Talk:Muhammad and the Bible

Thoughts?

Curious on opinions about this. Having the name of Muhammad inside psalms seems more important than any prophecy that might alude to him. If no one has a problem, I'd like to add Psalms 5:16 to the article mistknight (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm3sZfPwv1g

Sources of the article.

One source referred to is Shi'ite World. Is the idea that Muhammad is prefigured in the Bible a specifically Shi'ite belief? Michael Glass (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

hi. yes Shi'ite Muslims believe that Muhammad's profile (Prophet of Islam) are prefigured in the Bible. please help me to compeled this paper. I do not learn English well. I can not to speak EN very well. thanks.Hamedvahid (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. You'll find plenty of people willing to help you with the English wording, so please don't worry about that. But WP:References are needed to show that Shi'ite Muslims believe this, and for many other claims made in the article. Please have a read of WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. What is your first language? I may be able to point you to this documentation on a Wikipedia that you can read more easily. Thanks, Top Jim (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. my first language is farsi and this article there is in wiki farsi and arabic That there are a link for this page. and I source Persian under Article bringing This is: Introduction to the Gospel of Barnabas, Seyed Mahmoud Taleghani, publishing Supplication p. 234 in farsi: (مقدمه سید محمود طالقانی بر انجیل برنابا، نشر نیایش ص ۲۳۳و234) Hamedvahid (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I found http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/muhammad_in_bible.htm to counter this claims. BUT I could not find works on .edu for either claim nor counter-claim. All this "study" seems to be religious WP:POV. I recommend deletion unless scholarly references WP:RS can be found. Student7 (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the rules in Farsi and Arabic Wikipedias are, but surely they must have a requirement for scholarly footnotes as well. Neither do. Worse, one takes "references" from the bible and uses those which is totally unscholarly. Okay, I don't know which article was first, this one or theirs. So IMO, not only should this article be deleted, but its companion articles in Arabic and Farsi should go as well. Anybody for an Afd in Farsi?  :) Student7 (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess the article can be justified as a "claim" though still nothing in an .edu source that I can find. I am convinced that this is claimed. Student7 (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverting

I have reverted a big addition by User:Zishan ahamed thandar which probably contained some useful stuff. It was not however, written from a neutral point of view. Writing Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) rather than Muhammad is not neutral. Tigerboy1966  07:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Serious OR problem

I have removed the two central sections of this article which appear to be almost entirely unsourced (or inappropriately sourced). Any content here must be backed-up by reliable secondary sources. If a reliable source makes the point that something in the Bible is relevant, then we can cite that source; it seems from the external links at the end of the article that such sources do exist. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Being discussed as fringe

This article is currently under consideration as "fringe" by the Fringe theories noticeboard. I don't know if they were ever planning to give notice of that here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I notified the long version's sole author of my concerns before the FT/N discussion, for the record. Mangoe (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Rename?

Honestly, I have to think that the existing title for this article is less than optimum. Muhammad was born several hundred years after the last book of the "Bible" was written, and so obviously does not himself necessarily make any provable appearances in it. Prophecies regarding Muhammad in the Bible or Islamic views about Muhammad in the Bible or something similar would be much less ambiguous, and also potentially less POV pushing, as the current title seems to at least passively indicate that Muhammad was clearly discussed in the Bible, and I am far from sure that these prophecies have been given any substantive attention outside of Islam. Any opinions? John Carter (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree, and maybe loosen "the Bible" to "biblical texts" as it seems the Gospel of Barnabas is part of the landscape? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I am myself not sure at all whether Muslims consider the alleged Gospel of Barnabas to have been "Biblical," but I gather that, for all practical purposes, they do. That being the case, it probably makes more sense to have that information added to the other article, which would be a better place to indicate that they do have a rather variant view of the Bible. And, if that material is moved there, honestly, I think the rest could just as easily follow, given the rather poor level of development of that article. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the need to specify "Christian" Bible, when what little this article says about the Bible mostly seems to reference the Hebrew Bible. The merge target article would probably better be titled "Islamic views of the Bible" also, removing the narrower specification of "Christian Bible". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to propose the change, but I think the other article is entitled "Christian Bible" because it is the more inclusive term, as, so far as I remember anyway, all the books of the Hebrew Bible are included in the Christian Bible, along with the specifically "Christian" additions. Now, I ackowledge it might also be seen by some Jews and others as POV, and it might well make sense to start or find some sort of discussion somewhere about the best phrasing to use regarding the various disparate incarnations of the "Bible," but that is probably a separate discussion. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm also open to considering different naming conventions for the merge target, but that aside, it is clear that this article belongs rolled up into that larger topic. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually don't think the article should be merged, though I fully understand why some would suggest doing so; the article has never been good and has never had proper attention. As I mentioned on the fringe theory noticeboard, this isn't one; it isn't universal among Muslim orthodoxy but it isn't an extreme minority view either. I'm sure that more sources could be found from Western academic journals, and I know for a fact that there's plenty which could be translated from Arabic - obviously, some of those sources are polemical and some are not so each would require a discussion regarding reliability, but it could be done. So the question here is for those who support the merger: if more sources are brought and the article receives proper attention, would you withdraw your support for a merge or is the merge nomination not solely related to the article's sourcing? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

FYI, Following some high-impact recent edits, I have raised a query on this article at FT/N. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't delete things that are referenced. There a lot of discrimination on wiki against islam already. recently when I use google for what ever scientific research medical etc and put wiki I get wikiislam of wikipedia. Wikiislam is full of insults against islam. Now can muslims edit anywhere in wikipedia these days?Dananmohammad (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

First and foremost, Wikipedia's core content policies apply. Discussions about discrimination or what happens on other wikis is not pertinent. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikiislam has nothing to do with Wikipedia. It just has "Wiki" in the title, and copies the look of the layout. The word "Wiki" is not copyrighted by Wikipedia. Paul B (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

all of wiki islam plus wikipedia is a playground for anti-islamic propaganda. you have 2 billion muslims a third of humanity and their knowledge is not allowed in wiki??? why prevent knwoledge from reaching people. what s the point?what is the benefit?why preventing few people from getting to know the subject?Dananmohammad (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "Wikiislam" is an anti-Islamic website. There are also pro-Islamic ones. But this is Wikipedia, not Wikiislam. Wikipedia should conform to WP:NPOV policy. No-one is trying to prevent knowledge from reaching people. We are trying to prevent misinformation from reaching people. That's why we have the policies of WP:RS and WP:NOR. I've no doubt that there is legitimate scholarly literature on this topic. Some of what you wrote can probably be restored if it is supported by sources. Al-Samawal al-Maghribi may well have explained his conversion to Islam by quoting Deuteronomy. But we would need to know what he said. As written the sentence was very unclear. The phrase "only in the five books of Moses the Pentacost" is presumably intended to refer to the Pentateuch, not the Pentecost, which is a Christian concept. Others made unsupported assertions: "There was messianic expectations among the Jews in the first millenium after Moses especially they were still speaking Hebrew and have regular contact with prophets. These expectations can not be dismissed by 20th century Scholars who can not speak or write in Biblical Hebrew." What does this mean? No one denies that there were Messianic expectations, but this is not evidence that Muhammad is in the Bible, especially as Muslims believe along with Christians that the Messiah was Jesus. Paul B (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You can't just delete everything. request citation needed for the item of dispute. As long as I have 2 punlished resources that is more than enough for the item to stay.64.122.144.190 (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No-one can be expected to read through endless paragraphs of barely intelligible prose, supported by "citations" that seem to have no clear connection to the assertions being made. I chose one of the early paragraphs, simply to point out that the text you added is full of problems. Paul B (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I fixed all that today.Please don't delete the verses since I chose the LXX version that better explain the topic (being in future tense etc) The verses are not intended for you to see if u already know them, some people don't, some people would like to differ with your opinion, if u dont mind. again dont cut the verses.Dananmohammad (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the basics of what it is to approach a topic objectively and scientifically.Stenen Bijl (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand every thing, you are bullying me.and discriminating against muslims by deleting their contributions . Now understand that u can not delete the whole article because of one statement , you delete only the statement that u believe it is not supported by references. Stop deleting everything. I just used prove it gadget and every thing fine, all references are academic and reliable. No fringe theory here since 2 billion muslims believe the quran that says the Prophet is foretold in the bible. 2 billion as base and few hundred millions here and there like the other two billions who are not jews or christians and you get a majority for this article.u are dissing the article because u are offended on religious base, if so then delete all the editing against islam and muslims in wikipedia. u cant have it both ways. Wikipedia is more becoming like the thousand nights and night because of all the lies included in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dananmohammad (talk • contribs) 04:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Dananmohammed, if we had a different set of rules for articles on Islam-related topics that would be "discrimination". All that is happening here is that people are applying the rules and conventions that apply to any article on Wikipedia. You obviously have a keen interest in this topic, but your contributions will keep on being deleted until you start presenting them properly. Tigerboy1966  08:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

IEQ article

There is an interesting article in the Integrated Encyclopedia of the Qur'an with a couple of sections about this. It is by G. F. Haddad. I have yet to read it, but thought it might prove useful. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 05:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's interesting. I think I get what Dananmohammad was trying to do. The first section seemed to be an attempt to establish that future prophets were predicted within the Jewish community, the implication being that Jesus and Muhammad were the predicted prophets. Then there was a section about the relevant Biblical verses interpreted by Muslims as predictions of Muhammad, along with supposed references to places in Arabia linked to Muhammad. The problem is that the exposition is utterly confusing. Interpretations are presented as fact, and there is no attempt to distinguish totally fringey ideas from long-established Muslim Biblical exegesis. Chronology is all over the place. A great deal of it is not in any obvious sense about Muhammad as such. None of this stuff about Biblical references to places in Arabia seems to be specifically about Muhammad; at least it is not clear how it is supposed to refer to him. The article you link to provides some clearer background. Paul B (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Clearly Al Araf has been used to claim that Muhammad was predicted in the Bible, so it seems absurd to delete that. It has also been linked to the Isaiah passage, even though Isaiah is not in the Torah, so this should properly be included, along with the criticisms that have been made of the claim. Excessive deleting makes the article alomst as unreadable as Dananmohammad's version. Paul B (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to restore the mention of 7:157, with some context; thanks for doing so. It's true that some Muslim scholars interpret it this way, but it's not at all clear from the text, hence the interpolations of several translators:[1][2] The earlier version stated flatly "Quran verse 7-157 claims Muhammad was foretold in Bible." Further, I see no indication that Bukhari 3:335 is intended to be a comment on Qur'an 7:157 ("Hadith commenting on Quran 7:157…") Stenen Bijl (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's not clear whether or not it is intended to comment in the Sura. It just seems to say that Muhammad was predicted in this passage.
It's pretty clear from the Integrated Encyclopedia of the Qur'an link that the "paraclete" argument has been made by Muslims, presumably to find a Gospel "prediction". That seems to be the reason for picking out the Deuteronomy passages too, since that is indeed in the Torah. It's not clear whether early Muslims used Isaiah (Interpreting "Torah" to mean "Hebrew Bible"), but then later writers picked on the Deuteronomy passage to resolve the obvious problem with this. Paul B (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Re the following passage: "Christians have responded that the Quranic verse in Al-A'raf clearly refers to the Torah ("Tawrat"). The Book of Isaiah is not part of the Torah." As it happens, I think this criticism misplaced, as by Tawrat is plainly meant the Tanakh as a whole, just as Injil is used to mean the whole of Christian scripture. It's also used in Bukhari to refer to Isaiah. Even so, in a summary description of Muslim claims, what Christians per se (as opposed to academics) think about this is off-topic.Stenen Bijl (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Following up on Cheetham and Winkler (2011: 372) as cited, it's not clear to me that Mr. Rashid's comments would meet a high standard of inclusion, either as an academic or as an Islamic jurist. This isn't enough to say that Muslims argue anything; stating that Rashid argues it would just expose its triviality. I'm going to remove the whole passage unless a better foundation can be found for this discussion (as for all I know one can.)Stenen Bijl (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If one were to present arguments against it, the fact that it's taken shamelessly out of context is the stronger objection. I can't imagine that serious Muslim exegetes would grasp at this ephemeral straw. I see Ahmed Deedat, Zakir Naik, etc. They're more prominent than Rashid, but have no scholarly standing. Anything better? If there's a serious history of this, we should include it, but we wouldn't use a statement from a television evangelist, even a very prominent one, to say, "Christians argue/believe …"Stenen Bijl (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I was only reporting on what the source (admittedly not an especially good one) said. I do think criticisms should be included, but obviously we cannot engage in OR. We'd have to find examples of Christian, Jewish or secular comment on these arguments. The word "Tawrat" appears to be the same as "Torah". Of course it may have been used to mean Tanach, just as "the Gospels" is sometimes used to mean the NT as a whole. That's another problem (would "God" use imprecise language, or was this usage so standard at the time that it counts as an accurate term, etc etc?) Paul B (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Tawrat is the same word as Torah. Neither the author nor the audience knew enough to draw a distinction between this, or the Injil, and the Tanakh and New Testament respectively.. Even today, a lot of Christians would make this same mistake, as many know the word Torah, but Tanakh is obscure. Here in the seventh century Hejaz, there's no indication of firsthand knowledge, when there is as in Bukhari or in the judgment of the Banu Qurayza it stands out for it, and is in each instance explicitly attributed to Hebrew speakers who knew the scriptures. No one spoke Greek either. I can't recall any direct quoes from either set of scriptures in the Qur'an, and there are several high profile errors. As for whether God would speak imprecisely or in error, I think that question outside the scope of an academic project.Stenen Bijl (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The last point is not outside the scope of an academic project. Of course the question was to some extent rhetorical. I was not expecting us to discover on the talk page what God would say. Though this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so input from Higher Powers cannot be excluded by any Wikipedia policy. Verfication might remain a problem.
What I meant was that the divine perfection of the Qu'ran is important to Muslims, so any apparent "errors" must be explained away. This would mean justifying the the use of Tawrat to mean Tanach by arguing that it legitimately means that in God's-speech, or, alternatively finding the prophecy specifically in the Torah. Likewise, Christians and Jews, wanting to prrove that the Qu'ran errs and is therefore human, will pick up on apparent errors (as in this case), arguing that God would not use sloppy language. This is all part of the interpretative tradition, if we can find sources to support the fact that these debates have occurred. But sources, obviously, do need to be found. Paul B (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"input from Higher Powers cannot be excluded by any Wikipedia policy." See WP:SOCK.

As I'd said to begin with, I think the article shouldn't exist, as Muhammad obviously doesn't appear and couldn't have appeared in the Bible. Just framing it this way puts us in wacko land, and we then have to argue our way out of it. I don't think there is a Jesus in the Torah? Although this likewise inherently ludicrous argument has been much more elaborately developed.

I think it's all nonsense, but if someone were to create a reasonably sourced and historically significant he said-she said, I wouldn't object. It violates my idea of how to present history, but could still be valid work.Stenen Bijl (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Song of Songs 5:16

The Hebrew form in this verse is not too directly comparable in form or meaning with Arabic Muħammad, for reasons discussed in detail on Talk:Song of Songs; to start with, the Hebrew word has a plural ending, and the basic meaning of Semitic abstract triconsonantal root ħ-m-d in Arabic — ح م د — is "to praise", while the basic meaning of root ħ-m-d in Hebrew — חםד — is "to desire". Some might find the fact that the Hebrew word occurs in the middle of a sensuous or quasi-erotic passage to be incongruous... AnonMoos (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The article merely reports that some Muslim apologists have made this argument. How plausible it is is another matter. Paul B (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If we're going by plausibility, then consonantal-only Greek writing (PRKLTS) is unattested, and if it existed at all, it would have been a brief transitional stage ca. 800 BC -- a long time before any part of the New Testament was ever written down in Greek... AnonMoos (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I've no doubt you are right. As you know, if we were to add this as a rebuttal, we would need to source it. Paul B (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)t

Balanced the page

When I came onto this article, its title and content was Islamist, suggesting that it was concrete fact that Muhammad was foretold. I had to copy references which had been cherry-picked out, such as that the Gospel of Barnabas is as reliable a historical artefact as The Life of Brian. Please can we keep this article in a neutral, secular, academic perspective. This is not a conspiracy soapbox. Indiasummer95 (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

What a load of utter rubbish. All the 'islamist' content is simply a summary of views that have been put forward by those writers. Personally, I'd link more on Adventist and othef Christian groups who have claimed to find Muhammed 'predicted' as a false prophet. Paul B (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh no, it was not objective. It presented it as indisputable fact. I had to add things like "in his theory", "some believe" etc. So it wasn't an encyclopedic "summary of views", was it? Indiasummer95 (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to add "some belive", when the article already says that it is a person's belief. You don't have to add "X argues" after every sentence, when it is clear that a passage has already been introduced as part of an argument. And BTW, the "Gospel of Barnabus" is not remotely "based on" Dante, there are a couple of phrases in it that resemble passages in Dante, which are used as part of an argument concerning priority of the Italian over the Spanish version of the text. Adding content from blogs by nobodies is not acceptable. See WP:RS. You need reliable sourrces. Paul B (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You said you wanted more description of how Evangelicals perceive Muhammad as the Antichrist. So I put one's view, of a notable individual according to Wikipedia, and you deleted it? Make up your bloody mind Indiasummer95 (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Discrepancy in lede

This is getting edit warred now and should be discussed. The Lede is supposed to reflect information substantiated in the article body. In the article body it says: "According to Albert Hourani, initial interactions between Christian and Muslim peoples was characterized by hostility on the part of the Europeans because they interpreted Muhammad in a Biblical context as being the Antichrist. (reference)" However, in the lede it says: "Some Christians, however, have believed or believe that Muhammad was foretold in the Bible as the Antichrist." This is not saying the same thing at all but endorsing and pushing Hourani's opinion into something else entirely, and seems like an inadequate summary of the referenced material. I would suggest using a lot more caution with summarising and quoting material to make sure we are not misquoting it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Now we have a section entitled "Muhammad as false prophet", but then it talks more about the "antichrist" than the "false prophet" (two distinct concepts or entities in the Book of Revelations)... I think this needs more work? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I spoke too soon, more info is still being added now, thanks Paul! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Periclyte

The account given on this article isn't entirely consistent with that on the Gospel of Barnabas article (where it's claimed that its earliest known origin was a renaissance or late-medieval annotator of a "Gospel of Barnabas" manuscript)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying here. I've just read the text of the Gospel of Barnabas article. I can't find a reference to an annotator of Barnabus. In any case, standard scholarship dates the Gospel to the 16th century, so there is no "late-medieval" manuscript to annotate. The concept that the Paraclete is Muhammad predates the manuscripts of Barnabus by many many centuries. Paul B (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The concept of "Paraclete"="Muhammad" is many centuries old, but the idea of the two Greek words παρακλητος vs. περικλυτος both being involved seems to have first appeared in print in 1734, based on "marginal notes to the Italian manuscript" of the Gospel of Barnabas, according to info near the top of section 1 ("Textual history") of the Gospel of Barnabas article... AnonMoos (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see you are referring to the Sale book, in particular the lines "instead of the Paraclete or Comforter, they have, in this apocryphal gospel, inserted the word Periclyte, that is, the famous or illustrious, by which they pretend their prophet was foretold by name, that being the signification of Mohammed in Arabic". I'm not sufficiently familiar with the versions of Banabus to know quite what Sale is referring to here, since the texts are wriiten in Italian and Spanish, I don't know where the Greek would be. According to Ragg, the editor of the 1907 translation of Barnabus, there is no passage about the "periclyte" in Barnabus at all, so it seems that Sale is in error. Ragg suggested that he was reading an annotated version and was confusing a marginal annotation or other commentary with the text of Barnabus. What this does strongly suggest is that the paraclete/periclyte argument existed in Muslim thought at least as far back as the 17th-18th century. It's not ideal to use Ragg as a footnote - 1907 is a bit dated. It would be good to find something more modern. Paul B (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for edits to article (look good)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Muhammad in the Bible | The Irrefutable Proof | The Absolute Truth

the title of the video on youtube is: Muhammad in the Bible | The Irrefutable Proof | The Absolute Truth

I have Irrefutable Proofs that the Bible heralded the Coming of Prophet Muhammad:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdgEHd9hylA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.99.44 (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well that was a predictable bunch of eminently refutable claims. Paul B (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

...as always...--Somchai Sun (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Also answered here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Messenger/apostle

Please do not falsely lable edits as vandalism when they clearly are not. As for the word apostle, it is difficult to see how it is more "accurate" to u7se a Greek word than an English one, when the English one is clearer, and the alleged prophesies referred to are in various languages. How can "apostle" possibly be "more accurate"? The word means messenger. Paul B (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I came to the talk page over the same issue. Someone should probably revert the mechanical "messenger" → "apostle" substitution, but I don't feel motivated to do so right now... AnonMoos (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Muhammed as Antichrist.

Copied from [3]

Hello NeilN, the reason of removal. Is someone calling the AntiChrist relevant to the subject here? Christians have numereous people named the anti-christ. You can cut and paste what I removed under the section Anti Christ.

The article is about where you can find or see Muhammed/Ahmad in the bible. Not about claims of being the anti-christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.73.234 (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is just as relevant as the "Muhammad as the promised Apostle of God to all the creation" section. The article is about how Muhammad's appearance in the Bible is treated by various religions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Various religions or certain people of the religion?

When you say. "Muhammed in the Bible" as your Chapter it is not "Anti-Christ in the bible".

The Koran is Linked through some passages one-on-one to some passages in the bible.(That should be shown here regardless of your opinion)

Not of the interpretation of some Christian priest/pastor/monks thinks how to understand some passages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.73.234 (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Antichrist portion is one section of the article as you very well know. Eulogius of Córdoba's and John Calvin's views on Muhammad in the Bible are just as notable as Islamic writers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

gross deletions observed for 2013 should be returned back (edits by dananmohammad removed by Barlow

This article is part of Islamic View of Bible. Obviously muslims did not consider the Prophet as anti christ.

this section should not be part of this article (Muhammad in Bible) this article should be run by muslims only not to add specifically anti muslims to the editors. For example Barlow just removed a huge section yesterday I returned back from another editor in 2013

there was also another huge section removed with plenty of references but removed by same Barlow, who obviously anti islamic because he commented that the addition is gibberish (not understood) while it was clearly understood to me!!

and the reference for Songs verse and Habakuk verse 3-1, and Psalm 84 as foretelling Muhammad is found in the two books of Tha'labi

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Parishector (talk • contribs) 07:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

al-Tha'labi was also a Jewish convert to Islam who expounded on that Zion found in David's Psalms was not other than Mount Hera in the Pharan mountains outside oof Mecca, Becca or Baca is an old name of Mecca as explained in Mecca wiki page. David in Psalm 84 tells how he was worshipping by the house of God in Baca and that the awaited prophet will be from the valley of Baca and the angles will rain blessings on him that covers even Moriah which is a little hill by the Kaaba (Beit-Allah or Beit-el in the bible) so there is much evidence mentioned by Tha'labi an interpreter of Quran and the fourth recognised interpretation books about quran beside Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Qurtubi.

Need to stop gross deletion based on insultive comments like Gibberith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parishector (talk • contribs)

The article is "Muhammad in the Bible", not "Islamic views of Muhammad in the Bible". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I said it's gibberish because it is written in broken English. It was also completely uncited to WP:RS. It contained frankly preposterous statements such as "Arabic scholars are better fit to translate Quran into Other languages since Ancient Hebrew and Arabic are the same language." Um, no it isn't. Even if it were, it's like arguing that Greek scholars are automatically better fitted to translate Plato than all others simply because of their nationality. Paul B (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The added material was deleted in 2013, and it is not gibberish. if it was gibberish then you can fix it with out deletion. There is an outstanding reference al-Tha'labi the famous commentator on the Quran who was originally Jewish scholar. You have also contemporay Kalbi, the verses in song of songs 5:16 and Habakuk3:1 and others should be included. even the verses that are lost now but existed in 9th 11 century as rferred by Tabari and others (previously christian and Jewish scholars) , for example, Baghdadi, Samawal mentioned Deu 18: as" A prophet I will raise up for them like you from their nearby brethren, to him they will listen"

the current Hebrew Bible says instead of "to him they will listen" something else"I will put my words in his mouth" even though Baghdadi a jewish scholar and son of chief rabbi of Andalusia, said he used the version of Saadia Gaoni a century before, and the English translator of Baghdadi book, also a jew, claimed in his translation that Baghdadi verse is different from the current verse. more evidence to the changes been made to the bible throughout the years. Salibi and Abraham ibn Ezra both said the Bible language is Arabi, and so Arabic translators are better equipped to translate the bible into english since it is their language for god sake. the article can not be made to conform to the current Hebrew bible because it is wrong according to arabic translators, so their commentaries and the true translations should be allowed, since the bible is not owned by current jews since they are not the ancient jews being non semitic peoples who are at odds with reading the bible which is not their language04:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC) It is ridiculous that jews and christians make upi this article. Muhammad in the Bible can not be edited by anti muslims christians and jews since they deny that Muhammad is foretold in the Bible even though they know it and are continously deleting the evidences.03:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no unified universal view shared by all people of the earth that Muhammad was foretold or not foretold in the bible, so the article should be divided between muslim view section and non muslim (christians jews etc) view section. Since article was part of "Islamic View of the bible"04:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC) The not muslim editors like Paul (Paul name is not used by muslims since saint Paul is considered the enemy of Jesus by Muslims) These editors only allow some verses and allow only partial explainations for each verse to show how weak muslim claim is. This is ridiculous.Parishector (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Song of Songs 5:16 is pretty much nonsense, as you can see in the discussions above and at Talk:Song of Songs. And the purpose of this article is not to take sides as to whether Muhammad is present in the Bible, but to report what various people have said about whether Muhammad may be present in the Bible. That means that Jews, Christians, and atheists have just as much right to edit the article as Muslims do. Consult WP:NPOV... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no sides here but the muslim side . It is an article about what the muslims belived what verses foretold about Muhammad. The Song of songs verse is mentioned by published books like Kalbi and others, also Zion mentioned by Thaalabi a renowned interpreter (jewish convert to islam). this article is not a discussion or taking consensus between jews christians and muslims about which Bible verses really foretold Muhammad. It is about the published records of the opinion of the muslim side without regard to others opinion. Others opinion could be made in a different page, or in subsection of jewish and christians refutations which have many books published in that topic precisely. But first it is needed to bring all not partial verses muslims claimed Muhammad in the Bible, not to be apologetic and sensor some verses because it is owned by some people and they read it differently!!!Parishector (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Stopped reading after your first two sentences which are completely incorrect. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Parishector:, al-Samau'al is already cited/quoted in the article. You can quote al-Tha'labi and other notable historians/exegetes in the same section. if you have so much material to expand on, you can then create a separate article for Muslim views (usually linked here from a subsection). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 17:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Where is Page rename discussion

I see this page has been renamed, is there a supporting discussion for the move?--Inayity (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

---

It's inappropriate. The first senence now says that Muhammad, not Jesus, is the messiah in Islam, which is just plain wrong. See Messiah#Islam. Many of the biblical passages claimed to refer to Muhammad are not messainic prophesies at all. So the title should be changed back, and the content too. Paul B (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Well Paul, I will not stop you. But please ask those involved to participate in a discussion to see what changes can be made that will satisfy all. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "asking" those involved. That's what this talk page is for. Paul B (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Paul_Barlow -- "Muhammad in the Bible" was a very well-defined topic area, while "Muhammad and messianic prophecy" is rather vague and indeterminate (but does not include all of "Muhammad in the Bible"!). AnonMoos (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What I meant to say to Paul: reverting is fine, but if the other editor wants to discuss his edits, we need to be openminded about what he has got to say. Now I have reverted the article to the old version. Let's hope that a good discussion will arise now. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Paul Barlow, Jeff5102, note my revert as well. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Given the fact that User:ربيع الغد turned out to be a sock-puppet, I wonder what an investigation on User:Sazed mahmud would produce.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• I compared a few of the edits and while I see some similarities I did not find a smoking gun. I suggest you start an SPI and ask for CU; let's shake that tree and see what falls out. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I've started an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ENT 70. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the point of this edit by Jeff which replaced the well written and sourced article by ربيع الغد with the current poor artice?! I see no rational reason for this action! Paul B and AnonMoos didn't give any rational arguments in the discussion here. This old version of the article is well sourced and organized. It is much better than the current one. The problem of Paul B with the first sentence of that version is in fact irrational at all, because that same sentence is well sourced. Check the reference given for it: David Benjamin Keldani. Muhammad in World Scriptures (Volume II): The Bible (Malaysian edition 2006 ed.). Page 238-239. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.107.103.37 (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that you are a Muslim, you seem to be ignorant about your own faith. Read Messiah#Islam. Paul B (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you comprehend the silliness of your words?! first of all, you accused me of being ignorant about my own faith even though I have been a Muslim for more than 25 years and there is nothing in my restoration of this version that is not Islamic. Then, you asked me to read Messiah#Islam which is not a reliable reference in the first place. Why should I read your unreliable reference?! Why don't you read the reliable reference of David Benjamin Keldani. Muhammad in World Scriptures (Volume II): The Bible (Malaysian edition 2006 ed.). Page 238-239; which is cited in the lead of this version? Then, you committed a groundless accusation against me that I am a sockpuppet! I consider this false accusation of yours to be a wicked way to justify your filthy behavior in vandalizing the Islam-related articles.--5.107.103.37 (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

There are many Muslims (and many Christians) who know very little abiut their religion. Kaldani is not a reliable source in Wikipedia's ense, but if you are so convinced that Muhammad is the Messiah in Islam argue for changes on the main page. FIND SCHOLARLY SOURCES that agree with you, not a bunch of websites and apologist literature. Paul B (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)