Azahari Hassim
Why does God permit the Song of Solomon to be included in the canon, even though the name of God is absent from it? Some think it is due to the divine name of Muhammad being written in it (Song of Solomon 5:16). How is their reasoning expressed?
The Song of Solomon, also known as the Song of Songs, is a unique book in the Bible due to its poetic, romantic, and sensual nature, as well as the fact that it does not explicitly mention God’s name. Despite this, it was included in the biblical canon because it has been traditionally interpreted as an allegory of God’s love for His people, either between God and Israel or Christ and the Church. The absence of God’s name does not diminish its perceived spiritual depth or its theological significance.
Some individuals, particularly within Islamic circles, argue that the inclusion of the Song of Solomon in the biblical canon—despite the absence of God’s name—is due to a prophetic reference to the Prophet Muhammad found within its text. Their reasoning centers on the interpretation of a specific Hebrew word in Song of Solomon 5:16.
In this verse, the Hebrew word “מַחֲמַדִּים” (mahmadim) is used, which is commonly translated into English as “altogether lovely” or “desirable.” The argument is constructed as follows:
- Phonetic Similarity: The root word “מַחֲמַד” (mahmad) closely resembles the Arabic name “Muhammad” in both spelling and pronunciation. Proponents suggest that this is not a coincidence but a deliberate reference.
- Plural of Respect: The suffix ”-im” in Hebrew can denote a plural form but is also used to express greatness or majesty (often referred to as the “plural of excellence” or “plural of respect”). Therefore, “mahmadim” can be interpreted as a singular noun denoting a person of great esteem.
- Direct Reference: By reading “mahmadim” as “Muhammad”, they posit that the verse directly names the Prophet Muhammad, making it a prophetic mention within the Hebrew scriptures.
- Justification for Canon Inclusion: They reason that the presence of this prophetic reference justifies the inclusion of the Song of Solomon in the biblical canon, despite the absence of explicit mentions of God. The text’s value lies in its concealed prophecy about an important future figure—Muhammad.
- Contextual Interpretation: The surrounding verses describe an individual of remarkable qualities, which they align with descriptions of Muhammad. This alignment strengthens their claim that the text is speaking about him.
An example of their reasoning expressed in interpretative translation might look like this:
“His mouth is most sweet; yea, he is Muhammad. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.”
(Song of Solomon 5:16)
By substituting “mahmadim” with “Muhammad”, they assert that the verse explicitly mentions him by name. This interpretation is used to support the idea that the Song of Solomon holds prophetic significance concerning Muhammad, thereby explaining its canonical status despite the absence of God’s name.
Rabbi Akiva (born around 50 CE) famously declared:
“All the writings are holy, but the Song of Solomon is the Holy of Holies.”
This statement emphasizes the profound spiritual significance of the book despite the absence of God’s name.
Rashi (born on February 22, 104) commented:
“The Song of Solomon is entirely allegorical. It is a parable of the relationship between God and Israel.”
Rashi’s interpretation sees the love story in the Song as a metaphor for the divine-human relationship, even though God is not explicitly named.
The Song of Solomon
The Song of Solomon (also known as Shir HaShirim in Hebrew) is a biblical book that has been interpreted in various ways by renowned rabbis and scholars throughout Jewish history. One of the unique aspects of the Song of Solomon is the absence of explicit mention of God’s name, which has led to extensive commentary and discussion. Here are some key perspectives from renowned rabbis and Jewish commentators on this issue:
1. Rabbi Akiva (1st–2nd century CE)
Rabbi Akiva famously considered the Song of Solomon as the “Holy of Holies” among the biblical writings, meaning it is a deeply spiritual and sacred text. Despite the absence of God’s name, Rabbi Akiva argued that the book is a metaphor for the relationship between God and the people of Israel. The love described in the poem is symbolic of the covenantal love between God and Israel, where the deep bond between the lovers mirrors the divine connection between the Creator and His people. Thus, even though God’s name is not explicitly mentioned, the entire text is imbued with divine presence.
2. Rashi (1040–1105 CE)
Rashi, one of the most influential medieval Jewish commentators, also viewed the Song of Solomon allegorically. He believed the absence of God’s name was not significant, since the entire narrative is a metaphor for the relationship between God and Israel. Rashi explained that the lovers in the song are symbols of God (the male figure) and Israel (the female figure). The passionate love and yearning described throughout the text reflect Israel’s yearning for God during times of exile and redemption. Thus, Rashi interpreted the absence of God’s name as intentional, since the entire poem is a representation of the divine relationship.
3. Ibn Ezra (1089–1167 CE)
Ibn Ezra, another prominent medieval Jewish commentator, acknowledged the secular, even sensual, nature of the language in the Song of Solomon but, like Rashi, understood it allegorically. He commented that the absence of God’s name does not detract from the sanctity of the book. Rather, the metaphorical nature of the song, in which the lovers represent God and Israel, implicitly includes God throughout the entire narrative. The intense love and yearning reflect the soul’s desire for God, even without His name being overtly mentioned.
4. The Zohar (13th century CE)
The Zohar, the foundational text of Kabbalah, also offers a mystical interpretation of the Song of Solomon. The Zohar reads the song as a deep allegory of the divine union between different aspects of God’s emanations (the Sefirot) and the relationship between God and the Shekhinah (the feminine divine presence). The absence of God’s name in the text is seen as reflective of the hidden and mystical nature of the divine in the world. The love between the bride and groom represents the unification of divine aspects, and the song’s hidden meaning reveals the nature of spiritual love and connection.
5. Nachmanides (1194–1270 CE)
Nachmanides, also known as Ramban, embraced a mystical and allegorical approach to the Song of Solomon. He argued that the absence of God’s name emphasizes the hidden nature of the relationship being described. According to Nachmanides, the Song of Solomon describes not only the historical relationship between God and Israel but also a deeper, mystical connection between God and the world. The absence of God’s name can be seen as symbolizing the hiddenness of the divine in the material world, which is revealed only to those who are spiritually attuned.
Summary
In Jewish tradition, the absence of God’s name in the Song of Solomon is generally seen as a deliberate literary and theological choice. Rather than detracting from its sanctity, the absence of explicit references to God is often interpreted as enhancing the allegorical nature of the text, where the love between the human characters represents the divine relationship between God and Israel or between God and the soul. The entire text is viewed as imbued with spiritual meaning, despite (or perhaps because of) the lack of direct mention of God.
Does the name of Muhammad appear in the Bible?
Some interpret Song of Solomon 5, verses 10 to 16, as a depiction of Muhammad using hyperbolic language. What is the comparative religious perspective on the argument regarding the manifestation of the name Muhammad in verse 16, expressed in the plural form as a sign of respect?
The Islamic perspective on the interpretation of Song of Solomon 5, verses 10 to 16, particularly verse 16, as a reference to the Prophet Muhammad stems from the claim that the Hebrew word “מַחֲמַדִּים”, found in this verse, is remarkably similar to the name Muhammad.
This word is translated into English as “altogether lovely,” “very pleasant,” or similar phrases, but some Muslims argue that it should be understood as a direct reference to Muhammad, given the phonetic similarity and the significance of the name.
In Islamic tradition, Muhammad is believed to be the final prophet sent by God to guide humanity, and his coming is interpreted by some Muslims as having been foretold in previous scriptures, including the Bible. The argument here hinges on the linguistic and phonetic connection between the Hebrew word in the text and the name Muhammad.
Proponents of this view argue that the use of “מַחֲמַדִּים” in the plural form is a stylistic or honorific form in Hebrew, used to convey respect or exaltation, rather than a literal plural. This is seen as analogous to how Arabic uses certain plural forms to denote honor or respect, rather than quantity.
The verses Song of Solomon 5, verses 10 to 16 read:
Verse 10: My beloved is white and ruddy,
Chief among ten thousand.
Verse 11: His head is like the finest gold;
his locks are wavy,
and black as a raven.
Verse 12: His eyes are like doves
by the rivers of waters,
washed with milk,
and fitly set.
Verse 13: His cheeks are like a bed of spices,
banks of scented herbs.
His lips are lilies,
Dripping liquid myrrh.
Verse 14: His hands are rods of gold
set with beryl.
His body is carved ivory
inlaid with sapphires.
Verse 15: His legs are pillars of marble
set on bases of fine gold.
His countenance is like Lebanon,
excellent as the cedars.
Verse 16: His mouth is most sweet,
yes, he is altogether, מַחֲמַדִּים (lovely).
This is my beloved,
and this is my friend,
O daughters of Jerusalem.
ABRAHAMIC THEOLOGY 