---

Azahari Hassim

Some believe that the prophecy in the Torah (Genesis 21 verse 18) was fulfilled when Allah established Hajj as an Islamic rite. Pilgrims perform Sa’i in memory of Hagar, who searched for water for her infant son, Ishmael, in the desert, and Allah provided them with the well of Zamzam. Sa’i, which involves walking seven times between the hills of Safa and Marwa in Mecca, is one of the essential rituals of Hajj and Umrah. How is this argument articulated?

There is a belief among some Muslims that the prophecy mentioned in Genesis 21 verse 18 was fulfilled through the establishment of Hajj in Islam. This verse of the Torah prophesies that God will make a great nation from the descendants of Ishmael, the son of Abraham and Hagar. The argument connecting the Islamic narrative with the story in the Torah can be articulated through a few key points:

1. Biblical Story of Hagar and Ishmael: In the Torah, the story of Hagar and her son Ishmael, who were cast into the desert, is recounted. In Genesis 21:18, God tells Hagar, “Lift up the boy and hold him fast with your hand, for I will make him into a great nation.” This is often interpreted as a divine promise of Ishmael’s survival and future significance.
2. Islamic Narrative and the Ritual of Sa’i: In Islamic tradition, Hagar’s desperate search for water in the desert for her infant son Ishmael is commemorated through the ritual of Sa’i, which is performed during the Hajj and Umrah pilgrimages. Pilgrims walk back and forth seven times between the hills of Safa and Marwa in Mecca, reenacting Hagar’s search.
3. The Well of Zamzam: Allah’s provision of the Zamzam well for Hagar and Ishmael, as per Islamic tradition, is seen as a miraculous fulfillment of the divine promise. The well is a key element in the story and is considered a symbol of God’s mercy and sustenance.
4. Link to the Prophecy: The argument connects the establishment of Hajj, including the ritual of Sa’i, to the fulfillment of the prophecy in Genesis. It’s posited that Allah’s establishment of these rituals and the continued commemoration by millions of Muslims is a fulfillment of the promise made to Hagar regarding Ishmael.
5. Symbolism and Continuity: The ritual of Sa’i and the story of Zamzam are seen as not just historical events but also symbolic of God’s continuous guidance and sustenance. This symbolism is linked back to the Biblical prophecy, suggesting a continuity and fulfillment of divine promise across these Abrahamic faiths.

This argument is that the connection between this Islamic rite and the prophecy in the Torah (Genesis 21 verse 18) is seen by some as a fulfillment of the promise made to Hagar in the Torah, where it is stated that God will make a great nation of Ishmael. In Islamic belief, this promise is fulfilled through the lineage of Ishmael and the establishment of Hajj as a central pillar of Islam. Therefore, the act of Sa’i is not only a way for pilgrims to remember and honor Hagar’s struggle but also to symbolize the fulfillment of the prophecy through the establishment of Hajj as an Islamic rite.

Hajj as the Fulfillment of Abrahamic Prophecy

Torah, Genesis 22 verse 18, reads:

“And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.”

It is believed the event of the Hajj in Mecca is the fulfillment of the biblical prophecy of Genesis 22 verse 18. According to the Islamic belief, Abraham offered Ishmael, not Isaac, as a sacrifice to God, emphasizing Ishmael’s role in fulfilling God’s covenant with Abraham. The event of Hajj proves that God made a covenant with Abraham through Hagar and Ishmael rather than Sarah and Isaac. How is this viewpoint presented?

The viewpoint that the Hajj in Mecca is a fulfillment of the biblical prophecy of Genesis 22 verse 18, and represents a covenant made by God with Abraham through Hagar and Ishmael, rather than Sarah and Isaac, is articulated based on several key aspects of Islamic belief and interpretation of religious texts:

1. Prophecy of Genesis 22 verse 18: The verse in Genesis states, “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.” Some interpret this as a prophecy that is fulfilled through the descendants of Ishmael, Abraham’s son with Hagar. The Islamic narrative holds that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was offered by Abraham as a sacrifice to God. This signifies Ishmael’s importance in the fulfillment of God’s covenant with Abraham. The Hajj, as a major Islamic ritual commemorating the actions of Abraham and Ishmael, is seen as a manifestation of this blessing.
2. The Hajj and Ishmael’s Legacy: In Islamic tradition, the Hajj includes rituals that are believed to commemorate the life and trials of Abraham and his son Ishmael. The ritual of Sa’i, where pilgrims travel back and forth between the hills of Safa and Marwah, is seen as a re-enactment of Hagar’s desperate search for water for her infant son Ishmael. According to Islamic belief, the well of Zamzam originated to rescue baby Ishmael.
3. The Kaaba and Islamic Tradition: The Kaaba in Mecca, which is the focal point of the Hajj, is believed in Islamic tradition to have been built by Abraham and Ishmael as a house of worship to the one true God. This act of establishing monotheism in the region is viewed as a key part of fulfilling God’s covenant with Abraham.
4. Universal Blessing and Unity of Humankind: The Hajj is seen as a fulfillment of God’s promise to bless all nations through Abraham’s descendants. The gathering of millions of Muslims from diverse nations during Hajj is viewed as a symbol of this blessing and the unity of humankind under God’s guidance.
5. Continuity of Abrahamic Tradition: The Hajj is also seen as a continuation and fulfillment of the Abrahamic tradition of monotheism. This perspective posits that Islam, as the final revelation in the Abrahamic tradition, fulfills and perfects earlier revelations given to Jews and Christians.

This viewpoint is part of the broader Islamic interpretation of religious history, which sees Islam as both a continuation and a completion of the monotheistic tradition established by Abraham.

“Hajj, for centuries, has remained a central, unifying force in the Muslim world. It brings together people of every race, language, and culture, in a shared act of worship and submission to God.”

Karen Armstrong, a British author and scholar of comparative religion

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Is Allah the God of Israel?

The question of whether Allah is the God of Israel connects to broader theological, historical, and linguistic discussions. In essence, the answer can vary significantly depending on religious and cultural perspectives:

1. Islamic Perspective: In Islam, Allah is the Arabic word for God, and Muslims believe Allah is the same singular, monotheistic God worshiped by Jews and Christians. This belief is rooted in the Islamic view that all Abrahamic faiths, which include Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, worship the same one God who revealed Himself to Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. Therefore, from an Islamic standpoint, Allah is indeed the God of Israel, as well as the God of all creation.

2. Jewish and Christian Perspectives: Judaism refers to God using several names, the most sacred being YHWH, often vocalized as Yahweh and traditionally not pronounced, using “Adonai” (Lord) in prayer and readings. Christianity, stemming from Jewish monotheism, also worships this God, referring to Him in English as God, and recognizing Jesus Christ as the Son of God and part of the Holy Trinity. While Jews and Christians acknowledge their God as the same God of Abraham worshiped by Muslims, the conceptualization of God’s nature can differ significantly among these faiths, especially with Christianity’s Trinitarian doctrine, which is not shared by Judaism or Islam.

3. Linguistic and Cultural Considerations: “Allah” is simply the word for God in Arabic, used by Arabic speakers of various religious backgrounds, including Arab Christians and Jews, when referring to God. The use of the term “Allah” by non-Muslims in Arabic-speaking and -influenced contexts underscores the linguistic aspect of the name rather than a theological one.

4. Theological Divergences: Despite the shared heritage, there are significant theological differences among the three monotheistic faiths, particularly concerning the nature of God, the role of Jesus Christ, and the revelations through their respective scriptures (the Torah for Jews, the Bible for Christians, and the Qur’an for Muslims). These differences lead to distinct understandings and relationships with God.

In summary, from a monotheistic standpoint and particularly within Islam, Allah is considered the same God worshipped in Judaism and Christianity. However, theological nuances and differences in belief systems contribute to varied perceptions and understandings of God’s nature across these faiths.

Did Moses Maimonides, a great Jewish sage, use the word “Allah “ for God in his writing?

Yes, Moses Maimonides, a prominent Jewish philosopher and scholar, did indeed use the word “Allah” for God in some of his writings. In his famous work, “The Guide for the Perplexed,” written in Arabic, Maimonides used the term “Allah” to refer to the monotheistic God. This usage reflects the influence of Arabic and Islamic culture on Maimonides, as he lived in Muslim-dominated Spain and Egypt during the 12th century.

What is “The Guide for the Perplexed”?

The Guide for the Perplexed is a book written by Maimonides, a 12th-century Jewish philosopher and scholar. It tries to explain how to understand the Jewish religion and its sacred texts in a rational way, using the ideas of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. It also discusses some topics of Jewish mysticism and the meaning of God’s attributes. The book was written in Arabic using the Hebrew alphabet, and later translated into Hebrew and other languages. It is considered one of the most influential works of Jewish philosophy and theology, and it has also influenced many Christian and Muslim thinkers.

Saadia Gaon and the Arabic language

Who was Saadia Gaon? Was his writing and commentary on the Torah influenced by Arabic and the name of Allah?

Saadia Gaon was a prominent Jewish scholar and philosopher who lived in the 9th and 10th centuries. He was born in Egypt but spent much of his life in Babylonia, where he served as the head of the Talmudic academy in Sura.

Saadia Gaon’s writing and commentary on the Torah were heavily influenced by Arabic culture and language, as well as Islamic theology. He was well-versed in Arabic literature and philosophy, which he incorporated into his interpretations of Jewish texts. Additionally, Saadia Gaon engaged with Islamic theological concepts such as divine unity (tawhid) and the nature of prophecy.

In terms of the name of Allah, Saadia Gaon did not shy away from using it in his writings. He believed that there was no harm in using the Arabic term for God when discussing theological matters, as long as it did not compromise Jewish monotheism. This openness to incorporating Arabic language and Islamic concepts into his work set Saadia Gaon apart from other Jewish scholars of his time.

Overall, Saadia Gaon’s writing and commentary on the Torah were indeed influenced by Arabic culture and Islamic theology, including references to Allah. His unique approach to blending these influences with traditional Jewish thought helped shape medieval Jewish philosophy and continues to be studied by scholars today.

Pre-Christian Figures in Christian Theology: Understanding the Roles of Adam, Noah, and Abraham

According to Islamic belief, Adam, Noah, Abraham, and all prophets are considered Muslims. Does Christianity hold the view that they were all Christians?

In Christianity, Adam, Noah, and Abraham are not considered Christians in the same way they are viewed as Muslims in Islamic belief. Christianity teaches that these figures lived before the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, the central figure of the Christian faith, and therefore could not have been Christians in the traditional sense.

However, these individuals are highly regarded in Christian theology for their roles in God’s plan and are seen as part of the faith’s spiritual heritage.

For example, Abraham is considered a patriarch and a model of faith. He is often referred to as the “father of faith” because he demonstrated faith in God’s promises before the establishment of Christianity.

Christians view themselves as spiritual descendants of Abraham, sharing in the blessings of the covenant through faith in Christ.

Adam and Noah are also recognized as significant figures. Adam is seen as the first human created by God and the forefather of all humanity, and his actions are believed to have led to the fall of man, necessitating redemption. Noah is honored for his righteousness and obedience in the face of a sinful world.

Overall, while these figures are not labeled as Christians, their faith and actions are seen as foundational to the Christian narrative and are respected within the faith for their relationship with God and their roles in biblical history.

Holy Quran 3:33

۞ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ ٱصْطَفَىٰٓ ءَادَمَ وَنُوحًا وَءَالَ إِبْرَٰهِيمَ وَءَالَ عِمْرَٰنَ عَلَى ٱلْعَٰلَمِينَ

God chose Adam, and Noah, and the family of Abraham, and the family of Imran, over all mankind.

Search

Search

Azahari Hassim

Isaiah 29, verse 12, reads:

”And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, “Read this, I pray thee”; and he saith, “I am not learned.”

Isaiah 29, verse 14, reads:

”Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder; for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.”

Some believe that Isaiah 29, verse 14, points to the miracle of the Quran and may be linked to Isaiah 29, verse 12, which suggests a first revelation of the Quran to Muhammad at Mount Hira through the angel Gabriel. How is this connection explained?

The connection between Isaiah 29, verse 14, and the Quran, particularly in relation to Isaiah 29, verse 12, is a matter of interpretation that some Islamic scholars and believers use to suggest a prophecy of the coming of the Quran and Prophet Muhammad. Here’s an explanation of this connection:

Isaiah 29, verse 12 states: “And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.”

Islamic Interpretation

1. “The book”: In Islamic interpretation, this is seen as referring to the Quran.
2. “Him that is not learned”: Muslims believe this refers to the Prophet Muhammad, who was illiterate.
3. “Read this, I pray thee”: This is interpreted as the command given to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel during the first revelation.
4. “I am not learned”: According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad responded to Gabriel’s command to read with “I am not learned” (in Arabic: “Ma ana bi qari”).

Isaiah 29, verse 14, states: “Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work among this people, a marvelous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.”

Islamic Interpretation

1. “A marvelous work and a wonder”: This is interpreted by some Muslims to refer to the Quran, considered a miraculous and divine revelation.
2. “The wisdom of their wise men shall perish”: This phrase is seen as indicating that the coming of the Quran would challenge the existing knowledge and wisdom of the people at that time, transforming their understanding and beliefs.
3. “Context of Revelation”: The connection is further strengthened by the context of Isaiah 29, verse 12, which emphasizes a revelation to an unlearned person, aligning with Muhammad’s experience at Mount Hira.

Summary
The connection relies on the belief that Isaiah’s prophecy in these verses points to a future revelation given to an unlearned person (Prophet Muhammad), bringing forth a “marvelous work” (the Quran) that would challenge and transform existing wisdom and understanding. This interpretation is not universally accepted but is used within some Islamic scholarly traditions to draw a link between the Biblical text and Islamic beliefs about the Quran and Muhammad.

The Miraculous Preservation of Pharaoh’s Body: The Connection to Muhammad as the Prophet Like Moses

Surah 10, verse 92, reads:

“Today We will preserve your body (O Pharaoh), so that you become a sign for those after you. But most people are heedless of Our signs.”

Some scholars contend that the discovery of Ramses’ body in modern times is viewed as a miraculous event in the Quran, specifically in Surah 10, verse 92. It resembles Moses’ parting of the Red Sea. As a result, they argue that Muhammad is the prophet mentioned in Deuteronomy 18, verse 18, similar to Moses. How do they express their argument?

The scholars who make this argument typically point to several key points to support their claim:

1. Discovery of Ramses’ body: They argue that the discovery of Pharaoh Ramses II’s body in modern times is a significant event that aligns with the story of Pharaoh’s body being preserved as a sign in Surah 10, verse 92 of the Quran. This miraculous preservation of Pharaoh’s body is seen as a fulfillment of that prophecy.
2. Resemblance to Moses’ parting of the Red Sea: The scholars suggest that the discovery of Ramses’ body can be seen as a parallel to the miracle of Moses parting the Red Sea, as both events involve extraordinary occurrences related to Pharaoh and Moses. This parallel further strengthens the connection between the two stories.
3. Muhammad as the prophet like Moses: In Deuteronomy 18, verse 18, the Bible mentions the coming of a prophet like Moses, whom God will raise up among the brethren of Israelites. Some scholars argue that Muhammad fits the description of this prophet due to similarities in their roles, teachings, and experiences with prophethood.

By combining these points, scholars argue that the discovery of Ramses’ body, the resemblance to Moses’ story, and the identification of Muhammad as the prophet like Moses provide evidence for the divine inspiration of the Quran and Muhammad’s status as a prophet in the line of Moses.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Genesis 49, verse 10, reads:

“The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh comes; and to him will be the obedience of the people.”

In this verse, it seems to be implied that Shiloh (Messiah) should be outside of the clan of Judah. What is the explanation for this argument?

The interpretation of Genesis 49, verse 10, particularly the term “Shiloh,” has been a subject of considerable debate among scholars and theologians for centuries. The passage is part of Jacob’s blessings to his sons, where he makes prophetic statements about their futures and the destiny of their descendants.

The verse is traditionally understood as a messianic prophecy within both Jewish and Christian traditions, although interpretations of who or what “Shiloh” represents may vary. The verse indicates that the scepter, which symbolises rulership, and the lawgiver, who represents the law, shall remain with Judah until “Shiloh” comes.

“Shiloh” is often interpreted as a reference to the Messiah, although the exact identity and meaning of the term are not clear from the text itself.

Several scholars believe that the word “until” in the verse indicates the time at which Judah’s authority ended.

Therefore, Shiloh (Messiah) does not descend from David’s lineage, which is traced back to Judah.

Some believe that the statement “and unto him shall the gathering of the people be” in Genesis 49, verse 10, refers to the replacement of the Jewish nation by new nations, specifically pointing to the Muslim community as a whole. Muhammad is regarded as a “Shiloh”. This interpretation is supported by Matthew 8, verse 12. Can you explain this interpretation further?

The verse from Genesis 49, verse 10, is part of the blessings Jacob gave to his sons before he died, where each son’s blessing contained prophecies about their descendants. The verse in question is traditionally ascribed to Judah:

“The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.”

“Shiloh” is a term that has been interpreted in various ways over the centuries. In Jewish interpretation, it is often understood as a reference to the Messiah from the line of Judah, who would be a ruler over Israel. Christianity interprets Jesus as this Messiah, and thus as “Shiloh.”

However, some Muslim scholars interpret “Shiloh” as a prophecy of Muhammad. In this view, the verse is seen as a prediction that rulership (the scepter) and religious authority (the lawgiver) would remain with the descendants of Judah until a new prophet (Muhammad) arises, and to him, the obedience of the peoples would turn. This interpretation thus sees the Muslim community as the fulfillment of this prophecy, with Muhammad being “Shiloh,” and the Muslim ummah (community) as the gathering of the people.

Matthew 8, verse 12, on the other hand, is a part of the New Testament where Jesus says:

“But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

This verse is often interpreted in a Christian context to mean that those who were originally chosen (the Jewish people) but do not accept Jesus as the Messiah will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Some Muslim interpreters might use this verse to support the idea that there is a new chosen community (the Muslims) that has replaced the old (the Jewish people) due to their acceptance of the final prophet Muhammad, as prophesied in Genesis.

It’s important to note that this interpretation is not a traditional or mainstream understanding within Judaism or Christianity. Both religions typically do not see Muhammad as prophesied in their scriptures. Jewish tradition does not recognize either Jesus or Muhammad as the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies, and Christianity does not recognize Muhammad as a prophet.

However, there is the Quranic message of the Surah 2, verse 133, to the Jews and Christians:

“Or were you witnesses when death approached Jacob, and he said to his sons, “What will you worship after Me?” They said, “We will worship your God, and the God of your fathers, Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac; One God; and to Him we submit.

Shiloh

A title of the Messiah (Gen. 49:10), Heb. shîlōh. Though there has been much discussion as to the grammatical interpretation of the word, Jewish officialdom and the Christian church agree as to the fact that the patriarch is here proclaiming the coming of the Messiah.

While the northern kingly lines were eventually obliterated by the Assyrians, Judah’s royal line continued right up to the time of the arrival of the Messiah. Jacob’s prophecy also points to the fact that eventually God’s kingdom will encompass much more than the Jewish nation. Of course, in a sense, God already reigns over the nations. He is not a mere Jewish tribal deity. He is Lord over all the earth, worthy of everyone’s worship.

---

Azahari Hassim

Genesis 49, verse 10, reads:

“The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.”

The verse implies that Judah’s offspring will govern Israel until the arrival of “Shiloh,” who holds all royal power. Here, Shiloh, similar to “the Seed” in Genesis 22, verse 18, refers to the future Messiah.

From an Islamic perspective, the word “Shiloh” in Genesis 49, verse 10, is connected to the Abrahamic covenant through Ishmael, who, not Isaac, is believed to be nearly sacrificed. Conversely, the terms “scepter” and “lawgiver” mentioned in Genesis 49, verse 10, are associated with the Sinai covenant. How is their argument articulated?

From an Islamic perspective, the interpretation of Genesis 49, verse 10, and its connection to the Abrahamic covenant through Ishmael involves several key arguments:

1. Shiloh as Muhammad:
   Some Islamic scholars interpret “Shiloh” as a reference to Prophet Muhammad. They argue that the prophecy indicates a shift in divine authority away from the line of Judah to a descendant of Ishmael.
2. Abrahamic Covenant through Ishmael:
   Islamic tradition holds that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was nearly sacrificed by Abraham. This is seen as a pivotal moment in the Abrahamic covenant, establishing Ishmael’s line as the inheritors of God’s promise.
3. Scepter and Lawgiver:
   The terms “scepter” and “lawgiver” in Genesis 49, verse 10, are associated with the Sinai covenant given to Moses. Islamic interpretation suggests that these symbols of authority and divine law would remain with the descendants of Judah until the coming of “Shiloh” (Muhammad).
4. Transfer of Authority:
   The verse is interpreted to mean that the religious and political authority (“scepter” and “lawgiver”) would depart from Judah’s line when Shiloh (Muhammad) comes. This is seen as a prophecy of the transition of divine guidance from the Israelite tradition to Islam.
5. Gathering of the People:
   The phrase “unto him shall the gathering of the people be” is interpreted as referring to the universal message of Islam brought by Muhammad, which would unite people from various nations and backgrounds.
6. Continuation of Abrahamic Legacy:
   Islamic scholars argue that Muhammad, as a descendant of Ishmael, fulfills this prophecy by bringing the final revelation that completes and supersedes previous covenants, while still maintaining continuity with the Abrahamic tradition.
7. Non-Judahite Messiah:
   Some interpretations suggest that the verse implies the coming of a messianic figure from outside the tribe of Judah, which aligns with the Islamic view of Muhammad’s lineage through Ishmael.

It’s important to note that this interpretation is specific to Islamic theology and is not accepted in Jewish or Christian exegesis. The Islamic perspective sees this verse as one of many biblical passages that they believe foretell the coming of Prophet Muhammad and the establishment of Islam as the final Abrahamic faith.

Muhammad and the Hebrew prophets

What is the argument put forth by those who support the idea that the prophethood of Muhammad is linked to Hagar’s prophecy, which predates the Torah, in contrast to Hebrew prophets who are associated with the Torah? Consequently, Muhammad, in contrast to Hebrew prophets such as Jesus, is not bound by the laws of the Torah.

Supporters of the idea that the prophethood of Muhammad is linked to Hagar’s prophecy, which predates the Torah, argue that this connection sets Muhammad apart from Hebrew prophets who are associated with the Torah. Here is a detailed explanation of their argument:

1. Pre-Torah Origins of Hagar’s Prophecy:

Proponents argue that Hagar’s prophecy, as mentioned in Genesis 21, verse 18, predates the Torah given to Moses. This prophecy concerns Hagar’s son, Ishmael, who is promised to become a great nation. This predates the formalization of the Torah, which is traditionally attributed to Moses and his time.

2. Reiteration and Fulfillment in Islamic Rituals:

The Torah reiterates Hagar’s prophecy, but its fulfillment is seen in Islamic practices, particularly the Hajj pilgrimage. The Hajj, which involves rituals connected to Hagar and Ishmael, is viewed as a direct link to their legacy. This pilgrimage is a central practice in Islam, signifying the prophecy’s fulfillment and its importance in Islamic tradition.

3. Marginalization by Ancient Israelite Scribes:

It is suggested that ancient Israelite scribes attempted to downplay the significance of Hagar and Ishmael due to theological and political reasons. This marginalization aimed to elevate the prominence of Isaac and the Israelite lineage over Ishmael. The argument posits that the biblical narrative was shaped in a way that selectively emphasized aspects favorable to the Israelite lineage.

Contrast with Hebrew Prophets

1. Association with the Torah:

Hebrew prophets are closely linked to the Torah, which is seen as the foundation of their prophetic authority. The Torah, given to Moses, contains the laws and ethical teachings that Hebrew prophets were tasked with interpreting and enforcing. This connection establishes a continuous line of prophetic tradition rooted in the Mosaic covenant.

2. Muhammad’s Independent Prophetic Lineage:

In contrast, Muhammad’s prophethood is associated with the Abrahamic covenant through Ishmael, rather than the Mosaic covenant. This distinction is significant in Islamic theology, which views Muhammad’s message as a continuation and fulfillment of the Abrahamic faith, independent of the Mosaic laws. This perspective underscores the universality of Muhammad’s revelation, intended for all humanity, rather than being confined to the specific legal and ritual practices of the Jewish people.

Theological Implications

1. Universal Prophetic Tradition:

By associating Muhammad with a prophecy that predates the Torah, supporters argue that prophetic messages have been universal and ongoing throughout human history. This places Islam within a broader, inclusive prophetic tradition that transcends Jewish ethnic and religious boundaries. It emphasizes the continuity of divine guidance from the time of Abraham through to Muhammad.

2. Distinct Covenants:

The argument also highlights the existence of distinct covenants in the Abrahamic religions. While the Hebrew prophets operate under the covenant of Moses and the Sinai revelation, Muhammad is seen as part of the covenant given to Abraham and Ishmael. This theological distinction reinforces the idea that different prophetic traditions are validated by separate covenants within the broader framework of Abrahamic faiths.

In summary, the argument linking Muhammad’s prophethood to Hagar’s prophecy emphasizes its pre-Torah origins, fulfillment in Islamic Hajj, and the marginalization of Hagar’s significance by ancient Israelite scribes. This perspective contrasts Muhammad’s universal and independent prophetic lineage with the Hebrew prophets’ association with the Torah, highlighting distinct covenants and a broader prophetic tradition.

In Judaism, the Messiah is known as the son of David

Jewish teachings about the Messiah, often referred to as the “Mashiach,” frequently evoke the figure of the Son of David. Here are a few notable quotes and concepts regarding the Messiah from Jewish rabbinical texts:

1. Maimonides (Rambam): In his “Mishneh Torah,” he states that the Messiah will be a descendant of King David and will restore Israel to its former glory.
2. Talmud (Sanhedrin 98a): The Talmud describes the Messiah as a “Son of David” who will arise in a time of tribulation and will bring peace to the world.
3. Rabbi Isaac Luria (Ha’ari): He emphasized the messianic role of the Son of David in bringing about the final redemption and restoring the Jewish people to their land.
4. Rashi: In his commentary on various texts, he frequently references the Messiah as a Davidic king who will gather Jews from the diaspora and rebuild the Holy Temple.

These teachings reflect a deep-rooted belief in a future redeemer who will come from the lineage of David, fulfilling prophetic promises found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. The concept of the Messiah is a source of hope and expectation in Jewish thought.

Is Muhammad the messiah whom Jews were waiting for according to the Islamic belief? The answere is indirectly yes based on Surah 2, verse 89. How is their argument articulated from an Islamic perspective?

While Islamic belief does not directly identify Muhammad as the Messiah awaited by Jews, some interpretations and arguments can imply a connection based on Surah 2:89 of the Quran.

The verse reads:

“And when the Book was sent to them by God verifying what had been revealed to them already even though before it they used to pray for victory over the unbelievers and even though they recognised it when it came to them, they renounced it. The curse of God be on those who deny!“

Here’s how the argument is articulated from an Islamic perspective:

1. “That which was with them”: Surah 2, verse 89, refers to the Jews receiving a Book (the Quran) that confirms earlier scriptures. This verse highlights that those who awaited divine guidance through a messiah should have recognized Muhammad’s prophethood since it aligns with their prophecies concerning redemption.
2. Recognition of Truth: The verse emphasizes that the Jewish people had previously prayed for a deliverer( Messiah) or victory over disbelief. When Muhammad came with a message that they were familiar with (based on their scriptures), many of them rejected him. This rejection is seen as a failure to recognize the fulfillment of what they had been waiting for, which could suggest that from an Islamic perspective, Muhammad embodies the qualities of a Messiah in bringing forth God’s final revelation.
3. Completing the Message: Muslims believe that Muhammad’s role as the final prophet completes the message of the earlier prophets and brings a universal message accessible to all, including Jews. Hence, in this context, some may argue that he fulfills the broader expectations of a Messiah-like figure, even if not in the traditional Jewish sense.
4. Prophetic Tradition: Islamic tradition speaks of the coming of Jesus as a key figure who is also termed the Messiah (Masih). In this context, some Islamic interpretations view Muhammad’s prophecy as part of a continuum, where he is vital in the unfolding of the divine plan, which eventually includes the return of Jesus.

In summary, from an Islamic perspective, while Muhammad isn’t explicitly defined as the Messiah in the same way as in Judaism, some interpretations of Surah 2, verse 89, suggest that his mission aligns with the expectations surrounding a messianic deliverer or prophet, indicating a fulfillment of their hope for divine guidance.

Rulership would continue in this tribe till Shiloh (the Messiah) came, and in Him it would remain forever. His people would give Him willing obedience in the day of His power. The meaning of the name “Shiloh” is obscure. Some suggested meanings are: Prince of peace, tranquil, seed, his descendant, whose it is (cf. Ezek. 21:27).

Believer’s Bible Commentary

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

How does God depict His unity in the Bible, especially in the Book of Isaiah?

In the Book of Isaiah, God repeatedly emphasizes His oneness and uniqueness as the only true God. Here are some passages that highlight God’s oneness:

1. Isaiah 44, verse 6:

“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.'”

2. Isaiah 45, verse 5:

“I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides me there is no god.”

3. Isaiah 45, verse 18:

“For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): ‘I am the Lord, there is and no other.'”

These verses, among others in the Book of Isaiah, affirm the absolute oneness of God and His exclusive divine authority. They reject the concept of multiple gods and assert that there is no deity besides Him. God’s oneness is a central theme in Isaiah’s teachings, emphasizing monotheism and the worship of the one true God.

Some believe the Hebrew Bible, as the word of God that upholds the oneness of God, cannot withstand the onslaught of the Trinitarian hermeneutics. After all, the Hebrew Bible becomes part of the Christian scriptures known as the Old Testament. The Quran, as the safeguard to protect the unity of God, comes into existence to challenge the doctrine of the Trinity that creeps into the Hebrew scriptures. How is this argument explained?

This is a complex and controversial topic that has been debated for centuries by scholars and theologians of different faiths.

The argument that the Quran challenges the doctrine of the Trinity that creeps into the Hebrew scriptures is based on the following premises:

The Hebrew Bible, as the word of God, upholds the oneness of God and does not contain any explicit or implicit indication of a triune Godhead. The concept of Trinity is a later development that emerged from the interaction of Jewish and Hellenistic thought in the early centuries of Christianity.

The Quran, as the final and complete revelation of God, confirms the oneness of God and rejects any form of association or partnership with Him. The Quran explicitly criticizes the Christian belief in the Trinity as a form of polytheism and deviation from the true monotheism of Abraham. The Quran also corrects some of the misconceptions that Christians have about Jesus and the Holy Spirit, such as their divine status or their role in the Trinity.

The Quran is the safeguard to protect the unity of God from any distortion or corruption that may have occurred in the previous scriptures, such as the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament. The Quran claims to be a confirmation and clarification of what was revealed before it, and a criterion to judge between truth and falsehood. The Quran also challenges the people of the Book (Jews and Christians) to produce evidence for their claims and to follow the original message of God that was revealed to their prophets.

Therefore, according to this argument, the Quran is superior to the Hebrew Bible in terms of preserving and presenting the pure monotheism of God, and it exposes and refutes the doctrine of the Trinity that creeps into the Hebrew scriptures through human interpretation and influence.

In summary, the argument says that the Quran is a better guide for understanding the idea of one God because it strongly emphasizes monotheism. It criticizes concepts like the Trinity, which have shaped interpretations of the Hebrew Bible due to historical and cultural reasons. By clearly focusing on the oneness of God, the Quran guides people to embrace true monotheism.

The Jewish Perspective on the Belief in God Having a Son

In Judaism, how grave a sin is it to believe that the God of Abraham has a son?

Judaism is a monotheistic religion that believes in one God who is the creator and ruler of the universe. Judaism rejects the idea that God has a son or any other partner or equal. Judaism considers the belief that God has a son to be a form of idolatry, which is a grave sin and a violation of the first commandment.

According to Judaism, God does not have a physical body or human attributes. God is transcendent and incomparable. God does not need a son or any other intermediary to communicate with humanity. God speaks directly to the prophets and reveals His will through the Torah, the sacred scriptures of Judaism.

The term “son of God” is sometimes used in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) to refer to different groups or individuals who have a special relationship with God, such as Israel, the king, the angels, or the righteous. However, this term is not meant to imply any biological or metaphysical connection between God and His creatures. It is a metaphorical expression of love, favor, or covenant.

Judaism does not accept the Christian claim that Jesus is the son of God.

Therefore, to believe that God has a son is contrary to the core principles of Judaism and an offense to God’s uniqueness and sovereignty. It is a serious sin that goes against the most fundamental belief of Judaism: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6, verse 4).

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

From the Islamic perspective, Ishmael was the fruit of Abraham, while Isaac was a gift of God to Abraham due to his willingness to sacrifice his firstborn son, Ishmael. What is the explanation for this?

In Islamic tradition, both Ishmael and Isaac are revered as prophets and are the sons of the Prophet Abraham. Here’s a breakdown from the Islamic perspective:

1. Ishmael: He is the first son of Abraham and Hagar. When Hagar and her infant son Ishmael were in the desert, God provided them with the well of Zamzam. Ishmael and his father, Abraham, later constructed the Kaaba in Mecca. The majority of Islamic traditions indicate that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice. However, at the last moment, God provided a ram to sacrifice in place of Ishmael. This event is commemorated during Eid al-Adha.
2. Isaac: He is the second son of Abraham and his wife, Sarah. In Islamic narratives, after the trial of the sacrifice, as a reward for Abraham’s unwavering faith, God blessed him with a second son, Isaac, through Sarah. Isaac is also considered a prophet and is respected in Islamic tradition.

The Islamic account differs from the Jewish and Christian traditions, where Isaac is the one whom Abraham is commanded to sacrifice. In the Qur’an, the specific name of the son to be sacrificed is not mentioned, but many Islamic scholars and traditions identify him as Ishmael based on the sequence of events in the Quran, which suggests that the promise of Isaac’s birth came after the sacrifice narrative, implying Ishmael was the son involved (Surah 37, verses 100 to 112).

What does the Arabic word “نَافِلَةً” mean in Surah 21, verse 72, in the Quran? Could you elaborate more on why the Quran uses such a word to refer to Abraham concerning Isaac and Jacob?

The Arabic word “نَافِلَةً” in Surah 21, verse 72 of the Quran refers to “additional” or “extra” in English. In this verse, it is used to describe how Allah favored Abraham by giving him the additional gift of Isaac and Jacob, in addition to his son Ishmael.

This word is significant in this context because it highlights the special and additional blessings that Allah bestowed upon Prophet Abraham. It emphasizes the extraordinary nature of the gift of Isaac and Jacob, in addition to his first son Ishmael, as a form of divine favor and grace.

The use of the word “نَافِلَةً” also emphasizes the generosity and abundance of Allah’s blessings, highlighting the multiplicity of children and the continuity of prophethood within Prophet Abraham’s lineage. This choice of wording serves to underscore the extraordinary nature of Allah’s favors and blessings upon his chosen prophets and their descendants.

Overall, the use of the word “نَافِلَةً” in this verse serves to emphasize the exceptional nature of the gift of Isaac and Jacob to Prophet Abraham, in addition to his son Ishmael, highlighting the abundance and generosity of Allah’s blessings upon his chosen servants.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

Genesis 21, verses 9 to 10, reads:

But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking,  and she said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”

Genesis 22, verse 2, reads:

Then God said, “Take your son , your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you. ”

Here is how the Jewish scribe manipulated Ishmael’s story:

1. The age of Ishmael at the time of his departure from Abraham’s house.

2. Abraham’s son, who was offered as a sacrifice.

Some Islamic scholars suspect that the scribes tampered with the story of Hagar and Ishmael in the Torah. It is argued that Genesis 21, verses 9 to 10, may have been added later because Ishmael and Hagar had already left Abraham’s house long before Isaac was born, with Ishmael being an infant according to Islamic tradition. 

Similarly, some question whether Genesis 22, verse 2, could refer to Ishmael, since Isaac had never been Abraham’s only son, whereas Ishmael had been for fourteen years before Isaac was born. How is this Islamic viewpoint presented?

The Islamic perspective on the stories of Hagar, Ishmael, and Isaac, as presented in the Torah, differs significantly from the Jewish and Christian narratives. These differences have led some Islamic scholars to question the authenticity of certain Biblical passages, suggesting possible later additions or alterations.

In the Islamic tradition, Hagar and Ishmael’s story is seen through a different lens compared to the Biblical account. According to Islamic belief, Ishmael was an infant when he and his mother Hagar were left in the desert, which contrasts with the Biblical narrative where Ishmael is depicted as a young boy during this event. Some Islamic scholars argue that certain verses in Genesis, such as Genesis 21:9-10, might have been added later, as they imply that Ishmael was older and capable of mocking Isaac, which would not align with the Islamic timeline where Ishmael had already left before Isaac’s birth.

The question of who was the intended son of sacrifice is another point of divergence. In the Quran, it is generally believed that Ishmael was the son whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice, whereas the Bible identifies Isaac as the intended sacrifice. This discrepancy has led some Islamic scholars to suggest that Genesis 22, verse 2, which refers to Isaac as Abraham’s “only son,” might be inaccurate, as Ishmael was Abraham’s firstborn and was his only son for fourteen years before Isaac’s birth. The argument is that the description of Isaac as the “only son” could have been a later addition to emphasize Isaac’s significance in the Jewish tradition.

Islamic narratives emphasize the significance of Ishmael and his descendants, linking them to the lineage of the Prophet Muhammad. The Islamic tradition holds that Abraham and Ishmael together built the Kaaba in Mecca, a central element in Islamic faith, which is not mentioned in the Bible. The Quran and Islamic teachings often highlight the spiritual and prophetic roles of both Ishmael and Isaac, but with a focus on Ishmael’s role in the lineage leading to Islam.

Conclusion

The Islamic viewpoint on the story of Hagar and Ishmael in the Torah is characterized by skepticism towards the authenticity of certain verses. Islamic scholars argue that the timeline and events described in the Torah may have been altered, and that Ishmael may have been the son referred to in Genesis 22:2 instead of Isaac.

The Significance of Hajj in Islam: Reconnecting with the Abrahamic Legacy Through the Story of Ishmael

There is an argument among scholars regarding the significance of Hajj in Islam as a restored religion tracing back to Abraham. It is posited that Ishmael was exiled as a young child well before the birth of Isaac, and that Ishmael, rather than Isaac, was the intended sacrifice. How is this argument articulated?

The argument regarding the significance of Hajj in Islam as a restored religion tracing back to Abraham, and the associated narrative involving Ishmael and Isaac, is articulated through several key points:

1. Lineage and Prophetic Tradition: 

In Islamic tradition, Hajj is deeply connected to the figure of Abraham (Ibrahim). Muslims believe that Abraham, along with his son Ishmael (Ismail), played a foundational role in establishing the rites of Hajj. The Kaaba, the central structure around which Hajj is performed, is believed to have been built by Abraham and Ishmael.

2. The Story of Ishmael and Isaac: 

   Exile of Ishmael: According to Islamic narratives, long before Isaac was born, Ishmael and his mother Hagar were settled by Abraham in the desert of Mecca, which is where the Zamzam well miraculously appeared to sustain both of Hagar and her infant son Ishmael. This event is commemorated during the Hajj.

   The Sacrifice: Islamic tradition holds that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was the intended sacrifice. This is based on interpretations of the Quran, specifically Surah 37, verses 100 to 113, where it is generally understood that the son who was to be sacrificed was Ishmael. According to the sequence of events in the Quran, the promise of Isaac’s birth comes after the story of sacrifice, indicating that Ishmael is the son in question.

This contrasts with the Judeo-Christian tradition, which identifies Isaac as the intended sacrifice.

3. Symbolic Acts of Hajj: The rites of Hajj include reenactments and commemorations of events from the lives of Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael. For instance:

The Sa’i, which involves walking seven times between the hills of Safa and Marwah, commemorates Hagar’s desperate search for water for her infant son Ishmael.

The stoning of the Jamarat represents Abraham’s rejection of Satan’s temptation, which is believed to have occurred when he was about to sacrifice Ishmael.

4. Restoration of Abrahamic Monotheism: 

Islam views itself as a continuation and restoration of the pure monotheistic faith of Abraham. The Hajj serves as a means to reconnect with the Abrahamic legacy, emphasizing monotheism, obedience to God, and the unity of the Muslim community.

In summary, the argument hinges on the belief that Ishmael, rather than Isaac, was central to the narrative of sacrifice and that the rites of Hajj are rooted in the events of Abraham’s life as they unfolded in Mecca with Ishmael. This perspective underscores the significance of Hajj in Islam and its connection to Abraham as a pivotal prophet in the monotheistic tradition.

A man came to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and said, “O best of creation!” The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, replied, “That is Abraham, peace be upon him.”

This Hadith is recorded in Sahih Muslim, in the Book of Virtues (Kitab al-Fada’il).

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

What is the biblical controversy surrounding Haggai 2, verse 7?

The controversy surrounding Haggai 2, verse 7, revolves around different interpretations of the verse and its implications. In this verse, Haggai prophesies about the coming of the Messiah and states,

“And I will shake all nations, and the Desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.”

Some interpretations suggest that the phrase “the Desire of all nations shall come” refers to the Messiah, who is the ultimate desire and hope of all nations. This interpretation aligns with Christian beliefs about the fulfillment of this prophecy in the coming of the Messiah.

However, other interpretations focus on the phrase “the Desire of all nations shall come” as referring to material wealth or treasures, rather than the Messiah. This difference in interpretation has led to some controversy and debate among biblical scholars and theologians regarding the true meaning of Haggai 2, verse 7, and its significance in relation to the coming of the Messiah.

Interpretative Variations

1. Jewish Interpretation:

	Jewish scholars and commentators, such as Rashi, typically interpret “the desire of all nations” as the wealth or treasures of the nations that will be brought to the Temple. This interpretation is consistent with the context of the passage, which focuses on the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem and its future glory.

2. Christian Interpretation:

	In Christian exegesis, especially in historical translations like the KJV, “the desire of all nations” is often seen as a Messianic prophecy, with “the desire” being a reference to the coming of the Messiah, who is seen as the fulfillment of the nations’ ultimate longing.

Historically, who are the traditional commentators on the Bible who perceive “the Desire of all nations” of Haggai 2, verse 7, as a Messiah?

Many Christian commentators and theologians historically have interpreted “the Desire of all nations” in Haggai 2, verse 7, as a reference to the Messiah. Some of the notable commentators who have held this view include:

1. John Calvin: The Protestant Reformer and theologian, John Calvin, interpreted this passage as referring to the coming of the Messiah, who would bring fulfillment and blessing to all nations.
2. Matthew Henry: The famous English commentator, Matthew Henry, viewed “the Desire of all nations” as a reference to the Messiah, who would bring peace, prosperity, and salvation to the entire world.
3. John Gill: The Baptist theologian, John Gill, also saw the “Desire of all nations” as a messianic prophecy, pointing to the coming of the Messiah as the ultimate fulfillment of this promise.
4. Adam Clarke: The Methodist theologian and commentator, Adam Clarke, likewise interpreted Haggai 2, verse 7, as a messianic prophecy, identifying the “Desire of all nations” with the Messiah who would bring salvation and blessing to the world.

These commentators and many others throughout Christian history have viewed Haggai 2, verse 7, as a prophetic reference to the coming of the Messiah.

There is a belief that the Hebrew word “Desire” in Haggai 2:7 and the names Muhammad or Ahmad have the same root. How is this argument articulated?

The argument that the Hebrew word “Desire” in Haggai 2:7 and the names Muhammad or Ahmad have the same root is based on a linguistic comparison between the Hebrew and Arabic languages.

In Haggai 2:7, the Hebrew word for “Desire” is “חֶמְדַּת”, which is derived from the root word “חָמַד” meaning “to desire” or “to delight in.”

In Arabic, the name Muhammad is derived from the root word “حمد” (Hamd) which means “praise” or “commendation.” The name Ahmad is also related to the same root word “حمد“ (Hamd): and means “highly praised” or “one who praises.”

The argument suggests that there may be a linguistic connection between the Hebrew word for “Desire” and the Arabic names Muhammad and Ahmad due to the similarity in the root words and their meanings. However, it is important to note that linguistic connections between different languages do not necessarily imply a direct historical or religious connection.

Search

Search

---

Azahari Hassim

In Matthew 22, verse 45, Jesus posed a question to the Pharisees. How can the Messiah be considered David’s descendant if David himself refers to him as ‘Lord’?

The following is an excerpt from Willmington’s Bible Handbook notes on Matthew 22, verses 42 to 45:

Jesus now asked a question of the Pharisees: They accepted Psalm 110 as a prediction of the Messiah, yet they considered that he would be a merely human descendant of David. If that were the case, asked Jesus, why did David refer to him as “Lord”? Both the deity and humanity of the Messiah are taught clearly in the Old Testament but the leaders could not see it. Jesus had finally silenced his critics once and for all.

Some Islamic scholars believe that, although Jesus was considered a messiah, he never publicly claimed to be the Davidic messiah whom the Jews were expecting. Moreover, it appears that in Matthew 22, verses 42 to 45, Jesus did not emphasize his divinity as most Christian commentators claim, but rather rejected the notion that the Messiah would be a descendant of David. 

Islamic scholars argue that Jesus did not refer to himself but to someone other than him, that is Prophet Muhammad who was seated at the right hand of God.  Similarly, while Jesus understood himself to be a prophet, he never publicly claimed to be the prophet mentioned in Deuteronomy 18, verse 18. How is this argument explained?

Islamic scholars present a nuanced interpretation of Jesus’ role as the Messiah and his relationship to the prophecies in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Their arguments often center around specific biblical passages and the broader theological context within Islam.

Jesus as the Messiah and the Davidic Lineage

In Islam, Jesus (Isa) is recognized as the Messiah (Al-Masih), but this title does not carry the same connotations as it does in Christian theology. The Quran refers to Jesus as the Messiah eleven times, emphasizing his role as a prophet and messenger of God rather than a divine figure or a political savior from the line of David. This interpretation aligns with the Islamic view that Jesus did not claim divinity or a unique messianic kingship in the way that some Jewish and Christian traditions suggest.

Interpretation of Matthew 22, verses 42 to 45

In Matthew 22, verses 42 to 45, Jesus questions the Pharisees about the Messiah’s lineage, asking why David calls the Messiah “Lord” if the Messiah is his son. Some Islamic scholars have interpreted this passage as indicating that Jesus was referring to someone other than himself. Jesus was distancing himself from the traditional Jewish expectation of a Davidic Messiah. They contend that Jesus denied the future Messiah’s lineage from David and instead highlighted an inconsistent interpretation of messianic prophecy by the scribes. 

Some Islamic scholars extend this interpretation to suggest that Jesus was alluding to another figure who would fulfill the messianic expectations more completely. They propose that this messianic figure is Prophet Muhammad, who is considered the Seal of the Prophets in Islam and is believed to have brought the final and complete revelation from God. This perspective is supported by the belief that Jesus foretold the coming of Muhammad, aligning with the Islamic view that all prophets, including Jesus, pointed towards the final messenger.

Jesus and Deuteronomy 18, verse 18

Regarding Deuteronomy 18, verse 18, which speaks of a prophet like Moses, Islamic scholars argue that Jesus did not publicly claim to be this prophet. Instead, they believe that this prophecy refers to Muhammad, who, like Moses, brought a comprehensive law and led a community of believers. This interpretation is consistent with the Islamic view that Muhammad fulfills the role of the final prophet, bringing the last and complete message from God.

 Conclusion

Islamic scholars argue that Jesus, although being a messiah like other messiahs before him, did not claim to be the Davidic Messiah in the traditional Jewish sense and that he did not see himself as the prophet mentioned in Deuteronomy 18, verse 18. Instead, they believe that these roles were fulfilled by Prophet Muhammad. This interpretation is rooted in a broader theological framework that sees Jesus as a significant prophet and messenger who foretold the coming of Muhammad, the final prophet.

What is the Jewish interpretation of the phrase “my lord” in Psalms 110?  Does it refer to the Messiah, Son of David?

The interpretation of Psalms 110, particularly the phrase “my lord” found in verse 1, varies significantly within Jewish scholarship and does not uniformly refer to the Messiah, Son of David. 

This psalm is one of the most debated texts when it comes to its application and implications in Jewish thought. Here’s a detailed look into the interpretation:

The verse in question, Psalms 110, verse 1, reads:

“The LORD says to my lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'”

The key terms here are:

1. The LORD (YHWH): This is the tetragrammaton, representing the ineffable name of God in the Hebrew Bible.

2. my lord (ladoni): This is the term that causes most of the debate about the identity of the figure mentioned here.

Jewish Interpretations:

1. Not Necessarily Messianic:

In traditional Jewish interpretation, the phrase “my lord” is not automatically associated with a messianic figure. Rashi, the medieval French rabbi and commentator, interprets “my lord” as referring to Abraham, seeing the psalm as a dialog between God and David about Abraham. According to Rashi, David is calling Abraham “my lord” out of respect and reverence.

Other interpretations might consider “my lord” as referring to a contemporary king or leader, possibly even a high priest, rather than a messianic or eschatological figure.

2. Literal and Figurative Interpretations:

  Some Jewish commentators might interpret the psalm figuratively, seeing “my lord” as an archetype for righteous leadership without necessarily pinpointing it as the Messiah.

  The Talmud (Nedarim 32b) suggests that David is speaking to himself, using “my lord” in a poetic manner to express humility and devotion to God’s will, which can be a common technique in Hebrew poetry.

Conclusion:

In Judaism, Psalms 110, verse 1, and the phrase “my lord” is generally not interpreted as a direct reference to the Messiah, Son of David. More often, it is seen as referring to either a historical figure like Abraham or David himself, or used in a metaphorical sense for godly leadership. 

The messianic interpretation is more typical of Christian exegesis, where this psalm is often cited in the New Testament as evidence of Jesus’ divine appointment and his role as the Messiah. In Jewish thought, such an interpretation is less emphasized, focusing instead on diverse and historically contextual readings.

Maimonides (Rambam): In his “Mishneh Torah,” he states that the Messiah will be a descendant of King David and will restore Israel to its former glory.

Search

Search