Muhammed in Bible

Islam has deceived a lot of people claiming Muhammed is in the Bible, in the Old Testament and New Testament. It is a long running deception that has been very effective. It is used against non-Hebrew and non-Arabic speakers since they don't have the background to see through it. 

Its Hebrew root used in Song of Solomon is not a name, but an adjective. This adjective coupled with mu or muh is what spells muhammed.

Mu = one who is

Muh = head or brain in aramaic but dirty dog in Arabic.

Many people see a video and assume they tell the truth, but Islam doesn't always tell the truth. In my research this has become apparent. Millions have been deceived. They just associate the adjective as if it's a personal name and then trick people.

Only once is the name of the Prophet mentioned in the Quran, 61:6, but the name is Ahmad and not Muhammad. Muhammad is a compound word with a prefix. It isn't a name, it is more of a title. The 61:6 reference may be a paraphrase in Aramaic of John 14:16-17, 26, John 15, John17:5, periklutos in Aramaic would be similar to Ahmad in Arabic. Greek uses different words that can be differentiated but Aramaic was the norm in Arabia for a long time, the Quran may be quoting an Aramaic version where periklutos is easily switched for paracletos. Paraclete is the Biblical word, but they sound similar, so someone could easily switch words. The aramaic might read "his name is periklutos". This would be an error. It has been used in debates with unprepared Christians to some effect, but it is an error. Paraclete is a different word than periklutos.

Four times the word Muhammed is in the Quran, but could mean, "one who is ahmad", meaning the person of that nature or following that type of person. Chapter 33:7 of the Quran lists a group of holy men and argues to verse 40 their ways, and then uses the word muhammed to sum up their nature. The text doesn't introduce a new prophet. It seems to be the way of the prophet, any prophet and not specific. In ch.33 there doesn't seem to be an introduction of a New Prophet, just ways of the past ones. In reality he is listing the benefits of current "prophets" plural.

33:38-39

there is no blame on the prophet regarding what God has ordained for him. Such is the pattern of God of those who passed before. The command of God is an absolute decree.

those who deliver the messages of God, and fear him, and never fear anyone except God. God is sufficient as a reckoner.

33:45

O' Prophet, we have sent you as a witness, and a bearer of good news, and a warner.

Notice it says "we have sent you", so that it is a group sending the prophet in this case, not God himself, unless God is plural.

Language barriers caused people to claim there was a new prophet named Muhammed and that idea grew into Islam. I believe most were sincere, but there was enough wrong with the Quran that they should have known better. People blindly followed without thinking critically. After a while people assumed he was real. He likely wasn't. The Quran painted a general description of a prophets life.

It took me a while to accept this possibility, but I believe it is true, muhammed could be head prophet or one who is esteemed similar to Rabbi in Jewish. It isn't tenable from my perspective that it is an actual name. Especially since there is no early 7th century reference to him. Most references being 200 years later. It would be easy for a later scribe to misunderstand proto-aramaic.

48:29 mentions men of the Torah and men of the Gospel bowing before God, Muhammed in the passage seems to effect all dispensations so that Muhammed isn't a 7th century prophet but a holy messenger of any period. This word was applied to Solomon and Daniel in the old Testament. It seems to apply to all prophets in the Quran. The idea being all prophets are praised by their generation for their holy attitudes. The Quran isn't scripture and there are many other mistakes, so this is just one more. Such a mistake should end Islam, showing its interpreters were not really worthy of translating and interpreting, I am sure they will find a way to continue.

We need to consider Muhammad is a description and not a name. The Syro-Aramaic Arabic dialect of the early 7th century did not have vowels yet, so it is difficult to trace early Hebrew words into the 7th century. With Muhammad you generally only find the root, not the compound word. Biblical Hebrew did not have vowels until later. Muhammed could not be spelled in that language, so it is a later word. The word root mistaken for Muhammed is MHMD from Song of Solomon 5:16 and other verses, it has consonants only, it has no vowels. In Hebrew it is YMHMD, meaning to covet, or one who is coveted. In Syriac it means praised one. MHMD has a K sound from the H, so it doesn't transliterate into Muhammad in English very well.

MHMD is used with actual names so it isn't the name itself. Like, Jesus the praised one or Daniel the beloved. When muslims say the name Muhammad is in the Old Testament they are incorrect. It is a description and not a name. Since it couldn't be spelled there is a lot of chance for deception. It is likely the writers of the Quran did not understand all the ins and out of the languages and fell into their own trap.

This mistake or transliteration led to Muslims misunderstanding and deceiving the masses and claiming there was a prophet named muhammed. The only name would be Ahmad and that isn't certain, since ahmad in the Bible wasn't a name. Those writing the Quran could have simply borrowed the word root and plugged it into the story. You can see that the lack of vowels shows it to be of a different era and language dialect. This should raise questions. As a transliteration it would be from Hebrew. Mu-hamad, or the coveted one. It is only used 4 times in the Quran while iesus is used many more times, giving the possibility it is another prophet, but more likely all the prophets were considered Ahmed. Since Jesus is listed in these chapters with others, it is a reference to Jesus and all, likely it's just a blessing upon or about Jesus and any other prophet in the context. 

The word Muhammed is likely a compound word, Mu - hamed, the Mu may be a reference to Jesus since most early languages have this sound in Jesus. Yeshua , Jesus, hasus, iesus. All have the similar U sound. Muh vs shu vs sus. Thus, the same sound to some degree. So we can ask if it could be Jesus and look for clues, some scholars have presented this possibility. There are other possibilities. Mu can be a reference to Jesus simply because it can reference all prophets. 

 Mu is a prefix in Aramaic and Arabic.  The word muslim is the Mu - slim, meaning one who submits. Mu - min is one who believes. So it is possible muhammed is simply Mu - hamad, one who is praised or one coveted. Mu in Aramaic can have the idea of imperfection. So the idea of maybe sinful or less than God, which could coincide with Islam considering Jesus as a sinner. This doesn't act as proof he wasn't God, since it is just opinion.

Jesus can be God without violating Moses and the ten commandments, Jesus is never presented as "before" the Father, since he humbled himself when coming to earth. Paul said God is the head of Christ. I Cor. 11:1-4 There is nothing in scripture declaring positional equality in the Godhead. The Holy Spirit, who is God, can act as a paraclete without violating Godhead structure. Jesus is not before the Father, so he doesn't violate the 10 commands. It is easy to understand. Really, it is easy.

1 Corinthians 15:27

For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 

Islam imposes limitation on God concerning Godhead structure, thus truly usurping God's throne. It is epic evil for man to tell God he can't when he clearly can.  Islam uses the wrong word for "one", Hebrew had a word for absolute numerical one, and a word for "united one" such as husband and wife. In reference to one they use the wrong word. The claim a triune Godhead violates God's commands is false, not having a united Godhead does violate scripture. see

Deuteronomy 6:4-6

Hear O Israel the Lord our God is One (united one) God

All languages have words for united or united one. Hebrew is yachid, aramaic is achid but imperial aramaic is Alaha the same word for God. Arabic is mutahid (root achid)or yoonided. All languages have such words and the Bible uses them for God.

God was going out of his way to tell us the Godhead is a "united authority". It isn't like the Greek Gods who fought each other for power, it was unity in love. God is united and he unifies.

Like Muslim, Muhammed isn't a personal name. It describes the person in the story, normally in close enough proximity to the actual name to know who. It describes the person. Like, one who is happy. One who is filled. One who submits. Over time such descriptions can become names based upon shared beliefs or actions. Originally Muslim was not a people, but a description. Jimmy is a Muslim, in this phrase name and description are distinct.

Islam sets up their debates to force Christians to prove the deepest and hardest parts of Christianity, like Jesus is God, while they the Muslims are required to prove almost nothing. Christianity is always the one on trial. They can't prove Muhammed was a real person. There currently isn't any evidence I have found. What if they were required to prove it? They can't prove Mecca existed in the early 7th century, etc. They can't prove Islam historically. Their sources are too late.

We can argue the wise men from the east came to worship Jesus. The wise of their society considered Jesus worthy of worship, even as a child. They don't have much evidence for their own beliefs, really just one proof that they use over and over, that can be overcome. They have to overcome multiple texts and prophets in Christianity and they can't.

Matthew 2:2

Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. 

Psalms 2

Kiss the son lest he be angry...blessed are all thosse who put their trust in him...

Isa 9:6

his name is mighty God

Jeremiah 23:5-6

his name is "Jehovah" our righteousness

Matthew 1 call his name Immanuel - God with us

call his name Jesus - yeshua saves, it is interesting the angel called the people "his people"

Paul to Timothy "God was manifested in the flesh".

Thomas - my Lord and my God

Thy throne O God is forever and ever Hebrews 1

Let all the angels of God "worship" him Hebrews 1

How many Holy men can Islam ignore or deny? They will have no excuse in the judgment. All because they misuse the word "united one"

The Quran can be termed a false gospel in that it presents Jesus as a sinner, married, Ishmaelite, etc. It is akin to other gnostic gospels and apocryphal works. It borrows fro the Apocrypha in saying messiah would be saved and not die. It borrows from different stories and myths from gnostic sources. Just because it speaks of Jesus doesn't mean it is  mainstream Christian. It is gnostic. It isn't close to being considered scripture in Christian eyes, it has way too many problems. It isn't true. For instance, Mecca wasn't built as a city or even small town in the early 7th century. Much of the Quran is fabricated.

In the Quran it mentions the one bringing forgiveness or taking sins away. Muhammed of Islam didn't forgive, he said only God forgives. It also says he is the son of Mary. Muhammed is in chapter heading, but the Quran didn't originally have chapter headings, so it doesn't prove much. They could give a chapter heading to steer your mind to an Islamic prophet. The idea Muhammed could be a reference or blessing toward Jesus seems very likely with internal evidence. It is a different Jesus, however, one that is a sinner. In other words they took the divinity out of Jesus and turned him into a sinful messenger. Jesus of the Bible was the express image of God, a sinless and perfect messenger. 

Hebrews 1:2

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds 

Hebrews 1:3

Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 

In oral teaching and preaching it is possible hearers just heard incorrectly and wrote Mu vs shu, or had failed memories. Oral teaching can cause such mistakes. Then men can intentionally change people into someone different. The Quran can be a product of unintentional mistakes, and intentional fabrications. It isn't the true gospel. In John 17:5 Muslims change the comforter {helper} into praised one by substituting paracletos into periklutos. So like sounding words can be misrepresented easily. In this case changing from helper to praised. The prefix para and peri are different. Also, Klutos is proto-Hellenic vs Greek. It is a deception. Islamic scholars claim Christians changed the word to fight Islam, but it was paraclete in manuscripts before Islam came forth. At that time Christians had no motive to change the word.

Comparative Index to Islam : PARACLETE AND PERIKLUTOS 

* The quotes from the Bible concerning the Paraclete:

"And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you". (John 14:16-17)

"But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you". (John 14:26)

"But when the Comforter comes, whom I shall send you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me". (John 15:26)

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you". (John 16:7)

In fact, the context of the verses also do not support periklutos, as shown below. If Comforter refers to Muhammad, then we also have to accept

1. that Muhammad is the Holy Spirit in John 14:26, contradicting Muslim belief that the Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel,

2. that Jesus sends Muhammad in (John 15:26 and 16:7) and

3. that Jesus sends Muhammad in Jesus' name,

4. that Muhammad dwells with the disciples forever. (John 14:16-17). Not only is Muhammad too late by 600 years, he can't dwell with them forever. The argument that the truth, law given by Muhammad will be with them forever is spurious of course, since they never receive it.

5. that the disciples of Jesus know Muhammad. (John 14:16-17).

all of which are unthinkable to a Muslim. If it is periklutos, then this passage must also mean a previous "praised one", and one has no clue as to who this previous "praised one" was. Jesus was never given such a title, indeed no person in the Qur'an was. Further, the literal meaning will be that "He will give you another Ahmad". 

If paraclete is used of Muhammad and periklutos is substituted for paracletos, Ahmad can't be a name but a praised one in a general sense, as I mentioned earlier. It shows Ahmad can be used generally and not as a name. Whoever wrote the Quran, not a guy named Muhammed knew of this switch. No early Greek manuscripts said anything but paraclete.

 Some Muslims have argued that because the Bible uses the pronoun "he" when used with "Comforter" and "it" when use with "Holy Spirit", therefore, these two are not the same: 

This is easily answered since paracletos is masculine it takes a masculine pronoun which is "he", Holy Spirit is neuter in Greek and takes a neuter "it". This argument would be untenable for Islam since the Holy Spirit couldn't be human. Humans are masculine or feminine, not neuter.

The Holy Spirit was also called God before Islam, the idea he is Muhammed or and angel Gabriel is foreign. Acts was written hundreds of years before Muhammed was invented, at that time he was considered God. He was in the world before Islam.

Acts 5:3

But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back [part] of the price of the land? 

Acts 5:4

Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 

The Holy Spirit wasn't human.

The word YMHMD is used of Solomon in the Song of Solomon, not Muhammed of Islam. Some believe it was a reference to Christ since it was used on coins in the 7th century, Christian coins. Some see Song of Solomon as prophecy about Christ and the Church.  is used in the Quran in a chapter describing Jesus. 

Hamad was used other times in the Old Testament for people of high rank or high regard. It was used in the 10 Commandments for covet.

Daniel 10:11- and he said unto me, O Daniel greatly beloved

It was common in the centuries after the New Testament for governors or Jewish scribes to have MHMD associated with their name. It means praised one. A title like "sir", Jesus was praised as well as most men of high regard. MHMD can be used of anyone and that person is revealed in context. There is no context for an Arabic prophet in the Bible. Islam is deceiving us.

It was never used of Muhammed in the Bible though it starts with M, it is a different word and not a name. Don't be fooled. Muhammed, the Islam prophet didn't exist that we can prove, it was a reference to Jesus in the Quran that was misinterpreted as another prophet. It was a reference to Jesus as God's blessed messenger. 

Islam sees other references to muhammed in the New Testament, claiming the other comforter in John 16 is Muhammed. It is a silly claim that can easily be answered.

John 16:7

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 

It isn't Muhammed because the comforter is sent by Jesus after he goes away into heaven. The comforter comes from heaven, so this can't be Muhammed who was born naturally upon the earth. This was a being from heaven, the Holy Spirit. Muslims deny this claiming spirit could be a man. It is the Holy Spirit.

Since Jesus sends this paraclete (helper) it shows Jesus was over the comforter directing it. If Muhammed then Jesus would be greater than Muhammed. The comforter is called the Spirit of truth. There are several reasons it can't be Muhammed.

1. It is sent by Jesus and the Father from heaven, Mohammed was sent by Gabriel in their story from a cave.

2. If Jesus sent Gabriel it would show Jesus greater than the angels and greater than Muhammed.

3. He would lead the apostles into all truth, Muhammed didn't live in the apostles' lifetimes.

John 16:13

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 

4. He would speak of Christ's things, not Muhammed's.

5. He would be with them forever, Muhammed didn't live forever. Forever signifies an unbroken period from the Apostles.

John 14:16

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 

6. He would be in them.

John 14:17

[Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 

7. He is called the Holy Spirit. Muhammed wasn't a spirit.

John 14:26

But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. 

8. He would teach them all things. So no need for Islamic Muhammed later.

9. He would come in Christ's name, thus Christ's authority, not Islam's authority.

10. Jesus said, "he is with you", Muhammed wasn't born for another 500 years.

In the same chapter Jesus affirms he came from God and will return to God, so Muslims can't admit the chapter promises another helper without admitting Jesus came from heaven.

John 16:28

I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. 

A truth Muhammed would never claim. You can't accept one saying without acknowledging the other. They are in the same conversation. So, Christians affirm confidently the comforter isn't Muhammed, he wasn't sent by Christ. Muhammed wasn't a real person. Muhammed never interacted with the Apostles. Muslims do have some bogus claims. Consider:

John 16:12

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 

Muslims claim John 16 wasn't the Holy Spirit because Jesus said there would be many new things given, and nothing new was given by the apostles after this. They are crazy by saying this. Think of all the theological things happening after John 16.

The cross

The resurrection

The assumption

The beginning of the messianic reign

Salvation beginning in Acts 2

The gentiles coming to Christ Acts 10

Grace vs the law Acts 15

The gospels being written

Pauls epistles written

Peters epistles

Revelation and future events

Muslims are silly claiming many things were not revealed and taught after John 16.

Another verse that shows angels could appear to people is Galations 1.

Galatians 1:8

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 

Angels could preach a different Gospel, the Quran depicts a backward gospel where Jesus isnt crucified. So those teaching the Quran are cursed. It is possible an angel gave a false gospel to the Muslims. Likely, not by a man named Muhammed whos name couldn't be spelled at the time.

Galatians 1:9

As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.