For centuries Muslim scholars have objected to the Christian notion of the Lordship of Christ. They emphatically state that Christians are unaware of the prophecies in their own Scripture which point to the advent of Muhammad. Dr. Jamal Badawi's pamphlet titled, "Muhammad in the Bible" is an obvious case in point.

In his narrative, Dr. Badawi attempts to point out and interpret passages within the Bible which in his opinion uphold the Muslim claims. He earnestly attempts to relate the Biblical passages to the notion that Muhammad was the promised Prophet. However, a deeper examination of the contents of his study, immediately reveal many major errors which though maybe unintended, nevertheless serve to misrepresent the Biblical facts.

In the following study we will take the reader through a course of the specific passages which Badawi alludes to and provide a concise and systematic rebuttal to the claims he has laid out. We will further pose our own counter points and objections and in the process attempt to guide the reader into a more meaningful interpretation of God's Word.

Once the objective reader is faced with the simplicity and the beauty of the Bible, it is hoped that one will begin to gain an important insight into the profound Biblical revelations. As one gazes more intently at the totality of God's masterpiece - the Bible - a wonderful picture begins to emerge of God's plan for the salvation of mankind through the blood of his Son Jesus Christ.

At this juncture we will delve into a point-by-point examination of Dr. Badawi's pamphlet:

1.   Muslims state that the promise of blessings upon Ishmael confirms, or so it is believed, the prophethood of Muhammad since he is the only prophet to descend from him. (Cf. Genesis 17:20)

Yet when read within context, it becomes quite clear that the blessings upon Ishmael were not prophetic tidings of Muhammad. They rather point to lineage and political prosperity. Ishmael became blessed with twelve sons who ruled as mighty princes to the east of Israel, thus fulfilling God's promises to him:

Fulfillment:

Genesis consistently and clearly emphasizes that it would be Abraham's descendents from Sarah that would be blessed with kings and prophets, serve in a foreign land for four hundred years, possess Canaan and become the nation of God. (Cf. Gen. 12:1-3; 15:13-16; 17:15-16,19,21; 21:12; 22:17-18; 26:24; 28:13-15; 35:11-12)

The Quran also bears witness that it was Isaac, not Ishmael, who was the chosen vessel for prophethood and kingship:

The fact that seed refers to Israel is clarified in these passages:

Badawi then attempts to use the right of the firstborn to support Ishmael's preeminence and preference over Isaac. (Cf. Deut. 21:15-17)

This attempt fails since to bind Abraham to the Law which came four hundred years later would also make the observance of Sabbath, Passover, sacrificial duties, the forbidding of marrying sisters (something that Jacob did) and other commands also binding upon him and his children. The Muslim position is extremely weak in this case.

Badawi also overlooks the clear biblical examples where God sovereignly chose the younger seed over the firstborn. One such example is God selecting Jacob over his older brother Esau:

God also chose Joseph's younger son Ephraim to be precede the firstborn in status:

In light of these passages and the fact that the Mosaic injunction on the rights of the firstborn had not yet been given, Badawi's appeal to the status of the firstborn is extremely weak and proves nothing.

2.   Badawi claims that Muhammad is the prophet like Moses that was predicted to come:

The verses on the prophet like Moses are often misunderstood to mean Muhammad for the following reasons:

1. The prophet was to be from among their "brethren" (i.e. Israelites) which would be referring to the Ishmaelites.
2. Muhammad spoke the words of God (i.e. The Quran) as the passage stated the prophet would do.
3. Muhammad, like Moses, was rejected by his people, fled to Medina (Moses to Midian), came back victorious, establishing a nation, with a law and was head of state and military affairs.

The only problem with these points is that they are not the distinguishing characteristics given in the Holy Bible to determine the identity of prophet like Moses. The Prophet had to be like Moses in two respects, as the following citations indicate:

Hence, this Prophet had to perform miracles similar to those performed by Moses, and had to know God face to face, i.e. have direct contact with God. Interestingly, the Quran also confirms that God spoke directly to Moses:

These things Muhammad did not do since Muhammad never saw God nor did he perform any miracles whatsoever, as the following citations prove:

Secondly, the term "brethren" when read in context can only refer to the twelve tribes of Israel as the opening verses of Deuteronomy 18:1-2 show:

Once more, in chapter 17:14-15 the Israelites are told to put one of their "brethren" as king over them, never a foreigner. The fact is that Israel at no time in their history have ever put an Ishmaelite "brother" as king but always an Israelite, i.e. Saul, David. This demonstrates that in these particular contexts "brethren" does not refer to any nation outside of the twelve tribes of Israel.

The only person who fits this prophetic profile is Jesus Christ the Lord. This is due to the following reasons:

1. Christ states that Moses wrote about him. (Cf. John 5:46)
2. The Apostles quote this passage as being fulfilled in Christ. (Cf. John 1:45; Acts 3:17-24)
3. On both their births, infant deaths were enacted. (Cf. Ex. 1:15-16,22; Mt. 2:13)
4. Both were rescued by divine intervention. (Cf. Ex. 2:2-10; Mt. 2:13)
5. Christ being the Son of God, knew God the Father "face to face"- as did Moses. In fact, Christ is the image of God and is God's exact representation. (Cf. Mt. 11:27; John 1:1-3,14,18; John 14:9; Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:2,3)
6. God prepared Moses for his mission by his wandering in the wilderness for forty years; Christ for forty days. (Cf. Ex. 7:7; Mt. 4:1)
7. Christ, like Moses, shone with glorious light at the Mount of Transfiguration. (Cf. Ex. 34:29; Mt. 17:2)
8. Christ performed greater miracles than Moses. An example would be raising the dead. (Cf. John 11:25-26,43-44)
9. Christ spoke the words of God alone. (Cf. John 8:28)
10. Christ, like Moses, intercedes on behalf of men. (Cf. Exodus 32:30-32; 1 Tim. 2:5)
11. Christ, like Moses, is the mediator of God's covenant. (Cf. Exodus 24:4-8; Mark 14:24; 1 Cor. 11:23-25)
12. Christ and Moses liberated their people from bondage; one from slavery, the other from sin. (Cf. Exodus; Isaiah 53; John 8:32-36; Gal. 5:1)
13. Christ, like Moses, is an Israelite; Jesus being from the tribe of Judah and Moses from the tribe of Levi. (Cf. Num. 26:59; Luke 3:22-38)

Interestingly, many early Muslim scholars like biographer Ibn Ishaq, in his Sirat Rasulullah, testify that Moses wrote of Jesus:

Other Muslim scholars that concur include Ibn Kathir. In his comments on S. 61:6 Ibn Kathir states:

In his biography on Muhammad, Ibn Kathir even says that Jesus was similar to Moses, despite trying to apply Deuteronomy 18:18 to Muhammad! He writes:

The following comments from Ar-Razi are taken from Mahmoud M Ayoub's book, The Quran and Its Interpreters, Volume II, The House of Imran, State University of New York Press, Albany 1992. p. 150:

3.   Badawi erroneously assumes that the reference in Deuteronomy 33:2 to Sinai, Seir and Paran is a prediction of Judaism, Christianity and Islam respectively. Badawi claims that Seir refers to Jesus' ministry in Palestine, while Paran is Mecca where Muhammad began his prophetic ministry.

The problem with this interpretation is that Paran and Seir are located near Egypt in the Sinai Peninsula, as any good Bible map shows. It is purely wishful thinking to claim that Seir refers to Jesus' ministry in Palestine or that Paran is near Mecca, when Paran was hundreds of miles away near southern Palestine in northeastern Sinai!

Proof that Paran is not Mecca can be found in the Holy Bible itself:

All these verses prove that Paran could not possibly be Mecca but a locale near Sinai, since Moses and the Israelites never journeyed to Mecca. Hence, Badawi's assertion fails in the light of the biblical evidence.

Secondly, this advent was meant to be a blessing from God to the children of Israel as indicated in v. 1. Again, this would nullify the notion of this being a prophecy of Islam, since Islam has been a constant thorn and threat to Israel, not a blessing!

Badawi then claims that Deuteronomy 33:2 also predict Muhammad's take over of Mecca. The reference to the LORD (Yahweh) himself coming with "ten thousands of saints" is taken by Badawi as a prediction of Muhammad taking over Mecca with ten thousand soldiers.

We have already seen that Paran is not Mecca and Badawi's claim therefore has no substance behind it. Further, the Hebrew text doesn't say "ten thousand" but rather "ten thousands" (Hebrew ribboth). This refers to the angelic host of God, which number in the myriads. (Cf. Dan. 7:10; Heb. 12:22; Rev. 5:11)

Finally, the text is not referring to a future advent but to God coming to Israel's aid with all his angels as he lead his people out of Egypt, through the desert, and into the Promised Land.

4.   Badawi asserts that Isaiah 42:1-13 predicts the advent of Muhammad.

A careful reading of the context of the Servant passages of Isaiah will demonstrate that Isaiah is predicting the coming of the promised Messiah. There are four Servant passages in the book of Isaiah: 42:1-13; 49:1-9; 50:4-11; 52:13 - 53:12.

When read as a single unit it becomes obvious that the Servant spoken of can only be Jesus Christ. This point becomes forcefully clear after reading the 53^rd chapter which speaks of the crucifixion, death and the resurrection of the Servant on behalf of fallen humanity - a deed fulfilled only in the life of Christ.

Further evidence establishing Jesus as the Servant is provided in Isaiah 42:1. The verse proclaims that God's Spirit would rest upon the Servant. Several other passages in Isaiah establishes this Servant's identity:

Isaiah 11:1-2 identifies the Servant as the root of Jesse, i.e. a descendant of Jesse. Jesse was the father of King David, and the passage points to the fact that the Servant will come from the house of David. (Cf. Ruth 4:22; 1 Sam. 16:1-3; Mt. 1:6)

It is Jesus, not Muhammad, who was a descendant of David. Jesus, not Muhammad, had the Spirit of the LORD descend upon him after emerging from the waters of baptism (Cf. Mt. 3:16-17).

In fact, Jesus states that he personally came to fulfill Isaiah 61:1-2:

5.   Badawi sees a prediction of the Battle of Badr in Isaiah 21:13-17.

Again, a careful reading of the context will show that this has nothing to do with Muhammad's battle at Badr, but rather predicts the judgment that God would enact upon Arabia through the mighty armies of Assyria and Babylon respectively. The Assyrian armies besieged the Arabs in 732 B.C., with Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon following suit by defeating the people of Kedar during his reign in 599-598 B.C. (Cf. Jeremiah 49:28-33)

Furthermore, v.16 specifies the time this prophecy was to be fulfilled:

This indicates that Isaiah is referring to the Assyrian attack upon the Arabs in the year 732 BC., coinciding with the time of Isaiah's ministry.

Hence, the attempts to make this passage a reference to an event that took place nearly a thousand years later is soundly refuted when read in context.

6.   Badawi feels that Isaiah 28:11 prophesies the revelation of the Quran, which is in "another tongue".

Far from prophesying the advent of the Quran, Isaiah is simply referring to the Assyrian takeover of Ephraim. (Cf. Isaiah 28:1-29)

God brought judgment upon Israel for their wickedness. He manifested his judgment by using a foreign nation that spoke a foreign tongue (i.e. Aramaic) to subdue and punish his rebellious people. Furthermore, this passage on Israel being judged by a foreign tongue had been foretold centuries beforehand in the Mosaic Law:

Thus to see Islam in any of these prophecies is purely wishful thinking.

7.   Badawi argues that Jesus' promise to send the Paraclete is a reference to the coming of Muhammad.

Yet, anyone reading the context can see that this is a prediction of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The Paraclete of John cannot be referring to Muhammad for the following reasons:

1. The Paraclete could not be seen by human eyes, but would indwell the disciples at the same time. (14:17) This could not possibly be referring to Muhammad because people did see him. Secondly, the Paraclete could dwell within a group of individuals at the same time, making him immaterial and omnipresent. These, being the attributes of divinity, tend to suggest that the Paraclete is God.
2. The Paraclete is the Holy Spirit (14:26). In orthodox Islamic belief, the Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel. This fact would disprove the notion that Muhammad is the Paraclete, since this would make him Gabriel!
3. According to the Holy Scriptures, the Paraclete was to bring glory to Jesus Christ, and yet Muhammad glorified Allah. (16:13-15) Taking the idea of Muhammad as the Paraclete to its natural conclusion, we may claim then that Jesus Christ is Allah, the God of Muhammad!

The Paraclete did arrive as predicted, not 600 years later but ten days after the ascension of Jesus to heaven. (Acts 2:1-33)

8.   Badawi alludes to Matthew 21:19-21,43 to prove that the kingdom that was to be taken away from Israel and given to a productive nation refers to the Muslim nation.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Jesus is speaking of the Gentiles being brought into covenant relations with God, not Islam or Muhammad:

Finally,

9.   Badawi sees the reference of the rejected stone of Matthew 21:42,44 as a prophecy of Muhammad.

The rejected stone does not refer to Muhammad, but to the Jewish rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus:

10.   Badawi claims that Psalms 84:6 is referring to Muslim pilgrimage to the Kabah in Mecca, since the term "Baca" is another name for Mecca in the Quran.

Again, the fallaciousness behind this reasoning is easily seen from a careful reading of the context. Old Testament Baca is not in Arabia, but in northern Israel. This is stated within the text itself:

Furthermore, the term Baca in Hebrew means either "weeping" or "balsam trees." Hence, the valley of Baca can be translated as the valley of balsam trees. We find reference to such a place located within the Valley of Rephaim, an area approximately 3-4 miles south and west of Jerusalem:

Noting that the valley of Baca is actually less than 5 miles away from Jerusalem, it makes sense that the Psalmist could speak of pilgrims making their way through Baca valley to appear before God in Zion. (Cf. vv. 5-7)

The reader is invited to look up the distance between Jerusalem and Mecca and use common sense to determine how likely it is that the Psalmist recommend the Israelite pilgrims to make a detour to Mecca as they made their annual pilgrimage to Mt. Zion. (note: they are walking on their own feet!)

Equally fallacious is Badawi's claim that Habakkuk 3:3 refers to Muhammad:

Muslims like Badawi presume that Teman and Paran refer to the advent of Islam in Arabia. Yet it is clear from the context that it is God who is coming from Teman and Mount Paran. It says nothing about a prophet. Furthermore, as we have already noted Paran is not near Mecca but hundreds of miles away and Teman was a town close to Jericho in the territory of Edom.

Interestingly, in order to prove that Teman is an oasis north of Medina Badawi misquotes J. Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible, inferring that Teman being near Medina is something admitted by Christian scholars as well. Yet Hastings does not say that Teman is located north of Medina, since he was referring to the country of Tema! Badawi has confused the two.

On p. 897 of his book we read:

Further on in the same page we also read:

This exposes a deliberate attempt on Badawi's part to misinform his readers, since he knows that most readers, especially Muslims, will take him at face value without bothering to check his sources personally.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, if Muslims still insist that all references to Teman find their fulfillment in Islam they must also take into consideration the overall biblical witness to the fate of Teman. For example, in Jeremiah 49:7 God questions Teman's lack of wisdom and in verse 20 the LORD swears to destroy their pastures and flocks. In Ezekiel 25:13, God declares that He will lay the inhabitants of Teman to waste, sending fire to consume them (Amos 1:12), insuring no survivors (Obadiah 8-10). This would mean that Islam is futile since it lacks wisdom and will eventually be destroyed by a consuming fire!

11.   Badawi uses John 1:19-23 to prove that Israelites during the time of Jesus were expecting three individuals, namely the Christ, Elijah, and the Prophet. Badawi then takes this to mean that the Jews were expecting an Ishmaelite prophet, namely the Prophet like unto Moses. (Cf. Deut. 18:18) Badawi feels that since the Jews were still awaiting the Prophet even during Christ's advent, this therefore indicates that THE Prophet had not yet arrived. It is then surmised that this Prophet is Muhammad, since he is the only prophet to follow Jesus.

There are three arguments against this fallacious line of thinking:

1. If it were true that the Prophet was to be an Ishmaelite, why did the Jews ask John, an Israelite, if he were that Prophet? The very fact that they did ask an Israelite proves that the Prophet to come had to be from the nation of Israel and could not possibly be a descendant of Ishmael.
2. The passage does not indicate that the Prophet had not arrived during the time of Jesus' ministry. It rather points to the fact that until the public ministry of Jesus had begun, there had been no prophet like Moses. It needs to be pointed out that when John had been asked this question, Christ had not yet been revealed. Following the initiation of Christ's public ministry, the people knew without doubt that this was indeed THE Prophet spoken of by Moses:

   "After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, ‘Surely, this is THE Prophet who is to come into the world.’" John 6:14

   Again,

   "On hearing his words, some of the people said, ‘Surely this man is THE Prophet.’" John 7:40

3. To quote these particular Jews as a reliable and infallible reference is problematic, since they were often mistaken in their exegesis of Scripture, frequently arriving at erroneous conclusions. For instance, they had been unaware of the fact that the Holy Scriptures stated that Messiah would come out of Galilee:

   "Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?" John 7:41

   "They (the Pharisees) answered and said unto him, Art thou (Nicodemus) also of Galilee? Search and look: For out of Galilee ariseth no prophet." John 7:52

   Yet, nearly 800 years earlier the Prophet Isaiah prophesied exactly this:

   "Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan ... For to us a child is born, to us a Son is given, and the government will be upon his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:1,6

   According to the Aramaic Targum of Jonathan, this passage is a prophecy of Messiah. Hence, to use fallible Jews who were often wrong in their interpretation of the Scriptures, is indicative of Badawi's alleged proofs for Muhammad's prophethood and his erroneous exegesis of the biblical data.

12.   Another alleged prophecy of Muhammad according to Muslims, comes from John the Baptist himself:

Muslims erroneously assume that this passage could only be referring to Muhammad, not Jesus, due to the following three reasons:

1. Jesus did not come after John, but was his contemporary.
2. If Jesus was the one whom John was referring to, then why did he not become his follower, if indeed Christ was greater than him?
3. At one point John even doubted Jesus, sending two disciples to inquire if he was actually the one who was to come. (Matthew 11:1-3)

These factors leave little doubt to the Muslims that John was referring to Muhammad.

We respond to all three points:

1. Although John and Jesus were contemporaries, Christ did not begin proclaiming the Gospel until after John the Baptist's public ministry had already begun. Hence, Christ did indeed come "after" John. (cf. Matthew 3:1,3,16; 4:12,17)
2. It was not John the Baptist's job to follow Jesus, but to prepare his way. (cf. John 1:23) Further, John was arrested shortly before Jesus began his Galilean ministry, making it impossible for him to follow Christ. (cf. Matthew 4:12-17)
3. Christ reassured John the Baptist that he indeed was the One predicted to come and appealed to the fulfillment of Isaiah 29:18 and 35:4-6:

   "The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the Gospel preached to them. ‘And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me.’" Matthew 11:4-6 NKJV

To try and offset this final argument it is surmised that John, being filled with the Holy Spirit, should not have doubted since the Spirit would clearly have told him all things regarding the Messiah beforehand. This logic is fallacious since the Holy Bible does not state that a prophet must have complete knowledge in regards to a particular situation, but only that which God wants him to know. (Cf. 1 Peter 1:10-12; Matthew 24:36; Acts 1:6-8)

Furthermore, being filled with the Holy Spirit does not mean that a prophet would not make mistakes, but simply means that the prophet would be supernaturally guided to preach God's Word infallibly.

Thirdly, John himself bears witness that Jesus is indeed the One who was expected:

Even more amazing is that the Quran itself indicates that John preceded Jesus as his forerunner! (Cf. S. 3:39)

Finally, the idea of a Prophet to succeed Christ is altogether denied in the Holy Bible. The Scriptures are clear in indicating that Jesus Christ, not Muhammad, is God's final revelation to mankind and the seal of His approval. This is apparent from Jesus' own statements:

In this parable Jesus Christ confirms his unique Divine Sonship, his rightful inheritance to God's estate, and his preeminence over all creation as the last messenger from the Father.

In the light of the truth as presented from the Holy Scriptures, it now becomes clear that Christ is the seal of prophethood and the end of God's revelation to the world.

Yet the Scriptures do speak of Christ sending prophets to the people:

When we piece the data all together the conclusion is that Christ is the final prophet sent by the Father directly to seal all revelation. Yet Christ sends prophets by his own authority, in his own name, to pass on that very revelation which the Father gave him:

Thus, there can be no prophets to succeed Christ, only prophets who come in the very name of the resurrected Lord proclaiming the Gospel of God's beloved Son.

Conclusion

Having examined Dr. Badawi's pamphlet, one can easily reach the conclusion that it is filled with logical fallacies, textual misinterpretation and contextual errors. His paper is attempting to strongly force the Bible into making predictions of Muhammad which clearly do not exist. It is quite easy to read and interpret the Bible out of context and commit the popular mistake of trying to make it fit ones theology. It is quite another thing however, to consider the Bible in its entirety and allow it to speak for itself on any given topic.

We challenge the reader to search the passages in their true context and ponder whether the Bible indeed mentions Muhammad. In light of sound biblical exegesis, we trust that the reader can judge for himself whether Muhammad is indeed predicted in the Bible, or is this just another overzealous attempt to force an Islamic interpretation upon the Holy Scriptures.

Rebuttals to Dr. Badawi
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page