arabic That there are a link for this page. and I source Persian under Article bringing This is: Introduction to the Gospel of Barnabas, Seyed Mahmoud Taleghani, publishing Supplication p. 234 in farsi: (مقدمه سید محمود طالقانی بر انجیل برنابا، نشر نیایش ص ۲۳۳و234) Hamedvahid ( talk) 14:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted a big addition by User:Zishan ahamed thandar which probably contained some useful stuff. It was not however, written from a neutral point of view. Writing Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) rather than Muhammad is not neutral. Tigerboy1966 07:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the two central sections of this article which appear to be almost entirely unsourced (or inappropriately sourced). Any content here must be backed-up by reliable secondary sources. If a reliable source makes the point that something in the Bible is relevant, then we can cite that source; it seems from the external links at the end of the article that such sources do exist. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 16:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
This article is currently under consideration as "fringe" by the Fringe theories noticeboard. I don't know if they were ever planning to give notice of that here. Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 19:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I have to think that the existing title for this article is less than optimum. Muhammad was born several hundred years after the last book of the "Bible" was written, and so obviously does not himself necessarily make any provable appearances in it. Prophecies regarding Muhammad in the Bible or Islamic views about Muhammad in the Bible or something similar would be much less ambiguous, and also potentially less POV pushing, as the current title seems to at least passively indicate that Muhammad was clearly discussed in the Bible, and I am far from sure that these prophecies have been given any substantive attention outside of Islam. Any opinions? John Carter ( talk) 15:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I am myself not sure at all whether Muslims consider the alleged Gospel of Barnabas to have been "Biblical," but I gather that, for all practical purposes, they do. That being the case, it probably makes more sense to have that information added to the other article, which would be a better place to indicate that they do have a rather variant view of the Bible. And, if that material is moved there, honestly, I think the rest could just as easily follow, given the rather poor level of development of that article. John Carter ( talk) 16:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm also open to considering different naming conventions for the merge target, but that aside, it is clear that this article belongs rolled up into that larger topic. Hiberniantears ( talk) 00:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
FYI, Following some high-impact recent edits, I have raised a query on this article at FT/N. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 06:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Please don't delete things that are referenced. There a lot of discrimination on wiki against islam already. recently when I use google for what ever scientific research medical etc and put wiki I get wikiislam of wikipedia. Wikiislam is full of insults against islam. Now can muslims edit anywhere in wikipedia these days? Dananmohammad ( talk) 07:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
all of wiki islam plus wikipedia is a playground for anti-islamic propaganda. you have 2 billion muslims a third of humanity and their knowledge is not allowed in wiki??? why prevent knwoledge from reaching people. what s the point?what is the benefit?why preventing few people from getting to know the subject? Dananmohammad ( talk) 19:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
You can't just delete everything. request citation needed for the item of dispute. As long as I have 2 punlished resources that is more than enough for the item to stay. 64.122.144.190 ( talk) 20:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I fixed all that today.Please don't delete the verses since I chose the LXX version that better explain the topic (being in future tense etc) The verses are not intended for you to see if u already know them, some people don't, some people would like to differ with your opinion, if u dont mind. again dont cut the verses. Dananmohammad ( talk) 23:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I understand every thing, you are bullying me.and discriminating against muslims by deleting their contributions . Now understand that u can not delete the whole article because of one statement , you delete only the statement that u believe it is not supported by references. Stop deleting everything. I just used prove it gadget and every thing fine, all references are academic and reliable. No fringe theory here since 2 billion muslims believe the quran that says the Prophet is foretold in the bible. 2 billion as base and few hundred millions here and there like the other two billions who are not jews or christians and you get a majority for this article.u are dissing the article because u are offended on religious base, if so then delete all the editing against islam and muslims in wikipedia. u cant have it both ways. Wikipedia is more becoming like the thousand nights and night because of all the lies included in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dananmohammad ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
There is an interesting article in the Integrated Encyclopedia of the Qur'an with a couple of sections about this. It is by G. F. Haddad. I have yet to read it, but thought it might prove useful. Wiqi( 55) 05:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The Hebrew form in this verse is not too directly comparable in form or meaning with Arabic Muħammad, for reasons discussed in detail on Talk:Song of Songs; to start with, the Hebrew word has a plural ending, and the basic meaning of Semitic abstract triconsonantal root ħ-m-d in Arabic — ح م د — is "to praise", while the basic meaning of root ħ-m-d in Hebrew — חםד — is "to desire". Some might find the fact that the Hebrew word occurs in the middle of a sensuous or quasi-erotic passage to be incongruous... AnonMoos ( talk) 19:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
When I came onto this article, its title and content was Islamist, suggesting that it was concrete fact that Muhammad was foretold. I had to copy references which had been cherry-picked out, such as that the Gospel of Barnabas is as reliable a historical artefact as The Life of Brian. Please can we keep this article in a neutral, secular, academic perspective. This is not a conspiracy soapbox. Indiasummer95 ( talk) 22:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
This is getting edit warred now and should be discussed. The Lede is supposed to reflect information substantiated in the article body. In the article body it says: "According to Albert Hourani, initial interactions between Christian and Muslim peoples was characterized by hostility on the part of the Europeans because they interpreted Muhammad in a Biblical context as being the Antichrist. (reference)" However, in the lede it says: "Some Christians, however, have believed or believe that Muhammad was foretold in the Bible as the Antichrist." This is not saying the same thing at all but endorsing and pushing Hourani's opinion into something else entirely, and seems like an inadequate summary of the referenced material. I would suggest using a lot more caution with summarising and quoting material to make sure we are not misquoting it. Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 14:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Now we have a section entitled "Muhammad as false prophet", but then it talks more about the "antichrist" than the "false prophet" (two distinct concepts or entities in the Book of Revelations)... I think this needs more work? Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 14:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The account given on this article isn't entirely consistent with that on the Gospel of Barnabas article (where it's claimed that its earliest known origin was a renaissance or late-medieval annotator of a "Gospel of Barnabas" manuscript)... AnonMoos ( talk) 08:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
the title of the video on youtube is: Muhammad in the Bible | The Irrefutable Proof | The Absolute Truth
I have Irrefutable Proofs that the Bible heralded the Coming of Prophet Muhammad:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdgEHd9hylA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.99.44 ( talk) 09:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Please do not falsely lable edits as vandalism when they clearly are not. As for the word apostle, it is difficult to see how it is more "accurate" to u7se a Greek word than an English one, when the English one is clearer, and the alleged prophesies referred to are in various languages. How can "apostle" possibly be "more accurate"? The word means messenger. Paul B ( talk) 09:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Copied from [3]
Hello NeilN, the reason of removal. Is someone calling the AntiChrist relevant to the subject here? Christians have numereous people named the anti-christ. You can cut and paste what I removed under the section Anti Christ.
The article is about where you can find or see Muhammed/Ahmad in the bible. Not about claims of being the anti-christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.73.234 ( talk) 22:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Various religions or certain people of the religion?
When you say. "Muhammed in the Bible" as your Chapter it is not "Anti-Christ in the bible".
The Koran is Linked through some passages one-on-one to some passages in the bible.(That should be shown here regardless of your opinion)
Not of the interpretation of some Christian priest/pastor/monks thinks how to understand some passages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.73.234 ( talk) 22:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
This article is part of Islamic View of Bible. Obviously muslims did not consider the Prophet as anti christ.
this section should not be part of this article (Muhammad in Bible) this article should be run by muslims only not to add specifically anti muslims to the editors. For example Barlow just removed a huge section yesterday I returned back from another editor in 2013
there was also another huge section removed with plenty of references but removed by same Barlow, who obviously anti islamic because he commented that the addition is gibberish (not understood) while it was clearly understood to me!!
and the reference for Songs verse and Habakuk verse 3-1, and Psalm 84 as foretelling Muhammad is found in the two books of Tha'labi
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Parishector ( talk • contribs) 07:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
al-Tha'labi was also a Jewish convert to Islam who expounded on that Zion found in David's Psalms was not other than Mount Hera in the Pharan mountains outside oof Mecca, Becca or Baca is an old name of Mecca as explained in Mecca wiki page. David in Psalm 84 tells how he was worshipping by the house of God in Baca and that the awaited prophet will be from the valley of Baca and the angles will rain blessings on him that covers even Moriah which is a little hill by the Kaaba (Beit-Allah or Beit-el in the bible) so there is much evidence mentioned by Tha'labi an interpreter of Quran and the fourth recognised interpretation books about quran beside Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Qurtubi.
Need to stop gross deletion based on insultive comments like Gibberith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parishector ( talk • contribs)
The added material was deleted in 2013, and it is not gibberish. if it was gibberish then you can fix it with out deletion. There is an outstanding reference al-Tha'labi the famous commentator on the Quran who was originally Jewish scholar. You have also contemporay Kalbi, the verses in song of songs 5:16 and Habakuk3:1 and others should be included. even the verses that are lost now but existed in 9th 11 century as rferred by Tabari and others (previously christian and Jewish scholars) , for example, Baghdadi, Samawal mentioned Deu 18: as" A prophet I will raise up for them like you from their nearby brethren, to him they will listen"
the current Hebrew Bible says instead of "to him they will listen" something else"I will put my words in his mouth" even though Baghdadi a jewish scholar and son of chief rabbi of Andalusia, said he used the version of Saadia Gaoni a century before, and the English translator of Baghdadi book, also a jew, claimed in his translation that Baghdadi verse is different from the current verse. more evidence to the changes been made to the bible throughout the years. Salibi and Abraham ibn Ezra both said the Bible language is Arabi, and so Arabic translators are better equipped to translate the bible into english since it is their language for god sake. the article can not be made to conform to the current Hebrew bible because it is wrong according to arabic translators, so their commentaries and the true translations should be allowed, since the bible is not owned by current jews since they are not the ancient jews being non semitic peoples who are at odds with reading the bible which is not their language04:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC) It is ridiculous that jews and christians make upi this article. Muhammad in the Bible can not be edited by anti muslims christians and jews since they deny that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible even though they know it and are continously deleting the evidences.03:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no unified universal view shared by all people of the earth that Muhammad was foretold or not foretold in the bible, so the article should be divided between muslim view section and non muslim (christians jews etc) view section. Since article was part of "Islamic View of the bible"04:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC) The not muslim editors like Paul (Paul name is not used by muslims since saint Paul is considered the enemy of Jesus by Muslims) These editors only allow some verses and allow only partial explainations for each verse to show how weak muslim claim is. This is ridiculous. Parishector ( talk) 04:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no sides here but the muslim side . It is an article about what the muslims belived what verses foretold about Muhammad. The Song of songs verse is mentioned by published books like Kalbi and others, also Zion mentioned by Thaalabi a renowned interpreter (jewish convert to islam). this article is not a discussion or taking consensus between jews christians and muslims about which Bible verses really foretold Muhammad. It is about the published records of the opinion of the muslim side without regard to others opinion. Others opinion could be made in a different page, or in subsection of jewish and christians refutations which have many books published in that topic precisely. But first it is needed to bring all not partial verses muslims claimed Muhammad in the Bible, not to be apologetic and sensor some verses because it is owned by some people and they read it differently!!! Parishector ( talk) 02:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I see this page has been renamed, is there a supporting discussion for the move?-- Inayity ( talk) 04:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
It's inappropriate. The first senence now says that Muhammad, not Jesus, is the messiah in Islam, which is just plain wrong. See Messiah#Islam. Many of the biblical passages claimed to refer to Muhammad are not messainic prophesies at all. So the title should be changed back, and the content too. Paul B ( talk) 08:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
What is the point of this edit by Jeff which replaced the well written and sourced article by ربيع الغد with the current poor artice?! I see no rational reason for this action! Paul B and AnonMoos didn't give any rational arguments in the discussion here. This old version of the article is well sourced and organized. It is much better than the current one. The problem of Paul B with the first sentence of that version is in fact irrational at all, because that same sentence is well sourced. Check the reference given for it: David Benjamin Keldani. Muhammad in World Scriptures (Volume II): The Bible (Malaysian edition 2006 ed.). Page 238-239. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.107.103.37 ( talk) 11:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you comprehend the silliness of your words?! first of all, you accused me of being ignorant about my own faith even though I have been a Muslim for more than 25 years and there is nothing in my restoration of this version that is not Islamic. Then, you asked me to read Messiah#Islam which is not a reliable reference in the first place. Why should I read your unreliable reference?! Why don't you read the reliable reference of David Benjamin Keldani. Muhammad in World Scriptures (Volume II): The Bible (Malaysian edition 2006 ed.). Page 238-239; which is cited in the lead of this version? Then, you committed a groundless accusation against me that I am a sockpuppet! I consider this false accusation of yours to be a wicked way to justify your filthy behavior in vandalizing the Islam-related articles.-- 5.107.103.37 ( talk) 23:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
What can we do to reduce the strife here? It would probably be useful to identify which particular statements people (especially Muslims) are having concerns about. While obviously we can't entertain edits that amount to Wikipedia saying in its own voice "there is only one God and Muhammad is His Prophet", there are probably things we can do to reduce WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:SOAPBOX editwarring.
Right off the bat, I can see people having issues with the word "claimed" in the lead sentence. From a scientific standpoint, all prophecies are simply claimed, so the word is arguably redundant, as it might be for "miracles", "revelations", "angels", "virgin birth" and a zillion other religious terms, at least if sentences are constructed carefully. Attribution should be enough. We can refer to "accounts" or "descriptions" of these things in religious scriptures, for example. There isn't anything doubtful about whether the account/description was present, and their presence in a religious text says nothing about whether they actually happened. If this messy construction actually means that the existence of these prophecies (by someone) isn't in doubt, and that they are (in the religious sense, not some proven to be actually predictive sense) prophecies, and that it's just their attribution to Muhammad that is at issue among scholars of the Abrahamic religion and/or among religious leaders and adherent, then this badly needs to be clarified. It is not necessary (see WP:LEAD) to retain the exact phrase "Muhammad in the Bible" and boldface it in the lead. This is not a WP:COMMONNAME title, it's WP-invented descriptive title (a form of disambiguation, in the broad sense; see WP:AT#Disambiguation). Thus, we are free to write whatever lead is necessary to convey what controversy this article has been written about and what the exact nature of it is. The first sentence should probably still contain "Muhammad" and "Bible", but other than that, rewrite for clarity over conformance with the phrase in the title.
Anyway, a problem-identification-and-solving approach to possible rewordings of things like "claimed prophecies" like this should be pursued for everything in this and similar articles that attracts revertwarring, I would think.
PS: The entire lead needs cleanup; if we're going to write as amateurishly as "expanded on these arguments and have argued to", why not go with "arguably expanded on these arguable arguments and are argued to have argued to want to arguing about"? >;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The article is a heap of TF, OR and the mentioned literature is a series of fringy pamphlets. It confirms Karl-Heinz Ohlig idea about the Quuran including some nice copy and paste from the bible, especially with regard to the Messsias pprophecy, not the other way round. The article contains no actual research, its a collection of quotes, primary sopurcing at its worst. Take the long history of e.g. Abraham Geigers Quuran research, starting with his doctorate, take current scholars like Angelika Neuwirth or others, covering the use of biblical and pagan historical texts in the Quuran and the projection of the Jewish Messias prophecies in Islam. But avoid a mess of pedestrian area preachermen like this. This article in its current state is worthless and should be deleted. Polentarion Talk 19:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
As I'm just coming across this article, I'm not understanding why there are citation to the Qur'an and ahadeeth at the opening. This is about supposed mentions of Muhammad in the bible, and not a forum of comparison between the bible and Qur'an, even as a backdrop. I propose we delete it. Trinacrialucente ( talk) 03:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
"Some Christians say that the Comforter mentioned in these prophecies refers to the Holy Sprit. They fail to realise that the prophecy clearly says that only if Jesus departs will the Comforter come. The Bible states that the Holy Spirit was already present on earth before and during the time of Jesus, in the womb of Elizabeth, and again when Jesus was being baptised, etc. Hence this prophecy refers to none other than Muhammad." -- I'm a christian so I'm not 100% comfortable rewording this in a more secular way, if that makes sense, but it (and a couple of other places) could do with a tweak? FlannyBabes ( talk) 21:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
This edit " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Muhammad_in_the_Bible&diff=prev&oldid=807432306" should be reversed. The change was to a direct quotation of the NASB and introduces a direct quotation error. MetaEd ( talk) 21:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. See consensus to rename this article as proposed. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! ( closed by page mover) Paine Ellsworth put'r there 04:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Muhammad in the Bible → Muhammad and the Bible – More WP:NPOV than the current current title, seemingly implying position on its content. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 23:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Under the section of Isaiah 42, the article reads "Muslim authors, pointing to the similarity between the writing of "אתמך"(etmokh) and the writing of "אחמד" which is the name Ahmad, suggested that an intended distortion might have been done by the scribes of Scripture in the first verse of this chapter in order to hide the name of the Chosen Servant of God which is "אחמד" (Ahmad)."
Which Muslim author makes this claim? There is no citation. Furthermore, I'm not sure that Muslim apologetics should be included in this Wiki page. I'd propose removing this part entirely.
I've already cleaned up a bit of this page (there's tons of apologetic language, completely irrelevant information, etc). Another problem in this page is, as the box says on the top, an abundance of unreliable sources. A quick look at the bibliography turns up a book written by Ahmed Deedat. The publishers of the book, 'ideas4islam' seem to be totally obscure (I can't find them at all online) and certainly not academic. Reference to Deedat's work certainly violates WP:IRS. They should be removed as well.
EDIT: I took another look at the page and there's an entire section (a big one, at that) with absolutely no sources -- the 'People "with Muhammad" in the Bible' section. If no sources can be offered for this section either, it should be entirely removed. ( talk) 00:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've already performed a number of edits. I just removed the references to Zakir Naik in this article. When this page quoted Genesis 49:10-11 from the NASB, it oddly left in the footnotes -- I removed this as well. Do you agree with removing the unreliable references to Deedat and completely removing the 'People with Muhammad in the Bible'? I ask this since I don't want to remove such a big chunk of the page (which is clearly very poor anyways) without some agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 02:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I've removed references to Deedat. I'll take these new comments from you as a thumbs up to remove the People "with Muhammad" in the Bible section of this page. In fact, looking over the section, it is utterly irrelevant to the topic of Muhammad in the Bible -- the entire section is about how prophets in the Old Testament supposedly "prayed like Muslims". As it turns out, this is just another point of Muslim rhetoric that isn't relevant to the page. And again, there are no citations.
Edit: I also gutted the entire "external links" section. All these links go to obscure/irrelevant Muslim apologetics sites/blogs and one of the links simply doesn't work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 02:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
One definite problem this article has is the amazingly unreliable sources. What's worse is that it's unbelievavly difficult to check many of these sources because of how badly the references are written. A source that's definitely unreliable, however, is David Benjamin Keldani, so I'll go ahead and remove him as well here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 03:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I've been looking at the sources and it turns out this page is also chock-full of referencess to Izhar ul-Haqq written in the late 19th century by Rahmatullah Kairanawi. The book, which is actually several books (volumes) seems to be just one really long Muslim apologetic against Christianity, and so I'll summarily get rid of all that as well. Hopefully the references will begin looking a lot cleaner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 03:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes, that reverted edit of mine was a blunder. Anyways, my goal for the moment is that as I keep purging these unreliable sources, the reference list is going to look a lot more coherent and easier to look through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 03:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Quick question. Do you think 'Rahman, Afzalur. Muhammad: Encyclopaedia of Seerah - Volume 1' is a reliable source? If not, we can remove the entire Psalm 110 section since it's the only source available for that. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 05:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Gotcha. I had figured out it was a publication of the Seerah Foundation, though I wasn't able to evaluate anything about this. Can I also get your thoughts on Kais al-Alby's Prophet Muhammad: The last Messenger in the Bible ? This work makes up almost an eighth of all the remaining 40 citations.
Another point to make. We should be careful about some 'biased readers' of this page, let's say, trying to undo all the editing that we went through. A check on the edit history shows that someone tried to completely revert the page back to its original version (hence adding back over 25,000 characters) on the basis of "Do not remove muslim's point of view". Of course, Wikipedia is based on the perspective of reliable Muslim sources, not what random Muslim readers would like to see here. I should also add that I'm also starting some content into the page as well -- after the Muslim perspective is described for a particular passage in its relation to Muhammad, I've also provided summaries and references to the scholarly interpretation of the same text (I've done this for Isaiah 29:11-12 and the Parable of the Wicked Husbandman). [Edit: I've now also done this for Deuteronomy 18.] Anyways, do tell me what you think of the reliability of Kalby's work.
Update: The publisher of his book is Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc. This is certainly not a reliable publisher of any sort, so I'll remove Kalby's book. With it will go the section on Genesis 49 as he's the only source for it. I'm also going to remove references to Mundiqh as-Saqqar, yet another unreliable source with self-published books. Since yesterday, over 31,000 characters have been removed from the page (and a lot more than 31,000 unreliable charcters if you consider that I've also added several thousand characters worth of reliable information in the meanwhile)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 14:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Since you're curious about how much left is built around reliable sources, I'll give you my understanding so far (since I've been working on the references for so long). I've already purged three fourths of the bibliography and close two thirds of the references. There were something like 70 references, now there are 26. Five of those are my own addition -- all certainly reliable. There are still five references I'm skeptical of (10-14 and 16 as of this edit). I'm also not very happy at books like The Qur'an and the Gospels: A Comparative Study - a "reliable" source written by an expert (Abu Laylah) and published by Tughra Books -- of course, when you start reading it, you get references to the Gospel of Barnabas and other totally fringe nonsense.
Edit: Here's an interesting development. Abu Laylah's book is actually never referenced throughout the article, though it's in the bibliography. Should we remove it, or should we source the currently existing sections with it? Perhaps we can just leave it for now. I think a more useful pursuit with our time would be providing the scholarly interpretations of all passages that Muslims believe refer to Muhammad (I've already done half of them, but help would be appreciated -- I just added in a summary like this for Deuteronomy 33:2 though I forgot to add in an explanation in the edit summary).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 22:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Yep, I noticed the Gospel of Barnabas thing, though I had a little hope in me since there's almost not a single reliable source from the Muslim viewpoint written in the last century on the page when I began fixing it. Nevertheless, I agree with you. By the way, I also added the critical scholarly interpretation of Isaiah 42 under the Islamic interpretation. It looks pretty good to me.
I think I should summarize all the problems I see remaining at this point. There are two general ones.
1. Firstly, there's still no summary of the academic position on the interpretation of the Paraclete in John's Gospel. This should be added with several references.
2. Referencing.
a) There are three hadiths cited in the page. They are
The problem is that there are so many editions and versions of the Hadiths that it's impossible for me to check over the veracity of any of these references for what they're being referenced for, or anyone, for that matter.
b) The only reference in the section for the Paraclete. This is it;
The problem is ... page 50 of WHAT exactly? Certainly not clarified. I would normally delete this right away, but the problem is that this is the only reference in the entire Paraclete section. Now, normally yet again, this would just lead me to deleting the entire section, but the problem is that the Paraclete is, in my experience, the most often quoted 'prophecy' of Muhammad in the entire Bible. So here are the options I'm considering. Either I leave this section alone and it stays incoherent. That's one possibility. Or, I remove the entire thing and this Wikipedia page can just wait until someone with better sources can come and add it back. I'm leaning towards the second option. If the second option is chosen, that also solves having to deal with the first problem I mentioned (adding academic position on the Paraclete). Thoughts?
Update: Honestly, I'm just going to remove it. There really is no justification for keeping it on the page if there isn't a reliable source.
Update 2: The final problem is, then, the three Hadith references. Well, I made a lot of progress here. I fixed all the citations for all three of them so they actually look like coherent citations, and two of them have links directly to a page where anyone can see the Hadith. There's only one hadith I'm still having trouble with -- Al-Mustadrak alaa al-Sahihain, Hadith number 4224. The problem is that I can't find an English translation of it anywhere. What are we to do here?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 23:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Dear God, Aleph, I've actually done it. I found a real, reliable source that isn't downright biased or incoherent (incoherent as in impossible to check the veracity of, like the citations to that Hadith and all of al-Samawal's references) on the Muslim perspective of prophecies on Muhammad! Here it is -- Ira Zepp's A Muslim Primer: Beginner's Guide to Islam, University of Arkansas Press, 2000, 50-51. It can be accessed on Google Books. It's only two pages, but that's still two pages more than the rest of what we've got. Apparently the author is a Christian, so I'm not worrying about bias here (and it's written rather well). It provides references for Isaiah 42, the Paraclete, and Haggai 2:7 -- a verse that isn't on the Wiki page yet (but is about to be). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 05:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I think it's time to remove the box at the top of the page about the 'multiple issues'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 06:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Just had to say thanks to you guys for looking into this. And 70.49.181.61, please WP:INDENT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Editor2020:, I noticed you tried to bring all this information from the Paraclete article into the page. If you look at the edit history of the page from the last week, you'll realize it was all already there, and then removed, for several reasons, including 1) the swathe of incoherent citations and 2) the swathe of unreliable sources this section contains. If you want to make any specific addition from the Paraclete page, discuss them here first. In the meanwhile, I'm going to go to that page myself and start removing some of that information. 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 16:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
{{ helpme}} Books of Ahmed Deedat, Rahmatullah Kairanawi are unreliable sources? Why? Should we remove them from reference? -- Ahmad Kanik ( talk) 17:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
There should be a section in this page regarding the Qur'ans claims (and even Hadiths) of Muhammad being mentioned in the Bible. One such verse is Qur'an 7:157, there are others. I would add in the section myself but I'm not aware of any reliable sources to supplement such a section.
The view of modern scholars. All in all, if the article is now reasonably stable (it may not be), it could be time to rewrite the lead per WP:LEAD and remove the banner. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Since it's content is about Islam and all, shouldn't there be the word Hazrat before his name and the abbreviation S.A.W (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) after? -- 09:27, 28 July 2019 39.40.38.58
AntanO, please und this move, it's a bad idea. The article contains other views, even in the lead. Even if it was Islamic only it would probably be a bad idea, since there's no other articles on the topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Gospel of Barnabas is not Bible. This section has to be removed or moved to suitable article. -- Antan O 15:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Removed this passage because it is uncited, implausible, and irrelevant: "Another Christian objection to the claim that Muhammad is prophesied in Isaiah 42 is that in the Quran Chapter 7, verse 157, it says Muhammad is mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel. However, the Torah is only the five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri and Deuteronomy). Isaiah is not part of the Torah." – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
If you like to add Christian objection about Islamic view on Muhammad in the Bible, read Is Muhammad Mentioned in the Bible?. BTW, does Muslim accept Bible as reliable? -- Antan O 12:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Roscelese, it struck me now that it would make an amount of sense to make it
Perhaps GoB could be folded into the Islam-section. Opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The article has some issues as it tagged. Whoever, object or like to improve the article can talk here. -- Antan O 18:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
First, you have to see that this article is written in Islamic view and references supported with Muslim scholars. Then, POV added, and you can see HERE how it was changing by adding, deleting, twisting, etc. When I questioned only, you change some POVs which tell how you like to develop this article. Again, I tell you remove Christian view which is already mentioned in another article. Rename to suitable title and remove POV portion and have a neutral article. If not, let's talk :) -- Antan O 03:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
You cannot remove unless it solved. You avoids my question. If you want, i can list again. -- Antan O 02:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I've belatedly removed these random, frivolous tags. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm finding sources that indicate that this is a thing people believe (that Isaiah 29:11-12 on the sealed book and the illiterate dude is a prophecy of Muhammad being illiterate) but nothing of citable quality. Just wanted to mention it on talk in case anything does turn up. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Could use some sources about what muslim scholars claims about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Roscelese, Materialscientist, I'd like your input on the edits by Piers77. I find the extensive changes, removal of Christian views from the lead, un-reffed additions and possibly the change of Bible-translation for some reason problematic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
[7] May have something useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I will check it out. Thanks for sharing!-- Piers77 ( talk) 05:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The Islamicizing edits of the user Piers77, an account created a few weeks ago with the sole purpose ( according to their edit history) of bringing this page in line with Islamic orthodoxy, have been entirely removed. Editshmedt ( talk) 22:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
The following is clear documentation that Piers77 has excised any scholarly critiques of his Islamic beliefs that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible. My reversion of Piers77 edits can be found here and reveal the following:
1. Piers77 removed the section that said "Scholars consider that the poem [of Deut. 33:2] serves as a Yahwistic declaration for the blessing of the future of Israel as a socially unified whole that will benefit and prosper through YHWH's beneficence. The poem relates YHWH's movement from the south from Mount Sinai, the mountain where He resides, to His entrance on the scene as a "formidable invading force."" Clearly, the scholarly interpretation per Brueggeman's work is incompatible with reading Muhammad into a text that didn't include him to begin with.
2. Piers77 removed the section that said "In 1892, Isaiah 42:1-4 was first identified by Bernhard Duhm as one of the Servant songs in the Book of Isaiah, along with Is. 49:1-6; Is. 50:4-7; and Is. 52:13-53:12. The Old Testament identifies the servant of the Servant songs as the Israelite's in Is. 41:8-9; Is. 44:1; Is. 44:21; Is. 45:4; Is. 48:20 and Is. 49:3. John Barton and John Muddiman write that "The idea of a 'servant' played a small part in the earlier chapters, being used as a designation of the unworthy Eliakim in 22:20 and of the figure of David in 37:35, but it now comes to the fore as a description of major significance, the noun being used more than 20 times in chs. 40-55. Its first usage is obviously important in establishing the sense in which we are to understand it, and here it is clear that the community of Israel/Jacob is so described." The reason why Piers77 removed the scholarly interpretation of Isaiah 42 is clear. The servant is Israel, not Muhammad. Just like Christian apologists, Piers77 wishes to insert their prophet into a text which includes no such thing.
3. Piers77 edits are chock full drowned in Islamic apologetism and includes no discussion of recent scholarship. For example, Piers77 cites Munqidh Bin Mahmoud Assaqqar's The Promised Prophet of the Bible (2007). Scrolling through the removed parts of Piers77 edits, there are literally tons of Arabic language books written by Islamic clerics on the topic.
And it goes on and on. I'd rather Piers77 Islamicizing edits be excluded completely from here on out. Editshmedt ( talk) 23:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I have also reverted Piers77 attempt to remove the scholarly translation of Deut. 18 with the Brenton Septuagint Translation, a translation that is over 150 years old, predates the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and virtually all modern scholarship on textual criticism. Not only that, but this isn't even a translation of the Hebrew Bible, it's a translation of the Septuagint. So, why exactly did Piers77 remove modern scholarly translations of Deut. 18 and replace it with a 150 year old outdated translation of a text that isn't even the Hebrew Bible? Simple - he's Islamicizing edits. The problem for Piers77 is that all modern scholarly translators state that Deut. 18 is speaking about a prophet being raised from "among your [Moses's] people" - i.e. the Israelite's. This is a big problem for Piers77 because it means that the consensus of modern scholarly translations of the original language of the text don't allow Muhammad to be forced into the text. Unable to read Hebrew himself or cope with this, Piers77 simply declares earlier in this talk page that modern scholarly translators are ... lying. He writes "I am really angry of how the translators of New American Standard Bible provided a dishonest translation of the original text in Hebrew of Deuteronomy 18:15 and Deuteronomy 18:18." As I noted earlier, I'd rather Piers77 Islamicizing edits be excluded completely from here on out. Editshmedt ( talk) 22:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The introduction to this article is very leading into the Muslim perspective instead of presenting the information from a neutral point of view. This discussion is meant to develop and improve on a proposed previous version that states the Muslim and Christian views plainly, instead of seemingly assuming perspectives as being objective. When they are both subjective.
"The belief that Muhammad was the "long awaited Prophet" prophesied by other prophets of Islam in the Bible is a fundamental part of Islamic theology that traces its roots to the text of the Quran.[1][2] Quran 3:81, Quran 7:157, and Quran 48:29 are often cited in this context. Quran 61:6 says that Jesus himself brought good news about the close advent of Muhammad. Muslim historians and hagiographers (such as Ibn Ishaq) maintained that the people of Medina accepted Islam because of their awareness of these prophecies, and because they saw Muhammad as fulfilling them.[3] The messianic prophecy in Isaiah 42 about the "Chosen One of God" rising among the children of Qedar in mount Sela was cited by Muhammad's own companion Abd Allah ibn Amr.[4][5]
Christians like John of Damascus and John Calvin argued that Muhammad was the Antichrist or a false prophet.[6]"
"The belief that Muhammad was the "long awaited Prophet" prophesied by other prophets of Islam in the Bible is a fundamental part of Islamic theology that traces its roots to the text of the Quran" --- This fails to identify the belief as a muslim perspective, and proceeds to present the Muslim perspective as seemingly objective due to the poor sentence structure with "Muhammad was the "long awaited Prophet" prophesied by other prophets of Islam in the Bible."
This was a previous version that acknowledges both the Muslim perspective and Christian view on the discussed verses. Although modifications to this and citations are encouraged and welcomed.
"Arguments that prophecies of Muhammad exists in the Bible have formed part of Muslim tradition from the early history of Muhammad's Ummah (Arabic: أُمَّة, community).[1] Christians like John of Damascus and John Calvin have interpreted Muhammad as being the Antichrist of the New Testament. The name "Muhammad" does not occur in the Bible.
Muslim writers have expanded on these viewpoints and have argued that they can specifically identify references to Muhammad in the text of the Bible, both in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and in the Christian New Testament. Several verses in the Quran, as well as several Hadiths, state that Muhammad is described in the Bible. On the other hand, scholars have generally interpreted these verses as referring to the community of Israel or Yahweh's personal soteriological actions regarding the Israelites or members of the faithful community. The apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas, which explicitly mentions Muhammad, is widely recognized by scholars as a fabrication from the Early Modern Age. Some Muslim scholars also claimed Paraclete (Greek New Testament) as Muhammad, which also has been criticised and rejected by scholars."
For the part of "The name "Muhammad" does not occur in the Bible." I would propose a modification that specifies that sentence for the english language. Although another sentence can be added refererring to the Muslim POV alledging that the meanings associated with Muhammad are believed to be in the bible. Hence the lack of "Muhammad" in english.
For the portion that mentions scholars have generally interpreted these verses as referring to the community of Israel or Yahweh's personal soteriological actions regarding the Israelites or members of the faithful community which was uncited in the previous version, it would be good to incorporate biblical scholastic views from possibly secular and or academic Christian studies if applicable as a replacement. ChaoticTexan ( talk) 08:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The current references in the Lead section are not formatted correctly and need to be fixed. Editor2020 ( talk) 23:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
The following are sections in this page I seek to remove for the following reasons:
gen 21 (this is about the ummah, not muhammad; the citations are unreliable and only go to arabic language books); gen 49 (no citations); psalm 110 (no citations); isaiah 21:7 (the only citation is unreliable and 150 years old); isaiah 54 (about mecca, not muhammad); daniel 2 (no citations); habakkuk 3:3 (about the hejaz, not muhammad); zechariah 4 (no citations) Editshmedt ( talk) 03:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Materialscientist Jeppiz ChaoticTexan Roscelese Tgeorgescu Some extra input/eyes could be useful at this time per this edit [10] Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
If someone can expand what that ref is, please do Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Curious on opinions about this. Having the name of Muhammad inside psalms seems more important than any prophecy that might alude to him. If no one has a problem, I'd like to add Psalms 5:16 to the article mistknight ( talk) 22:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm3sZfPwv1g
One source referred to is Shi'ite World. Is the idea that Muhammad is prefigured in the Bible a specifically Shi'ite belief? Michael Glass ( talk) 23:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. my first language is farsi and this article there is in wiki farsi and arabic That there are a link for this page. and I source Persian under Article bringing This is: Introduction to the Gospel of Barnabas, Seyed Mahmoud Taleghani, publishing Supplication p. 234 in farsi: (مقدمه سید محمود طالقانی بر انجیل برنابا، نشر نیایش ص ۲۳۳و234) Hamedvahid ( talk) 14:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted a big addition by User:Zishan ahamed thandar which probably contained some useful stuff. It was not however, written from a neutral point of view. Writing Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) rather than Muhammad is not neutral. Tigerboy1966 07:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the two central sections of this article which appear to be almost entirely unsourced (or inappropriately sourced). Any content here must be backed-up by reliable secondary sources. If a reliable source makes the point that something in the Bible is relevant, then we can cite that source; it seems from the external links at the end of the article that such sources do exist. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 16:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
This article is currently under consideration as "fringe" by the Fringe theories noticeboard. I don't know if they were ever planning to give notice of that here. Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 19:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I have to think that the existing title for this article is less than optimum. Muhammad was born several hundred years after the last book of the "Bible" was written, and so obviously does not himself necessarily make any provable appearances in it. Prophecies regarding Muhammad in the Bible or Islamic views about Muhammad in the Bible or something similar would be much less ambiguous, and also potentially less POV pushing, as the current title seems to at least passively indicate that Muhammad was clearly discussed in the Bible, and I am far from sure that these prophecies have been given any substantive attention outside of Islam. Any opinions? John Carter ( talk) 15:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I am myself not sure at all whether Muslims consider the alleged Gospel of Barnabas to have been "Biblical," but I gather that, for all practical purposes, they do. That being the case, it probably makes more sense to have that information added to the other article, which would be a better place to indicate that they do have a rather variant view of the Bible. And, if that material is moved there, honestly, I think the rest could just as easily follow, given the rather poor level of development of that article. John Carter ( talk) 16:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm also open to considering different naming conventions for the merge target, but that aside, it is clear that this article belongs rolled up into that larger topic. Hiberniantears ( talk) 00:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
FYI, Following some high-impact recent edits, I have raised a query on this article at FT/N. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 06:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Please don't delete things that are referenced. There a lot of discrimination on wiki against islam already. recently when I use google for what ever scientific research medical etc and put wiki I get wikiislam of wikipedia. Wikiislam is full of insults against islam. Now can muslims edit anywhere in wikipedia these days? Dananmohammad ( talk) 07:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
all of wiki islam plus wikipedia is a playground for anti-islamic propaganda. you have 2 billion muslims a third of humanity and their knowledge is not allowed in wiki??? why prevent knwoledge from reaching people. what s the point?what is the benefit?why preventing few people from getting to know the subject? Dananmohammad ( talk) 19:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
You can't just delete everything. request citation needed for the item of dispute. As long as I have 2 punlished resources that is more than enough for the item to stay. 64.122.144.190 ( talk) 20:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I fixed all that today.Please don't delete the verses since I chose the LXX version that better explain the topic (being in future tense etc) The verses are not intended for you to see if u already know them, some people don't, some people would like to differ with your opinion, if u dont mind. again dont cut the verses. Dananmohammad ( talk) 23:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I understand every thing, you are bullying me.and discriminating against muslims by deleting their contributions . Now understand that u can not delete the whole article because of one statement , you delete only the statement that u believe it is not supported by references. Stop deleting everything. I just used prove it gadget and every thing fine, all references are academic and reliable. No fringe theory here since 2 billion muslims believe the quran that says the Prophet is foretold in the bible. 2 billion as base and few hundred millions here and there like the other two billions who are not jews or christians and you get a majority for this article.u are dissing the article because u are offended on religious base, if so then delete all the editing against islam and muslims in wikipedia. u cant have it both ways. Wikipedia is more becoming like the thousand nights and night because of all the lies included in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dananmohammad ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
There is an interesting article in the Integrated Encyclopedia of the Qur'an with a couple of sections about this. It is by G. F. Haddad. I have yet to read it, but thought it might prove useful. Wiqi( 55) 05:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The Hebrew form in this verse is not too directly comparable in form or meaning with Arabic Muħammad, for reasons discussed in detail on Talk:Song of Songs; to start with, the Hebrew word has a plural ending, and the basic meaning of Semitic abstract triconsonantal root ħ-m-d in Arabic — ح م د — is "to praise", while the basic meaning of root ħ-m-d in Hebrew — חםד — is "to desire". Some might find the fact that the Hebrew word occurs in the middle of a sensuous or quasi-erotic passage to be incongruous... AnonMoos ( talk) 19:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
When I came onto this article, its title and content was Islamist, suggesting that it was concrete fact that Muhammad was foretold. I had to copy references which had been cherry-picked out, such as that the Gospel of Barnabas is as reliable a historical artefact as The Life of Brian. Please can we keep this article in a neutral, secular, academic perspective. This is not a conspiracy soapbox. Indiasummer95 ( talk) 22:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
This is getting edit warred now and should be discussed. The Lede is supposed to reflect information substantiated in the article body. In the article body it says: "According to Albert Hourani, initial interactions between Christian and Muslim peoples was characterized by hostility on the part of the Europeans because they interpreted Muhammad in a Biblical context as being the Antichrist. (reference)" However, in the lede it says: "Some Christians, however, have believed or believe that Muhammad was foretold in the Bible as the Antichrist." This is not saying the same thing at all but endorsing and pushing Hourani's opinion into something else entirely, and seems like an inadequate summary of the referenced material. I would suggest using a lot more caution with summarising and quoting material to make sure we are not misquoting it. Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 14:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Now we have a section entitled "Muhammad as false prophet", but then it talks more about the "antichrist" than the "false prophet" (two distinct concepts or entities in the Book of Revelations)... I think this needs more work? Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 14:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The account given on this article isn't entirely consistent with that on the Gospel of Barnabas article (where it's claimed that its earliest known origin was a renaissance or late-medieval annotator of a "Gospel of Barnabas" manuscript)... AnonMoos ( talk) 08:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
the title of the video on youtube is: Muhammad in the Bible | The Irrefutable Proof | The Absolute Truth
I have Irrefutable Proofs that the Bible heralded the Coming of Prophet Muhammad:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdgEHd9hylA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.99.44 ( talk) 09:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Please do not falsely lable edits as vandalism when they clearly are not. As for the word apostle, it is difficult to see how it is more "accurate" to u7se a Greek word than an English one, when the English one is clearer, and the alleged prophesies referred to are in various languages. How can "apostle" possibly be "more accurate"? The word means messenger. Paul B ( talk) 09:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Copied from [3]
Hello NeilN, the reason of removal. Is someone calling the AntiChrist relevant to the subject here? Christians have numereous people named the anti-christ. You can cut and paste what I removed under the section Anti Christ.
The article is about where you can find or see Muhammed/Ahmad in the bible. Not about claims of being the anti-christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.73.234 ( talk) 22:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Various religions or certain people of the religion?
When you say. "Muhammed in the Bible" as your Chapter it is not "Anti-Christ in the bible".
The Koran is Linked through some passages one-on-one to some passages in the bible.(That should be shown here regardless of your opinion)
Not of the interpretation of some Christian priest/pastor/monks thinks how to understand some passages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.73.234 ( talk) 22:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
This article is part of Islamic View of Bible. Obviously muslims did not consider the Prophet as anti christ.
this section should not be part of this article (Muhammad in Bible) this article should be run by muslims only not to add specifically anti muslims to the editors. For example Barlow just removed a huge section yesterday I returned back from another editor in 2013
there was also another huge section removed with plenty of references but removed by same Barlow, who obviously anti islamic because he commented that the addition is gibberish (not understood) while it was clearly understood to me!!
and the reference for Songs verse and Habakuk verse 3-1, and Psalm 84 as foretelling Muhammad is found in the two books of Tha'labi
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Parishector ( talk • contribs) 07:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
al-Tha'labi was also a Jewish convert to Islam who expounded on that Zion found in David's Psalms was not other than Mount Hera in the Pharan mountains outside oof Mecca, Becca or Baca is an old name of Mecca as explained in Mecca wiki page. David in Psalm 84 tells how he was worshipping by the house of God in Baca and that the awaited prophet will be from the valley of Baca and the angles will rain blessings on him that covers even Moriah which is a little hill by the Kaaba (Beit-Allah or Beit-el in the bible) so there is much evidence mentioned by Tha'labi an interpreter of Quran and the fourth recognised interpretation books about quran beside Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Qurtubi.
Need to stop gross deletion based on insultive comments like Gibberith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parishector ( talk • contribs)
The added material was deleted in 2013, and it is not gibberish. if it was gibberish then you can fix it with out deletion. There is an outstanding reference al-Tha'labi the famous commentator on the Quran who was originally Jewish scholar. You have also contemporay Kalbi, the verses in song of songs 5:16 and Habakuk3:1 and others should be included. even the verses that are lost now but existed in 9th 11 century as rferred by Tabari and others (previously christian and Jewish scholars) , for example, Baghdadi, Samawal mentioned Deu 18: as" A prophet I will raise up for them like you from their nearby brethren, to him they will listen"
the current Hebrew Bible says instead of "to him they will listen" something else"I will put my words in his mouth" even though Baghdadi a jewish scholar and son of chief rabbi of Andalusia, said he used the version of Saadia Gaoni a century before, and the English translator of Baghdadi book, also a jew, claimed in his translation that Baghdadi verse is different from the current verse. more evidence to the changes been made to the bible throughout the years. Salibi and Abraham ibn Ezra both said the Bible language is Arabi, and so Arabic translators are better equipped to translate the bible into english since it is their language for god sake. the article can not be made to conform to the current Hebrew bible because it is wrong according to arabic translators, so their commentaries and the true translations should be allowed, since the bible is not owned by current jews since they are not the ancient jews being non semitic peoples who are at odds with reading the bible which is not their language04:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC) It is ridiculous that jews and christians make upi this article. Muhammad in the Bible can not be edited by anti muslims christians and jews since they deny that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible even though they know it and are continously deleting the evidences.03:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no unified universal view shared by all people of the earth that Muhammad was foretold or not foretold in the bible, so the article should be divided between muslim view section and non muslim (christians jews etc) view section. Since article was part of "Islamic View of the bible"04:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC) The not muslim editors like Paul (Paul name is not used by muslims since saint Paul is considered the enemy of Jesus by Muslims) These editors only allow some verses and allow only partial explainations for each verse to show how weak muslim claim is. This is ridiculous. Parishector ( talk) 04:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no sides here but the muslim side . It is an article about what the muslims belived what verses foretold about Muhammad. The Song of songs verse is mentioned by published books like Kalbi and others, also Zion mentioned by Thaalabi a renowned interpreter (jewish convert to islam). this article is not a discussion or taking consensus between jews christians and muslims about which Bible verses really foretold Muhammad. It is about the published records of the opinion of the muslim side without regard to others opinion. Others opinion could be made in a different page, or in subsection of jewish and christians refutations which have many books published in that topic precisely. But first it is needed to bring all not partial verses muslims claimed Muhammad in the Bible, not to be apologetic and sensor some verses because it is owned by some people and they read it differently!!! Parishector ( talk) 02:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I see this page has been renamed, is there a supporting discussion for the move?-- Inayity ( talk) 04:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
It's inappropriate. The first senence now says that Muhammad, not Jesus, is the messiah in Islam, which is just plain wrong. See Messiah#Islam. Many of the biblical passages claimed to refer to Muhammad are not messainic prophesies at all. So the title should be changed back, and the content too. Paul B ( talk) 08:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
What is the point of this edit by Jeff which replaced the well written and sourced article by ربيع الغد with the current poor artice?! I see no rational reason for this action! Paul B and AnonMoos didn't give any rational arguments in the discussion here. This old version of the article is well sourced and organized. It is much better than the current one. The problem of Paul B with the first sentence of that version is in fact irrational at all, because that same sentence is well sourced. Check the reference given for it: David Benjamin Keldani. Muhammad in World Scriptures (Volume II): The Bible (Malaysian edition 2006 ed.). Page 238-239. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.107.103.37 ( talk) 11:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you comprehend the silliness of your words?! first of all, you accused me of being ignorant about my own faith even though I have been a Muslim for more than 25 years and there is nothing in my restoration of this version that is not Islamic. Then, you asked me to read Messiah#Islam which is not a reliable reference in the first place. Why should I read your unreliable reference?! Why don't you read the reliable reference of David Benjamin Keldani. Muhammad in World Scriptures (Volume II): The Bible (Malaysian edition 2006 ed.). Page 238-239; which is cited in the lead of this version? Then, you committed a groundless accusation against me that I am a sockpuppet! I consider this false accusation of yours to be a wicked way to justify your filthy behavior in vandalizing the Islam-related articles.-- 5.107.103.37 ( talk) 23:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
What can we do to reduce the strife here? It would probably be useful to identify which particular statements people (especially Muslims) are having concerns about. While obviously we can't entertain edits that amount to Wikipedia saying in its own voice "there is only one God and Muhammad is His Prophet", there are probably things we can do to reduce WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:SOAPBOX editwarring.
Right off the bat, I can see people having issues with the word "claimed" in the lead sentence. From a scientific standpoint, all prophecies are simply claimed, so the word is arguably redundant, as it might be for "miracles", "revelations", "angels", "virgin birth" and a zillion other religious terms, at least if sentences are constructed carefully. Attribution should be enough. We can refer to "accounts" or "descriptions" of these things in religious scriptures, for example. There isn't anything doubtful about whether the account/description was present, and their presence in a religious text says nothing about whether they actually happened. If this messy construction actually means that the existence of these prophecies (by someone) isn't in doubt, and that they are (in the religious sense, not some proven to be actually predictive sense) prophecies, and that it's just their attribution to Muhammad that is at issue among scholars of the Abrahamic religion and/or among religious leaders and adherent, then this badly needs to be clarified. It is not necessary (see WP:LEAD) to retain the exact phrase "Muhammad in the Bible" and boldface it in the lead. This is not a WP:COMMONNAME title, it's WP-invented descriptive title (a form of disambiguation, in the broad sense; see WP:AT#Disambiguation). Thus, we are free to write whatever lead is necessary to convey what controversy this article has been written about and what the exact nature of it is. The first sentence should probably still contain "Muhammad" and "Bible", but other than that, rewrite for clarity over conformance with the phrase in the title.
Anyway, a problem-identification-and-solving approach to possible rewordings of things like "claimed prophecies" like this should be pursued for everything in this and similar articles that attracts revertwarring, I would think.
PS: The entire lead needs cleanup; if we're going to write as amateurishly as "expanded on these arguments and have argued to", why not go with "arguably expanded on these arguable arguments and are argued to have argued to want to arguing about"? >;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The article is a heap of TF, OR and the mentioned literature is a series of fringy pamphlets. It confirms Karl-Heinz Ohlig idea about the Quuran including some nice copy and paste from the bible, especially with regard to the Messsias pprophecy, not the other way round. The article contains no actual research, its a collection of quotes, primary sopurcing at its worst. Take the long history of e.g. Abraham Geigers Quuran research, starting with his doctorate, take current scholars like Angelika Neuwirth or others, covering the use of biblical and pagan historical texts in the Quuran and the projection of the Jewish Messias prophecies in Islam. But avoid a mess of pedestrian area preachermen like this. This article in its current state is worthless and should be deleted. Polentarion Talk 19:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
As I'm just coming across this article, I'm not understanding why there are citation to the Qur'an and ahadeeth at the opening. This is about supposed mentions of Muhammad in the bible, and not a forum of comparison between the bible and Qur'an, even as a backdrop. I propose we delete it. Trinacrialucente ( talk) 03:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
"Some Christians say that the Comforter mentioned in these prophecies refers to the Holy Sprit. They fail to realise that the prophecy clearly says that only if Jesus departs will the Comforter come. The Bible states that the Holy Spirit was already present on earth before and during the time of Jesus, in the womb of Elizabeth, and again when Jesus was being baptised, etc. Hence this prophecy refers to none other than Muhammad." -- I'm a christian so I'm not 100% comfortable rewording this in a more secular way, if that makes sense, but it (and a couple of other places) could do with a tweak? FlannyBabes ( talk) 21:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
This edit " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Muhammad_in_the_Bible&diff=prev&oldid=807432306" should be reversed. The change was to a direct quotation of the NASB and introduces a direct quotation error. MetaEd ( talk) 21:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. See consensus to rename this article as proposed. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! ( closed by page mover) Paine Ellsworth put'r there 04:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Muhammad in the Bible → Muhammad and the Bible – More WP:NPOV than the current current title, seemingly implying position on its content. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 23:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Under the section of Isaiah 42, the article reads "Muslim authors, pointing to the similarity between the writing of "אתמך"(etmokh) and the writing of "אחמד" which is the name Ahmad, suggested that an intended distortion might have been done by the scribes of Scripture in the first verse of this chapter in order to hide the name of the Chosen Servant of God which is "אחמד" (Ahmad)."
Which Muslim author makes this claim? There is no citation. Furthermore, I'm not sure that Muslim apologetics should be included in this Wiki page. I'd propose removing this part entirely.
I've already cleaned up a bit of this page (there's tons of apologetic language, completely irrelevant information, etc). Another problem in this page is, as the box says on the top, an abundance of unreliable sources. A quick look at the bibliography turns up a book written by Ahmed Deedat. The publishers of the book, 'ideas4islam' seem to be totally obscure (I can't find them at all online) and certainly not academic. Reference to Deedat's work certainly violates WP:IRS. They should be removed as well.
EDIT: I took another look at the page and there's an entire section (a big one, at that) with absolutely no sources -- the 'People "with Muhammad" in the Bible' section. If no sources can be offered for this section either, it should be entirely removed. ( talk) 00:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've already performed a number of edits. I just removed the references to Zakir Naik in this article. When this page quoted Genesis 49:10-11 from the NASB, it oddly left in the footnotes -- I removed this as well. Do you agree with removing the unreliable references to Deedat and completely removing the 'People with Muhammad in the Bible'? I ask this since I don't want to remove such a big chunk of the page (which is clearly very poor anyways) without some agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 02:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I've removed references to Deedat. I'll take these new comments from you as a thumbs up to remove the People "with Muhammad" in the Bible section of this page. In fact, looking over the section, it is utterly irrelevant to the topic of Muhammad in the Bible -- the entire section is about how prophets in the Old Testament supposedly "prayed like Muslims". As it turns out, this is just another point of Muslim rhetoric that isn't relevant to the page. And again, there are no citations.
Edit: I also gutted the entire "external links" section. All these links go to obscure/irrelevant Muslim apologetics sites/blogs and one of the links simply doesn't work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 02:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
One definite problem this article has is the amazingly unreliable sources. What's worse is that it's unbelievavly difficult to check many of these sources because of how badly the references are written. A source that's definitely unreliable, however, is David Benjamin Keldani, so I'll go ahead and remove him as well here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 03:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I've been looking at the sources and it turns out this page is also chock-full of referencess to Izhar ul-Haqq written in the late 19th century by Rahmatullah Kairanawi. The book, which is actually several books (volumes) seems to be just one really long Muslim apologetic against Christianity, and so I'll summarily get rid of all that as well. Hopefully the references will begin looking a lot cleaner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 03:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes, that reverted edit of mine was a blunder. Anyways, my goal for the moment is that as I keep purging these unreliable sources, the reference list is going to look a lot more coherent and easier to look through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 03:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Quick question. Do you think 'Rahman, Afzalur. Muhammad: Encyclopaedia of Seerah - Volume 1' is a reliable source? If not, we can remove the entire Psalm 110 section since it's the only source available for that. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 05:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Gotcha. I had figured out it was a publication of the Seerah Foundation, though I wasn't able to evaluate anything about this. Can I also get your thoughts on Kais al-Alby's Prophet Muhammad: The last Messenger in the Bible ? This work makes up almost an eighth of all the remaining 40 citations.
Another point to make. We should be careful about some 'biased readers' of this page, let's say, trying to undo all the editing that we went through. A check on the edit history shows that someone tried to completely revert the page back to its original version (hence adding back over 25,000 characters) on the basis of "Do not remove muslim's point of view". Of course, Wikipedia is based on the perspective of reliable Muslim sources, not what random Muslim readers would like to see here. I should also add that I'm also starting some content into the page as well -- after the Muslim perspective is described for a particular passage in its relation to Muhammad, I've also provided summaries and references to the scholarly interpretation of the same text (I've done this for Isaiah 29:11-12 and the Parable of the Wicked Husbandman). [Edit: I've now also done this for Deuteronomy 18.] Anyways, do tell me what you think of the reliability of Kalby's work.
Update: The publisher of his book is Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc. This is certainly not a reliable publisher of any sort, so I'll remove Kalby's book. With it will go the section on Genesis 49 as he's the only source for it. I'm also going to remove references to Mundiqh as-Saqqar, yet another unreliable source with self-published books. Since yesterday, over 31,000 characters have been removed from the page (and a lot more than 31,000 unreliable charcters if you consider that I've also added several thousand characters worth of reliable information in the meanwhile)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 14:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Since you're curious about how much left is built around reliable sources, I'll give you my understanding so far (since I've been working on the references for so long). I've already purged three fourths of the bibliography and close two thirds of the references. There were something like 70 references, now there are 26. Five of those are my own addition -- all certainly reliable. There are still five references I'm skeptical of (10-14 and 16 as of this edit). I'm also not very happy at books like The Qur'an and the Gospels: A Comparative Study - a "reliable" source written by an expert (Abu Laylah) and published by Tughra Books -- of course, when you start reading it, you get references to the Gospel of Barnabas and other totally fringe nonsense.
Edit: Here's an interesting development. Abu Laylah's book is actually never referenced throughout the article, though it's in the bibliography. Should we remove it, or should we source the currently existing sections with it? Perhaps we can just leave it for now. I think a more useful pursuit with our time would be providing the scholarly interpretations of all passages that Muslims believe refer to Muhammad (I've already done half of them, but help would be appreciated -- I just added in a summary like this for Deuteronomy 33:2 though I forgot to add in an explanation in the edit summary).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 22:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Yep, I noticed the Gospel of Barnabas thing, though I had a little hope in me since there's almost not a single reliable source from the Muslim viewpoint written in the last century on the page when I began fixing it. Nevertheless, I agree with you. By the way, I also added the critical scholarly interpretation of Isaiah 42 under the Islamic interpretation. It looks pretty good to me.
I think I should summarize all the problems I see remaining at this point. There are two general ones.
1. Firstly, there's still no summary of the academic position on the interpretation of the Paraclete in John's Gospel. This should be added with several references.
2. Referencing.
a) There are three hadiths cited in the page. They are
The problem is that there are so many editions and versions of the Hadiths that it's impossible for me to check over the veracity of any of these references for what they're being referenced for, or anyone, for that matter.
b) The only reference in the section for the Paraclete. This is it;
The problem is ... page 50 of WHAT exactly? Certainly not clarified. I would normally delete this right away, but the problem is that this is the only reference in the entire Paraclete section. Now, normally yet again, this would just lead me to deleting the entire section, but the problem is that the Paraclete is, in my experience, the most often quoted 'prophecy' of Muhammad in the entire Bible. So here are the options I'm considering. Either I leave this section alone and it stays incoherent. That's one possibility. Or, I remove the entire thing and this Wikipedia page can just wait until someone with better sources can come and add it back. I'm leaning towards the second option. If the second option is chosen, that also solves having to deal with the first problem I mentioned (adding academic position on the Paraclete). Thoughts?
Update: Honestly, I'm just going to remove it. There really is no justification for keeping it on the page if there isn't a reliable source.
Update 2: The final problem is, then, the three Hadith references. Well, I made a lot of progress here. I fixed all the citations for all three of them so they actually look like coherent citations, and two of them have links directly to a page where anyone can see the Hadith. There's only one hadith I'm still having trouble with -- Al-Mustadrak alaa al-Sahihain, Hadith number 4224. The problem is that I can't find an English translation of it anywhere. What are we to do here?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 23:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Dear God, Aleph, I've actually done it. I found a real, reliable source that isn't downright biased or incoherent (incoherent as in impossible to check the veracity of, like the citations to that Hadith and all of al-Samawal's references) on the Muslim perspective of prophecies on Muhammad! Here it is -- Ira Zepp's A Muslim Primer: Beginner's Guide to Islam, University of Arkansas Press, 2000, 50-51. It can be accessed on Google Books. It's only two pages, but that's still two pages more than the rest of what we've got. Apparently the author is a Christian, so I'm not worrying about bias here (and it's written rather well). It provides references for Isaiah 42, the Paraclete, and Haggai 2:7 -- a verse that isn't on the Wiki page yet (but is about to be). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 05:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I think it's time to remove the box at the top of the page about the 'multiple issues'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 06:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Just had to say thanks to you guys for looking into this. And 70.49.181.61, please WP:INDENT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Editor2020:, I noticed you tried to bring all this information from the Paraclete article into the page. If you look at the edit history of the page from the last week, you'll realize it was all already there, and then removed, for several reasons, including 1) the swathe of incoherent citations and 2) the swathe of unreliable sources this section contains. If you want to make any specific addition from the Paraclete page, discuss them here first. In the meanwhile, I'm going to go to that page myself and start removing some of that information. 70.49.181.61 ( talk) 16:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
{{ helpme}} Books of Ahmed Deedat, Rahmatullah Kairanawi are unreliable sources? Why? Should we remove them from reference? -- Ahmad Kanik ( talk) 17:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
There should be a section in this page regarding the Qur'ans claims (and even Hadiths) of Muhammad being mentioned in the Bible. One such verse is Qur'an 7:157, there are others. I would add in the section myself but I'm not aware of any reliable sources to supplement such a section.
The view of modern scholars. All in all, if the article is now reasonably stable (it may not be), it could be time to rewrite the lead per WP:LEAD and remove the banner. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Since it's content is about Islam and all, shouldn't there be the word Hazrat before his name and the abbreviation S.A.W (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) after? -- 09:27, 28 July 2019 39.40.38.58
AntanO, please und this move, it's a bad idea. The article contains other views, even in the lead. Even if it was Islamic only it would probably be a bad idea, since there's no other articles on the topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Gospel of Barnabas is not Bible. This section has to be removed or moved to suitable article. -- Antan O 15:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Removed this passage because it is uncited, implausible, and irrelevant: "Another Christian objection to the claim that Muhammad is prophesied in Isaiah 42 is that in the Quran Chapter 7, verse 157, it says Muhammad is mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel. However, the Torah is only the five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri and Deuteronomy). Isaiah is not part of the Torah." – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
If you like to add Christian objection about Islamic view on Muhammad in the Bible, read Is Muhammad Mentioned in the Bible?. BTW, does Muslim accept Bible as reliable? -- Antan O 12:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Roscelese, it struck me now that it would make an amount of sense to make it
Perhaps GoB could be folded into the Islam-section. Opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The article has some issues as it tagged. Whoever, object or like to improve the article can talk here. -- Antan O 18:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
First, you have to see that this article is written in Islamic view and references supported with Muslim scholars. Then, POV added, and you can see HERE how it was changing by adding, deleting, twisting, etc. When I questioned only, you change some POVs which tell how you like to develop this article. Again, I tell you remove Christian view which is already mentioned in another article. Rename to suitable title and remove POV portion and have a neutral article. If not, let's talk :) -- Antan O 03:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
You cannot remove unless it solved. You avoids my question. If you want, i can list again. -- Antan O 02:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I've belatedly removed these random, frivolous tags. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm finding sources that indicate that this is a thing people believe (that Isaiah 29:11-12 on the sealed book and the illiterate dude is a prophecy of Muhammad being illiterate) but nothing of citable quality. Just wanted to mention it on talk in case anything does turn up. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Could use some sources about what muslim scholars claims about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Roscelese, Materialscientist, I'd like your input on the edits by Piers77. I find the extensive changes, removal of Christian views from the lead, un-reffed additions and possibly the change of Bible-translation for some reason problematic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
[7] May have something useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I will check it out. Thanks for sharing!-- Piers77 ( talk) 05:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The Islamicizing edits of the user Piers77, an account created a few weeks ago with the sole purpose ( according to their edit history) of bringing this page in line with Islamic orthodoxy, have been entirely removed. Editshmedt ( talk) 22:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
The following is clear documentation that Piers77 has excised any scholarly critiques of his Islamic beliefs that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible. My reversion of Piers77 edits can be found here and reveal the following:
1. Piers77 removed the section that said "Scholars consider that the poem [of Deut. 33:2] serves as a Yahwistic declaration for the blessing of the future of Israel as a socially unified whole that will benefit and prosper through YHWH's beneficence. The poem relates YHWH's movement from the south from Mount Sinai, the mountain where He resides, to His entrance on the scene as a "formidable invading force."" Clearly, the scholarly interpretation per Brueggeman's work is incompatible with reading Muhammad into a text that didn't include him to begin with.
2. Piers77 removed the section that said "In 1892, Isaiah 42:1-4 was first identified by Bernhard Duhm as one of the Servant songs in the Book of Isaiah, along with Is. 49:1-6; Is. 50:4-7; and Is. 52:13-53:12. The Old Testament identifies the servant of the Servant songs as the Israelite's in Is. 41:8-9; Is. 44:1; Is. 44:21; Is. 45:4; Is. 48:20 and Is. 49:3. John Barton and John Muddiman write that "The idea of a 'servant' played a small part in the earlier chapters, being used as a designation of the unworthy Eliakim in 22:20 and of the figure of David in 37:35, but it now comes to the fore as a description of major significance, the noun being used more than 20 times in chs. 40-55. Its first usage is obviously important in establishing the sense in which we are to understand it, and here it is clear that the community of Israel/Jacob is so described." The reason why Piers77 removed the scholarly interpretation of Isaiah 42 is clear. The servant is Israel, not Muhammad. Just like Christian apologists, Piers77 wishes to insert their prophet into a text which includes no such thing.
3. Piers77 edits are chock full drowned in Islamic apologetism and includes no discussion of recent scholarship. For example, Piers77 cites Munqidh Bin Mahmoud Assaqqar's The Promised Prophet of the Bible (2007). Scrolling through the removed parts of Piers77 edits, there are literally tons of Arabic language books written by Islamic clerics on the topic.
And it goes on and on. I'd rather Piers77 Islamicizing edits be excluded completely from here on out. Editshmedt ( talk) 23:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I have also reverted Piers77 attempt to remove the scholarly translation of Deut. 18 with the Brenton Septuagint Translation, a translation that is over 150 years old, predates the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and virtually all modern scholarship on textual criticism. Not only that, but this isn't even a translation of the Hebrew Bible, it's a translation of the Septuagint. So, why exactly did Piers77 remove modern scholarly translations of Deut. 18 and replace it with a 150 year old outdated translation of a text that isn't even the Hebrew Bible? Simple - he's Islamicizing edits. The problem for Piers77 is that all modern scholarly translators state that Deut. 18 is speaking about a prophet being raised from "among your [Moses's] people" - i.e. the Israelite's. This is a big problem for Piers77 because it means that the consensus of modern scholarly translations of the original language of the text don't allow Muhammad to be forced into the text. Unable to read Hebrew himself or cope with this, Piers77 simply declares earlier in this talk page that modern scholarly translators are ... lying. He writes "I am really angry of how the translators of New American Standard Bible provided a dishonest translation of the original text in Hebrew of Deuteronomy 18:15 and Deuteronomy 18:18." As I noted earlier, I'd rather Piers77 Islamicizing edits be excluded completely from here on out. Editshmedt ( talk) 22:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The introduction to this article is very leading into the Muslim perspective instead of presenting the information from a neutral point of view. This discussion is meant to develop and improve on a proposed previous version that states the Muslim and Christian views plainly, instead of seemingly assuming perspectives as being objective. When they are both subjective.
"The belief that Muhammad was the "long awaited Prophet" prophesied by other prophets of Islam in the Bible is a fundamental part of Islamic theology that traces its roots to the text of the Quran.[1][2] Quran 3:81, Quran 7:157, and Quran 48:29 are often cited in this context. Quran 61:6 says that Jesus himself brought good news about the close advent of Muhammad. Muslim historians and hagiographers (such as Ibn Ishaq) maintained that the people of Medina accepted Islam because of their awareness of these prophecies, and because they saw Muhammad as fulfilling them.[3] The messianic prophecy in Isaiah 42 about the "Chosen One of God" rising among the children of Qedar in mount Sela was cited by Muhammad's own companion Abd Allah ibn Amr.[4][5]
Christians like John of Damascus and John Calvin argued that Muhammad was the Antichrist or a false prophet.[6]"
"The belief that Muhammad was the "long awaited Prophet" prophesied by other prophets of Islam in the Bible is a fundamental part of Islamic theology that traces its roots to the text of the Quran" --- This fails to identify the belief as a muslim perspective, and proceeds to present the Muslim perspective as seemingly objective due to the poor sentence structure with "Muhammad was the "long awaited Prophet" prophesied by other prophets of Islam in the Bible."
This was a previous version that acknowledges both the Muslim perspective and Christian view on the discussed verses. Although modifications to this and citations are encouraged and welcomed.
"Arguments that prophecies of Muhammad exists in the Bible have formed part of Muslim tradition from the early history of Muhammad's Ummah (Arabic: أُمَّة, community).[1] Christians like John of Damascus and John Calvin have interpreted Muhammad as being the Antichrist of the New Testament. The name "Muhammad" does not occur in the Bible.
Muslim writers have expanded on these viewpoints and have argued that they can specifically identify references to Muhammad in the text of the Bible, both in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and in the Christian New Testament. Several verses in the Quran, as well as several Hadiths, state that Muhammad is described in the Bible. On the other hand, scholars have generally interpreted these verses as referring to the community of Israel or Yahweh's personal soteriological actions regarding the Israelites or members of the faithful community. The apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas, which explicitly mentions Muhammad, is widely recognized by scholars as a fabrication from the Early Modern Age. Some Muslim scholars also claimed Paraclete (Greek New Testament) as Muhammad, which also has been criticised and rejected by scholars."
For the part of "The name "Muhammad" does not occur in the Bible." I would propose a modification that specifies that sentence for the english language. Although another sentence can be added refererring to the Muslim POV alledging that the meanings associated with Muhammad are believed to be in the bible. Hence the lack of "Muhammad" in english.
For the portion that mentions scholars have generally interpreted these verses as referring to the community of Israel or Yahweh's personal soteriological actions regarding the Israelites or members of the faithful community which was uncited in the previous version, it would be good to incorporate biblical scholastic views from possibly secular and or academic Christian studies if applicable as a replacement. ChaoticTexan ( talk) 08:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The current references in the Lead section are not formatted correctly and need to be fixed. Editor2020 ( talk) 23:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
The following are sections in this page I seek to remove for the following reasons:
gen 21 (this is about the ummah, not muhammad; the citations are unreliable and only go to arabic language books); gen 49 (no citations); psalm 110 (no citations); isaiah 21:7 (the only citation is unreliable and 150 years old); isaiah 54 (about mecca, not muhammad); daniel 2 (no citations); habakkuk 3:3 (about the hejaz, not muhammad); zechariah 4 (no citations) Editshmedt ( talk) 03:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Materialscientist Jeppiz ChaoticTexan Roscelese Tgeorgescu Some extra input/eyes could be useful at this time per this edit [10] Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
If someone can expand what that ref is, please do Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)