Transcription
Hi guys, get ready for the greatest stomping of the alleged prophecies about Muhammad in the Bible. This is a debate between Dr. Michael Brown and Zakir Hussein. Watch as Dr. Brown meticulously dismantles every reference, exposing the flaws in this controversial argument. Witness a master class in biblical scholarship and apologetics.
You can't play word games like this without making the Bible into a complete mockery. And look, I don't mean to insult in saying this, but the argument here is as weak as saying, "I have a Christian friend named Mo, and he used to be very fat, but now he's slim," and you respond saying, "He's not a Christian at all; no, he's Mo who is now slim." So, "Mlim" equals "Muslim." It's that outlandish.
It's so interesting to see that in a debate that focused on one issue only—Is Muhammad in the Bible?—it started with an attack on the New Testament. That alone tells you the arguments that will follow are very weak. But I'm very happy to talk about Jesus being the prophesied Messiah; we'll do that for sure. I know there are many Muslims that are totally sincere about this, so I urge you to have the courage to follow the truth, regardless, because the stakes are very high.
We focused on this because, although I have three years of classical Arabic, I'm not an Islamic scholar. So, in fairness, we focused on the Bible. Does it prophesy about Muhammad? The answer is absolutely, categorically no—not even a possibility—unless you want to look for prophecies about false prophets, and there are general warnings about those in the Bible. If you want to look at prophecies about Jesus, I'll gladly defend every single prophecy about Jesus in the Scriptures with tremendous joy.
Let's remember that the Bible prophesies the birth of Jesus, the place of his birth, the supernatural nature of his ministry, his miracles, his lowly origin, his rejection by his own people, his violent death, his resurrection, and that all of this had to take place before the destruction of the Second Temple. That's what you call prophecy.
What we heard today is something very, very different. Jesus could say that the Torah and the prophets were fulfilled in him. He could sit with his disciples and open up their Hebrew Scriptures and show them they all pointed to him. It's a massive contrast when it comes to Muhammad. The Bible says not a word about him in terms of his life, his ministry, or the Quran—zero—because that was not on the minds of God or the authors of the Scripture.
So, let's break some of these down. In a prior debate, Zakir pointed to Genesis 12:3, the promise to Abram that through his seed all the world would be blessed, and claimed that that was ultimately through Ishmael. He alluded to the "great nation" of Ishmael that would come. In point of fact, the Torah tells us that this is about Israel. It says these very same words: the whole world will be blessed through the seed of Jacob in Genesis 28. The promise that those who bless them would be blessed, and those who curse would be cursed, is applied to the entire nation of Israel in Numbers, the 24th chapter. There's no ambiguity there.
As for the allegations that we've heard in past debates that Genesis 15 promises the land to the Israelites, it's quite the contrary. It's explicit: those who went into captivity in Egypt and would be liberated from Egypt. The entire Torah testifies that the land was given to Israel, regardless of your views of modern Israel today. The Torah is explicit; there's no ambiguity. Either you believe, as Muslims, that the Bible is unreliable and corrupt, in which case you shouldn't be citing it, or if you're going to cite it, then let it speak for itself because it's utterly unambiguous when it comes to this.
That's why Jews pray towards Jerusalem and Muslims pray to Mecca. There's no confusion about the direction and the goals. As for the text that I was asked to challenge from Deuteronomy 18, of course, what you just had is a perfect example of adding to the Bible—not only adding to the Bible but turning the words upside down.
So, Deuteronomy 18:15 is quite explicit: "He will be from your own midst," which occurs in the Torah 11 times, and every single time in the Torah, without exception, explicitly means "from the midst of your people Israel," not "from your brother nations," as you heard. That is not only adding to the Bible; it is twisting it and turning it upside down. Ten times in Deuteronomy alone, it says, "Drive out the evil from your midst." It always means, without exception, 100 times out of 100 in the Torah, "from the midst of your people Israel."
Was Muhammad an Israelite? No. Case closed. We don't even need to discuss it any further. But let's go a little further because it not only says that term "from your brothers." When it says "from your brothers," it's explicit within Deuteronomy itself. If you look, for example, in the 24th chapter, it explicitly says, "If you have a foreigner who is not from your brothers," meaning from your own Israelites.
So, not only does it say he must be from your own midst of Israel, but he must be a brother Israelite. That's explicit. And then it says, "like me." So, what does that mean to be like Moses? It also says that the king must be specifically from your own midst, one of your brothers. The king had to be an Israelite. Again, Muhammad was not.
But what does it mean to be a prophet like Moses? Well, the Bible tells us there's no ambiguity in the 34th chapter of the book of Deuteronomy. It tells us that no prophet as of yet had risen up like Moses. What was distinguished about Moses? He worked all these national miracles in front of everyone and spoke to God face to face—who knew God face to face. In Exodus, it says that God spoke to Moses like a man speaks to his friend.
Did Muhammad perform a series of national miracles, miracles that were witnessed by multitudes of people over a period of months like Moses did? Yes, the answer is Jesus did. Did Muhammad? Absolutely not. But do you believe he performed any miracles or not? Did he perform miracles on the levels of Moses and signs and wonders for the nation to see? No.
Not only so, do Muslims believe—and I'm asking you a question—that Muhammad spoke to God face to face? Does Allah speak to any of his servants face to face? Does he speak to him like a man speaks to his friend? Isn't that almost blasphemous in Islam? Yet the prophet like Moses would be one who spoke to God face to face like a man speaks with his friends.
As for the question of who this prophet ultimately speaking of, well, the Bible tells us. The New Testament tells us explicitly. Again, if you're going to cite the Bible, let the Bible speak for itself. Acts, the 3rd chapter, Peter tells us that the prophet like Moses that all Israel must listen to is Jesus (Yeshua). Again, there's no ambiguity; there's no question.
As for the servant of the Lord that was referenced in Isaiah 42 and 49, that cannot possibly be Muhammad for many reasons. First, as widely recognized by biblical scholars based on internal evidence, the servant described in Isaiah 42 is the same servant described in Isaiah 49, which we just heard. He's also described in the 50th chapter and 52:13 through 53:12.
So, according to these passages, the servant is actually identified with Israel (Isaiah 49:3) because he embodies the nation of Israel. Was Muhammad identified with Israel? No. Was he an Israelite? No. Did he embody the mission of Israel? No. Did he have a primary mission, as Yeshua did, to go to the lost sheep of the House of Israel first and foremost to gather them? No, Muhammad did not have that mission; Jesus did.
But let's take this a little further. According to these prophecies, the servant would stand out in a certain way. Would his message go as far as Kedar? In other words, to distant lands. But if you go to 49, it says that it will go to "Sim," which according to traditional lexicons was China. Maybe it's a prophecy about Confucius. I mean, it's using the same logic to find Muhammad in 42. Kedar has mentioned you might as well make the prophet into Confucius.
But we don't even have to be silly with arguments like this because it tells us that this very servant would be beaten beyond recognition. He would die a violent death. Was Muhammad beaten beyond recognition? No. Did he die a violent death? No. Not only so, it says that he won't retaliate, that he'll lay down his life for those that oppose him. It even says that he won't even put out just a burning wick.
Muhammad, according to tradition, was a mighty warrior, a conqueror. He was not the lamb that laid down his life. He was not the one who died a violent death and rose from the dead. Yet according to these passages—Isaiah 42, Isaiah 49, Isaiah 50, Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12—these are descriptions of the servant. There's no ambiguity here whatsoever.
As for the idea that Haggai, the second chapter, is speaking of Muhammad because it uses the noun "or," first, it proves nothing. You got many nouns that sound like other words. I mean, that's absolutely meaningless. But let's take it a little further. According to that, Muhammad would be brought to beautify the second temple, which was destroyed in the year 70 AD.
So if Haggai 2 is talking about Muhammad, then he had to come physically to adorn the temple in Jerusalem. The year—was he born then? Was he born 500 years later? 500 years later! So throw it out; it can't possibly work.
The Song of Solomon—listen, I mean no disrespect. I know you're sincere, and I know there's been preparation here. I don't mean to mock, but certain things are ridiculous, impossible. The only reason people come up with this is that based on their faith, they have to find Muhammad in the Bible; otherwise, it never occurred to do it because the Bible is so much not about him and so much about something else.
If you want to argue, is the Quran the word of God or the Bible the word of God, or who's a better ethical teacher—Moses or Jesus? Those are totally separate arguments. But the argument tonight is not even a debate. I'm only doing it out of respect for Muslims who believe it, but it's not even a debate, to be candid.
So when we talk about this, actually, I think the Bible prophesies about me more than Muhammad. After all, my name occurs 15 times—Michael the Archangel. I mean, it's not even something that sounds like. I don't have to change the Hebrew, as was actually done tonight. The Hebrew was changed to try to make it sound more like Muhammad because the Hebrew is "madim" singular, "m'mad" plural. In fact, the form "Muhammad" is impossible in Hebrew; it violates—there's no possible verbal form, no possible verbal form while that works, and there are no nominal forms while that works.
So morphologically, phonetically, it doesn't work. It's just not Hebrew; it's a different language, a different name. It doesn't work right, just to be candid, just to be plain here.
So as for this, if we want to try to argue Song of Solomon 5:16, let's play it out as if it were Muhammad. Okay, "His mouth is delicious, and all of him is delightful. Such is my beloved, such is my darling, O maidens of Jerusalem." So substituting the name Muhammad for the Hebrew plural form "m'mad," even though they're different in form of pronunciation, the first half of the verse would now read, "His mouth is delicious, and all of him is multiple Muhammads."
So the text is saying that the male lover is actually many Muhammads. I mean, this sounds more like an insult than a compliment. The context has nothing to do with Islam, nothing to do with Allah, nothing to do with Muhammad. And first and foremost, it is a love song, and then by application applied to God in Israel or the church and Jesus. But in itself, it is a love song speaking about Solomon and the lover.
And if you want to say that "m'mad" in the plural is actually the plural of Muhammad, "m'mad," well then let's see how "m'mad" is used elsewhere. Something it means something desired in the Hebrew Bible. Perhaps Muhammad is Ezekiel's wife because it says that his wife is the "m'mad" of his eyes. Or perhaps God said he was going to defile Muhammad (Ezekiel 24:41) because he said, "I'm going to defile that which is 'm'mad' in their eyes."
You can't play word games like this without making the Bible into a complete mockery. And look, I don't mean to insult in saying this, but the arguments are as weak as saying, "I have a Christian friend named Mo, and he used to be very fat, but now he's slim," and you respond saying, "He's not a Christian at all; no, he's Mo who is now slim." So "Muslim" equals "Muslim." It's that outlandish.
Now contrast this with the fact that Yeshua (Jesus), right, Yahushua (Joshua) the high priest in Zechariah 6, is set forth as a type and symbol of the Messiah— a Priestly King. And what is Yahushua also called in the Hebrew Bible? 27 times the name occurs, but many times we reference to him as Yeshua. The actual name is found, and it's for the one who is a type and shadow of the Priestly King.
As for Muhammad being the paraclete, the helper in John 14:16, this is beyond impossible. In fact, Jesus himself makes clear that this could not refer to Muhammad since he states explicitly in John 14:26 that the one whom the Father will send to them, to his disciples, he's going to send the paraclete, the helper, to his disciples after his ascension—not to other people 600 years later.
It's the Holy Spirit. That means in the key passages in this very same context where the Holy Spirit or helper is mentioned, we should be able to substitute Muhammad for the Holy Spirit. So let's see what this would sound like:
John 14:16 and 17: "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another helper to be with you forever, 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."
So are you claiming that Jesus was saying that Muhammad currently dwelt with the disciples and was about to be in them and that he would be with them forever, beginning more than 500 years before he was born? And whereas Muhammad was known and seen by the world, Jesus says the world does not see or receive the Spirit precisely because he is Spirit.
John 14:26: "But the helper, the paraclete, the Holy Spirit—that's who he is—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."
The Quran has very few of the sayings of Jesus preserved in stark contrast with the New Testament, which preserves thousands of the words of Jesus. And Muhammad did not remind the disciples of what Jesus said.
John 15:26: "But when the helper comes, whom I will send from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me." Muhammad's central purpose was not to bear witness about Jesus, with the Quran denying that he's the Son of God, that he died for our sins, and he rose from the dead—the very things John's gospel affirms. Jesus is the central theme of the New Testament; he's certainly not the central theme of the Quran.
And did Jesus send Muhammad, or did the Father and Son send Muhammad? This actually sounds trinitarian. Are you saying that Muhammad was part of the Trinity? Yet these very texts tell us it was Jesus from the Father who sent the helper.
How about John 16:7-11? "Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it's to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he'll convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment, concerning sin because they believe not on me." Muhammad did not come to convict the world of the sin of rejecting Jesus as Messiah and Lord.
John 16:13-14: "When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will glorify me." Muhammad's central purpose was not to glorify Jesus. Then later in John, the 20th chapter, Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so, I'm sending you." When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit."
So you're saying that Jesus breathed Muhammad on his disciples? But since the paraclete is explicitly the Holy Spirit, according to Jesus, well, let's substitute Muhammad for other passages with the Holy Spirit and see what happens.
Luke 1:35: "The angel Gabriel explaining to Miriam (Mary) how she will conceive the Son of God: Muhammad will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, so the Holy One to be born will be called the Son of God."
Luke 3:22: "At the baptism of Jesus, and Muhammad descended on him in bodily form like a dove."
Acts 1:8: "Jesus speaking to his disciples before he ascended to heaven: But you will receive power when Muhammad comes on you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and all Judea and Samaria to the ends of the Earth."
Acts 2:4: "And they were all filled with Muhammad and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance."
Acts 2:38: "And Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of Muhammad.'"
Acts 7:55: "About Stephen, as he was being stoned to death: But he, full of Muhammad, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God."
Acts 8:17: "About the Samaritan believers: Then the apostles laid their hands on them, and they received Muhammad."
Acts 10:38: "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with Muhammad and power, and he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil because God was with him."
1 Corinthians 6:19: "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of Muhammad who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own."
1 Corinthians 12:3: "Therefore I want you to know that no one can say Jesus is Lord except by Muhammad."
Again, this is not to mock or insult Muhammad; it is to expose the absurdity of claiming that he's prophesied in the Bible. The incontrovertible facts are that Muhammad is no more prophesied in the Bible than Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, is prophesied in the Quran.
In saying this, I mean no insult to my Muslim friends who are here, who are watching this. But if your faith requires you to believe that the Bible prophesies about Muhammad, then you need to question your faith.
So let me say this: I honestly do not believe that there is a debate to be had about this, and I do believe there are many fine debates that Christians and Muslims can have. I'm just being candid to say I don't believe this is one of them. I've agreed to do it, having been challenged to do it for a number of years.
So let's put everything on the table because I'm a lover of truth, and as a Jewish follower of Jesus, I am committed to follow the truth, whatever the cost, whatever the consequence—being put out for my people, rejected—it doesn't matter.
So I appeal to all of you: be people who follow the truth no matter what. It's costly to be a Muslim and recognize that Jesus is Lord. It's costly to be a Muslim and recognize that it is the Bible, ultimately, that is the word of God and not the Quran. But you must follow the truth, regardless.