“Mahmadim” in the Song of Solomon: Why a God-Silent Book Was Preserved in Scripture

Azahari Hassim

📜 “Mahmadim” in the Song of Solomon: Why a God-Silent Book Was Preserved in Scripture

🕊️ A Theological Reflection on Prophetic Foresight and Israel’s Rejection of Muhammad

🧭 Introduction

Among the books of the Hebrew Bible, the Song of Solomon (also called Song of Songs) stands out for an extraordinary reason: it does not mention God even once. This absence has puzzled scholars, theologians, and rabbis for centuries. Why would a book that makes no explicit reference to God, covenant, law, prophecy, or worship be preserved within a canon otherwise defined by divine speech?

Jewish tradition has offered various literary and allegorical justifications. Yet a deeper theological reflection—particularly from an Islamic perspective—reveals a provocative possibility:
The Song of Solomon was preserved because it contains a prophetic clue that later generations would need to confront, a clue embedded in the Hebrew expression “maḥmaddîm” (מַחְמַדִּים) in Song of Solomon 5:16.

This expression, meaning “most desirable” or “altogether lovely,” bears a striking morphological connection to the name Muhammad ﷺ. Its presence in a book otherwise devoid of theological content becomes theologically meaningful: God ensured this book remained in the canon so that the Israelites could never erase this prophetic sign pointing to the final messenger.

⸻

📖 1. A Book Without God—Yet Protected by God

⚖️ The Content Paradox

The Song of Solomon contains:

• ❌ No mention of God
• ❌ No covenantal material
• ❌ No prophetic message
• ❌ No legal or ethical instruction
• ❌ No historical context tied to Israel’s religious identity

Under normal canonical criteria, it should have been excluded.

Ancient Jewish debates reflect this tension. The Mishnah (Yadaim 3:5) records disputes over its sacred status. Some rabbis argued it was too sensual; others said it lacked theological substance.

Yet, mysteriously, it remained—as though ✨ God ensured its preservation for the sake of a hidden prophetic sign that Israel would one day recognize yet dismiss.

🧑‍🏫 Rabbi Akiva and the Defense of the Song

Rabbi Akiva, one of the most authoritative sages of early Judaism, famously defended the sanctity of the Song of Solomon during these debates. He declared:

“All the writings are holy, but the Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies.”
(Mishnah, Yadaim 3:5)

🕍 This statement is remarkable precisely because the book contains no explicit reference to God. Why would a text of romantic poetry be elevated to the status of the “Holy of Holies”—a term otherwise reserved for the innermost sanctuary of the Temple?

🤲 From an Islamic theological perspective, Rabbi Akiva’s insistence appears less as an exegetical explanation and more as an unconscious submission to divine will. God moved the rabbis to preserve a book whose deeper prophetic significance they themselves did not perceive. The very sage who defended its holiness may have been safeguarding, unknowingly, a linguistic sign embedded within its Hebrew vocabulary—one that would later point toward the final messenger of God.

🧩 The Preservation Puzzle

If the rabbis excluded some texts that were far more “religious” in nature—such as certain wisdom literature, apocryphal writings, and early prophetic works—why protect a book that is silent about God?

The Islamic theological answer is clear:

☝️ God protected this book because it contains a linguistic sign about His final prophet—something Israel was destined to overlook or reject.

⸻

🔤 2. “Mahmadim”: A Linguistic Window Toward Prophecy

📜 The Hebrew Word

Song of Solomon 5:16 reads:

“חִכּוֹ֙ מַֽמְתַקִּ֔ים וְכֻלֹּ֖ו מַחֲמַדִּ֑ים”

“His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely/desirable.”

The word maḥmaddîm (מַחְמַדִּים) is the plural form of maḥmad, a Semitic root meaning:

• 🌸 “desirable,”
• ⭐ “praiseworthy,”
• 💎 “worthy of admiration,”
• ❤️ “one who is cherished.”

In Hebrew morphology, the -îm plural can function:

• as a true plural,
• as an intensive plural,
• or as a plural of majesty.

Thus, maḥmaddîm may signify “the great” or “the most praised one.”

🕌 The Connection to Muhammad

The consonantal root ḥ-m-d (ح م د) is the same Semitic root underlying:

• Muhammad (مُحَمَّد) ﷺ — “the praised one”
• Ahmad (أحمد) — “the most praised”
• Hamd (حمد) — “praise”

This creates a compelling intertextual thread:

🔗 The Hebrew Bible preserves forms of the root ḥ-m-d repeatedly in contexts of admiration, desire, and exaltation.

In Song of Solomon 5:16, the form maḥmaddîm functions as a linguistic parallel to “Muhammad,” forming a prophetic pointer that becomes meaningful only once the final prophet appears.

⸻

📢 3. A Prophetic Indication of Israel’s Future Rejection

📖 Qur’anic Expectation of Jewish Rejection

The Qur’an states that the Children of Israel:

• 👁️ Recognized Muhammad ﷺ from their own scriptures (2:89, 2:101, 2:146, 7:157)
• ❌ Yet rejected him out of envy and national exclusivism
• 🧱 Altered or concealed aspects of revelation

”Those to whom We gave the Scripture (Jews and Christians) recognise him as they recongise their sons. But verily, a party of them conceal the truth while they know it.“
(Surah 2:146)

🕯️ Song of Solomon as a Divine Witness

By embedding the key term maḥmaddîm in a text lacking overt theological content, God ensures that the prophetic sign remains preserved:

• 🚫 There is no theological reason to remove it
• 🚫 There is no prophetic framework to provoke suspicion
• 📚 There are no divine references to trigger canonical objections

In other words, the sign is concealed in plain sight 👀.

It becomes a theological trapdoor:

• 🔒 preserved by God,
• ⏳ unnoticed for centuries,
• ✨ but recognizable once the prophetic figure named Muhammad ﷺ arises.

The Jews would encounter the Hebrew root, recognize the linguistic form, yet still reject the prophet—exactly as the Qur’an foretells 📖.

⸻

🧠 4. The Underlying Theological Logic

🧩 God’s Foreknowledge and Scriptural Architecture

From an Islamic perspective, scripture is divinely arranged—not merely historically assembled. God places signs within texts that will only reveal their meaning at the appointed time ⏰.

Thus, the Song of Solomon functions as:

1. 📘 A literary vessel — outwardly romantic and secular
2. 🔐 A prophetic vault — housing a name-encoded indicator of the final messenger
3. ⚖️ A divine testimony — demonstrating that Israel was given sufficient signs yet rejected the truth

God does not require the book to teach theology; the book exists to contain a sign.

🌍 Why This Matters Theologically

This interpretation highlights:

• 🔄 The continuity of God’s prophetic plan
• 🌐 The interconnectedness of Semitic linguistic traditions
• 🕋 The divine preparation for the advent of Muhammad ﷺ
• ⚠️ The accountability of those who recognized yet rejected the foretold prophet

⸻

🔔 5. Conclusion: A Silent Book That Speaks Loudly

Though the Song of Solomon contains no explicit mention of God, it speaks through language, etymology, and prophetic foresight 🗣️.

The presence of maḥmaddîm in Song of Solomon 5:16 becomes:

• 🔤 a linguistic echo of Muhammad’s name,
• 📜 a prophetic hint embedded within Israel’s own canon,
• ⚖️ and a divine reminder that the final prophet would be dismissed despite the sign being preserved.

Thus, the Song of Solomon’s inclusion in Scripture—despite its apparent secular nature—is not accidental.

✨ It is a deliberate act of divine providence, ensuring that no community could claim ignorance when the “Praised One” — Muhammad ﷺ — finally appeared.

📋 How Jay Smith and His Group Argue That “Muhammad” (MHMD) Originally Referred to Jesus

Jay Smith is part of a Christian polemical movement that challenges the early history of Islam. Within this framework, Smith and his colleagues—such as those connected to the “Inarah Institute”-inspired revisionist school—propose that the term MHMD (محمد / muhammad, meaning “the praised one”) in the earliest Islamic texts may not refer to a historical Arabian prophet, but instead to Jesus as the “praised” or “glorified” figure.

Their argument has five major pillars:

⸻

1. “Muhammad” Means The Praised One, Not Necessarily a Personal Name

Smith’s foundational linguistic claim:

• The word muhammad is a passive participle meaning “the praised one”.
• It can function as a title, not only a personal name.
• Christian traditions frequently refer to Jesus as:
• “The Glorified One”
• “The Praised One”
• “The Blessed One”

Smith’s group argues that the Qur’anic and inscriptional term MHMD may originally have functioned like these titles.

⸻

2. Early Arabic Inscriptions Contain “MHMD” Without Any Biographical Link to Mecca or a Human Prophet

Smith refers to early inscriptions such as:

• The Dome of the Rock inscriptions (690 CE)
• The Arab-Byzantine coins (early 7th–8th century)
• The Zuhayr inscription and others

He argues:

• The inscriptions say things like “Muhammad is the servant of God” but do not give:

• A birthplace,
• A mother,
• A life story,
• A prophetic career.
• He claims these phrases could easily be read as:
“The Praised One is God’s servant” → referring to Jesus.

Thus, he says:
Early Islam’s use of “MHMD” was devotional and Christological, not biographical.

⸻

3. Early Coins Depict a Human Figure Who Resembles Byzantine Christian Imagery

Smith famously analyzes early Islamic coins:

• Some feature a standing figure with a cross-like staff.
• Others include Christian formulas.
• The term mhmd appears alongside symbols long associated with Jesus.

Smith’s interpretation:

• These coins do not depict an Arabian prophet, but rather a modified representation of Jesus, adapted by Arab Christians who later formed part of the Umayyad administration.

Thus he claims:

“MHMD” was a Christological epithet on early Arab-Christian coins.

⸻

4. The Qur’an Never Gives Muhammad a Biography—Indicating, Smith Claims, That the Name Was Originally Symbolic

Jay Smith argues:

• The Qur’an does not describe Muhammad’s:
• Parents,
• Childhood,
• Tribe,
• Location,
• Chronology,
• Battles (except allusions without names),
• Wife names,
• Mecca.

Since the Qur’an contains no narrative biography, he argues the term muhammad may not have originally referred to a person, but to a theological figure—similar to:

• al-Masīḥ (the Messiah)
• al-Muṣṭafā (the Chosen One)

He claims early Muslims later retroactively attached a biography to the title.

⸻

5. Christian Sources Before Islam Refer to Jesus as “The Praised One” (Parallel to MHMD)

Smith cites Syriac Christian literature:
• The Syriac word “maḥmūdā” (ܡܗܡܘܕܐ) meaning “praised, glorified”
• Used in reference to Jesus

He argues:
• Arab Christians may have used the Arabic equivalent “muhammad” as a devotional epithet for Jesus.
• Thus, MHMD originally identified Jesus, not a separate prophet.

This supports his claim of a Christological reading of early Qur’anic phrases such as:

wa-muḥammadun rasūlu-llāh
“The Praised One is the messenger of God.”

From Smith’s perspective, this could mean:

“Jesus, the praised one, is God’s messenger.”

⸻

Synthesis: Jay Smith’s Overall Thesis

Putting the claims together:

1. MHMD = “The Praised One,” a title.
2. Early inscriptions and coins do not reference a historical prophet Muhammad.
3. MHMD appears in Christianized contexts with Christological imagery.
4. Qur’an lacks biographical material, consistent with a title rather than a person.
5. Syriac Christian liturgy used similar titles for Jesus.

Conclusion (according to Jay Smith):

The earliest “Muhammad” was not the Prophet of Islam but a title for Jesus, and only later—during the 8th–9th centuries—was this title reinterpreted as the proper name of a new Arabian prophet.

⸻

Important Note

This is Jay Smith’s polemical position, not the mainstream academic view.

Most historians—Muslim and non-Muslim—accept that:

• “Muhammad” was a real historical figure,
• The Qur’an’s references to him are contextual,
• Early inscriptions genuinely refer to the Prophet of Islam.

Search

Search