Holy Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) Foretold in the Bible
Abdus Sattar Ghauri
There are so many predictions in the Bible regarding the Prophet of Islām
that refer to him in unequivocal terms. It is not a common practice to
predict about some future prophet by name. There are only some very
exceptional places where some coming prophet has been foretold in the Bible
by name. One of these rare predictions is King Solomon’s (sws) “Song of
Songs” in the OT of the Bible regarding the Prophet of Islām (sws).
* * *
beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand.
His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a
His eyes are as the eyes of doves by the rivers of waters, washed with milk,
and fitly set.
His cheeks are as a bed of spices, as sweet flowers: his lips like lilies,
dropping sweet smelling myrrh.
His hands are as gold rings set with the beryl: his belly is as bright ivory
overlaid with sapphires.
His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon sockets of fine gold: his
countenance is as Lebanon, excellent as the cedars.
His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved,
and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.1
* * *
the authorship of this lyric idyll2, there are different opinions. However,
some authorities categorically ascribe it to King Solomon.
the Christian commentators of the Bible apply this prophecy to Jesus Christ
(sws); but the contents of the passage do not endorse it.
ascertain the real significance of the prediction, one is to trace the exact
Hebrew words uttered by King Solomon and to explore their meanings.
the preliminary discourse in the chapter I and II, the main discussion has
been resumed in chapter III of the book. The first phrase “my beloved” of
the passage has been dealt with in this chapter. This phrase clearly settles
the intent and relevance of the prophecy. The actual Hebrew word for
“beloved” is “dod”, which means “friend, esp. an uncle, father’s brother;
lover, beloved (son of father’s brother as customary husband)”. It signifies
that the “beloved” relates to the lineage of paternal uncle of the writer.
There being no father of Jesus, the question of paternal uncle does not
arise in his case. If some uncle may be ascribed to him, it can only be his
uncle from maternal side, whereas it is lexicographically out of question.
In this way Jesus can by no means be considered to be the “dod” of this
verse. Isaac is King Solomon’s forefather in his direct lineage. Ishmael is
the brother of his forefather Isaac. As such ammad (sws),Ishmael is the
“uncle” of the King, and the Prophet Solomon and Muh ammad (sws) is the
“dod” of the,is from the offspring of Ishmael. As such Muh King and the
explaining the first phrase of the first clause “My beloved is white and
ruddy”, the last two words “white” and “ruddy” have been explored in detail
in chapter IV. Its salient points have been afforded here.
word “white/radiant” does not signify some spiritless, morbid, or deadly
whitish colour. It rather stands for brightness, brilliance, and beauty of
the countenance and sound health. The word “ruddy” means “to show blood (in
the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy: be red”. The combination of both these
words, i.e. “white and ruddy” depicts a comely figure of healthiness,
strength, beauty and brightness. It reflects the exact features of the
Prophet of Islām. They cannot be physically applied to Jesus Christ by any
stretch of sense. He was literally neither “radiant” nor “ruddy”. They apply
to the Prophet of Islam in true sense of the word. It is a historical fact
that he was perfectly “radiant and ruddy”. The Christian scholars have
vainly attempted to relate these words to Jesus Christ.
* * *
V deals with the phrase “the chiefest among ten thousand”. The original
Hebrew word for the first English word of the phrase “The chiefest”, (or
choicest) is “דגל” (dagal). Strong’s Heb. BD explains it as: “a prim root;
to flaunt, i.e. raise a flag; figuratively to be conspicuous: (set up with)
banners, chiefest.” Matthew Henry has explained it as “the chiefest among
ten thousand”, “fairest of ten thousand”, “a standard bearer among ten
thousand”, “He is higher than the kings of the earth and has obtained a more
excellent name than any of the principalities and the powers of upper or
lower world.” At the same time it may also be noted that this commentator
had previously stated that Christ was not exceedingly beautiful or
attractive in the words: “It was never said of the child Jesus, as of the
child Moses, when he was born, that he was exceedingly fair [Acts vii.20];
nay, he had no form nor comeliness, Isa. liii.2);”3 It can thus be
appreciated that (i) the Christian commentators of the Bible take these
lines as a prophecy; (ii) they apply it to Jesus Christ; and (iii) they do
not stick to its literal, natural, and obviously direct meanings. They
rather interpret it in accordance with their predetermined and desired aims
quite arbitrarily. Whereas it is an historical fact that these words cannot
aptly be applied to any man on earth except the Prophet of Islam, who was
the Leader of the “Conquest of Makkah” at the head of an army of ten
thousand. Michael Hart has rightly ranked him as number one of all the human
history observing, “My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s
most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by
others, but he was the only man in history [stress added] who was supremely
successful on both the religious and secular levels. (…).
Furthermore, Muhammad (unlike Jesus) was a secular as well as a religious
leader. In fact, as the driving force behind the Arab conquests, he may well
rank as the most influential political leader of all time [stress added].
(…). Nothing similar had occurred before Muhammad, and there is no reason to
believe that the conquest would have been achieved without him. (…). We see,
then, that the Arab conquests of the seventh century have continued to play
an important role in human history, down to the present day. It is this
unparalleled combination of secular and religious influence which I feel
entitles Muhammad to be considered the most influential single figure in
human history [stress added].”4
VI of the book is “His Head and Hair”. It deals with verse 11 of the “Song
of Solomon”, which is: “His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are
bushy, and black as a raven.” The first clause of the verse is “His head is
as the most fine [NKJV: “finest”; NIV: “purest”] gold.” Matthew Henry has
defined the “head” as “sovereignty”. Strong’s “The Hebrew Bible Dictionary”
also endorses it. The Hebrew word for the “head” is “ראש” (Ra’sh) which
means “The head, captain, chief, principal, ruler, top”. The second
important word in the clause is “gold” for which the Hebrew word is “פז” (paz).
Strong’s Heb. BD explains it as: “pure (gold); hence gold itself (as
refined): fine pure gold”. Keeping in view the above meanings of the
original Hebrew words of the Bible, the sentence would mean: “His excellent
rule and authority and sovereignty is flawless, pure and refined, beautiful
and powerful,” as the monarchy of Nebuchadnezzar has been analogized with
the head of gold in the book of Daniel. The commentator’s remarks: “Christ’s
head bespeaks his sovereign dominion over all (…). Christ’s sovereignty is
both beautiful and powerful,” need no comments. Everyone who has studied the
biography of Jesus Christ knows it of certain that he never achieved any
sovereignty anywhere. According to the gospels he was humiliatingly taken to
the place of crucifixion. On the other hand this sentence presents a literal
fulfilment in the person of the “Conqueror of Makkah.”
* * *
never achieved power and authority (sovereignty) in his life whereas the
Prophet of Islam enjoyed full power and authority of the state of Madinah
and consequently the whole of the Arabian Peninsula (and full respect and
love of the believers) and his decisions and commands in that position had
always been pure, beautiful, and flawless. Now it is unto the reader to
decide in whose person the words of the Bible find their exact and literal
next sentence of the verse is: “His locks are bushy [or wavy], and black as
a raven” (KJV). The original Hebrew word for this “wavy” is “תלתל” (taltal),
which, according to the Strong’s Dictionary of the Heb B., means: “A
trailing bough (as pendulous); bushy”. It means that his hair was like a
drooping (hanging or bending down) bough of a tree.
second clause of the sentence is “and black as a raven.” The Original Hebrew
for its first main word “black” is “sahar (shachar)” ( שחר ). Strong’s Heb.
BD has explained it as: “[identical with 7836 through the idea of the
duskiness of early dawn]; to be dim or dark (in colour): be black”. 7836 is:
“to dawn” i.e. (fig) be (up) early at any task (with the implication. of
earnestness); seek (diligently) early, in the morning.). The second main
word of this clause is “raven”.
word used for it in the Hebrew Bible is “ערב” (‘arab/‘areb etc). Strong’s
Heb. BD explains it under entry No. 6158 as: “A raven (from its dusky hue)”.
be noted here that “raven” is not the literal meaning of the Hebrew word “ערב”.
It is its figurative meaning in view of its “dusky hue”. It may also be
noted here that Arabic and Hebrew are similar and sister languages of
Semitic family of languages and have lot of commonalities. Their basic
alphabet consists of twenty-two letters ( א, ב, ג, ד, ה, ו, ז, ח, ט, י, ךor
כ, ל, ם or מ, ן or נ, ס, ע, ף or פ, ץ or צ, ק, ר, ש, ת ); In addition to
these 22 letters the Arabs framed six more letters (th, kh, dh, d, z, gh) to
accommodate their additional sounds, which do not exist in the Hebrew
alphabet. The Arabic letter “ghayn” (gh) is one of those six letters which
do not exist in the Hebrew language. Now, there are two words ‘orab/arab and
ghurab in Arabic; the former for an Arabian person and the latter for a
raven or crow. The Hebrew alphabet, having no letter for “gh” sound, has
only one word for both: “Arabian” and “crow”. It has no separate and
independent word for a “raven” and uses the same word for an Arabian and a
raven or crow. As such they cannot ascertain for which sense the Hebrew word
“orab/arab” stands here. The translators of the Bible take it in the sense
of a raven in view of dark colour of the hair, whereas actually it stands
for an Arabian. Here is a study of some more meanings of the word. According
to entry No. 6150 the word “ערב” (‘arab) means: “[identical with 6148
through the idea of covering with a texture]; to grow dusky at sun down:- be
darkened, (toward) evening”. The same word, “ערב” (‘arab), has been
explained under entry No. 6152 as: “In the fig. sense of sterility; Arab
(i.e. Arabia), a country E. of Palestine”. It can also be “ערבי” (‘arabiy),
which, according to the same Dictionary, means: “An Arabian or inhabitant of
Arab (i.e. Arabia)”.
lexical study of the sentence “His locks are bushy, and black as a raven”
has been undertaken in the above lines. The results of the study and some
further relevant information is being presented hereunder:
Basically the word “ערב” (‘arab) means: “to grow dusky at sun down: be
darkened, (toward) evening, an Arab, an Arabian, or an inhabitant of
Arabia”, and not a crow.
also bears the sense of “sterility”. “Arabia” was given this name because of
being basically a barren, sterile, and inarable land. It also implies “an
Arabian or an Arab”.
Being void of the Arabic sound “gh”, the Hebrew language has only one word
for both “a raven” and “an Arab”.
to the word bushy/wavy the Hebrew word is “תלתל” (taltal), which, according
to the Strong’s Dictionary of the Heb. B., means: “a trailing bough (as
pendulous)”. “Bushy” or “wavy” is not its proper translation. “A trailing
bough” is not bushy or wavy. It rather has a curl only at its end.
hair of the Prophet of Islam have been depicted by different authorities as:
The hair of his head and beard was thick: neither intertwistingly curly like
those of Negroes nor quite straight. It had rather a light touch of curl.
Even in his last years hardly twenty hairs had grown white, and they too
were visible only when he had not anointed (applied oil to) them, which was
a very rare phenomenon. Sometimes the locks of his hair went to the middle
of his ears, sometimes to their end and at times even longer.
hair of the Prophet of Islam was extremely black and remained as such till
the end of his life. In the hair of both his head and beard there were not
more than twenty white hairs. Even those were visible only when he had not
anointed them. On the other hand the head and hairs of Jesus were extremely
white, as can be appreciated from: “His head and his hairs were white like
wool, as white as snow.5” So this part of the prophecy cannot be applied to
Jesus whereas it exactly applies to the Prophet of Islam.
proper translation of “His locks are bushy, and black as a raven” is: “There
is a slight bend in his locks and they are extremely black. He is an
inhabitant of Arabia”.
therefore, not difficult to ascertain whom do these words indicate: the
Prophet of Islam, Muhammad of Arabia (sws) or Jesus Christ (sws)? But it is
surprising to note how the Christian scholars interpret or, rather,
manipulate this statement in favour of Jesus Christ. Matthew Henry asserts:
* * *
black as raven, whose blackness is his beauty. Sometimes Christ’s hair is
represented as white (Rev. i:14), denoting his eternity, that he is the
ancient of days; but here as black and bushy, denoting that he is ever young
and that there is in him no decay, nothing that waxes. Everything that
belongs to Christ is amiable in the eyes of a believer, even his hair is so;
reader can easily appreciate the trickery of translation and interpretation
in the above passage. How adroitly “white” has been proven to be “black”!
Objective study is considered basic precondition for a just and impartial
research. It demands that some theme should be presented faithfully in its
actual form, and it should be interpreted according to the requirement of
the context and the intent of the writer without twisting or manipulating it
to one’s own intent and purpose.
the above passage the skill of interpreting a theme quite contrary to its
actual sense, has been exercised freely and unhesitatingly. It is by no
means a faithful interpretation. It is obviously an example of
misinterpretation and corruption.
VII relates to verse 12 of the “Song of Solomon” which deals with the eyes
of Solomon’s beloved. The verse 12 reads as: “His eyes are as the eyes of
doves by the rivers of waters, washed with milk, and fitly set”.
Pulpit Commentary has explained the verse as: “The eyes are not only pure
and clear, but with a glancing moistness in them which expresses feeling and
The pureness of the white of the eye is represented in the bathing or
washing in milk. They are full and large, “fine in their setting,” (…).”
Matthew Henry explains this verse as:
eyes are as the eyes of doves, fair and clear, and chaste and kind, (…).
They are washed, to make them clean, washed with milk, to make them white,
and fitly set, neither starting out nor sunk in.”.
Christ’s detailed features of the countenance are available neither in the
Bible nor in any other book. There are only some brief, casual, and partial
glimpses of his features scattered here and there, which are quite useless
and irrelevant to the qualities stated in this stanza of the “Songs”.
Christian scholars attach the qualities, which Solomon is describing about
his “Praised One”, to Jesus Christ without any proof or relevance.7
would be quite pertinent to explore the meanings of the word “fitly” of this
verse in the first place. The original Hebrew word for it is “םלאת” (millayth).
The Strong’s Heb. BD explains it as: “From 4390; fullness, i.e. (concretely)
a plump [fat in a pleasant looking way] socket (of the eye)= X fitly.”
Hebrew word under entry No. 4390 is “םלא”, (mala). It means: “To fill or be
full of; consecrate”. As such, the words for the beloved’s eyes, “fitly
set”, would mean: “The eyes have been set in the face and forehead of the
beloved of King Solomon in such a proportionate manner that they look to be
beautiful, big, well-filled up, plump, risen up, and attractive.”
other important word in this verse is “dove”, for which the original Hebrew
word is “יונה”, i.e. “yownah”. Strong’s Heb. BD explains it as: “Probably
from the same as 3196; a dove”. The Hebrew word under entry No. 3196 is “יין”,
i.e. “yayin”. It has been explained as: “From an unused root meaning to
effervesce; wine (as fermented); by implication intoxication.”
in view various meanings and implications of all the significant words of
the above verse, it can be explained as follows: “The eyes have been set in
the face and forehead of the beloved of King Solomon in such a proportionate
manner that they look to be beautiful, big, well-filled up, plump, risen up,
and attractive. His eyes exhibit the warmth of love and happiness. There are
light red filaments in his eyes as if from intoxication. The eyes are not
only pure and clear, but with a glancing moistness in them which expresses
feeling and devotion. They are full and large. His eyes are as the eyes of
doves, fair and clear, and chaste and kind.”
worthy commentators of the Bible have arbitrarily attributed these details
and qualities to Jesus Christ, but they do not afford any grounds for their
claim. What has allegorically been stated is only out of their wishful
thinking and designed purpose. There is no substantial proof or objective
relevance in favour of their assertion. As already stated, the details of
the figures of Jesus Christ have nowhere been given in the Bible. On the
other hand, the details of the figures and features of the Prophet of Islam
have so meticulously been recorded in authentic traditions that we feel as
if he himself is present among us. The features of king Solomon’s beloved
related in the Bible apply to the prophet of Islam so exactly and accurately
that there remains no doubt in their relevance.
details of the eyes of the Prophet of Islam have been recorded by the
eyewitnesses through reliable chain of narrators in the books of the
traditions and the biography of the Prophet. A brief sketch is given below:
eyes were intensely black. Eyelashes were long. (…). The pupils of the eyes
were extremely black. Eyeballs were extremely white [washed with milk]. (…).
His eyes were large and very beautiful. Even without antimony it seemed as
if he had applied antimony to his eyes. There were light red threads in his
eyes (which depict the intoxication of his eyes as stated by the Heb. B.
Dictionary). Eyelashes were thick and long.
one conspicuous feature is being elaborated here. As to the “light red
threads in his eyes” and their largeness, Jabir reports:
رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ (...) 8أَشْكَلَ الْعَيْنِ
Apostle of Allah (sws) was large-eyed having light red threads in them.
is so conspicuous concordance in the statement of the verse of the “Song”
and the features of the Prophet of Islam that the reader would easily
appreciate that King Solomon is describing here the features of none other
than the Prophet of Islam himself.
VIII of the book deals with the verse 13 of the “Song of Solomon” which is
about “His Cheeks and Lips”. The wording of the verse is “His cheeks are as
a bed of spices, as sweet flowers: his lips like lilies, dropping sweet
smelling myrrh.” Firstly, the study of its first half “His cheeks are as a
bed of spices, as sweet flowers,” is being undertaken. The first main word
of the verse is “cheeks”. The Hebrew word for this “cheek” is “לחי” (lehiy).
Strong’s Heb. DB has recorded its meanings as: “From an unusual root meaning
to be soft; the cheek (from its fleshiness)”. The next main word of the
verse is “bed” for which the Hebrew word is “ערוגה” (“Aroojah). According to
Strong’s Heb. BD it means: “Something piled up (as if [figuratively] raised
by mental aspiration.), i.e. bed, furrow”. The third important word of the
clause is “spices” for which the Hebrew word in the Bible is “בשם” (besem).
Strong’s Heb. DB has recorded its meanings as: “Fragrance; by impl. spicery;
also the balsam plant: smell, spice, sweet (odour)”. The fourth main word of
the clause is “sweet”. The original Hebrew word for it is “םרקח”, i.e. “merqah”.
Strong’s Heb. BD has recorded its meanings as: “From 7543; a spicy herb:- X
sweet”. And the meanings of entry No. 7543 are: “A primary root; to perfume;
make [ointment]”. The last main word of the clause is “flowers”. The Hebrew
word for it is “םגדל”, (mijdal). Its meanings in Strong’s Heb. DB are: “From
1431; a tower (from its size or height); figuratively a (pyramidal) bed of
in view the above lexical research, the correct translation of the original
Hebrew clause, which has been rendered into English as: “His cheeks are as a
bed of spices, as sweet flowers” will be as below:
raised up fleshy and soft cheeks, and the thick beard thereupon, seem as if
they are layers of perfumes or heaps of fragrances. They are like the beds
of small fragrant herbs and the pyramids of sweet smelling flowers.
someone tries to trace these qualities in the person of Jesus Christ, he is
bound to face utter disappointment. On the other hand, if it be tried to
trace these qualities in the life of the Prophet of Islam, the veracity of
its application to the Prophet of Islam will be fully confirmed.
Henry has vainly applied this sentence of the “Song” to Jesus Christ. The
worthy commentator is the king of the world of letters and the master of the
realm of rhetoric. But the words of King Solomon cannot be applied to Christ
through verbosity, eloquence, and credulity. It requires objective study and
authentic references. Although the writer is an erudite scholar, it is
impossible for him to afford some credible evidence in favour of his
assertion; and how can he present it when there is none on the record
whatsoever. He has adroitly endeavoured to cover the unavailability of the
evidential data through his eloquence, but how can the lack of evidence be
made up with the verbosity in the realm of historical presentations!
second and the last clause of the verse is: “His lips like lilies, dropping
sweet smelling myrrh”. The first important word in the clause is “lips”. The
original Hebrew word for it is “שפה” (shaphah), which means: “The lip; by
implication, language, speech, talk, words”. The next important word is
“lilies”. The original word for it is “שושן”, (shoshan). It means: “a
primary root; to be bright, i.e. cheerful: be glad, X greatly, joy, make
mirth, rejoice”. The next main word of this part of the verse is “dropping”.
The original word for it is “נטף” (nataph). It means: “a primary root; to
ooze, i.e. distill gradually; by impl to fall in drops; figuratively to
speak by inspiration, prophesy”. The last word of the verse is “myrrh”. Its
original Hebrew is “מר” or “מור” (more). It means: “From 4843 [which is “to
be or make bitter”]; myrrh (as distilling in drops, and also as bitter)”.
having explained the meanings of all the important original Hebrew words of
this clause of the verse, its correct sense would be:
lips are bright and beautiful like a lily flower. The rejoicing, greeting,
and bright word that comes out of them, is altogether prophecy and
inspiration. There is the fragrance and sweetness of lawful and clean acts
and edibles in it as well as a limited and meagre quantity of the bitterness
of unlawful and unclean ones and this bitterness ultimately results in
fragrance which brings pleasant feelings. The implied brightness of “lilies”
includes the brightness and light that radiated physically from the lips of
The qualities of the lips (and, by implication speech) of the Prophet of
Islam (sws) have been reproduced in the text of the book from lucid
traditions and a few selected verses of the Qur’an. Their concordance to the
attributes described by Solomon does not depend on some allegory, symbolism,
or figurativeness. But there is clearly a literal application in them. On
the other hand, they can by no means be applied to Jesus Christ through any
stretch of sense.
IX of the book deals with the verse 14 of the “Song of Solomon”, which is
about “His Hands and Belly”. The wording of the verse is: “His hands are as
gold rings set with the beryl: his belly is as bright ivory overlaid with
sapphires”. There are two clauses in this verse. The first clause is: “His
hands are as gold rings set with the beryl”. The original Hebrew word for
“hand” is “יד”, i.e. “Yad”. According to Strong’s Hebrew DB its meanings
are: “A hand (the open one) [indicating power, means, i.e. resources and
money etc.], in distinction from 3709 (“כף”, i.e. “kaph”), the closed one;
used in a great variety of applications, both literally and figuratively,
both proximate and remote, dominion, force”. As such, it indicates open and
stretched hands, which are the symbol of power, authority, and generosity.
The next main word of this part of the verse is “gold”, which in Hebrew is
“paz” ( פז ). It means: “From 6388 [which is, “פלג” (i.e. Falaj), meaning
“river, stream”]; pure (gold); hence gold itself (as refined):- fine (pure)
gold”. Then there is the word “ring”, for which the Hebrew word is “גליל”.
Its pronunciation is “galiyl”. The meanings of this word and its roots have
been explained in Strong’s Hebrew DB under entries No.1550, 59, 60 as: “A
valve of a folding door; also a ring (as round); great”. According to the
Heb. and Aramaic Lexicon of the OT the word, with reference to “Song 5:14”
means: “a round rod or ring”. It is the same as the Arabic word “Jalil”;
which has the same meanings, i.e., “great; significant etc.”
in view the literal meanings and real sense of the original Hebrew words of
this clause of the verse, its translation would be:
out-stretched hands are the symbol of his great power, authority, and
generosity. Physically and apparently, they are clean bright, soft, smooth
and precious like gold. He wears a ring in his finger wherein beryl and
topaz have been inlaid properly.
conditions and qualities of the hands of Jesus Christ have nowhere been
recorded in history, but the holy and reliable companions of the Prophet of
Islam did not show any negligence in making the history rich through
recording the details of the features of even the hands of their beloved
Prophet (sws). Hind bin Abi Halah states: “His wrists were long, his palms
were large, and his fingers elongated to a suitable extent”. Anas states:
“Any thick or thin silk cloth that I ever happened to touch, was not softer
than the palms of the Prophet (sws)”.
regards the power of his hands (outstretched hands) it implies both his
physical power and his authority. As to the physical power of his limbs, it
is interesting to note that he defeated Rukanah, the most powerful wrestler
among the Qurayshites” who invited him to a bout. The Prophet threw him down
and defeated him. Once, when Muhammad (sws) was still a boy, he was invited
to a dinner at ‘Abdullah bin Jud’an’s house. Abu Jahl scrapped (quarrelled)
with him. He was almost a boy of the same age. Muhammad (sws) lifted him up
and threw him down so as his knee was wounded. Abu Jahl sustained its scar
for the whole of his life.
* * *
the authority of the Prophet of Islam it is to be noted that he started his
life as a penniless orphan, but when he left this world, he wielded sole
authority over whole of the Arabian peninsula which was thriving and
spilling over the boundaries of Arabia in all dimensions.
third implication of the outstretched hands, as explained by Strong’s Hebrew
BD, is generosity. It is clearly recorded that the Prophet of Islam was
extremely generous and did not like to hoard money for his own self. He
never said “No” to anyone who solicited him for something. Similarly, he was
even more generous during the month of Ramadan.
Christian scholars explain the verse of King Solomon’s prophecy in almost
similar terms. Only one excerpt, from The Pulpit CB, is recorded: “Surely it
is the outstretched hands that are meant. The form of the fingers is seen
and admired; they are full round, fleshy like bars of gold”.
Obviously, the explanations of the worthy Christian scholars find their
fulfilment only in the person of the Prophet of Islam. The search of these
qualities in Jesus Christ or to apply these explanations to the person of
Jesus Christ is merely a vain effort, which can be based on internal
credulity and not on some solid, authentic, and objective reality.
remaining part of the verse is: “His belly is as bright ivory overlaid with
sapphires”. The Pulpit Commentary has explained it as: “The comparison with
ivory work refers to the glancing and perfect smoothness and symmetry as of
a beautiful ivory statue, the work of the highest artistic excellence. The
sapphire covering tempers the white. The beautiful blue veins appear through
the skin and give a lovely tint to the body”.
proof or reference can be afforded to attach these details in favour of the
person of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, the details of the features of
the Prophet of Islam have been completely recorded. “Ali reports: “The
Prophet had no hair on his body except a thin line of hair from chest to
* * *
is no need of any explanation or interpretation. The words speak of
themselves who the “Beloved” and the “Praised One” of King Solomon had been.
Obviously the words literally apply to the Prophet of Islam. They can in no
sense be applied to Jesus Christ.
X of the book deals with the verse 15 of the “Song of Solomon”, which is
about “His Legs and Countenance”. The wording of the verse is “His legs are
as pillars of marble, set upon sockets of fine gold: his countenance is as
Lebanon, excellent as the cedars.” This verse includes two independent
descriptions. The first description relates to the legs of the “beloved” and
the second one relates to his countenance. First sentence of the verse is:
“His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon sockets of fine gold”. The
Pulpit Commentary explains it as follows: “So in the description of the legs
we have the combination of white and gold, the white marble setting forth
greatness and purity, and the gold sublimity and nobleness; intended, no
doubt, to suggest that in the royal bridegroom, there was personal beauty
united with kingly majesty”. The commentator asserts that these words
undoubtedly signify the combination of personal beauty and kingly majesty in
the bridegroom. As far as “Personal Beauty” is concerned: “It was never said
of the child Jesus, as of the child Moses, when he was born, that he was
exceedingly fair [Acts vii.20]; nay, he had no form nor comeliness, Isa.
liii.2)”. As to his “Kingly Majesty”, it is not a statement of fact, but is
a grave mockery, to assign it to a person, about whom it is recorded in the
Gospel of Matthew:
the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium [governor’s
residence] and gathered the whole garrison around Him. And they stripped Him
and put a scarlet robe on Him. When they had twisted a crown of thorns, they
put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand. And they bowed the knees
before Him and mocked Him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” Then they spat
on Him, and took the reed and struck Him on the head”. When the description
of the evangelists regarding the last days of Jesus Christ be studied, one
comes across an unsteady, unstable, and wavering person. On the one hand, he
wishes, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup [of death] pass from
Me”. On the other hand, he seems to accept it half-heartedly saying,
“nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” Whereas the so-called last
words claimed to have been uttered by Jesus, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?”
(My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?) reveal the belief in the Oneness
and Omnipotence of God, at the same time they show his human limitations and
complaint. Keeping in view the critical nature of the moment, they are not
compatible with the ideals of perseverance and steadfastness. No doubt they
are very apt and meaningful for supplication in solitude, but pronouncing
these words openly in public at the time of suffering reveal lack of
commitment, courage and confidence in one’s mission and ideals.
“Stateliness”, “steadfastness”, and “magnificence” are quite irrelevant
words for Jesus Christ.
words can neither be applied literally nor figuratively to the life of Jesus
Christ; on the other hand, they are quite relevant to the life of the
Prophet of Islam. The unwavering steadfastness of the Prophet of Islam in
extremely adverse circumstances of the battlefields of Badr and Hunayn is a
rare phenomenon in the annals of the world history. Keeping in view these
facts, one is forced to admit the adroitness of Matthew Henry to twist the
facts in his favour. He asserts:
bespeaks his stability and steadfastness; where he sets his foot he will fix
it; he is able to bear all the weight of government that is upon his
shoulders [one is at a loss to find any substance to this blatant
misstatement], and his legs will never fail under him. This sets forth the
stateliness and magnificence of the going of our God, our King, in his
sanctuary. When these words of King Solomon are compared to the facts and
features of the Prophet of Islam, one is not to face any disappointment.
* * *
colour is generally associated with silver and marble. The association of
the legs in the “Song” with marble indicates their white and bright colour
and it is an established fact that the Prophet of Islam was of white colour
as has been explained in the text of the book. This association of the legs
with marble indicates strength and beauty. The Prophet’s hands and feet were
heavy, large and magnificent. It is a common phenomenon that the parts of
the body which remain covered under the clothes are white whereas the colour
of the parts of the body of even the white people which are open to sun (as
the feet be), becomes brownish (golden), especially in hot countries. The
slim shanks resembling white marble pillars on the brown, bulky, and
beautiful feet (sockets of gold), present a true and exact picture of the
beloved of King Solomon. Whoever compares King Solomon’s account of his
beloved’s relevant features with the features of the Prophet of Islam, would
face no difficulty in discovering the reality. It would be interesting to
note that detailed account of even the commentators of the Bible tallies
only with the Prophet of Islam, and the features of Jesus Christ have
nothing to do with it.
second part of verse 15 is: “His countenance is as Lebanon, excellent as the
cedars”. Matthew Henry explains this sentence as: “His countenance (his port
and mien) is as Lebanon, that stately hill; his aspect beautiful and
charming, like the prospect of that pleasant forest or park, excellent as
the cedars, which, in height and strength, excel other trees, and are of
excellent use. Christ is a goodly person; the more we look upon him the more
beauty we shall see in him”.
The Hebrew Bible word for “countenance” is “מראה”, i.e. “mar’eh”. It means:
“From 7200 [ra’ah; a primary root; to see, literally or figuratively:
advise, approve, appear, consider, perceive, think]; a view (the act of
seeing); also an appearance (the thing seen), whether (real) a shape (esp.
if handsome, comeliness; often plural, the looks), or (mental) a vision…
countenance, fair, favoured.”
thus be interpreted as follows:
apparent beauty and comeliness, his lovely appearance and attractive
features, his comprehensive looks and lofty ideals, his deep thoughts and
far-sightedness are like Lebanon.
literal meanings of Lebanon are “heart, courage, intellect and
understanding”. The cumulative sense of this simile can be interpreted as
beloved of King Solomon is like beautiful snow-covered mountains of Lebanon
in apparent beauty and comeliness. His eyes are replete with love and
affection. On the one hand he is a huge and high mountain of courage and
valour and on the other hand, he is great in his intellect, understanding,
and right thinking.
been explained above that according to the account of the New Testament
these qualities cannot be attributed to Jesus Christ. On the other hand, as
far as the Prophet of Islam is concerned, it depicts his complete picture.
second simile of the sentence is “excellent as the cedars.” The Hebrew word
for this “excellent” is “בחר”, i.e. “bahar”. It means: “To try, i.e. (by
impl.) select, acceptable, appoint, choose (choice), excellent, join, be
beautiful colour and silk-like softness and smoothness of its wood, the
beauty of the fabrication of its tissues, its tenacity and durability, its
immunity and resistance against termite and corrosion, its soft and
perpetual fragrance, the strength and firm ground grip of its roots, its
long life, vast spreading of its branches and its soothing shade, its lofty
stature make it matchless in value and quality. Thus the simile can be
explained as follows:
magnificent, choicest, and distinguished person of the tribe of Kedar and
the impressive, invincible, and sweet word of Allah presented by him are
beneficial and benevolent and the beauty and virtue incarnate like the cedar
tree. He is esteemed and cherished as the fragrant, good-looking, strong,
smooth, and soft cedar wood is. The grip of his root (base or foot) is firm.
His branches (influence of his teachings) are stretched far and wide. He is
extremely pleasant, agreeable and desirable.
* * *
XI, XII, XIII, XIV of the book deal with the next and the last verse (16) of
this prophecy which is the most important one. In extreme love and devotion
King Solomon pronounces even the name of his beloved, which is a rare
phenomenon in the history of the Biblical prophecy. The wording of the verse
is: “His mouth is most sweet, yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my
beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.” Its first clause,
“His mouth is most sweet” has been explained in Chapter XI under the heading
of the “Speech of His Mouth”.
clause has been explained by the Pulpit Commentary as: “His mouth was all
sweetness (the literal rendering), both his holy words and his gracious
looks. (…). The very tones of that most sacred voice must have had an
indescribable sweetness”. Thus it becomes clear that the word “mouth” of
this clause stands for “speech”. It has not been used here in the literal
sense of the physical “mouth” or “lips”. The word “mouth” has been used in
the Bible a number of times in the same sense.
be noted here that the Prophet of Islam conveyed two things through his
mouth: the Holy Qur”an and his own words regarding the Islamic culture.
regards his own words, they are admitted to be very sweet and eloquent. Some
of his sayings have been recorded in the text of the book.
case of the Qur’an is the same. It is a masterpiece of its kind and style of
literature. Some excerpts from the Holy Qur’an that exhibit its eloquence,
sweetness and captivating force have been recorded in the text of the book.
study of external evidence has also been afforded in the text of the book
which shows that the Holy Qur’an is universally admitted to be sweetness in
itself. Some of the non-Muslim scholars have also acknowledged it. A few
instances have been afforded here:
The language, the stile [sic.], the numbers are all so exquisite and
inimitable, that Mahomet himself doth frequently urge this as the grand
authentic testimony of his Apostleship, that the Alcoran doth surpass all
human wit and Fancy, and offered to be accounted an Imposter if any man
could but write ten verses equal to any therein. (…). The Truth is I do not
find any understanding Author who controverts the Elegancy of the Alcoran,
it being generally esteemed as standard of the Arabic language and
Sale is a renowned Orientalist. He has undertaken great labour to prove that
the Qur’an is not the word of Allah, but is the work of Muhammad. He
translated the Qur’an (with footnotes) into English and gave it the name of
“alkoran of Muhammad”. In the beginning of it he wrote a detailed
introduction under the heading of “The Preliminary Discourse”. In section
“3” of this introduction he was forced to pay due compliments to the
impressiveness and sweetness of the Qur’an. Here are some excerpts from this
* * *
Koran is universally allowed to be written with the utmost elegance and
purity of language, (…). It is confessedly the standard of the Arabic
tongue, (.…). Mohammed himself chiefly appeal for the confirmation of his
mission, publicly challenging the most eloquent men in Arabia, (…) to
produce even a single chapter that might be compared with it. (…). A poem of
Labid Ibn Rabia, one of the greatest wits in Arabia in Mohammed’s time,
being fixed up on the gate of temple of Mecca, an honour allowed to none but
the most esteemed performances, none of the other poets durst offer any
thing of their own in competition with it. But the second chapter of the
Koran being fixed up by it soon after, Labid himself (then an idolater) on
reading the first verses only, was struck with admiration, and immediately
professed the religion taught thereby, declaring that such words could
proceed from an inspired person only. (…).Very extra-ordinary effects are
related of the power of words well chosen and artfully placed, which are no
less powerful either to ravish or amaze than music itself; wherefore as much
has been ascribed by the best orators to this part of rhetoric as to any
other. He must have a very bad ear who is not uncommonly moved with the very
cadence of a well-turned sentence; and Mohammed seems not to have been
ignorant of the enthusiastic operation of rhetoric on the minds of men; (…),
and so strangely captivated the minds of his audience, that several of his
opponents thought it the effect of witchcraft and enchantment, as he
Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Sa‘d have recorded the event of Tufayl b. ‘Amr Dawsi’s
embracing Islam, which is a great evidence of the captivating force of the
eloquence of the Qur’an. the same is the case of the Islam of ‘Umar Ibn
are a number of instances of the impressiveness of the beautiful style of
the speech of the Prophet and the words of the Qur’an. This is rather the
sole source of the expansion and diffusion of Islam. One more event
regarding ‘Utbah Ibn Rabi‘ah (Abu Sufyan’s father-in-law) has been afforded
in the text of the book to elaborate the theme further.
book of Allah presented by the Prophet of Islam, the holy Qur’an, is a
living miracle as to its matchless beauty of style, impressive words,
rhetoric, revolutionaryness, and comprehensiveness, for all times to come.
In addition to it, the easy, brief, and compact sayings of the holy Prophet
are also unique in impressiveness, rhetoric, wisdom, and sweetness. On the
other hand the words of Jesus Christ are not to be found on the face of
earth that some one may reckon their sweetness, beauty of style or
Whatever one finds in the N. T. of the Bible, is not the original Aramaic
word of Jesus Christ. The original words of Jesus Christ were never recorded
and published in black and white in the Aramaic language, in which he had
delivered them. The Gospels that one finds in the New Testament of the Bible
today, are the composition of some oral traditions regarding Jesus’ life by
some almost unidentified persons.
Moreover, they were written in the Greek language from the very beginning.
They had never been recorded in the language in which they were originally
delivered by Jesus Christ. As such it can be safely asserted that the words
“his mouth is most sweet” can by no stretch of sense be applied to the words
of Jesus Christ. It is only the Prophet of Islam on whom the words “his
mouth is most sweet” pertinently apply.
XII of the book deals with the second clause of verse 16 of the “Song of
Solomon”. The wording of the verse is “He is altogether lovely”. The heading
of the chapter is:
Exactly Muhammad the Magnificent”.
English word “altogether” stands for the Hebrew word “כל” (k+l, i.e. Kull),
which means: “From 3634: the whole; (in) all manner, altogether,
whatsoever”. Entry No. 3634 means:
complete: (make) perfect”. The next word is “lovely” which, according to the
Revised Standard Version, is “desirable”. In Hebrew it is “םחםדים” (M+H+M+D+I+M).
Heb. DB records the meanings of m+h+m+d “םחםד” as: “From 2530; delightful;
hence a delight, i.e. object of affection or desire: beloved, desire,
goodly, lovely, pleasant”. 2530 is “(h+m+d): a prim. Root; to delight in;
beauty, greatly beloved, covet (desire eagerly); delectable (delightful,
pleasant) thing, desire, pleasant, precious”.
of all, it is to be noted that it is the sole place in the whole of the Heb.
Bible where this word “םחםדים” (M+H+M+D+I+M) has been used in its present
form and has nowhere else been used in the Bible in this form.
Secondly, the Hebrew word consists of six letters (m-h-m-d-i-m). The last
two letters (I,m) denote the plurality for majesty and honour. The word
“Elohim” (the Lord, God) is a very pertinent and relevant example of it. The
Jews are monotheist people and they believe in the unity of God. Still they
generally use the plural form of the word “Eloha”, i.e. “Elohim” as a
gesture of majesty and honour. There are other examples in the Bible as well
where this suffix has been used for the words other than “God”. The
preceding clause of this very verse (his mouth is “most sweet”) is a clear
example of it. Here the Hebrew word for “most sweet” is “םםתקים” (mamittaqim),
which is the plural of “mamittaq” and means “plural of sweet: sweets”. It
has been rendered as “most sweet” by the translators of the Bible, which
denotes the grandeur of quality and not the plurality of number. It
indicates that “His utterance (mouth) bears every kind of sweetness and
beauty in the most perfect form.” There are examples of a number of names of
places which have been given in the Bible in the plural or dual form,
whereas they stand for singular places, e. g. Mt. Gerizim, Mizraim, etc.
Thirdly, the Heb. Dictionary states that its primary root is “hmd” under
entry No. 2530. “Muhammad” is an adjectival passive participle from this
root, which means “Object of love and praise and liking”. Of course it is a
meaningful word, but here it has been used as a proper noun. It is a common
practice in the Bible that most of its proper nouns are meaningful words as
well. It is the context that ascertains whether the word has been used as a
proper noun or as a meaningful word.
passage under study, Solomon describes attributes of his beloved: he is
beautiful; he is powerful; he has such and such attributes; he belongs to
Arabia; his speech or the utterance of his mouth is most sweet; etc. The
listener would now naturally like to know his proper identity. That’s why
Solomon tells them “he is by all means Muhammad the Excellent [about whom I
have already told you that he is the inhabitant of Arabia].”
Fourthly, Muhammad being a meaningful word, the Prophet of Islam is out and
out Muhammad in true sense of the word. Its meanings in Hebrew have been
given above. In Arabic as well it has similar meanings. Edward W. Lane has
given its meanings as: “To approve; to be such as is praised, commended, and
approved”. He explains the word “Muhammad” as: “A man praised much, or
repeatedly, or time after time: (L.K.) endowed with many praiseworthy
Fifthly, some prominent Christian commentators of the Bible apply the words
“He is altogether lovely/desirable” to Jesus Christ. The Pulpit Commentary
asserts: Verse 16. “Altogether lovely [םחםדים וכלו (w+kull+u Mhmd+im)].” We
apply these words to the Lord Jesus Christ, and affirm that they are true of
him. (…), but Christ is the Beloved of all ages”.
“apply these words to the Lord Jesus Christ, and affirm that they are true
of him.” But on what ground? The words, spoken by Solomon in Hebrew,
pronounce: “wa kullu Muhammadim [this is the correct pronunciation of the
Hebrew words “םחםדים וכלו”]”. They mean: “He is altogether Muhammad the
Great and Magnificent”. To whom an impartial listener would apply these
words: to Muhammad or to Jesus Christ? It is, moreover, to be noted that
Solomon had just narrated the attributes of his “praised one” in this
passage in a fair detail which explicitly apply to Muhammad only and not to
Jesus Christ in any way.
Sixthly, the word “Muhammadim” (in the plural form for majesty) has been
used only once in the entire OT of the Bible. Besides this, it has been used
in the Hebrew Bible for nine times as a derivative of “חםד” (h+m+d). At all
these nine places it has been used in singular form and as a common noun. It
has neither been used with the sign of plurality “im”; nor it indicates a
proper noun at any of these places. At all those nine places the Hebrew
spellings of the word are “םחםד” (M+H+M+D). It can be pronounced in three
ways: “Mahmad”, or “Mahmud”, or “Muhammad”. The primary root of all these
three words is “חםד” (h+m+d) and the meanings of all these three forms are
similar: “lovely, desire/desired, object of praise, pleasant, delight, etc”.
At all those nine places the Hebrew word “םחםד” had either been “Mahmad” or
“Mahmud”, because here the context demands a meaningful word. Here it could
certainly not have been “Muhammad”, which is an Arabic word used as a proper
noun with the sign of “plurality for majesty”, i.e., “im”.
passage of the “Song” under discussion here, Solomon, after giving fairly
detailed attributes of his beloved from his uncle ancestor (Ishmael)’s
progeny, pronounces his actual proper name “Muhammad”, which, according to
the unvocalized consonantal alphabet, was inevitably to be written as “M+H+M+D”.
When there genuinely and physically exists an exact application of this
word, it is misleading to translate this proper noun or to apply it to Jesus
Bible, Authorized Version (also KJV, i.e. King James Version)– Song of
Songs, V: 10-16.
2. A short pictorial poem, chiefly on pastoral subjects; a story, episode,
or scene of happy innocence or rusticity; a work of art of like character
(Chambers Eng Dict.1989, 708).
3. Matt. Henry, An Exposition of the O&NT, vol. 4 (NY: Robert Carter &
Brothers, n.d), 851.
4. Michael H. Hart, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in
History, (NY City: Hart Publishing Co. Inc, n.d.), 33ff.
6. Matthew Henry, A Commentary to H. B., vol. 4, 851.
7. If the Christian scholars and commentators find it useful to their
purpose to attach some prediction to Jesus Christ, they do it without any
hesitation. If they do not find the requisite qualities in the NT of the
Bible, they fill up this lacuna by snatching such quality, features, event,
or beautiful details from some verse/verses of the OT of Bible, and then
attach it to Christ.
8. E. W. Lane has explained the words أَشْكَلُ الْعَيْنِ in his ‘Arabic
English Lexicon, 1588’ as follows:
(Qamus) A man is said to be أَشْكَلُ الْعَيْنِ meaning Having a redness, (‘Maghrib’
of El-Mutarrizee,) or the like of a redness, (‘Obab’ of Es-Saghanee,) in the
white of the eye : (‘Maghrib’ of El-Mutarrizee, ‘Obab’ of Es-Saghanee:) the
Prophet is said to have been أَشْكَلُ الْعَيْنِ: and it has been explained
as meaning long in the slit of the eye: (Qamus:) but Ibn Seedeh, author of
the ‘Muhkam’ says that this is extra-ordinary; and Mohammad Ibn-Et-Teiyib
El-Fasee, author of ‘Annotations on the Qamus’, [says] that the leading
authorities on the traditions consentaneously assert it to be pure mistake,
and inapplicable to the Prophet, even if lexicologically correct.
9. Sahih Muslim, Kitab. al-fada’il, Bab fi Sifah fam al-Nabi wa ‘Aynayhi,
10. Dr. Henry Stubbe, ibid., 158.
11. George Sale, Alkoran of Mohamed (London, Fredrick Warn and Co., n.d.),
The Preliminary Discourse, 47f.
12. W. Smith, A Dic. Of the B., 308 explains:
Jesus no doubt learned the carpenter’s trade of his reputed father Joseph,
and, as Joseph probably died before Jesus began his public ministry, he may
have contributed to the support of his mother.
13. C. R. Conder in J. Hasting’s Dic. of the B., Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark,
1903, vol. 2, 583.
14. The Bible-RSV, Galatians iv:24-26.
15. The Holy Qur’an xcv:3.
16. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Ed. Mary Gladstone etc. (Inter-Varsity
Press, 1980), part two 755, 56, 57.
17. W. Smith, A Dictionary of the B., (Michigan: Regency Reference Library,
18. The Qur’an, al-Naml, xxvii: 44.
19. The Qur’an, al-Baqarah ii:102.
20. N. J. Dawood’s Eng. Tr. Of the Qur’an, Revised by Mahmud Y. Zayid
(Beirut, Dar al-Choura, 1980), 11.