Talk:Muhammad and the Bible

Mahammaddim
Mahammaddim is the actual Biblical Hebrew word found in a passage which some Muslims claim is a reference to Muhammad, as discussed indirectly above in the section in this page, and in more details somewhere on the talk page or talk page archives of the "Song of Songs" article... AnonMoos (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Are there any decent sources that can be used in this article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, seek and you shall find. Seems like there's different spellings. Also found this ref which we won't use because WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, the page you added says nothing about Muhammad in the Bible. It is not a good source here per WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, per "Promote the Gospel of Christ through the learning, study and application of God's word.", biblehub is not a WP:RS. Being online is not the same as should be used on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

See also WP:EW and WP:BRD. So, let's give talkpage discussion a chance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

, Fair enough about Mahammadim but why did you revert ALL OF MY EDITS? You literally reverted everything I added, you could've just removed the Mahammadim line?. Also you forgot to mention that I added this source too , which clearly talks about Muhammad in Song of Songs. Can my edits please be re-added. AbbasWafadar (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @AbbasWafadar Thanks for talking. Ok, to start with one part, your rewrite of the Song of Songs 5:16 section.
 * I don't mind the quote, but are you ok with writing it "His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely (mahmadim). This is my beloved, this is my friend, daughters of Jerusalem."
 * That's the New International Version, I don't have any strong feelings of which translation to use, but it should be reasonably modern I think.
 * Then, you changed
 * The Hebrew word mahmadim (desirable, lovely) in Song of Songs 5:16 has been argued to mean Muhammad.
 * to
 * The Hebrew word mahammaddim (Hebrew: מַחֲּמַדִּ֑ים‪‬‪‬‎, lit. 'Desirable or Lovely') in Song of Songs 5:16 is argued by some Muslims to mean Muhammad.
 * There is no reason to change the spelling of mahmadim to one the source doesn't use. The parenthesis is fine by me, I assume you got the hebrew right (maybe there's other spellings there too). "by some Muslims" is unneccessary here since this is in the "Muslim interpretation", and the source doesn't give details. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging if you feel like having an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

, I do admit that my Mahammadim edits might have been unconstructive but what about my other edits. There were only Christian historian thoughts so I added Muslim and Jewish historians thoughts. I added Paraclete in the third paragraph with reliable citations. Why were these edits removed? Can these edits please be re-added. AbbasWafadar (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @AbbasWafadar I will return to this topic tomorrow. Perhaps others will chime in. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Xlibris is a self-publisher and no more reliable a source than someone's Facebook post. Are there reliable sources documenting this interpretation? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Roscelese Yes, the one I put in the article. The Xlibris one was just for the talkpage, hence "which we won't use because WP:SPS." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Part 2
OK. Your (AbbasWafadar) last article edit, reverted by me, changed the lead from

Arguments that prophecies of Muhammad exist in the Bible have formed part of Muslim tradition from the early history of Muhammad's Ummah (Arabic: أُمّة community). A number of Christians throughout history, such as John of Damascus and John Calvin, have interpreted Muhammad as being the Antichrist of the New Testament.

Muslim theologians have argued that a number of specific passages within the biblical text can be specifically identified as references to Muhammad, both in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and in the Christian New Testament. Several verses in the Quran, as well as several Hadiths, state that Muhammad is described in the Bible. On the other hand, scholars have generally interpreted these verses as referring to the community of Israel or Yahweh's personal soteriological actions regarding the Israelites or members of the faithful community, such as in the cases of Isaiah 42. The apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas, which explicitly mentions Muhammad, is widely recognized by scholars as a fabrication from the Early Modern Age. Some Muslim theologians also claimed the Paraclete (Greek New Testament) as Muhammad, although scholars identify it with the Holy Spirit.

to

Muhammad in the Bible refers to arguments that prophecies of Muhammad exist in the Bible. It has formed part of Muslim tradition from the early history of the Ummah (أُمّة). Early Muslim historians, such as Ibn Ishaq, have believed that, due to some prophecies, Muhammad was accepted as a prophet in Medina. Early Christian historians throughout history, such as John of Damascus, interpreted Muhammad as being the Antichrist of the New Testament. Early Jewish historians, did not regard Muhammad as a prophet, but did view him as a savior for the Arabs.

Muslim theologians have argued that a number of specific passages within the biblical text can be specifically identified as references to Muhammad, both in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and in the Christian New Testament. Several verses in the Quran, as well as several Hadiths, state that Muhammad is described in the Bible. On the other hand, scholars have generally interpreted these verses as referring to the community of Israel or Yahweh's personal soteriological actions regarding the Israelites or members of the faithful community, such as in the cases of Isaiah 42. The apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas, which explicitly mentions Muhammad, is widely recognized by scholars as a fabrication from the Early Modern Age. Some Muslim theologians also claimed the Paraclete (Greek New Testament) as Muhammad, although scholars identify it with the Holy Spirit.

The word "Mahammaddim" (מַחֲּמַדִּ֑ים‪‬‪‬) is mentioned once in the Bible, which is believed by some Muslim theologians to be a reference to Muhammad. Many Muslim writers have maintained that the Paraclete in the Bible is a prophecy about Muhammad.

We dealt with the "Mahammaddim" part above.

IMO your first sentence is ok, pretty much equal, or a little better, to the previous version.

"Early Muslim historians, such as Ibn Ishaq, have believed that, due to some prophecies, Muhammad was accepted as a prophet in Medina.[1]" IMO, as written this seems off topic, and per the text in the WP-article this seems to refer to profecies in the Quran. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but that's how I read it.

"Early Christian historians throughout history, such as John of Damascus, interpreted Muhammad as being the Antichrist of the New Testament." IMO not an improvement. John was earlier, but Calvin and Luther "weightier", since they founded significant Christianity branches of their own. Also they are not early Christians.

"Early Jewish historians, did not regard Muhammad as a prophet, but did view him as a savior for the Arabs.[2][3][4]" I see no support for this in Roth p218 (also, "historian" is probably not a good description of anyone mentioned in the current lead). The Bustan Al-ukul I don't get easy access to, so I can't see what Natan'el al-Fayyumi wrote about Muhammad in the Bible. Quote, anyone? Dito Gan ha-Sekhalim.

I'll stop here for now and wait for others comments. Per WP preference (WP:PRIMARY and WP:AGEMATTERS), it's good if we can avoid sourcing the old writer's directly, but context matters. Basically, we want a modern historian to tell us what Ibn Ishaq et al think, rather than try to interpret their words ourselves. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Noting that AbbasWafadar been blocked as a sockpuppet. Oh well, AGF is the law of the land. But a little disheartening. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Gospel of Barnabas, again
Come to think of it, it would be good to have a couple of WP:RS that connects GoB to the article-topic. I read somewhere the idea that it's part of the "uncorrupted/original" Bible, and therefore proves that Muhammad was in the Bible, but I can't find it in a good source atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Solomon 5:16
This should not be listed on Wikipedia. The thought that the name "Muhammad" can be interpreted from the Hebrew word "muhammadim" the root word for which is "machmad" or like something desired, is nonsensical. This is about the love between Solomon and his bride. Adding Muhammad in here would be absolutely ridiculous. Even suggesting it could be an interpretation should not be anywhere on the page. Sure, maybe some desperate people try to interpret it as such, but to even give it mention is a disgrace to the Old Testament. 32.214.74.121 (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Religious whatevers is often nonsensical to people not of that religion. The source seems good enough, a Christian publisher but that doesn't make it unusable here, and "disgrace to the Old Testament" is not a problem per Content disclaimer. Other people probably find other parts of this article objectionable. Some would object to the use of the term "Old Testament" in this context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Song_of_Songs for previous discussion as to why this is deeply stupid, and not included on the "Song of Songs" article. AnonMoos (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Makes sense that's it's not WP:PROPORTION to include there. You don't find anything about The Christ-Krishna Connection in those respective articles either. People like it when words sounds similar, I guess. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * For the interested, here's a couple of not-RS: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Found this, but not sure how good it is per . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Notable Passages from Bahai Interpretations
Looking for help in providing appropriate references to add a section:

START

TITLE: Notable passages in Bahá'í interpretation The Bahá'í Faith claims there are several passages within the Old and New Testament prophesying Muhammad, Ali and the other eleven of the Twelve Imams, as well as the rise of the Islamic nation.

SECTION 1: Old Testament

Genesis 17:20, God promises Ishmael twelve princes and a great nation. The twelve princes are considered by Baha'is to be the Twelve Imams, and the great nation is interpreted as one of the fruits of Muhammad's revelation; a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi states, "it is not the City State, but the National State which Muhammad's teachings fostered." Additionally, references to Paran made in Deuteronomy 33:2, Genesis 21:21, Numbers 12:16, and Numbers 13:3 are considered references to Muhammad's Revelation.

SECTION 2: New Testament

According to ʻAbdu'l-Bahá, the eleventh and twelfth chapters of the Book of Revelation prophecy the dispensation of Muhammad, Ali, and the Umayyad Caliphate, the latter of which is described as an enemy of the religion of Muhammad and is considered the beast and the dragon mentioned in Revelation. 'Abdu'l-Bahá claims that the two witnesses are Muhammad and Ali while the prophecy of "forty-two months" and "a thousand two hundred and three score days" is the 1260 year duration of the Qur'anic Dispensation, as Baha'is hold that in the Islamic year 1260 AH, or 1844 AD, which is the year the Báb's revelation began, was the end of that era. He further states that at the end of Muhammad and Ali's testimony, "the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit", who are the Umayyads, went to war with 'Ali and his descendants, and saught to kill members of the lineage of Muhammad because they feared the advent of the Mahdi. The seven heads of the dragon are considered to be the seven dominions and kingdoms of the Islamic world under the reign of the Umayyads: Syria, Persia, Arabia, Egypt, the dominion of Africa (Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria), Andalusia, and the Turkish tribes of Transoxania; the ten horns are the ten names of the fifteen Umayyad rulers: Abu-Sufyan (the former chief of Mecca and founder of the dynasty), Mu'awiyah, Yazid, Marwan, 'Abdu'l-Malik, Al-Walid, Sulayman, Umar, Hisham, and Ibrahim. Further, 'Abdu'l-Bahá states that the three woes refer to Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá'u'lláh. Book of Ezekiel 30:1-3 is referenced as the explanation for the word Woe: "The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, Son of man, prophesy and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Howl ye, Woe worth the day! For the day is near, even the day of the Lord is near." In other words, the day of woe refers to the woe of "the heedless, the sinners, and the ignorant".

END

References provided include letters from Shoghi Effendi and 'Abdu'l-Bahá, both of whom are considered interpreters of Baha'i religious texts authored by the religion's founders and authors, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. As this section is intended to provide the religion's official perspective, these were the primary sources used, as their statements are considered official positions by that religion. Additional sources may be found at the UC Merced website by Stephen N. Lambden: https://hurqalya.ucmerced.edu/journals/bsb. Trying to find other sources as well, but could use some help if these three are not sufficient. Looking for clarity. Thanks! FortisVault (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Baháʼí
I removed this section, recently added:

The Bahá'í Faith claims there are several passages within the Old and New Testament prophesying Muhammad, Ali and the other eleven of the Twelve Imams, as well as the rise of the Islamic nation.

Old Testament
Genesis 17:20, God promises Ishmael twelve princes and a great nation. The twelve princes are considered by Baha'is to be the Twelve Imams, and the great nation is interpreted as one of the fruits of Muhammad's revelation; a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi states, "it is not the City State, but the National State which Muhammad's teachings fostered."

Additionally, references to Paran made in Deuteronomy 33:2, Genesis 21:21, Numbers 12:16, and Numbers 13:3 are considered references to Muhammad's Revelation.

New Testament
According to ʻAbdu'l-Bahá, the eleventh and twelfth chapters of the Book of Revelation prophecy the dispensation of Muhammad, Ali, and the Umayyad Caliphate, the latter of which is described as an enemy of the religion of Muhammad and is considered the beast and the dragon mentioned in Revelation. 'Abdu'l-Bahá claims that the two witnesses are Muhammad and Ali while the prophecy of "forty-two months" and "a thousand two hundred and three score days" is the 1260 year duration of the Qur'anic Dispensation, as Baha'is hold that in the Islamic year 1260 AH, or 1844 AD, which is the year the Báb's revelation began, was the end of that era. He further states that at the end of Muhammad and Ali's testimony, "the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit", who are the Umayyads, went to war with 'Ali and his descendants, and saught to kill members of the lineage of Muhammad because they feared the advent of the Mahdi. The seven heads of the dragon are considered to be the seven dominions and kingdoms of the Islamic world under the reign of the Umayyads: Syria, Persia, Arabia, Egypt, the dominion of Africa (Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria), Andalusia, and the Turkish tribes of Transoxania; the ten horns are the ten names of the fifteen Umayyad rulers: Abu-Sufyan (the former chief of Mecca and founder of the dynasty), Mu'awiyah, Yazid, Marwan, 'Abdu'l-Malik, Al-Walid, Sulayman, Umar, Hisham, and Ibrahim.

Further, 'Abdu'l-Bahá states that the three woes refer to Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá'u'lláh. Book of Ezekiel 30:1-3 is referenced as the explanation for the word Woe: "The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, Son of man, prophesy and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Howl ye, Woe worth the day! For the day is near, even the day of the Lord is near." In other words, the day of woe refers to the woe of "the heedless, the sinners, and the ignorant".

I'm not against mentioning Bahai if there is some coverage on this in independent scholarship, I think I actually looked for that at one point, but this is exclusively based on internal religious writing. And the amount of it is not WP:DUE IMO. I'm no Baháʼí scholar (or any scholar) but the writings of ʻAbdu'l-Bahá appears to fall under WP:RSPSCRIPTURE as well, though some scripture quoting is of course reasonable on this topic. I have no view on the WP:RS-ness of the other refs cited, though "sic" is not a good way to write a ref. @Cuñado, @Gazelle55, other interested, do you feel like having an opinion? Ping also @FortisVault who added the section and commented on my talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Just to add from my previous post in talk, which is now a duplicate (apologies for adding to the confusion):
 * References provided include letters from Shoghi Effendi and 'Abdu'l-Bahá, both of whom are considered interpreters of Baha'i religious texts authored by the religion's founders and authors, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. As this section is intended to provide the religion's official perspective, these were the primary sources used, as their statements are considered official positions by that religion. Additional sources may be found at the UC Merced website by Stephen N. Lambden: https://hurqalya.ucmerced.edu/journals/bsb. Trying to find other sources as well, but could use some help if these three are not sufficient. Looking for clarity. Thanks!
 * I believe this article is POV neutral as it's intent is to state the position of the Bahais using their official interpreters. It is not intended to speak to the validity of the religion's claims. FortisVault (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we were writing our posts at the same time, it happens. We'll see if more people have opinions. I don't dispute there are some Bahai views on this, but would like to see some Bahai-independent sources who bothered to notice. I'd like to see well-sourced views on Muhammad and the Bible from Judaism as well, but I haven't found any. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging me. I don't think the ones that are currently included are WP:RS, but I imagine there is something about this in a reliable source. Peter Smith wrote a 2000 book called A Concise Encyclopedia of the Baha'i Faith or something like that... you could look under the entry for Muhammad. There is also a 2022 (or 2021?) academic volume edited by Robert Stockman, which may have something in one of its articles. Beyond that I would just have to look at some of the other academic publications on the Baha'i Faith (could check the references at Baha'i Faith for more).  Gazelle55  Let's talk!  20:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Smith book is here: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find anything in Smith, but did come across this: https://hurqalya.ucmerced.edu/sites/hurqalya.ucmerced.edu/files/page/documents/bsb_1-3_c.pdf
 * See pages 11 and 12. Dr. Lambden also sites a couple of other sources, such as Rigg's "The Apocalypse Unsealed" which can be found at.  https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupid?key=olbp27119
 * Let me know what you think. FortisVault (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find anything in Smith either, but I may have missed stuff mentioning specific parts of the Bible, Exodus, Revelations, etc.
 * The first document appears to me, based on page 2, to be a WP:SPS (and fwiw, there are a lot of spelling errors, I'm thinking scanned type-writer text).
 * The second says "Early draft of the later book Apocalypse - An Exegesis. See the updated version of this book, Apocalypse: An Exegesis. See also a review." It is published by The Philosophical Library (not a good WP-article), doesn't seem like, well, academic press.
 * Apocalypse: An Exegesis is here says "The original exegesis of the Apocalypse, written by the author, was reviewed by the Bahá'í Universal House of Justice and was approved by the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States." This makes me believe that Riggs also is writing "from the inside." @Gazelle55, care to comment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I put a note at Reference_desk/Humanities, the Reference desk has been known to work miracles on occasion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Baha'i authors submit all their publications to their NSA for review first. We haven't been saying sources aren't RS simply because of this, or because the author is Baha'i -- e.g., Peter Smith is a Baha'i who presumably submits his academic writings for review. So I think it comes down to whether or not we regard Philosophical Library, the publisher, as a reliable source. They are not a Baha'i publisher but I don't know enough to say whether they should be counted as reliable. It is possible for a source to be reliable but also biased or opinionated (this is covered at WP:RS), in which case we would want to attribute the author in text to make clear this is their perspective. Anyway, I don't have time to look into the details of this case right now, but I think those are the general principles to keep in mind. Best,  Gazelle55  Let's talk!  20:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed I was pinged here 8 days ago. I generally avoid using Shoghi Effendi as a source on Baha'i topics. In this case, it would be easy to argue that the entire section is UNDUE and just delete it. I have developed a stack of reliable sources on the Baha'i Faith and I could easily put together sources and reword the section. If at least one person thinks that's worth it, let me know. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  06:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Cuñado If you can add something well-sourced and WP:PROPORTIONATE, I absolutely support it. There is no doubt in my mind that this view exists, the problem (for me) is banging it into WP-shape. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please do, and thanks! FortisVault (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Any luck putting something together? FortisVault (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hm yes, it's been 2 months. @Cuñado? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)