On the Relevance of Islam and Claimed Prophethood of Muhammad

Introduction

Here we examine the problems with the claims for Islam as a replacement religion, and Muhammed, its purported “replacement prophet”.

I refer in this article to a rather short video of Dr. Louai Fatooie being interviewed by Paul Williams on the Blogging Theology channel, just 15 minutes long but one in which he manages to describe several arguments for just this Islamic position. This article is in response to those arguments and others.

Why Islam Must assert that Judaism is Defunct

It is not hard to see why Islam must assert that Juaism is defunct- were it not, then Islam should not have been introduced into the world at all. That is to say, were Judaism still relevant, then Muhammed should have become a Jew himself.

The “one message” is more or less the clarion call of Islam, the appeal the alleged sameness of the message of every prophet. There is some logic to this argument, which is the reason for its appeal- why should prophets who serve the same God have different messages? This gets used as a polemic against Christianity who are accused of changing that message, and also to align Muhammed with the Jewish prophetic tradition, granting him legitimacy in the process. However as we have pointed out, this is a confusing argument to make, because were this truly the case that the message required no modification, them there is also no requirement to switch from one religion to another.

So the question that will remain is why does Muhammed antagonise the Jews in the Hijaz instead of allying himself with them. Why was it incumbent upon the Jews to accept Muhammed. Why fight over Jerusalem, rather why not be united in Jerusalem, perhaps even if it means being united against Christianity, the religion that truly does contain palpables difference from Judaism. Finally other questions crop up in relation to the Qur’an’s verses on this issue, because it is also not obvious that other monotheistic religions are being advised against anyway, like Sabeanism and even in some verses, Christianity itself.

How do Muslims go about this?

The Islamist Critique of the Jewish People

Muhammed arrives on the scene almost a whole millennium after the last of the Jewish prophets and in complete geographical disconnect from them. Muslims will typically make the asserttion that the reason for the need for “just one more prophet” as it were, is that the Jews allegedly showed themselves unworthy of God’s promises. This is allegedly due to them as a people displaying a sort of heredetary and obdurate opposition to God’s teaching. Islam appears to doubles down on this stance with proscriptions against the Jewish people both in the Qur’an (Q 98:6 refers to them as the “worst of creatures”) as well as in the later hadithic writings (eg. Muslim 1767a, Muslim 2921a-d). This undercurrent of anti- Semitism provides the pretext for replacement.

But take the example of Dr. Fatooie, who in the video is asserting that Islam, in rejecting the Christian belief in Jesus’s historical death on the Cross, and seeking to replace it with a counter-claim that God merely deceived the Jews into believing that they had successfully killed Jesus on the Cross, avoids anti-semitism. This is an absurd claim because it still admits of exaclty the same homicidal intent in teh killing of Jesus, while merely changing the outcome.

Did the Jews really reject the “one message” of monotheism and their prophets?

But is it warranted? Every religion will have dissenters, but is it right to colour all its followers with the same brush? Of course not. Further, can the claim that the Jews rejected God and the “one message” of monotheism really stand? If the Jews wanted to reject Judaism they would have just stopped being Jews and rejected their own rabbis in the first place, why just Jesus? If the Jews wanted to reject monotheism, then how come they’re monotheists today? If they were not rejecting Jesus’ monotheism then what were they rejecting? So also the Jews in the Hijaz rejected Muhammed because they wanted to adhere to their prophets, not because they rejected their prophets. if Jews rejected their prophets we would not have any Bible today. Who do you think wrote and preserved the Bible. They are literally Jews practising Judaism of their prophets.

However Muslims must say that Jesus was merely preaching what every other prophet had ever come to preach. They will quote the Bible itself to support this, where Jesus says that he did not come to change the Law. Next, Muslims will give instances in the Quran (eg. Q 5:70 and a total of 9 other places acc. to Dr. Fatooie) and Bible (1Kings19:10), where Jews persecute their prophets. But this is an absurd argument to make- the Arab persecution of Muhammed is one of the central themes in the standard Islamic narrative! The Israelite prophets were persecuted due to whatever socio-political forces were prevalent, and there will always be a proportion of those who reject faith in any religion.

Since after the time of Samuel, the Israeli prophets did not double up as rulers anymore, rather kings and prophets had to co-exist. Thus prophets could either be in the king’s favour or not. If not, then they were at the mercy of the king and on the run, as it were. Thus it was not primarily the lay-people that resisted the prophets, lay people were not primary payers in such aristocracies anyway. Think of places like Iran and Saudi Arabia- lay people do not really have a voice or a political role in such societies, their main concern is subsistence and their ability to pay taxes.

There were settled Jewish tribes in the Hijaz already present at the time of Muhammed. The reason they rejected him was understandable: why would they need a new book that was expecting them to give up the teachings of the very prophets Islam was upholding, that does not make sense. Muslims might not like the New Testament, but there is no Muslim theological objection to the Jewish Bible. They might pick out some teachings about particular laws or scientific facts, but we can all do that to each other. But if the bottom line is the “one message” issue, then where’s the problem.

Did the Jews really reject Jesus for his “Mere Islam”?

In making the case for the obsolescence of Judaism, Muslims also quote narrations of the Jews’ rejection of Jesus and their plot to kill him. The Bible does recount the Jewish opposition to Jesus, but that opposition was very obviously caused by his teachings that seemed opposed to traditional Judaism. This of course, in the first place is contrary to the Biblical narrative, in which Jesus is always being opposed for doing and saying things and claiming authority that seems un-Jewish. In fact we could not that Jesus makes the particular attempt not to publicize the fact that he thinks of himself as the Jewish Messiah/Son of God until the very end, so we are left in even less doubt that this was not merely a case of the Jews rejecting “one more Jewish prophet/messiah figure”. Rather what we are presented with is not more than the most natural cause for religious opposition, that is, going against the religious orthodoxy, so in the Bible this opposition is hardly surprising, rather it would have been surprising with the kind of things that Jesus was going around saying if he had not faced such opposition.

I have heard Muslims try to find other reasons for the Jews’ rejection of Jesus, so as to avoid the premise that Jesus was indeed not teaching them “mere Islam”/ “one message”. Some say that they reject him for political reasons and manoeuvring with Rome? I’ve even heard some Muslims say that it was because they rejected his peaceful message and wanted more violent teachings. This is not even historically plausible, why would someone preaching a peaceful message get into trouble with the Roman authorities, for eg. from everything we know, the pharisees wanted to continue their political alliances with Rome, perhaps for greed, perhaps for self-preservation.

Chosen to Un-chosen, Holy Land to So-so Land, no Biblical solution?

In the interview, Dr. Fatooie is attempting to make the point, based upon these faulty premises we have described that the Jews have “become un-chosen”, and what’s more their holy land is now no more than insignificant land, and lastly that the Bible is left in somre sort of confusional state as to is own narrative with no resolution of this issue.

In fact, the entire hope of resolution in the Old Testament is based upon the arrival of a Messiah, and in the NT, Jesus is presented as that very Messiah to the Israeli people. In fact the Jews did not reject Jesus, rather the largest percentage of them accepted his teachings and joined the Christian faith.

When God chooses a people, it is quite a presumption on the part fo religious scholars to assert that they have become un-chosen even though there is no direct redaction from God himself! That’s the whole point of choosing. Just because some of them “mess up” doesn’t mean they all lose the promises. That’s why it’s called a promise. God is not fickle like human beings, that’s the whole point of being God. As a further point, were the Israelites were truly un-chosen then why would it be important for Muhammad to trace descent from Abraham anyway? Yet Muslims are quite anxious to trace out genealogies of Muhammed allegedly going back to Abraham (again this is topic for a different article), as though they are conscious that the Israelite connection retains significance.

Neither does Jesus ever says to the Jews that they are “un-chosen”, rather Jesus as the Jewish Messiah is the fulfilment of the promises that god makes to them. What Jesus adds is that the promise is now for the whole world, not just for the Jews. That’s the whole point for the promise. It was never meant to be for single people, rather the Jews were chosen to be a “light to all the nations” (eg.Is42:6, 49:6). What did Mecca bring that was not at Jerusalem already?

Finally, should the Destruction of the Temple proof of God’s rejection of the Jews? Paul Williams, the host in the video finally makes the claim that the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem should be taken as proof that the covenant promises have now been taken away from the Israelites. First of all to make this argument is to admit the relevance of Temple worship and sacrifice in the first place. Well, if that is relevant, then Islam does not have anything like it, so how is Islam the solution to the loss of the Temple. In contrast Jesus explicitly presents himself as the solution (John 2:19), by stating that he simself is the New Temple. God allows the destruction of the Old Temple, because with the arrival of his Son, who makes the ultimate sacrifice, there is no more need for the Temple sacrifice and therefore for the Temple itself. This makes complete sense, in a fulfilled monotheistic religion, would God really require every family of the world to be making constant sacrifies of large animals and that too in a single global location.

Yes, the solution to the conundrum in the Bible is very much in the Bible. One might not agree with it but to say that its not there is hardly accurate, the largest religion in the world in the past 2 millenia is literally based on that solution.

Does the Bible/Jesus predict that the Israelites will lose out?

Muslims might quote Biblical passages attempting to show that the convenant promises will indeed be taken away from the Jews and given to another people. First of all the passages being referred to are not in the Torah or the Zaboor, the only two books that the Quran approves of.

But even when we look at the passages cited, we never see it said that the “New Covenant” will be made with a different people to the Israelites.

Jeremiah 31:31–32 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a Master to them,” declares the Lord.”

In fact in the later prophets, God is teaching that God’s mercies, far from being taken from the Jews, will now be extended to the whole world, who will come to the mountain of the Lord (eg. Is.56:8)

Sometimes Jesus himself is quoted in Matthew 21:43: “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit”. Clearly he is indicating that the people who reject him will lose out on the Kingdom, but this is not a deiscription of ethnic boundaries, he is indicating, as we see in the previous verse quoting the Old Testament “the stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone” that his followers will find the path of truth. In fact even the Qur’an attests that Jesus’ followers will be “victotious” so there’s no question that Jesus is transplanting his promises ethno-geographically, they’re right there with him.

Is it because the Jews distorted God’s teachings?

Another favourite argument against the Jews is that they distorted the the Scripture that God gave them. This claim is a really tenuous one to make from the Qur’an in the first place which contains several affirmation of the Jewish and Christian scriptures which I have discussed in another article Does the Qur’an Confirm Christian Scripture?. But again, is this warrant for a new religion? Shouldn’t God then merely restore to the Jews the required corrections? After all the Qur’an itself makes claims like the word of God being unchageable, so shouldn’t God be fixing problem that arise rather than abandoning ship, as it were or beating a retreat out of Jerusalem?

Clearly even the alleged distortions had not led to the Jews becoming polytheists, neither in Muhammed’s time nor today. In fact in the absence of the Temple rituals following its distruction, they can if anything be said to have moved closer to the Islamic practise if anything, in teh post-Christian era. Nor does the Qur’an, nor do Muslims for that matter specify what are the teachings in Judaic Law that are specifically objectionable.

What new teaching is in the Qur’an to make all the trouble worthwhile?

The second explanation is to say that there were some new teaching that were essential to be given, and two in particular are offered: the prohibition of alcohol and of usury. Both these are unconvincing and these can be discussed further. For example, the Qur’an itself contains a commendation of alcohol. Why exactly does not advice against it until 632AD? The Jews literally were instructed to pour it over the Altar of God in the Temple! It would seem absurd if God has suddenly decided to give healthcare advice after all the prophets had come and gone (). Rather the advice had been given in the context of worshippers turning up drunk for their prayers. And if the prayers were to be five times in a day, one can understand why this might be a problem. It would be like drinking on a day at work (). With the usury, there are multiple problems, for example, how does one run a global economy without interest rates. Islamic cultural and financial models do not work outside Islamic societies, rather in those societies Islam as to adapt to western cultural norms. Can you do business with China without an interest-model?

These are petty issues, and if there are cases in which it might even seem to some that the changes wrought by the Qur’an are indeed advisable or beneficial (this is doubtful) one can easily point others out that are arbitrary and backward, like the provision for 4 wives for every man, consanguinous marriages, prohibition of adoption, acceptance of slavery, misogynic statements, violent ones towards those os other religions, changing the direction of prayers and so on, to name a few.

Conceptual difference between a Muslim and Biblical Prophet

The bar for Islamic prophethood is set quite low to start with. In the Bible the Hebrew for prophet is “navi” (נָבִיא). It is imported into the Qur’an as “nabi” for a handful of usages only. The much more prominent Arabic “rasool” is actually a generic term for messenger, for example can also be used for the king’s messenger or emissary, as can be seen in secular Arabic literature.

Mark Drury states in Biblical reflexes of the Qur’an: “the separation between heaven earth… pervades the Qur’an’s descriptions of revelation, which is by a process of “sending down” (v. anzala, n. tanzil). In the Biblical understanding, the prophet enters the divine council, coming into the presence of YHWH, where a meeting of human and divine takes place, and then YHWH speaks through the mouth of the prophet, as mediated divine speech. However in the Qur’an a portion of pre-existing “scripture” (Q:32:2) is “sent down” to the messenger, after which it can be recited by him repeatedly. Allah does not speak it through the mouth of a human being in an act of prophecy. In the Qur’anic understanding there is an inviolable separation, to a physical mediation…”

Muhammad’s not Prophesied About

There is no such prophet spoken of in the Bible, so were the Jews and Christians of the 7th century to scour their texts, they would not find anything of this sort.

“Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them” (Q 7:157).

And this strange “Ahmed” Prophecy:

“And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: “O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.” But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, “this is evident sorcery!” (Q 61:6)

And again:

“those who follow the Messenger, ‘the Prophet of the common folk, whom they find written down with them in the Torah and the Gospel, bidding them to honour, and forbidding them dishonour, making lawful for them the good things and making unlawful for them the corrupt things, and relieving them of their loads, and the fetters that were upon them. Those who believe in him and succour him and help him, and follow the light that has been sent down with him — they are the prosperers.’” (7:157)

Is he in Isaiah 42?

This doesn’t work for Mohammed because the prophecy in it is about a peaceful person, who actually establishes justice, and not sharia, and even if anyone wants to argue that there is actually justice in sharia, the kicker is that the passage is actually God, not a human being who comes as a warrior.

Muslims focus on what is said about the “villages that Kedar inhabits rejoicing”, which is quite easily seen as Arab Christians rejoicing, (for example, almost 50% of Egyptians are Christians, and in the time of Mohammed there would have been the majority of the Middle east like Lebanon, Syria, Jordan all Christians and right enough, rejoicing in Christ. Further Sela is a place in Jordan near Petra and not Medina, in Medina it is a rocky mountain on which no one seems to live, and as seen below there is no evidence that “Kedar” has anything to do with Mohammed.

It is clear from the context that Isaiah was calling all the peoples to praise God for what he has done and will do. After the general introductory statement mentioning “the ends of the earth” Isaiah uses examples of contrast to illustrate this: Those living in the flat coastland near the sea, those living on islands (surrounded by water), and those living in the desert (lacking water), and finally those living on the mountains. All people in all different geographic locations are called to praise the LORD. Kedar is mentioned by way of illustration as one example in a list of several but is in no way singled out. Particularly, Isaiah says nothing regarding the servant mentioned in 42:1-7 comes from Kedar.

Lastly, there is also no evidence that Kedar is in Mecca in the first place.

This is the Wikipedia entry for Sela: (Hebrew: סֶּלַע‎, transliteration Sela‛, meaning rock; Arabic: السلع‎, es-Sela‛; Greek: πέτρα, ‘Petra’; Latin: petra) is a geographical name encountered several times in the Hebrew Bible. Since, when used with article, it simply translates to “the rock”, it is unreasonable to connect it to just one location. A site by this name is placed by the Second Book of Kings in Edom.

Bruised reed he will not break: this means a peaceful person, “He will not cry out on the street” and so on…  

the person will perform miracles. Mohammed himself admitted he was useless at this.

it does not say that the messenger establishes justice and is a warrior. It says that the Lord is a warrior.

Muhammed did not establish justice, rather he established Sharia, which is opposed to basic human rights. But of course this is always going to be argued by Muslims, that sharia is “perfect” and so on.

we’re really struggling to see how Muhammad brought us “joy”. It just isn’t something you associate with Islam.

Sela is a place near Petra. There is also a mountain of the name near Medina. The verse does not say “Mount Sela”.

Kedar is a person not a place, so he could be anywhere. Because the verse says “the inhabitants of Kedar rejoice” the entire prophecy hinges upon Mohamed’s descent from Kedar, if there is even to be the beginning of a discussion. That means Islam itself hinges upon this. So obviously someone came along and concocted the genealogy. I don’t see how this can be proven one way for another. We look at Muhammed’s genealogy in another section.

Is he in Deut. 18?

Essentially the sum-total of the worth of this claim is that of a person raising an army, instituting a rule of law and then claiming that he fulfils a prophecy that deals with armies and a rule of law. The claim is only ever made in Muslim apologetic circles, not in any serious scholarship. These then are the reasons that Muhammed does NOT fulfil this prediction.

In the History of Divine Revelation, there is NOT A SINGLE Prophet from outside of the Nation of Israel, not even Jesus.

This is the prophecy itself:

“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you shall heed such a prophet.¹⁶ This is what you requested of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ ¹⁷ Then the Lord replied to me, ‘They are right in what they have said. ¹⁸ I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command. ¹⁹ Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in my name, I myself will hold accountable. ²⁰ But any prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ (Deut.18:15-20)

Now, fortunately enough, there is a verse in Deuteronomy itself which also tells us just what it takes to be “a prophet like Moses”:

“Since that time, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face— no prophet who did all the signs and wonders that the LORD sent Moses to do in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and to all his officials and all his land, and no prophet who performed all the mighty acts of power and awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel” (Deut. 34:11,12)

Muslim claims of similarity:

1. That Muhammed did lead an Exodus like Moses: That is a misunderstanding of either the Exodus or Islam. Muhammed led military global expansionism. He went to Medina in order to raise an army to come back and conquer Mecca. Moses “went military” for the purpose of the Exodus into Canaan. Egypt was not his concern.

• “they both brought laws”. Moses’ Law was dictated verbatim by God. Mohammed’s “Law” is scattered  edicts given in various domestic and social contexts in the Qur’anic narrative and pieced together hundreds of years after his death from remembered “sayings”. He “brought a law” only in the sense that any religious teacher would be required to issue guidelines for daily living.

• Muhammed did miracles?  Obviously any serious religion is going to have miracle claims. In the Qur’an Muhammed himself repeatedly asserts that he simply does not have the gift of miracles. This is sharply contrasted against Jesus whose miracles are detailed in the Qur’an itself! See ()

• Brought a “covenant”? The Mosaic Covenant on Mt. Sinai is quite specific in terms of how the Israelites are to worship the Lord, and so also what God will do for them “I will live with you and dwell with you…you shall live and prosper in the Land that I am about to give you” etc. “Covenant” is vaguely mentioned in the Quran along with a slew of other out of cntext Biblical terms see (); The Muslims are given the ways and habits of Muhammed to follow, and in return it is not clear what Allah is meant to be doing, since there’s a lot of “mights” in Islam: Allah “might” forgive your sins, you “might” be one of those to go to Heaven etc. ()

“From among your brethren”- the Promise to Moses

What’s more wherever in Scripture is says “among your brethren” it always implies the 12 tribes as Dr. Brown points out, it does not relate to the separated brethren, meaning the offspring of Ishmael (separated from Isaac the father of Israel) or Esau (separated from Israel himself). Even though it is mentioned that the land is given to Esau yet there is no verse about land being given to Ishmael.

These are the eleven verses which state “from your midst” מִקִּרְבְּךָ֤ mikirbekha “among your brethren” מֵאַחֶ֙יךָ֙ meakheha and each is related the 12 tribes themselves, not anyone externally: Deuteronomy 4:3, 13:6, 13:14, 17:7, 19:19, 21:9, 21:21, 22:21, 22:24 and 24:7.

This is the verse 18:15:

נָבִ֨יא מִקִּרְבְּךָ֤ מֵאַחֶ֙יךָ֙ כָּמֹ֔נִי יָקִ֥ים לְךָ֖ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ אֵלָ֖יו תִּשְׁמָעֽוּן׃

“From among your own people, your God יהוה will raise up for you a prophet like myself; that is whom you shall heed.” (JPS translation).

How does Jesus fulfil Deuteronomy 18

We can see even at first take how appropriately Jesus fulfils this prophecy, since the reason given is the people’s inability to bear the direct vision of God (v.16). Moses himself veils his face because of the manner in which it shines with the reflected Glory, and Jesus veiled in human Flesh bears the Presence of God and his Words to them directly.

Peter alludes to the fact that Jesus fulfils this prophecy in Acts 3:22-23. Where are these similarities?

Commands: “and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you…“ (Matt 28:20a)

“A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you also must love one another.” John 13:34

“A certain ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother.’” He replied, “I have kept all these since my youth.” When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” (Luke 18:18-22)

Israel’s entering into the Promised Land was incumbent upon Moses first dying, foreshadowing the manner in which Jesus has to die to save the people.

Jesus spoke with the Father directly, “Face to Face”, as did Moses, even though in his human capacity

Covenant: Both brought divine covenants from God for the people of Israel

Miracle: Both performed tremendous miracles

On the Mount of Transfiguration, with Moses and Elijah present, the voice of the Father says, in relation to Jesus “listen to him…”. This is exactly what is said of the Angel of the Lord, who is God himself who Moses encounters in the Burning Bush and Elijah on Mount Carmel, and of whom also is said “listen to him”.

“Then the Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet” (Exodus 7:1, also 4:16 “you will be as God to him)

Indeed this prefigures the manner in which Jesus is God come to us himself, and with the prophets that speak his words, even as his own apostles and those that speak inspired with the Holy Spirit, the inspired writers of scripture and so on.

Is he in Gospel of John?

This is a real stretch, because it is a “spirit” which is promised, not a man in the first place. On top of that the comforter will be with us “forever”, and the fulfilment of the promise is in the Bible itself at Pentecost. It’s a non-starter. There’s no need to even reach up to the verses of the Spirit indwelling the believers, one has already lost interest in this claim.

Is he in Son of Solomon

If someone in the Bible states “he is altogether lovely” it automatically becomes a prophecy of Muhammed? Surely even Muslims can see the weakness of such argumentation missing any contextual referents.

Machmad מַחְמָדis is Strong’s 4641 and simply “desirable”, used 12 other times in the same sense in the OT, and is an expansion of chamad  חָמַד which is seen an additional 28 times.  Essentially these words are used when trying to express “desirable/ precious” in the Hebrew. The Muslim argument is based upon the mere occurrence of an obscure passage in the Bible with no supplied contextual referents of a lover telling their beloved that they are precious to them. It is difficult to see any significance in this.

If we investigate what the Jews thought about Song of Solomon, Dr. Michael Brown states that as per their Targumic writings it was if anything, interpreted not as prophetic but rather a historic symbolic representation of God’s loving relationship to Israel his people.

The majority scholarly consensus is that the Song is post-exilic, however it would be possible that earlier Songs were collated by a post-exilic author and hence the reason for the post-exilic language markers. Arguments form an earlier first millennium date as given in the NRSV Study Bible (p1091) are the fact that the genre parallels Egyptian and other ANE love poetry and further that v. 6:4 suggests that at the time of writing Tirzah was one of the two grand cities of Israel (comparable to Jerusalem) which supports a an early first millennium BC date. It goes into further details in the notes and also supplies examples of Egyptian love poetry (p.1093).

The NJBC writes (p463): “Remarkably both synagogue and church agree on a religious interpretation: Cant refers to the love of the LORD for his people or, for Christians to the love of the Lord for the church (or the individual soul). This view was supported by the there of the marriage between the Lord and Israel (Hos1-3, Isa 62:5, etc.) Hence the Targum treated the song as an allegory on the history of Israel, from the exodus on. For Christians, Origen set the pattern for allegory in his works..”

In fact this is a good occasion to undertake some study of the Song itself. This is from the NJBC (2nd ed., p462-3):

the work is dramatic in the sense that there is a dialogue between the following three speakers: a woman, a man and the daughters of Jerusalem (so if sing, the NRSV Study Bible states that it would contain sections of the woman or man singing solo, duets between them, and the women of Jerusalem singing in chorus [p.1091])

several literary forms appear: poems of yearning… teasing… admiration… reminiscence… boasting… and description of physical charms (i’ve left out the verses numbers).

The overall outline of the Song is given as (again leavning out verse numbers):
1. Superscription (which ascribes it to Solomon)>

2. Introduction

3. Dialogue between the lovers

4. Reminiscence

5. Loss and discovery

6. Solomon’s wedding procession

7. Dialogue between lovers

8. Dialogue between the women and the daughters

9. Dialogue between lovers

10. Dialogue

11. Appendixes

Examining Claimed Prophecies

Mohammed, purportedly a prophet, didn’t actually prophesy, nor fulfill prophecy. Threats of divine retribution and promises of reward form the bulk of his literary output. Muslims seem to have questioned him about this “When will this promise be fulfilled, if what you say be true?”(Q 10:48)- they receive an ambiguous answer: “Say: ‘I have no power to profit for myself, or hurt, but as God will (10:49) and “Should this scourge fall upon you…would you believe in it?” (Q 10:50)

There is a verse in the Quran where Mohammed seems to “predict” the defeat of the Persian army by Rome. This occurred in AD 628, before Mohamed died, so I’m not sure how it is being claimed as prophecy! Apart from this there are some tenuous claims of prophetic saying made in the Hadith which I prefer not to may much attention to. The property of a prophecy must be authenticity which is hardly verifiable with any certainty in the Hadith.

Tall Buildings?

If we combine all the identities of who it is that is supposed to be building the tall buildings, then we have:

“the Hour will not be established (…) till the people (Bukhari 7121) shepherds of black camels (Bukhari 50) Shepherds Ibn Majah 4044) barefoot unclothed herdsmen (ibn Majah 63) compete with one another in the construction of tall buildings”

In an additional tradition, Muhammad on being asked about the identity of these “people”, replied that it was “Arabs”. This is not a sahih narration: “It was said: ‘Who are the barefoot herdsmen?’ He answered: ‘The Arabs’” (Musnad Imam Ahmad bin Hambal Hadith 2924, graded Hasan).

The problem with these prophecies is that people have, as AP points out in the video, built tall monuments competitively since long before the time of Muhammed, like the Pyramids of Egypt, the ziggurats, the Lighthouse of Alexandria, and so on. In fact, Hagia Sophia was built between 532 and 537.

There is one that says that tall buildings will he built in the desert in Mecca and greenery would abound, but this even if truly stated by Mohammed could easily have been no more than some futuristic musings. There are science fiction writers that have predicted robots, artificial intelligence, space travel, before it was even possible and so on. This is a classic self-fulfilling prophecy, Muslims build the highest buildings in the world in order to demonstrate supposed prophetic fulfilment.

Muhammad, if indeed this is one of his quotes, could merely have been musing about the great monuments that his followers would one day build. It is not necessary that this followers were poor at the stage at which the quote was made, as they began to garner military success after success, and so he would already know that the poor/destitute/naked shepherds were no longer poor nor destitute nor butt naked, rather Muhammed may have been merely musing upon his humble beginnings when this was their condition. Or perhaps he meant that after the Decline of Islam’s Golden Age during the rise of European empire and colonialism Arabs would once again be reduced to poverty until the discovery of petroleum raised them back to affluence. One would counter that these cycles of economic growth and decline are merely the natural course that history takes, and the reference to the poor becoming rich is quite broad and non-specific.

Lastly, this is said to be a “Sign of the Hour”. Men building tall buildings is merely a sign of men’s learning to build tall buildings. However it only qualifies as a sign if the Hour does come now that the high-rises have indeed started to come up. Until that does happen (and the time of happening cannot be infinite into the future or the sign loses its significance), nothing more can be said really about it. It is only the Hour which truly fulfils the prophecy.

Tall Buildings are only one among many “signs of the hour”

This is the full version of Bukhari 7121 quoted above. It is a narration of Abu Huraira who is the most prolific of the hadith transmitters, and given huge importance in the tradition.

“Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Messenger said, “The Hour will not be established (1) till two big groups fight each other whereupon there will be a great number of casualties on both sides and they will be following one and the same religious doctrine, (2) till about thirty Dajjals (liars) appear, and each one of them will claim that he is Allah’s Messenger, (3) till the religious knowledge is taken away (by the death of Religious scholars) (4) earthquakes will increase in number (5) time will pass quickly, (6) afflictions will appear, (7) Al-Harj, (i.e., killing) will increase, (8) till wealth will be in abundance —- so abundant that a wealthy person will worry lest nobody should accept his Zakat, and whenever he will present it to someone, that person (to whom it will be offered) will say, ‘I am not in need of it, (9) till the people compete with one another in constructing high buildings, (10) till a man when passing by a grave of someone will say, ‘Would that I were in his place (11) and till the sun rises from the West. So when the sun will rise and the people will see it (rising from the West) they will all believe (embrace Islam) but that will be the time when: (As Allah said,) ‘No good will it do to a soul to believe then, if it believed not before, nor earned good (by deeds of righteousness) through its Faith.’ (6.158) And the Hour will be established while two men spreading a garment in front of them but they will not be able to sell it, nor fold it up; and the Hour will be established when a man has milked his she-camel and has taken away the milk but he will not be able to drink it; and the Hour will be established before a man repairing a tank (for his livestock) is able to water (his animals) in it; and the Hour will be established when a person has raised a morsel (of food) to his mouth but will not be able to eat it.”

this is really scattergun? All of these could be true or not be true and there could be a number of world or anecdotal events that they could be applied to because there are no specifics. If they seem partially fulfilled then it is possible to say that the fulfilment is to come, and so on.

The stuff about increased earthquakes and increased killing and increasing suicidal ideation and increasing affliction, time will pass quickly, religious knowledge will be taken away (the brackets are perhaps a plausible addition, but we shouldn’t take it at face value), none of these make sense to me.

at the most one could concede that rates of depression have been on the increase in the Western world, although we have no means of knowing what they were in the 7th century. Religious knowledge is taken away in some parts of the world like China, N Korea, and some Islamic countries where you are not allowed to read the Bible. But this sort of thins comes in cycles, waxes and wanes- depression rates, state censorship etc. Actually one would think that in the information age we have the greatest dissemination of religious knowledge.

so its possible to argue these several ways, precisely because they lack specificity

there haven’t been 30 Muhammed wannabes- its too dangerous to be one. For goodness sake, its scary even to draw him, leave alone say “I am the next Muhammed”

The “Signs” parallel Matt. 24, minus the tall buildings

Islamic theology does not even provide for this. Christian theology in contrast provides some basis for fake Christs because we are expecting a Second Coming. So “about thirty Dajjals (liars) appear, and each one of them will claim that he is Allah’s Messenger,” sounds a lot like the signs that Jesus himself gives in Matthew 24 when the disciples ask him the same question:

“Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

and the passage continues, sounding quite a lot like Muhammed’s reply:

“Jesus answered them, “Beware that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Messiah!’ and they will lead many astray. ⁶ And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. ⁷ For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth pangs.

“Then they will hand you over to be tortured and will put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of my name. Then many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. And this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.” (4-13)

I skip a bit here for brevity, but the passage concludes with:

“Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Messiah!’ or ‘There he is!’—do not believe it. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce great signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Take note, I have told you beforehand. So, if they say to you, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look! He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever the corpse is, there the eagles will gather.” (vv.23-28)

Taller than mountains?

Finally there is a hadith that specifies that these “tall buildings” would actually be taller than mountains. Its the only narration that gives a attempts to quantify the height mentioned. However the actual quote is not even from Muhammed, rather it is a conversation between two companions giving their opinion of what Muhammed might have meant. It is also not a sahih narration.

Sayyiduna ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr is reported to have said: “……When you see tunnels/canals being dug in Makkah Mukarramah and the buildings (of Makkah Mukarramah) higher than the peak of the mountains then know that Qiyamah is close.” (Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, Hadith: 14306) Al Muhaddith Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awwamah has classified the above Hadith as sound (hasan) in his footnotes on Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, Hadith: 14306.

this is a quote from and reference to an article on an Islamic blog related to this narration:
These are not Prophetic ḥadith but purportedly statements, mawquf (halted), that have been attributed to two companions, may Allah be pleased with them.  Although in the excerpts provided they are referred to as being ḥadith, in none of the narrative channels seen are any of these raised and connected to the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him.  Despite this, the wording as sent through above appears to be quoted verbatim in many websites, primarily to do with the building of the clock tower (and other tall buildings) in Mecca.

The mawquf narratives appear in various collections that are detailed below, ostensibly being attributed to the companions Abdullah ibn Umar and Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-Aāṣ.  However, there does seem to be a semblance of disturbance within the narratives regarding precise attribution for the statements, mixing between Abdullah ibn Umar and Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-Aāṣ.  Some have opined that this could be the result of a typographical error.  Without having the time at present to peruse original manuscripts in this regard, it is not possible for formally determine this.

As standalone narratives, the probative legal value is found to be wanting.  Concerning narratives of this type, Ibn Ḥazm writes in al-Muḥalla [Vol. 1, p. 72]:

The mawquf and mursal, do not establish by themselves proof.  And like that, no one narrates it, except those that are not trustworthy in relation to their Deen and their memorisation.  It is not lawful to leave (or abandon) what has come in the Qur’ān or that which is authentic from the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him, for the speech of a Companion or other than them. Whether it is the narrator of a ḥadith or it isn’t, and the mursal is (containing) an (omitted) narrator between it, or between the narrator and the Prophet peace be upon him.   The mawquf is not known as being that which reaches (its line of transmission) to the Prophet peace be upon him

Link to the article with references: http://islamicsystem.blogspot.com/2022/01/authenticity-of-ahadith-on-tall.html

Predicting the Roman victory against the Persians- FOUR issues Against

Seriously, this is the only prophecy by Muhammed that made me scratch my head a little. But I think that the reason for its impact is that the real story-line is lost in history. We shall see why this can have a significant impact on its authenticity.

“Alif Lam Mim. 2. The Romans have been defeated. 3. In the nearest land, and they, after their defeat, will be victorious. 4. In Bid`i years. The decision of the matter, before and after is only with Allah. And on that day, the believers will rejoice 5. With the help of Allah. He helps whom He wills, and He is the All-Mighty, the Most Merciful. 6. A promise from Allah, and Allah fails not in His promise, but most men know not. 7. They know only the outer appearance of the life of the world, and they are heedless of the Hereafter.” (Q 30:1-7)

This is interpreted as a prediction of the Roman victory at a time when it seemed quite unlikely because the Romans had suffered some significant setbacks in their war against the Persians.

The main objection is the possibility that it was “reverse engineered” into the Surah. As with all things Qur’an, it is impossible to know the actual sequence events or verses. In support of this are TWO narrations, which seem to admit this “reverse-engineering” as we shall see.

First, in support of the prophecy, Ibn Kathir provides a “hasan” hadith from Tirmidhi narrating the circumstances of this prophecy, in which he explains that bid’i is 3 to 9, or less than 10 years. I’m really not convinced by that. but it doesn’t affect the argument. Read it here: https://www.alim.org/quran/tafsir/ibn-kathir/surah/30/1/?fbclid=IwAR1Wn1YStrLu0zZJ-_1UEZYPXy8K_wyz-VjyjTY-iiA9tU2Z4ZO7j0Dv2Go.

In contrast, two hadith, also from Tirmidhi, and one of them of higher reliability (being sahih) state that the “prophecy” came after the event:

“Narrated ‘Atiyyah: Abu Sa’eed narrated: “On the Day of Badr, the Romans had a victory over the Persians. So the believers were pleased with that, then the following was revealed: ‘Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated, up to His saying: ‘the believers will rejoice – with the help of Allah… (30:1-5)'” He said: “So the believers were happy with the victory of the Romans over the Persians.” (Tirmidhi 3192, graded sahih- Darussalam)

“Narrated Abu Sa’eed: “On the Day of (the battle of) Badr, the Romans had a victory over the Persians. So the believers were pleased with that, then the following was revealed: Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated…” up to His saying: ‘…the believers will rejoice. (30:1-4)” He said: “So the believers were happy with the victory of the Romans over the Persians. (Tirmidhi 2935, graded hasan- Darussalam)

Muslim response

Muslims question the authenticity of these two hadith as:

These two are in effect the same hadith with one and the same chain of narration. Both chains contain the narrator ‘Atiya b. Sa’d al-’Awfi who is problematic for four reasons: (1) he is a weak narrator according to the overriding majority of hadith scholars – 14 hadith specialists who graded him ‘weak’ are given in Tahrir al-Taqrib (1997 ed., vol.3, p.20, #3616); (2) he makes many mistakes in his narrations as Ibn Hajar said in Al-Taqrib (#3616); (3) he commits tadlis (hides defects in his reports) so much so that in his work on such narrators Ibn Hajar places him in category four about which he says that nothing of their hadith should ever be accepted unless they confirm that they clearly heard the report from their immediate source – and this is not the case in this particular instance (see Ibn Hajar, Ta’rif Ahl al-Taqdis, p.50, #122); and (4) he would often relate Qur’an commentary from al-Kalbi, whose epithet (kunya) is Abu Sa’id, but in such a way as to give the impression that he was reporting from the Companion, Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, which is precisely the case with these hadith under discussion where he simply says, “on the authority of Abu Sa’id”, without clarifying who exactly his source is. For more on this latter point refer to al-Mubarakfuri’s commentary on these hadith in his Tuhfatul Ahwadhi where he rejects the authenticity. It would also appear that al-Tirmidhi himself viewed the reports as anomalous, at least in part, given that he includes the term “gharib” (odd or strange) in his grading.

The SECOND objection is that it could well be no more than a lucky shot. This war was ongoing for 300 years with multiple ups and downs, and its not difficult to predict further turn-arounds anyway. The Persians were finally defeated only by the Muslims. Muslim say that Muhammed was taking a big risk, given the adverse circumstances the Romans were in at that time (I’m not aware of the historical circumstance of how bad the situation was or was not for them). It’s not as if this could not have been taken back, other verses have been “abrogated” in the Qur’an.

The THIRD problem is that were the sequence correct, then the fulfilment, which came before the Qur’an was completed, would have been mentioned in the Qur’an itself, rather than in other “narrations”. Yet there is no verse in the Qur’an which reports the fulfilment and the Roman victory.

FOURTH, it is hard to know why the Roman victory would have been considered desirable by Allah when by this time the they are Trinitarians anyway, the Arian heresy has long been surpressed. To prove this, the Muslims end up atatcking and conquering Byzantium themselves! In fact on reading this verse the Muslims would believe they had a divine mandate to rejoice at the Christian victory. Why?

FIFTH, WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL TIME-SCALE? Bid’i is a word used only once in the Qur’an and in this verse. I’m very suspicious as to the real meaning of it. But in any case even if we do take the very odd time measurement unit of “3-9 years” as ibn Kathir claims, the final Roman victory came in 629AD. Do we know when the prophecy was made? I don’t know!

Failed attempted Prophesies

“the Hour”

“Constantinople will be conquered and the Last Hour will come” (Muslim 41:6924, 41:6979, Tirmidhi 4:7:2239, Dawud 38:4281 and more…)

“He said: “I an the Last Hour have been sent like this”, and joined his forefinger and his middle finger” (Muslim 41:7044-7049)

“the Last Hour will be nearer to mankind than this hand of mine is to your head” (Dawud 14:2529)

It also seems as though the signs of the last time have been coming to pass, for eg.

“Umar swore that ibn Sayyid was the expected Dajjal. Muhammad did not object” (Dawud 38:4315-4317)

“Narrated Abdullah ibn Hawalah al-Azdi: (…) He then placed his hand on my head and said: Ibn Hawalah, when you see the caliphate has settled in the holy land, earthquakes, sorrows and serious matters will have drawn near and on that day the Last Hour will be nearer to mankind than this hand of mine is to your head.” (Sunan Abu Dawud 2535, graded Sahih by Al-Albani)

YOUR Hour?

This is a complex series of scattered hadith of essentially the same quote, which like the ones to follow, one is given the impression that there has been some back-writing by the late Hadith writers to cover up for a prophecy that had by their times, like all doomsday predictions to date in any religion, obviously failed.

Bukhari writes “your hour” as does Muslim in 2952, seemingly a reference to the deaths of the audience, rather than the Last Day of Earth. This reply does not match the question, Muhammed is specifically asked about “the Hour”, not “when will we die”?

Narrated `Aisha: Some rough bedouins used to visit the Prophet and ask him, “When will the Hour be?” He would look at the youngest of all of them and say, “If this should live till he is very old, your Hour will take place.” Hisham said that he meant, their death.” (Bukhari 6511)

THE Hour

These are probably the original narration, since they match the question, and are free from added commentary. You decide, there’s so much to choose from!

‘A’isha reported that when the desert Arabs came to Allah’s Messenger they asked about the Last Hour as to when that would come. And he looked towards the youngest amongst them and said: If he lives he would not grow very old that he would find your Last Hour coming to you. (Muslim 2952)

Anas reported that a person asked Allah’s Messenger as to when the Last Hour would come. He had in his presence a young boy of the Ansar who was called Muhammad. Allah’s Messenger said: If this young boy lives, he may not grow very old till (he would see) the Last Hour coming to you. (Muslim 2953a)

Anas b. Malik reported that a person asked Allah’s Apostle: When would the Last Hour come? Thereupon Allah’s Messenger kept quiet for a while. Then looked at a young boy in his presence belonging to the tribe of Azd Shanu’a and he said: If this boy lives he would not grow very old till the Last Hour would come to you. Anas said that this young boy was of our age during those days. (Muslim 2953b)

Anas reported: A young boy of Mughira b. Shu’ba happened to pass by (the Holy Prophet) and he was of my age. Thereupon Allah’s Apostle said: If he lives long he would not grow very old till the Last Hour would come. (Muslim 2953c)

No one will be living in a 100 years?

Narrated `Abdullah bin `Umar: Once the Prophet led us in the `Isha’ prayer during the last days of his life and after finishing it (the prayer) (with Taslim) he said: “Do you realize (the importance of) this night?” Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight will be living after the completion of one hundred years from this night.” (Bukhari 116, 564)

Bukhari 601 and Muslim 2537a try to offer clarification that in fact Muhammad only means that none of his companions would be alive at this time. This seems to be a strange quote, because I can say to literally any group of adults that none of them will be present in a 100 years from now. This is hardly a cause of “importance” for the night on which I make that statement. At the most it might mean that one of the companions age at their death would equal their age at that might plus a 100 years, which is actually quite old, whatever their present age might have been. In any case this does not explain the conundrum because the previous hadith say “nothing on the surface of the earth” will be alive at the time, not just Muhammed’s current listeners. This is eminently more likely to be a rear-guard corrective action by the hadith writers who arrived a 100 years after the “100 years” prophecy had passed only to find nothing untoward had happened and therefore attempted to back-write “explanations” into some of the narratives.

This is another complex passage of hadith where a seeming failed prophecy is made, and is then followed up by rearguard action:

“Jabir b. ‘Abdullah reported: I heard Allah’s Messenger as saying this one month before his death: You asked me about the Last Hour whereas its knowledge is with Allah. I, however, take an oath and say that none upon the earth, the created beings (from amongst my Companions), would survive at the end of one hundred years.”(Muslim 2538a-e, by the end of which a similar claim is made that “every living creature” refers solely to Muhammad’s companions at that time)

Forgotten Prophecy: Laylat’ul Qadr– “Night of Power”

Muslims have no clue as to whether they will or will not go to Heaven, due to the doctrine of pre-determination, see my article The Problem of Pre-Determination in Islam

This “night of power” is described in surahs 44:2-6 and 97:1-5.

the hadith elaborate on this:

“Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Messenger said, “Whoever establishes the prayers on the night of Qadr out of sincere faith and hoping to attain Allah’s rewards (not to show off) then all his past sins will be forgiven.” (Bukhari 35)

But Muhammed forgot it

Narrated ‘Ubada bin As-Samit: “Allah’s Messenger went out to inform the people about the (date of the) night of decree (Al-Qadr) but there happened a quarrel between two Muslim men. The Prophet said, “I came out to inform you about (the date of) the night of Al-Qadr, but as so and so and so and so quarrelled, its knowledge was taken away (I forgot it) and maybe it was better for you. Now look for it in the 7th, the 9th and the 5th (of the last 10 nights of the month of Ramadan).” (Bukhari 49)

I do not know the authenticity of this narration since it is not specified on sunnah.com, but its corroborated by the narrationin Bukhari

“Ibn ‘Abbas said, “The Prophet of Allah came forward swiftly while we were sitting, He approached in such a manner that we wee alarmed by the speed with which he came towards us. When he reached us, he greeted us and said, ‘I came swiftly to you to tell you about the Night of Power. I forgot it in the time it took me to get to you, so look for it in the last ten nights (of Ramadan).'” (Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 813)

Absence of any Privileged Viewpoint

Does not even know Right from Wrong, leave alone the Future

Surah 72:21 “: Say, “Indeed, I do not possess for you [the power of] harm or right direction (rashadan- consistently this meaning is assigned in other occ.)”

Say, “I am not something original among the messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I only follow that which is revealed to me, and I am not but a clear warner.” (Q 46:9)

Feared he was going to receive Punishment himself

‘A’isha reported: The Prophet entered my house when a Jewess was with me and she was saying: Do you know that you would be put to trial in the grave? The Messenger of Allah trembled (on hearing this) and said: It is the Jews only who would-be put to trial. ‘A’isha said: We passed some nights and then the Messenger of Allah said: Do you know that it has been revealed to me:” You would be put to trial in the grave”? ‘A’isha said: I heard the Messenger of Allah  seeking refuge from the torment of the grave after this.”  (Muslim 584)

He asked protection from various punishments: (Bukhari 6375, 8379) “Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet used to say, “O Allah! I seek refuge with You from laziness and geriatric old age, from all kinds of sins and from being in debt; from the affliction of the Fire and from the punishment of the Fire and from the evil of the affliction of wealth; and I seek refuge with You from the affliction of poverty, and I seek refuge with You from the affliction of Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal. O Allah! Wash away my sins with the water of snow and hail, and cleanse my heart from all the sins as a white garment is cleansed from the filth, and let there be a long distance between me and my sins, as You made East and West far from each other.”

In a context of just having told the people that he sends messengers “only to give good news and to warn…” (Q 6:49), the Qur’anic deity then asks Muhammed to say the following to them and seems to compare him to a blind man with respect to any hidden prophetic knowledge:

“I do not have the treasures of God, not do I know the unseen, nor do I tell you that I am an angel, I only follow what is revealed to me,”…”Is a blind person like one who can see? why will you not reflect?” (Q 6:50)

Successful Prophecy (!)

“Narrated `Aisha: The Prophet (ﷺ) in his ailment in which he died, used to say, “O `Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.” (Bukhari 4428)

This is Muhammed’s seeming own agonized realization that he unintentionally fulfilled his own prediction with regards to false prophets.

“Had he invented against us any sayings, then we would have seized him by the right hand, then we would have cut from him the aorta” (Q 69:44-46)

Jesus’s Prophecy is actually in the Qur’an

The Qur’an confirms that the arrival of Jesus is indeed fulfilment of prophecy. This means that for a Muslim the fulfilment is documented in a divine text, in the words of God himself. However the text that confirms Muhammed is fulfilment of any prophecy cannot be found in any book. This is why this is a salient point. Only 6 verses later in v.45 Jesus is himself given this unique title “a word from God”. This verse is deeply entrenched in the passage about Mary, so its hard not to make the association, and most Muslims would agree with this, especially given that it also parallels the Biblical narrative in this respect, that John came to herald the way for Jesus:

“And the angels called to him (Zechariah), standing in the Sanctuary at worship, ‘Lo, God gives thee good tidings of John, who shall confirm a Word of God, a chief, and chaste, a Prophet, righteous.'” (Q 3:39)

What Fulfilment of Prophecy really is

There are a couple of reasons why Mohammed is not in the Bible, the main one being that the Bible is demonstrably a completed prophecy. It is the reason for the birth of Christianity, and it is the manner in which Jesus founded that new religion, as seen in specific passages where he interprets for his believers the manner in which he fulfils Old Testament prophecy. That meaning of the entire Old Testament is “God: says: “I am coming to save you”” and that of the New Testament: Jesus says, “I have saved you”.

The Whole Old Testament is about Jesus. Every time an Israelite High Priest sprinkled blood upon the Mercy Seat he was unconsciously playing out a Crucifixion, an enactment which as obscure as it was before, would be all too evident after the Crucifixion, to the point of being obvious: It was a prefigurment of the Sacrifice of the Lamb of God, Jesus. All during this time Israel is expecting a Messiah, and a King to rule forever on the throne of David. The fulfilment of this is played in the event of the Nativity of Jesus as we see King Herod ask his wise men for the interpretation of that very part of Scripture and they give it to him: the Messiah and King is to be born in Bethlehem, mentioned by name in the prophecy. The entire prophetic cycle is completed in the Bible, as two Testaments that testify to each other and therefore are perfectly fitted to each other. The entire cycle of festivals with Passover and Yom Kippur culminate at the Last Supper meal. At that same meal is fulfilled the prophesy of Jeremiah of the Old Covenant made new and his prophesy of the Law of God being written on the hearts of men which is fulfilled in the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles at Pentecost. God’s action is the world itself is prophecy and fulfilment; the prophecy of his action and the occasion of its fulfilment.

There is a reason why God acts and reveals in a certain and obscure manner prior to his coming and that reason is a fulfilment of that prior action which amounts to man’s Salvation. Christian prophesy is not empty prediction of world events, it is the commencement of the promised Salvation and its fulfilment. That Revelation of man’s Salvation is commenced with in introduction of the notions of propitiatory sacrifice, of atonement of sins, of a certain people of God, of a chosen vehicle through which, and through which alone Grace is to be channeled, “a Royal Priesthood, a chosen Generation and a Holy Nation” which is to be the Church of God,and of a certain sacramental life and means of the administration of Grace within that Church. We know what prophecy is and what is prophecy in revelation only by knowing its fulfilment in Jesus and in the fulfilment that Jesus brings to the biblical narrative.

Muhammed’s and Mecca’s Prophetic Disconnect from Israel

The Child of Promise- Isaac, or Ishmael?

The Biblical Promise is through Isaac

God, in his promise to Abraham states:

“and by offspring (seed) shall all nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.” (Gen.22:18)

The Bible is clear that the son of the Promise is Isaac and not Ishmael, that is, God’s promise to Abraham will be fulfilled through Isaac and not Ishmael “…for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be named for you” (Gen.21:12). This is significant, because Abraham has other children too. Abraham receives the promise definitively in Gen.22 right after the great event of being demanded the sacrifice of his son:

“by myself I have sworn…by your offspring shall all nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves…” (22:15, 18).

These words are already spoken earlier in the text, seemingly unbeknown to Abraham at this point:

“…seeing that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? No, for I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring about for Abraham what he has promised him…” (Gen.18:18,19).

God has made his promise to Abraham even earlier in the narrative:

“ I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. ⁸ And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding, and I will be their God.” (Gen.17:7,8)

and again, it is asserted that God that the promise will be through Isaac, and not Ishmael:

“Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, “Can a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Can Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” And Abraham said to God, “O that Ishmael might live in your sight!” God said, “No, but your wife Sarah shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; I will bless him and make him fruitful and exceedingly numerous; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year.” And when he had finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham.” (Gen.17:17-22).

The Qur’an seems ambivalent…

The Qur’an states that prophethood is through the line of Isaac and does not even mention Ishmael in this verse. This is the only verse in the Qur’an is no other such verse in the Quran that speaks of prophetic lineage by descent, and

“And We gave (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob, and ordained among his progeny Prophethood and Revelation, and We granted him his reward in this life; and he was in the Hereafter (of the company) of the Righteous.” (Q 29:27)

In 37:11, we are told of the “glad tidings” of Isaac’s birth announced beforehand and that he would be a prophet and one of the Righteous. Abraham and Isaac. Ishmael who is already born at this point is not even mentioned:

“and we gave him the good news of Isaac- a prophet and one of the Righteous. And We blessed him and Isaac. But among their descendants is the doer of good and the clearly unjust to himself.” (Q:37:112,3)

Surah 6:84-87 does list Ishmael among those “favored over others”, “righteous” and “guided”, but instead of being listed among the sons or even descendants of Abraham, rather is mentioned later, seemingly as an afterthought:

“And We gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – all [of them] We guided. And Noah, We guided before; and among his descendants, David and Solomon and Job and Joseph and Moses and Aaron. Thus do We reward the doers of good (6:84)-Zachariah, John, Eisa and Elijah- every one of them was righteous- Ishmael, Elisha, Jonah and Lot. We favored each one of them over other people, and also some of their forefathers, their offspring, and their brothers. We chose them and guided them in a straight path” (Q6:84-87)

Actually I’m not aware that the Qur’an even mentions Muhammed’s lineage from Ishmael. Rather it is the Bible that is clear about who is or isn’t a prophet.

Islamic Response

Ishmael is mentioned a total of 12 times in the Qur’an. Five of these are in Chapter 2 in two separate sequences. 2:1225,127 describe Abraham and Ishmael building the Ka’aba “for those who walk around it… and those who bow and prostrate themselves in worship”. In verses 2:133, 136,140 he is listed among the prophets of God and of Israel. Similarly the other references 3::84, 4:163, 6:86, 19:54, 21:85, 38:48 also refer to him among prophetic lists, or the “steadfast ones” and so on, with the exception of 14:39 which is only a passing reference. All these will form the scriptural basis for Muslim’s belief in the prophethood of Ishmael, which is really in contradiction with the verses we quoted in the first section.

Who is the Obedient Son- Isaac or Ishmael?

Eid al- Adha is the greatest festival of Muslims, but there seems to be every manner of uncertainty at its roots. The very first issue is as to the identity of the obedient son. The Biblical account of course is very specific about Isaac, Ishmael is really not a central character of the narrative nor in the general Biblical account per se. The Torah (Genesis 22:2) and the New Testament (Hebrews 11:17, James 2:21) name the son as Isaac. However in Islam, the picture is not quite so clear.

Two other important questions arise- the second is as to why Muslims celebrate a festival that is not ordained in the Torah, nor is it specified in the Qur’an. The third question is related to the enigmatic surah 37:101- “we ransomed him with a great/momentous sacrifice”. Why does Allah demand this “great sacrifice”? I’ve addressed this here The “Borrowed Themes” of Islam. Since that question is theological we won’t discuss it here.

Ambiguity in the Qur’anic account

Let’s first look at what the Qur’an actually says. The account of the sacrifice in the Qur’an begins with Abraham being given “glad tidings of a forebearing/patient boy”:

(Q 37:101) “and we gave him glad tidings of a forebearing boy”.

It then proceeds (vv.100-107) with the actual sacrifice narrative without any mention of name, ending with the son being “ransomed with a great/momentous sacrifice” (vv.108-111).

Following this we are told that Abraham is “given good news of Isaac (v.112), a prophet and one of the Righteous, and blessed him with Isaac too” (v.113).

Does this mean that two births are announced, or is the Qur’an merely here repeating the previous announcement, which would also not be unusual given the Qur’an’s repetitive and generally unchronological nature?

First, there is no mention of a “second child” in the narrative, nor is the name of Ishmael even mentioned anywhere in the narrative, even in the list of stories of other prophets that immediately follow this narrative right down to v.148.

Second, it would seem quite incongruous that Abraham prays to God for a child while having sex with his slave? I don’t understand what kind of a prayer is that. And then God answers his prayers by enabling a pregnancy in the slave, although he already has a wife.

Thirdly, on top of everything, we are talking about a slave who is not even mentioned. Hagar, nor anything to do with her is ever mentioned in the Qur’an.

Fourthly, I think also extremely pertinent is that the act of obedience of the boy far exceeds that any other Qur’anic character, and yet when Ishmael’s name is mentioned, this is never remarked on, he is never commended for this act by name. This is the incredible interchange between him and his father Abraham:

“And, when he (his son) was old enough to walk with him, he said: “O my son! I have seen in a dream that I am slaughtering you (offer you in sacrifice to Allah), so look what you think!” He said: “O my father! Do that which you are commanded, Insha’ Allah (if Allah will), you shall find me of As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.).” (Q 37:102, Mohsin Khan)

The word for slaughter is أَذْبَحُكَ adhbahuka, root ذ ب ح, same as the word in 37:107 “great sacrifice”. I am uncertain why the festival does not take its name from this root, rather it is eid al-adha.

The usual Muslim argument is that the Biblical narrative has the word “only “, and so this must be Ishmael, not Isaac. This even though the full version is “only child whom you love”, and then Isaac is mentioned specifically by name and in speech no less than 5 times in the sacrifice account.

The earliest Muslims are divided on this issue

This is an excerpt from Maududi in his Tafhim al-Qur’an:

“Now let us consider the Islamic traditions, and they contain great differences.

According to traditions cited by the commentators from the Companions and their immediate followers, one group of them is of the opinion that the son was the Prophet Isaac, and this group contains the following names: Hadrat `Umar, `Hadrat `Ali, `Hadrat `Abdullah bin Mas’ud, Hadrat `Abbas bin `Abdul Muttalib, Hadrat `Abdullah bin `Abbas, Hadrat Abu Hurairah, Qatadah, `Ikrimah, Hasan Basri, Said bin Jubair, Mujahid, Sha`bi, Masruq, Makhul, Zuhri, `Ata, Muqatil, Suddi, Ka’b Ahbar, Zaid bin Aslam, and others.

The other group says that it was the Prophet Ishmael, and this group contains the names of the following authorities:Hadrat Abu Bakr, Hadrat ‘Ali, Hadrat `Abdullah bin `Umar, Hadrat ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas, Hadrat Abu Hurairah, Hadrat Mu’awiyah, `Ikrimah, Mujahid, Yusuf bin Mahran, Hasan Basri, Muhammad bin Ka`b al-Qurzi, Sha`bi, Said bin al-Musayyab, Dahhak, Muhammad bin ‘Ali bin Husain (Muhammad alBaqir), Rabi` bin Anas, Ahmed bin Hanbal, and others.

When compared, the two lists will be seen to contain several common names: this is due to the reason that from the same person two different views have been reported. For example, from Hadrat ‘Abdullah bin `Abbas, `Ikrimiah has related the saying that the son was the Prophet Isaac, but from him again `Ata’ bin Abi Rabah relates: “The Jews claim that it was Isaac, but the Jews tell a tie. ” Likewise. from Hadrat Hasan Basri, one tradition is to the effect that the Prophet Isaac was the son meant to be made the offering, but `Umar bin `Ubaid says that Hasan Basri had no doubt regarding that the son whom the Prophet Abraham had been commanded to offer as a sacrifice was the Prophet Ishmael (peace be upon him).

This diversity of tradition has resulted in the diversity of opinion among the scholars of Islam. Some of them e.g. Ibn Jarir and Qadi `Iyad, have expressed the firm opinion that the son was the Prophet Isaac. Others, like Ibn Kathir have given the verdict that it were the Prophet Ishmael. There ware others who are un-certain and wavering, e.g. Jalaluddin Suyuti. However, a deep inquiry into the question establishes the fact that the son intended to be offered as a sacrifice was the Prophet Ishmael.

Find the article here: https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/37.102

along with Ibn Abbas:

“Abbas – Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs(And when (his son) was old enough to walk with him) when his son was old enough to strive for Allah and obey Him; it is also said that this means: when his son was old enough to walk with him in the mountains, ((Abraham) said) to his son Ishmael; and it is also said: to his son Isaac: (O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice thee) I am commanded in a dream vision to sacrifice you. (So look, what thinkest thou) what do you say? (He said: O my father! Do that which thou art commanded) of sacrificing me. (Allah willing, thou shalt find me of the steadfast) in the face of this sacrifice.”

and al-Jalalayn:

(37:107) Jalal – Al-JalalaynThen We ransomed him, the one whom he had been commanded to sacrifice, namely, Ishmael or Isaac — two different opinions — with a mighty sacrifice, [a mighty] ram from Paradise, the same one that Abel had offered as as sacrifice: Gabriel, peace be upon him, brought it and the lord Abraham sacrificed it as he cried, Allāhu akbar, ‘God is Great’.

find it here: https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/37.107

I have heard Shaykh Yassir Qadhi admit that most of the sahaba and tabieen take the child to be Isaac, and also that tafsir Qurtubi acknowledges this, but I don’t think that section of the tafsir has yet been translated into English. (there are 4 volumes so far tr. Aisha Bewley printed by Diwas Press, 2018 only going up to surah 5).

Qurrat al-Absar by Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Lamti (a sirah work from the 1500s which has been translated by Sh. Hamza Yusuf) says that Sayyidina Ishaq (alayhi’s-salam) is the majority opinion.

God bless, Jesus loves you

The hadith tell that Abraham sent Ishmael away as a suckling babe and visited him only after he was married (a journey of 860 miles from Hebron to Mecca):

Dar-us-Salam reference Hadith 3364 (in relation with ayah 14:37 & 2:127)

“Ishmael’s mother was pleased with the whole situation as she used to love to enjoy the company of the people. So, they settled there, and later on they sent for their families who came and settled with them so that some families became permanent residents there Ishmael) grew up and learned Arabic from them and (his virtues) caused them to love and admire him as he grew up, and when he reached the age of puberty they made him marry a woman from amongst them. After Ishmael’s mother had died, Abraham came after Ishmael’s marriage in order to see his family that he had left before, but he did not find Ishmael there. When he asked Ishmael’s wife about him, she replied, ‘He has gone in search of our livelihood.’ Then he asked her about their way of living and their condition, and she replied, ‘We are living in misery; we are living in hardship and destitution, complaining to him. He said, ‘When your husband returns, convey my salutation to him and tell him to change the threshold of the gate (of his house).’ Bukhari 3364

https://quranx.com/hadiths/14.37?fbclid=IwAR3T-jmUXWmXPYzHnAyL3dRJIc_BnbSKM3FaK2Ozl3lr6Ycv60aMhEbsvDs

and:

“Ibn ‘Abbas (May Allah be pleased with them) reported: Ibrahim (ﷺ) brought his wife and her son Isma’il (ﷺ), while she was suckling him, to a place near the Ka’bah under a tree on the spot of Zamzam, at the highest place in the mosque. In those days, there was no human being in Makkah, nor was there any water…”

Riyadh as-Salihin 1867, this is the beginning of a LONG hadith, find it here: https://quranx.com/Hadith/Saliheen/In-Book/Book-19/Hadith-1867?fbclid=IwAR2_ng4p0436A6ol-aN7JXQyqOl7n3K1-Q-at-bnNWYPFjK4FKctm2q0hlM.

This is the hadith where Abraham sends his wife and Ishmael away:

“

Narrated Ibn `Abbas: When Abraham had differences with his wife), (because of her jealousy of Hajar, Ishmael’s mother), he took Ishmael and his mother and went away. They had a water-skin with them containing some water, Ishmael’s mother used to drink water from the water-skin so that her milk would increase for her child. When Abraham reached Mecca, he made her sit under a tree and afterwards returned home. Ishmael’s mother followed him, and when they reached Kada’, she called him from behind, ‘O Abraham! To whom are you leaving us?’ He replied, ‘(I am leaving you) to Allah’s (Care).’ She said, ‘I am satisfied to be with Allah.’…” (Bukhari 584)

Muhammed’s incomplete Genealogical link to Ishmael

The supposed genealogy of Mohammed is only present, even among Muslims upto someone called Adnan around 20 generations up. The overwhelming majority of traditions and Muslim scholars state that Adnan is a descendant of Kedar the son of Ishmael, except for Ibn Ishaq who claimed that Adnan was a descendant of Nebaioth, this confusion of Ibn Ishaq can be because one of the descendants of Kedar was also named “Nebaioth”.

Most of Muslim scholars refused any attempt to recite the ancestors between Adnan to Ishmael, and condemned some other scholars such as Ibn Ishaq for doing it.

This is the excellent compilation of key sources from the answering-islam website:

We begin with the statements of Ibn Kathir:

There is no question of ‘Adnan being of the line of Ishmael, son of Abraham, upon both of whom be peace. What dispute there is relates to the number of forebears there were from ‘Adnan to Ishmael according to the various sources.

At one end of the spectrum, there is the extreme view that considers there to have been FORTY; this is the view of Christians and Jews who adopted it from the writings of Rakhiya, the clerk of Armiya (Jeremy) b. Halqiya, as we will relate.

Some authorities maintain there THIRTY, others TWENTY, yet more FIFTEEN, TEN, NINE, or SEVEN.

It has been said that the lowest estimate given is for FOUR, according to the account given by Musa b. Ya‘qub, on the authority of ‘Abd Allah b. Wahb b. Zum’a al-Zuma‘i from his aunt, and then from Umm Salama who stated that the Prophet (SAAS) said that the line was: “Ma‘ad b. ‘Adnan b. Adab b. Zand b. al-Tara b. A‘raq al-Thara”.

According to Umm Salam this Zanad was al-Hamaysa‘, al-Yara was Nabit, while A‘raq al-Thara was Ishmael. This was implied because he was Abraham’s son; for Abraham was not consumed by hell-fire, since fire does not consume moist earth, the meaning of al-thara.

Al-Daraqatni stated that he knew of no “Zand” except the one in this tradition, and Zand b. al-Jawn, who was Abu Dalama the poet.

Abu al-Qasim al-Suhayli and other Imams stated that the time lapse between ‘Adnan and Ishmael was too great for there to have been only FOUR, TEN, or even TWENTY generations between them. That, they said, was because the age of Ma‘ad son of ‘Adnan was twelve at the time of Bukhtunassar (Nebuchadnezzar).

Abu Ja‘far al-Tabari and others related that Almighty God sent a revelation at that time to Armiya’ b. Halqiya telling him to go to Bukhtunassar to inform him that God had given him rule over the Arabs. And God commanded to Armiya’ to carry Ma‘ad b. Adnan on the horse al-Buraq so that they would not bear him any rancour saying, “For I shall draw forth from his loins a noble Prophet by whom I shall seal the prophets.”

‘Armiya did that, bearing Ma‘ad on al-Buraq to the land of Syria where he grew up among the Jews who remained there following the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem. There he married a woman named Ma‘ana, daughter of Jawshin unrest had quietened [sic] down and accord prevailed in the Arabian peninsula. Rakhiya, Armiya’s scribe, wrote his master’s genealogy down in a document he had there which was to go into Armiya’s library; and he similarly preserved the genealogy of Ma‘ad. But God knows best.

And this is why Malik, God bless him, DID NOT ENTHUSE OVER THE ATTEMPT AT TRACING GENEALOGY BACK TO BEFORE ‘ADNAN.

Al-Suhayli commented further, “We have merely discussed tracing back these lines to accord with the school of thought of those scholars who favour and do not disapprove of it, men such as Ibn Ishaq, al-Bukhari, al-Zubayr b. Bakkar, al-Tabari, and others.”

As for Malik, God have mercy on him, he expressed disapproval when asked about someone tracing his descent back to Adam and commented: “WHENCE COMES TO HIM KNOWLEDGE OF THAT?” When he was asked about tracing back to Ishmael, he expressed similar disapproval, asking, “WHO COULD PROVIDE SUCH AN INFORMATION?” Malik also disliked tracing the genealogy of the prophets, such as saying, “Abraham son of so-and-so”. Al-Mu‘ayti stated this in his book.

Al-Suhayli commented also that Malik’s viewpoint was analogous to what was related of ‘Urwa b. al-Zubayr who is reported to have said, “WE HAVE FOUND NO ONE WHO KNOWS THE LINE BETWEEN ‘ADNAN AND ISHMAEL.”

It is reported that Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Between ‘Adnan and Ishmael there were 30 ancestors WHO ARE UNKNOWN.”

Ibn ‘Abbas is also reputed to have said when he traced back lines of descent as far as ‘Adnan: “The genealogists have LIED. TWICE OR THRICE.” And that (scepticism) is even more characteristic of Ibn Mas‘ud, whose (attitude) was like that of Ibn ‘Abbas.

‘Umar b. al-Khattab stated, “We carry back the genealogy ONLY AS FAR AS ‘ADNAN.”

Abu ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-Barr stated in his book Al-Anba’ fi Ma‘rifat Qaba’il al-Ruwah (Facts Concerning Knowledge of the Tribes of the Transmitters) that Ibn Lahi‘a related from Abu al-Aswad that he heard ‘Urwa b. al-Zubayr say, “WE NEVER FOUND ANYONE WHO KNEW [sic] GENEALOGY BACK PAST ‘ADNAN, NOR PAST QAHTAN, UNLESS THEY WERE USING CONJECTURE. “

Abu al-Aswad stated that he had heard Abu Bakr Sulayman b. Abu Khaytham, one of the very most knowledgeable men of the poetry and the genealogy of Quraysh, say, “WE NEVER KNEW ANYONE WITH INFORMATION GOING BACK BEYOND MA‘AD B. ‘ADNAN, whether relating poetry or other knowledge.”

Abu ‘Umar said that there was a group of the predecessors including ‘Abd Allah b. Mas‘ud, ‘Amr b. Maymun al-Azdi, and Muhammad b. Ka‘b al-Quradhi who, when they recited the verse from the Qur’an “and those after them who no one but God knows” (surat Ibrahim, XIV, v. 9) would comment, “THE GENEALOGISTS LIED.”

Abu ‘Umar, God have mercy on him, stated, “We hold the meaning of this to differ from their interpretation. What is implied is that regarding those who claim to enumerate Adam’s descendants, no one knows them except God who created them. But as for the lines of descent of the Arabs, the scholars conversant with their history and genealogy were aware of and learned by heart about the people and the major tribes, DIFFERING IN SOME DETAILS OF THAT.” (The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), Volume I, translated by professor Trevor Le Gassick, reviewed by Dr. Ahmed Fareed [Garnet Publishing Limited, 8 Southern Court, south Street Reading RG1 4QS, UK; The Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization, 1998], pp. 50-52; capital emphasis ours)

The next section comes from Ibn Sa‘d:

.. he on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas; he said: Verily the Prophet (may peace be upon him), WHENEVER he related his genealogy, DID NOT GO BEYOND MA‘ADD IBN ‘ADNAN IBN UDAD, then he kept quiet and said: The narrators of genealogy ARE LIARS, since Allah says: “There passed many generations between them.”

Ibn ‘Abbas says: The Prophet would have been informed of the genealogy (prior to Adnan by Allah) if he (Prophet) had so wished.

.. he on the authority of ‘Abd Allah. Verily he recited “(The tribes of) ‘Ad and Thamud and those after them; NONE SAVETH ALLAH KNOWETH THEM.” The genealogists ARE LIARS.

… between Ma‘add and Isma‘il there were more than THIRTY GENERATIONS; but he did not give their names, nor described their genealogy, probably he did not mention it because he might have heard the Hadith of Abu Salih on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas who narrated about the Prophet (may Allah bless them) THAT HE KEPT QUIET AFTER MENTIONING MA‘ADD IBN ‘ADNAN.

Hisham said: A narrator informed me on the authority of my father, but I had not heard it from him, that he related the genealogy thus, Ma‘add Ibn ‘Adnan Ibn Udad Ibn al-Hamaysa’ Ibn Salaman Ibn ‘Aws Ibn Yuz Ibn Qamwal Ibn Ubayyi Ibn al-‘Awwam, Ibn Nashid Ibn Haza Ibn Buldas Ibn Tudlaf Ibn Tabikh Ibn Jahim Ibn Nahish Ibn Makha Ibn ‘Ayfa Ibn ‘Abqar Ibn ‘Ubayd Ibn al-Du‘a Ibn Hamdan Ibn Sanbar Ibn Yathriba Ibn Nahzan Ibn Yalhan Ibn Ir‘awa Ibn ‘Ayfa Ibn Dayshan Ibn ‘Isar Ibn Iqnad Ibn Ibham Ibn Muqsi Ibn Nahith Ibn Zarih Ibn Shumayyi Ibn Mazzi Ibn ‘Aws Ibn ‘Arram IBN QAYDHAR Ibn Isma‘il Ibn Ibrahim (my Allah bless them both).

… There was a Tadmurite whose patronymic was Abu Ya‘qub; he was one … of the Israelite Muslims, and had read Israelite literature and acquired proficiency in it; he mentioned that Burakh Ibn Nariyya the scribe of Irmiya (Jeremiah) drew the genealogy of Ma‘add Ibn ‘Adnan and wrote it in his books. This is known to the Israelite scholars and learned men. The names (mentioned here) resemble them, and if there is any difference it is because of the language since they have been translated from Hebrew.

… I heard a person saying: Ma‘add was contemporary with ‘Isa Ibn Maryam (Jesus son of Mary) and his genealogy is this: Ma‘add Ibn ‘Adnan Ibn Udad Ibn Zayd Ibn Yaqdur Ibn Yaqdum Ibn Amin Ibn Manhar Ibn Sabuh Ibn al-Hamaysa‘ Ibn Yashjub Ibn Ya‘rub, Ibn al-‘Awwam Ibn Nabit Ibn Salman Ibn Haml Ibn QAYDHAR Ibn Isma‘il Ibn Ibrahim.

He (Ibn Sa‘d) said: Some one has named al-‘Awwal BEFORE al-Hamaysa‘ thus showing (al-‘Awwam) as his son.

… Verily the genealogy of Ma‘add Ibn ‘Adnan HAS BEEN TRACED DIFFERENTLY. In some narrations it is Ma‘add Ibn ‘Adnan Ibn Muqawwam, Ibn Nahur Ibn Tirah Ibn Ya‘rub Ibn Yashjub IBN NABIT Ibn Isma ‘il.

He (Ibn Sa‘d) said: And some say: Ma‘add Ibn ‘Adnan Ibn Udad ’Itahab Ibn Ayyub IBN QAYDHAR Ibn Isma‘il Ibrahim.

Muhammad Ibn Ishaq said: Qusayyi Ibn Kilab traced his genealogy to Qaydhar Ibn Isma‘il in some of his verses. Muhammad Ibn al-Sa‘ib al-Kalbi recited this couplet on the authority of his father ascribing it to Qusayyi:

“I have nothing to do with nursing if the children of Qaydhar and Nabit did not establish relationship with the same.”

Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad Ibn Sa‘d said: I do not find much difference between them. Verily, Ma‘add was descended from Qaydhar Ibn Isma‘il; and this DIFFERENCE in his genealogy shows that the same WAS NOT CORRECTLY REMEMBERED and it was borrowed from the people of the scriptures (ahl al-Kitab) and translated, so they made differences. If it had been correct the Apostle of Allah must have known it. The best course with us is to trace the genealogy to Ma‘add Ibn ‘Adnan THEN TO KEEP QUIET UP TO ISMA‘IL IBN IBRAHIM.

… he on the authority of ‘Urwah; he said: WE DID NOT FIND ANY ONE TRACING THE GENEALOGY ABOVE MA‘ADD IBN ‘ADNAN.

… I heard Abu Bakr Ibn Sulayman Ibn Abu Hathamah saying… WE DID NOT FIND CERTAINTY IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF A SCHOLAR NOR IN THE VERSES OF A POET (ABOUT GENERATIONS) ABOVE MA‘ADD IBN ‘ADNAN…

He (Ibn Sa‘d) said: Hsiham Ibn Muhammad Ibn al-Sa‘ib informed us on the authority of his father that Ma‘add was with Bukht Nassar (Banu Ched Nader) when he fought in the forts of Yaman. (Ibn Sa’ad’s Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir Volume I, parts I & II, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002 India], pp. 50-53; capital and underline emphasis ours)

We conclude with Al-Tabari. Much of what he says is material found above in Ibn Sa‘d:

“… I heard the Messenger of God say, ‘Ma‘add ‘Adnan b. Udad b. Zand b. Yara b. A‘raq al-Thara.’ Umm Salamah: Zand is al-Hamaysa‘, Yara is NABT and A‘raq al-Thara is Ishmael, son of Abraham.

… ‘Adnan, AS SOME GENEALOGISTS ASSERT, was the son of Udad b. Muqawwam b. Nahur b. Tayrah b. Ya ‘rub b. NABIT b. Isma‘il (Ishmael) b. Ibrahim (Abraham), WHILE OTHERS SAY: ‘Adnan b. Udad b. Aytahab b. Ayyub b. QAYDHAR b. Isma‘il (Ishmael) b. Ibrahim (Abraham). Qusayy b. Kilab traces his descent back to QAYDHAR in his poetry. YET OTHER GENEALOGISTS SAY: ‘Adnan b. Mayda‘ b. Mani‘ b. Udad b. Ka‘b b. Yashjub b. Ya‘rub b. al-Hamaysa‘ b. QAYDHAR b. Isma‘il (Ishmael) b. Ibrahim (Abraham). THESE DIFFERENCES arise because it is an old science, taken from the people of the first Book (the Old Testament).

… Muhammad b. al-Sa‘ib al-Kalbi, although I did not hear this from him myself, that he traced the descent as follows; Ma‘add b. ‘Adnan b. Udad b. al-Hamaysa‘ b. Salaman b. ‘Aws b. Buz b. Qamwal b. Ubayy b. al-‘Awwam b. Nashid b. Haza b. Bildas b. Yidlaf b. Tabakh b. Jaham b. Tahash b. Makha b. ‘Ayfa b. Abqar b. ‘Ubayd b. al-Da‘a b. Hamdan b. Sanbar b. Yathribi b. Yahzan b. Yalhan b. Ar‘awa b. ‘Ayfa b. Dayshan b. ‘Isar b. Aqnad b. Ayham b. Muqsir b. Nahath b. Rizah b. Shamma b. Mizza b. ‘Aws b. ‘Arram b. QAYDHAR b. Isma‘il (Ishmael) Ibrahim (Abraham).

… There was a man from Tadmur whose patronymic (kunyah) was Abu Ya‘qub. He was one of the children of Israel who had become a Muslim, who had read in their books and become deeply learned. He said that Barukh b. Nariyya, a scribe from Urmiya, had established the lineage of Ma‘add b. ‘Adnan with him and had set it in his writings. It was well known among the learned men of the People of the Book and set down in their books. It was close to the names given above, and perhaps the difference between them was owing to the language, since these names had been transliterated from Hebrew.

Al-Harith- Muhammad b. Sa‘d: Hisham (al-Kalbi) recited to me the following line of verse, which was related to him by his father:

I belong to no tribe which brought me up but that in which the descendants of Qaydhar and al-Nabit took root.

By al-Nabit, he meant Nabt b. Isma‘il (Ishmael).

… Ma‘add b. ‘Adnan b. Udad b. al-Hamaysa‘ b. Ashub b. NABT B. QAYDHAR b. Isma‘il (Ishmael).

OTHERS RELATE: Ma‘add b. ‘Adnan b. Udad b. Umayn b. Shajab b. Tha‘alabah b. ‘Atr b. Yarbah b. Muhallam b. al-‘Awwam b. Muhtamil b. Ra‘imah b. al-‘Ayqan b. ‘Allah b. al-Shahdud b. al-Zarib b. ‘Abqar b. Ibrahim (Abraham) b. Isma‘il b. Yazan b. A‘waj b. al-Mut‘im b. al-Tamh b. al-Qasur b. ‘Anud b. Da‘da‘ b. Mahmud b. al-Za‘id b. Nadwan b. Atamah b. Daws b. Hisn b. al-Nizal b. al-Qumayr b. al-Mushajjir b. Mu‘damir b. Sayfi b. NABT B. QAYDHAR b. Isma‘il (Ishmael) b. Ibrahim (Abraham), the Friend of the Compassionate.

STILL OTHERS: Ma‘add b. ‘Adnan b. Udad b. Zayd b. Yaqdir b. Yaqdum b. Hamaysa‘ b. NABT B. QAYDHAR b. Isma‘il (Ishmael) b. Ibrahim (Abraham).

OTHERS: Ma‘add b. ‘Adnan b. Udad b. Hamaysa‘ b. Nabt b. Salman, who is Salaman, b. Hamal b. NABT B. QAYDHAR b. Isma‘il (Ishmael) b. Ibrahim (Abraham).

OTHERS: Ma‘add b. ‘Adnan b. Udad b. al-Muqawwam b. Nahur b. M Mishrah b. Yashjub b. Malik b. Ayman b. AL-NABIT B. QAYDHAR b. Isma‘il (Ishmael) b. Ibrahim (Abraham).

OTHERS: Ma‘add b. ‘Adnan b. Udd b. Udad b. al-Hamaysa‘ b. Ashub b. Sa‘d b. Yarbah b. Nadir b. Humayl b. Munahhim b. Lafath b. al-Sabuh b. Kinanah b. al-‘Awwam b. NABT B. QAYDHAR b. Isma‘il (Ishmael).

A certain genealogist told me that he had found that some Arab scholars had memorized FORTY ANCESTORS OF MA‘ADD AS FAR AS ISMA‘IL (Ishmael) in Arabic, quoting Arabic verses as evidence for this, and that he had collated the names they gave with what the People of the Book say and had found that the number agreed BUT THAT THE ACTUAL NAMES DIFFERED. He dictated these names to me and I wrote them down. They are as follows; Ma‘add b. ‘Adnan b. Udad b. Hamaysa‘ (Hamaysa‘ is Salman, who is Umayn) b. Hamayta‘ (who is Hamayda‘, who is al-Shajab) b. Salamn (who is Munjir Nabit, so called, he calimed, because he fed Arabs on milk and flour anjara, as the people lived well in his time …)

Nabit b. ‘Aws (he is Tha‘labah, to whom the Tha‘labis descent is traced back) b. Bura (who is Buz, who is ‘Atr al-‘Ata‘ir, the first person to institute the custom of the ‘atirah for the Arabs) b. Shuha (who is Sa‘d Rajab, the first person to institute the custom of the rajabiyyah for the Arabs) b. Ya‘mana (who is Qamwal, who is Yarbah al-Nasib, who lived in the time of Sulayman b. Dawud the prophet) b. Kasdana (who is Muhallam Dhu al-‘Ayn) b. Hazana (who is al-‘Awwam) b. Bildasa (who is al-Muhtamil) b. Badlana (who is Yidlaf, who is Ra‘imah) b. Tahba (who is Tahab who is al-‘Ayqan) b. Jahma (who is Jaham, who is ‘Allah) b. Mahsha (who is Tahash. who is al-Shahdud) b. Ma‘jala (who is Makha, who is al-Zarib Khatim al-Nar b. ‘Aqara (who is ‘Afa, who is ‘Abqar, THE FATHER OF THE JINN, TO WHOM THE GARDEN ABQAR IS ASCRIBED) b. ‘Aqara (who is ‘Aqir, who is Ibrahim Jami ‘al-Shaml. He was called Jami‘ al-Shaml (settler of affairs) because every fearful person felt safe in his reign; he returned every outcast, and he attempted to make peace between all men) b. Banda‘a (who is Da‘a, who is Isma‘il Dhu al-Matabikh (master of kitchens), who was so called because during his reign he established a house for guests in every town of Arabs) b. Abda‘i (who is ‘Ubayd, who is Yazan al-Ta‘‘an, the first man to fight with lances, which are ascribed to him) b. Hamada (who is Hamdan, who is Isma‘il Dhu al-A‘waj; al-A‘waj was his horse, and the A‘waji breed of horses is ascribed to him) b. Bashmani (who is Yashbin, who is al-Mut‘im fi al-Mahl) b. Bathrani (who is Bathram, who is al-Tamh) b. Bahrani (who is Yahzan, who is al-Qasur) b. Yalhani (who is Yalhan, who is al-‘Anud) b. Ra‘wani (who is Ra‘wa, who is al-Da‘da‘) b. ‘Aqara (who is ‘Aqir) b. Dasan (who is al-Za‘id) b. ‘Asar (who is ‘Asir, who is al-Naydawan Dhu al-Andiyah…) b. Qanadi (who is Qanar, who is Ayyamah) b. Thamar (who is Bahami, who is Daws al-‘Itq…) b. Muqsir (who is Maqasiri, who is Hisn; he is also called Nahath, who is al-Nizal) b. Zarih (who is Qumayr) b. Sammi who is Samma, who is al-Mujashshir …

b. Marza- or, some say, Marhar- b. Sanfa (who is al-Samr, who is al-Safi …)

b. Ja‘tham (who is ‘Uram, who is al-Nabit, who is Qaydhar, the interpretation of Qaydhar, he said, is ‘ruler’, for he was the first of the descendants of Isma‘il to be king) b. Isma‘il (Ishmael), who was faithful to his promise, b. Ibrahim (Abraham), the Friend of the Compassionate b. Tarih (who is Azar) b. Nahur b. Saru‘ b. Arghawa b. Baligh (the interpretation of Baligh is ‘the divider’ as in Syriac; this is because it was he who divided the lands between the descendants of Adam, and he is Falij) b. ‘Abar b. Sha;ikh b. Arfakhshad b. Sam (Shem) b. Nuh (Noah) b. Lamk b. Mattushalakh b. Akhnukh (he is the prophet Idris) b. Yard (he is Yarid, in whose time idols were made) b. Mahla‘il b. Qaynan b. Anush b. Shithth (who is Hibatallah) b. Adam. Shith (Seth) was the successor of his father after Habil (Abel) was killed; his father said, ‘A gift of God (Hibatallah)’ in exchange for Habil,’ and his name was derived this.

We have mentioned earlier in this work in a concise and abridged form a part what we have been able to discover of the accounts of Isma‘il (Ishmael) b. Ibrahim (Abraham) and his ancestors, male and female, back to Adam, and of the events of every age during this period of time, and we shall not repeat them here. Hisham b. Muhammad: The Arabs used to say, ‘The flea has bitten since our father Anush was born, and sin has been forbidden since our father Shithth was born.’ The Syriac name for Shithth is Shith.” (The History of Al-Tabari, Volume VI, Muhammad At Mecca, translated and annotated by W. Montgomery Watt and M.V. McDonald [State University of New York Press, Albany, 1988], pp. 38-43; capital and underline emphasis ours)

Do notice the inherent contradictions of these traditions. First, none of the genealogical lists are uniform. Contradictions in the precise names and order of the names appear throughout these lists. Second, according to some traditions Ma‘add was a contemporary of the Lord Jesus. Yet, other traditions state that Ma‘add was a contemporary of Jeremiah and Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon, men who lived six centuries before Christ was even born!

Third, as we had already noted in our original paper, these lists trace Muhammad to different sons of Ishmael. Some lists trace him to Kedar (Qaydhar), the son of Ishmael. Others trace it back to Nebaioth (Nabit), not Kedar. Fourth, much confusion exists regarding the exact number of generations from Ishmael and Adnan.

Finally, the very candid and open admission by the writers that no one was able to definitely trace Muhammad’s genealogy beyond Adnan serves to undermine the Muslim claim that Muhammad was an ACTUAL descendent of Ishmael.

This is the article:https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ishmael2.htm

Ishmael was not in Mecca anyway

Firstly we see that the Quran speaks of a house of prayer built by Abraham and Ishmael as: “Remember We made the House a place of assembly for men and a place of safety; and take ye the station of Abraham as a place of prayer; and We covenanted with Abraham and Isma’il, that they should sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or use it as a retreat, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer). (125) (…) Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the House….” (Surah 2:125, 127)

However, surahs 28:46 , 32:3, 34:44 and 36:6 state that that no previous prophet/ “warner” or messenger was sent to the Qurayshi community before Mohammed. The Qur’an itself confirms that Ishmael is in the category of “warners” in in surahs 19:54, 55, 58 , 6:84, 89.

Thus what we have is the Qur’an claiming that Abraham and Ishmael built the Ka’bah in Mecca (Qur’an 2:127), and they were both prophets who were sent with scripture (Qur’an 2:136, 87:18-19). Therefore, according to the Qur’an, the people of Mecca had prophets with scripture among them in the past.

Yet, in verses 34:44 and 36:6 the Qur’an claims that the Meccans had no prophet sent to them in the past, and this is why Muhammad came with the Qur’an.

“Be We have given them [the Meccans] no Scriptures to study, nor have We sent to them any warner before you [Muhammad]”. (Qur’an 34:44)

“For you to warn a people who forefathers were not warned, and who are
heedless.” (Qur’an 36:6)

The Hadith- Ka’ba was not built at the time of Abraham!

Finally, the Hadith confirm that the first mosque to ever be built was at Mecca, only 40 years before the one at Jerusalem!

“Narrated Abu Dhaar: I said, “O Allah’s Messenger ! Which mosque was built first?” He replied, “Al-Masjid-ul-Haram.”(this is the Ka’aba at Mecca where non-Muslims are not allowed- hence “haram”- forbidden) I asked, “Which (was built) next?” He replied, “Al-Masjid-ul-Aqs-a (i.e. Jerusalem).” I asked, “What was the period in between them?” He replied, “Forty (years).” (Bukhari 3425)

No Place of Religious significance outside Israel

Further, strange legends have arisen around presence of Hagar and Sarah in Mecca which make more sense if they were transplanted from Jerusalem where they originally arose. Hagar is said to be running between two hills in a desperate search for water to stave death from dehydration for herself and her son. The name of one of these hills “Marwa” is suspiciously similar to famous hill which is today located under the Muslim Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, which is the place where Abraham is traditionally held by the Jews to have made his sacrifice – Mount Moriah. The story of Hagar searching for water is also found in the Bible, and once again, not anywhere near Mecca. Further, there is no reference to anything to do with a cuboid structure outside Jerusalem which is a place of pilgrimage for the Jews and which they travel to and circumambulate, or any of the other Islamic rituals

Conclusion:  Ishmael and Abraham cannot be placed in Mecca historically, but neither can they be placed there Qur’anically! This calls into question some of the central beliefs of Islam. The house of worship at Mecca, cannot be said to have been the original house of God by any means (there is serious evidence building up in relation to Mecca that shows it is highly likely it did not even exist even at the time Muhammed is supposed to have lived, there is simply no historical record, document or map to be found of it. We discuss this elsewhere). Thus we can see that Ishmael was not in Mecca, Isaac was the intended sacrifice, and the prophethood was to continue in Isaac’s line not Ishmael, even in Qur’an! Further the site of the Sacrifice you can still see today, it is under the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, on the Muslim site! Not “Marwa”.

Mecca is mentioned by name a total of one time in the Qur’an (Q 48:24). There is a place called Bakah (3:96) which most Muslims will claim is Mecca (perhaps the old name for it). That’s about it. In addition there are a couple of references to “the mother of cities” and “the city” and “the trustworthy city”, bringing the grand total of all the references up to 8.

Muslims might claim that there is a reference to Mecca in the Bible in Psalm 84, again supposedly under the name “Bacca”. It is said that it will be made into a “place of springs”, where Mecca only has the Zam Zam well. In fact the meaning of the Hebrew word  בָּכָה (baccah) is “weeping”, and this is actually what the Septuagint uses. The word בָּכָא (bacca) which is used in 84:6 lacks the “h” sound at the end, is used only once in the Bible and is said to be derived from the former word for weeping, which has 116 occurrences.

“Happy are those whose strength is in you,  in whose heart are the highways to Zion. As they go through the valley of Baca, they make it a place of springs; the early rain also covers it with pools. They go from strength to strength; the God of gods will be seen in Zion.” (Ps.84:6)

The Septuagint has a reference to “the Law-giver”, which is quite obviously God himself, but I have heard this come up too. This is the Berean Septuagint:

(5)Blessed is the man whose help is of thee, O Lord; in his heart he has purposed to go up. (6) the valley of weeping, to the place which he has appointed, for there the law-giver will grant blessings. (7) They shall go from strength to strength: the God of gods shall be seen in Sion.“ (Ps.84:5-7, LXX)

Apart from this there is much controversy over whether the city of Mecca even existed in the seventh century Arabia, due to scant archeological evidence. I have not covered this here, but the CIRA channel have done a lot of video presentations on the topic.