Talk:Muhammad and the Bible/Archive 1

Archive 1

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 sense, 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. Also, your version is not an even handed account of different points of view, but a series of declarations about what the Quran says, which is implied to be "the truth". Paul B (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Reduction of strife by clearer writing

What can we do to reduce the strife here? It would probably be useful to identify which particular statements people (especially Muslims) are having concerns about. While obviously we can't entertain edits that amount to Wikipedia saying in its own voice "there is only one God and Muhammad is His Prophet", there are probably things we can do to reduce WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:SOAPBOX editwarring.

Right off the bat, I can see people having issues with the word "claimed" in the lead sentence. From a scientific standpoint, all prophecies are simply claimed, so the word is arguably redundant, as it might be for "miracles", "revelations", "angels", "virgin birth" and a zillion other religious terms, at least if sentences are constructed carefully. Attribution should be enough. We can refer to "accounts" or "descriptions" of these things in religious scriptures, for example. There isn't anything doubtful about whether the account/description was present, and their presence in a religious text says nothing about whether they actually happened. If this messy construction actually means that the existence of these prophecies (by someone) isn't in doubt, and that they are (in the religious sense, not some proven to be actually predictive sense) prophecies, and that it's just their attribution to Muhammad that is at issue among scholars of the Abrahamic religion and/or among religious leaders and adherent, then this badly needs to be clarified. It is not necessary (see WP:LEAD) to retain the exact phrase "Muhammad in the Bible" and boldface it in the lead. This is not a WP:COMMONNAME title, it's WP-invented descriptive title (a form of disambiguation, in the broad sense; see WP:AT#Disambiguation). Thus, we are free to write whatever lead is necessary to convey what controversy this article has been written about and what the exact nature of it is. The first sentence should probably still contain "Muhammad" and "Bible", but other than that, rewrite for clarity over conformance with the phrase in the title.

Anyway, a problem-identification-and-solving approach to possible rewordings of things like "claimed prophecies" like this should be pursued for everything in this and similar articles that attracts revertwarring, I would think.

PS: The entire lead needs cleanup; if we're going to write as amateurishly as "expanded on these arguments and have argued to", why not go with "arguably expanded on these arguable arguments and are argued to have argued to want to arguing about"? >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Need for actual research or an AfD

The article is a heap of TF, OR and the mentioned literature is a series of fringy pamphlets. It confirms Karl-Heinz Ohlig idea about the Quuran including some nice copy and paste from the bible, especially with regard to the Messsias pprophecy, not the other way round. The article contains no actual research, its a collection of quotes, primary sopurcing at its worst. Take the long history of e.g. Abraham Geigers Quuran research, starting with his doctorate, take current scholars like Angelika Neuwirth or others, covering the use of biblical and pagan historical texts in the Quuran and the projection of the Jewish Messias prophecies in Islam. But avoid a mess of pedestrian area preachermen like this. This article in its current state is worthless and should be deleted. Polentarion Talk 19:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Qur'an and ahadeeth

As I'm just coming across this article, I'm not understanding why there are citation to the Qur'an and ahadeeth at the opening. This is about supposed mentions of Muhammad in the bible, and not a forum of comparison between the bible and Qur'an, even as a backdrop. I propose we delete it. Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Islamic bias?

"Some Christians say that the Comforter mentioned in these prophecies refers to the Holy Sprit. They fail to realise that the prophecy clearly says that only if Jesus departs will the Comforter come. The Bible states that the Holy Spirit was already present on earth before and during the time of Jesus, in the womb of Elizabeth, and again when Jesus was being baptised, etc. Hence this prophecy refers to none other than Muhammad." -- I'm a christian so I'm not 100% comfortable rewording this in a more secular way, if that makes sense, but it (and a couple of other places) could do with a tweak? FlannyBabes (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about there being any bias but I do note that the whole thing is taken from http://www.irf.net/mohammad_pbuh_in.html pretty much verbatim which is not good, for copyright reasons if nothing else. I must admit that I find the whole part close to being incomprehensible so I agree that it needs improvement but clearly I am not going to be able to do anything with it myself. One thing that might help is that we do already have an article Paraclete, which at the very least we should link to, which does cover the Islamic view of this subject in some detail and maybe can be called upon for a better summary and better references than we have here at present (but I'm not sure as I can't really understand that much either.) --DanielRigal (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Genesis, 49:10 (NASB)

This edit "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_in_the_Bible&diff=prev&oldid=807432306" should be reversed. The change was to a direct quotation of the NASB and introduces a direct quotation error. MetaEd (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. See consensus to rename this article as proposed. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  04:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Muhammad in the Bible → Muhammad and the Bible – More WP:NPOV than the current current title, seemingly implying position on its content. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Works for me. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• I like this idea. I have long disliked the current title (because it just sounds silly) but I couldn't think of anything better than something like "Claims of Muhammad in the Bible" or "Biblical prophesies believed to refer to Muhammad" which are both wordy and a bit lame. My mistake was to try to think of something more specific when I now see that the best approach is to be less specific. Lets go with "Muhammad and the Bible". --DanielRigal (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support makes more sense than "in the Bible", given that some groups, including the main body of Christianity, view him as not being in the Bible. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support a far better option. Lepricavark (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposed target Muhammad and the Bible should redirect to Muhammad's use of the Bible or Bible references in the Quran etc. @DanielRigal: @Iazyges: @Lepricavark: This article concerns (claimed) prophecies about Muhammad in the Bible so should be at prophecies about Muhammad in the Bible per WP:CRITERIA. The current title is misleading. We can't assume that all readers know that Muhammad was born after Jesus, and with those who do know it evidently will jarr. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Remember as well as article titles we have hatnotes to help too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Much better title than the current one. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unsourced and unreliable claims

Under the section of Isaiah 42, the article reads "Muslim authors, pointing to the similarity between the writing of "אתמך"(etmokh) and the writing of "אחמד" which is the name Ahmad, suggested that an intended distortion might have been done by the scribes of Scripture in the first verse of this chapter in order to hide the name of the Chosen Servant of God which is "אחמד" (Ahmad)."

Which Muslim author makes this claim? There is no citation. Furthermore, I'm not sure that Muslim apologetics should be included in this Wiki page. I'd propose removing this part entirely.

I've already cleaned up a bit of this page (there's tons of apologetic language, completely irrelevant information, etc). Another problem in this page is, as the box says on the top, an abundance of unreliable sources. A quick look at the bibliography turns up a book written by Ahmed Deedat. The publishers of the book, 'ideas4islam' seem to be totally obscure (I can't find them at all online) and certainly not academic. Reference to Deedat's work certainly violates WP:IRS. They should be removed as well.

EDIT: I took another look at the page and there's an entire section (a big one, at that) with absolutely no sources -- the 'People "with Muhammad" in the Bible' section. If no sources can be offered for this section either, it should be entirely removed. (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

This page has a real ongoing problem with unsourced and poorly sourced claims. I'd be happy to help clean it up. Alephb (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've already performed a number of edits. I just removed the references to Zakir Naik in this article. When this page quoted Genesis 49:10-11 from the NASB, it oddly left in the footnotes -- I removed this as well. Do you agree with removing the unreliable references to Deedat and completely removing the 'People with Muhammad in the Bible'? I ask this since I don't want to remove such a big chunk of the page (which is clearly very poor anyways) without some agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Deedat does not seem to show signs of being a reliable source on the Bible. Alephb (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

At this point, the article doesn't seem to be generally built around reliable sources, as a Wikipedia article should be. It just kind of throws bits and pieces from all kinds of apologists into a sort of disorders compilation. Probably the first step toward turning it into something like an acceptable Wikipedia article would be just pulling out a lot of the stuff not reliably sourced and seeing what is left. Alephb (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I've removed references to Deedat. I'll take these new comments from you as a thumbs up to remove the People "with Muhammad" in the Bible section of this page. In fact, looking over the section, it is utterly irrelevant to the topic of Muhammad in the Bible -- the entire section is about how prophets in the Old Testament supposedly "prayed like Muslims". As it turns out, this is just another point of Muslim rhetoric that isn't relevant to the page. And again, there are no citations.

Edit: I also gutted the entire "external links" section. All these links go to obscure/irrelevant Muslim apologetics sites/blogs and one of the links simply doesn't work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can't say that I've followed every edit you've made it detail, but so far what you're doing seems wholesome to me. Certainly the article is in desperate need of clean-up, and I'm glad to see someone attempting it. Alephb (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

One definite problem this article has is the amazingly unreliable sources. What's worse is that it's unbelievavly difficult to check many of these sources because of how badly the references are written. A source that's definitely unreliable, however, is David Benjamin Keldani, so I'll go ahead and remove him as well here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason to think of Keldani as a reliable source. He shows up all over the place in this article. Alephb (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been looking at the sources and it turns out this page is also chock-full of referencess to Izhar ul-Haqq written in the late 19th century by Rahmatullah Kairanawi. The book, which is actually several books (volumes) seems to be just one really long Muslim apologetic against Christianity, and so I'll summarily get rid of all that as well. Hopefully the references will begin looking a lot cleaner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

While that looks like it's probably a reasonable idea, it's a good idea to use edit summaries on all your edits, especially to a contentious topic like this one. I see that one of your recent edits, which you did not provide a summary for, was summarily reverted, likewise without an explanation. Alephb (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, that reverted edit of mine was a blunder. Anyways, my goal for the moment is that as I keep purging these unreliable sources, the reference list is going to look a lot more coherent and easier to look through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

A worthwhile goal. Alephb (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Quick question. Do you think 'Rahman, Afzalur. Muhammad: Encyclopaedia of Seerah - Volume 1' is a reliable source? If not, we can remove the entire Psalm 110 section since it's the only source available for that. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, as can be seen from a Google Search, Rahman's Encyclopedia of Seerah is a publication of "The Seerah Foundation". Scrolling around the Seerah Foundation's website shows pretty quickly that it's just an outlet for Rahman's works and some illustrated childrens books, mostly written by Suzanne Stone. It's a self-publishing outfit, so not a reliable source. Alephb (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. I had figured out it was a publication of the Seerah Foundation, though I wasn't able to evaluate anything about this. Can I also get your thoughts on Kais al-Alby's Prophet Muhammad: The last Messenger in the Bible ? This work makes up almost an eighth of all the remaining 40 citations.

Another point to make. We should be careful about some 'biased readers' of this page, let's say, trying to undo all the editing that we went through. A check on the edit history shows that someone tried to completely revert the page back to its original version (hence adding back over 25,000 characters) on the basis of "Do not remove muslim's point of view". Of course, Wikipedia is based on the perspective of reliable Muslim sources, not what random Muslim readers would like to see here. I should also add that I'm also starting some content into the page as well -- after the Muslim perspective is described for a particular passage in its relation to Muhammad, I've also provided summaries and references to the scholarly interpretation of the same text (I've done this for Isaiah 29:11-12 and the Parable of the Wicked Husbandman). [Edit: I've now also done this for Deuteronomy 18.] Anyways, do tell me what you think of the reliability of Kalby's work.

Update: The publisher of his book is Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc. This is certainly not a reliable publisher of any sort, so I'll remove Kalby's book. With it will go the section on Genesis 49 as he's the only source for it. I'm also going to remove references to Mundiqh as-Saqqar, yet another unreliable source with self-published books. Since yesterday, over 31,000 characters have been removed from the page (and a lot more than 31,000 unreliable charcters if you consider that I've also added several thousand characters worth of reliable information in the meanwhile)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

For whatever reason, there have been quite a few editors who have a favorite apologetic point that they stick in from some website or another. A great deal of it is IP editors, who are (no offense) often unfamiliar about Wikipedia ways, or just not interested. In this case, the IP restoring all the badly sourced/unsourced stuff was immediately reverted by another editor, so nothing to worry about there (for now).

I'm sort of curious how much will actually be left is the article is built around reliable sources, the way it should be. I've very glad you've done as much as you have. I'm generally more cautious with things like this and would remove one here, remove one there, and so on. Alephb (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Since you're curious about how much left is built around reliable sources, I'll give you my understanding so far (since I've been working on the references for so long). I've already purged three fourths of the bibliography and close two thirds of the references. There were something like 70 references, now there are 26. Five of those are my own addition -- all certainly reliable. There are still five references I'm skeptical of (10-14 and 16 as of this edit). I'm also not very happy at books like The Qur'an and the Gospels: A Comparative Study - a "reliable" source written by an expert (Abu Laylah) and published by Tughra Books -- of course, when you start reading it, you get references to the Gospel of Barnabas and other totally fringe nonsense.

Edit: Here's an interesting development. Abu Laylah's book is actually never referenced throughout the article, though it's in the bibliography. Should we remove it, or should we source the currently existing sections with it? Perhaps we can just leave it for now. I think a more useful pursuit with our time would be providing the scholarly interpretations of all passages that Muslims believe refer to Muhammad (I've already done half of them, but help would be appreciated -- I just added in a summary like this for Deuteronomy 33:2 though I forgot to add in an explanation in the edit summary).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe Abu Lay's Comparative Study is published by El-Falah Foundation, unless I'm mistaken. It's not "comparative religion" in the academic sense, though, but a religious tract, designed to teach Christians that the Bible clearly speaks about Muhammad. There's nothing to indicate the book has gone through any kind of peer-review, let alone proofreading, though it carries a recommendation in the front from the (anonymous) "El-Falah director". And it's WP:FRINGE, saying things like, "The Gospel of Barnabas also agrees with the Qur'an concerning the nature of Jesus' [sic] and his message. Unfortunately the church banned that gospel on the basis of their own reasoning" (38). While in fact the consensus position is that the Gospel of Barnabas is an obvious forgery.

I'm not sure what kind of argument could be made that this is a reliable source. Could it be that Al-Azhar has University in its title. But Al-Azhar is very much a religious institution, and on matters of Islam it's committed to a particular religious outlook, not on following the normal procedures of historical inquiry. Quoting it on Muslim matters would be less like quoting Oxford and more like quoting the Vatican on Catholic matters. It might be a great source on what mainstream Sunni Islam believes about the Bible; probably not a great source on what the Bible actually says. Alephb (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed the Gospel of Barnabas thing, though I had a little hope in me since there's almost not a single reliable source from the Muslim viewpoint written in the last century on the page when I began fixing it. Nevertheless, I agree with you. By the way, I also added the critical scholarly interpretation of Isaiah 42 under the Islamic interpretation. It looks pretty good to me.

The only reason I noticed the Gospel of Barnabas thing was because you pointed it out. I was more just quoting it out for the benefit of anyone else looking at the talk page. You're doing good work, and if I wasn't so consumed with family and work at this particular moment, I'd be contributing more. I should be able to keep plugging away here and there, but not at the kind of rate you're doing. Alephb (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I think I should summarize all the problems I see remaining at this point. There are two general ones.

1. Firstly, there's still no summary of the academic position on the interpretation of the Paraclete in John's Gospel. This should be added with several references.

2. Referencing.

a) There are three hadiths cited in the page. They are

• Al-Mustadrak 'ala al-Sahîhayn, Hadith number 4224
• "Hadith - Book of Dealing with people cheerfully - Al-Adab Al-Mufrad - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)". sunnah.com. Retrieved 2015-03-24.
• Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Virtues and Merits of the Prophet and his Companions, Chapter: The Seal of all the Prophets, Hadith number: 44

The problem is that there are so many editions and versions of the Hadiths that it's impossible for me to check over the veracity of any of these references for what they're being referenced for, or anyone, for that matter.

b) The only reference in the section for the Paraclete. This is it;

• Page 50 "As early as Ibn Ishaq (85-151 AH) the biographer of Muhammad, the Muslims identified the Paraclete - referred to in John's ... "to give his followers another Paraclete that may be with them forever" is none other than Muhammad."

The problem is ... page 50 of WHAT exactly? Certainly not clarified. I would normally delete this right away, but the problem is that this is the only reference in the entire Paraclete section. Now, normally yet again, this would just lead me to deleting the entire section, but the problem is that the Paraclete is, in my experience, the most often quoted 'prophecy' of Muhammad in the entire Bible. So here are the options I'm considering. Either I leave this section alone and it stays incoherent. That's one possibility. Or, I remove the entire thing and this Wikipedia page can just wait until someone with better sources can come and add it back. I'm leaning towards the second option. If the second option is chosen, that also solves having to deal with the first problem I mentioned (adding academic position on the Paraclete). Thoughts?

Update: Honestly, I'm just going to remove it. There really is no justification for keeping it on the page if there isn't a reliable source.

Update 2: The final problem is, then, the three Hadith references. Well, I made a lot of progress here. I fixed all the citations for all three of them so they actually look like coherent citations, and two of them have links directly to a page where anyone can see the Hadith. There's only one hadith I'm still having trouble with -- Al-Mustadrak alaa al-Sahihain, Hadith number 4224. The problem is that I can't find an English translation of it anywhere. What are we to do here?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

As for the Mustadrak collection, it is from Al-Hakim, born over 400 years after the prophet. As a hadith collection, it is something along the lines of "so-and-so heard from so-and-so who heard from so-and-so", leading back to the time of the prophet. Needless to say, a hadith collection is not a reliable source in the WP:RS sense of the term. And even within traditional hadith interpretation, there are multiple opinions on Al-Hakim.

So Al-Hakim is not a reliable source on what happened 400 years earlier. We'd need an actual historian for something like that. Al-Hakim is certainly not a reliable source on what Muhammad's wife Aisha believed. So I've struck the claim about Aisha's beliefs about Isaiah 42 until we can find a reliable source for that.

Certainly more work could be done, but I hope that helps. Alephb (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear God, Aleph, I've actually done it. I found a real, reliable source that isn't downright biased or incoherent (incoherent as in impossible to check the veracity of, like the citations to that Hadith and all of al-Samawal's references) on the Muslim perspective of prophecies on Muhammad! Here it is -- Ira Zepp's A Muslim Primer: Beginner's Guide to Islam, University of Arkansas Press, 2000, 50-51. It can be accessed on Google Books. It's only two pages, but that's still two pages more than the rest of what we've got. Apparently the author is a Christian, so I'm not worrying about bias here (and it's written rather well). It provides references for Isaiah 42, the Paraclete, and Haggai 2:7 -- a verse that isn't on the Wiki page yet (but is about to be). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad for the book find, but the practice here isn't to check for bias by looking at the authors religion. Christians, like Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and everyone else, are perfectly capable of writing nonsense. The good news is that it's a product of the University of Arkansas Press. References from universities are very likely good sources unless there's a compelling reason to believe otherwise.

I'm glad to see that there's reliable sources addressing the issue. I was sort of worried that the article might turn into a stub. Alephb (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think it's time to remove the box at the top of the page about the 'multiple issues'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Just had to say thanks to you guys for looking into this. And 70.49.181.61, please WP:INDENT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

No problemo. Just wanted to add that, almost incredibly, I've been able to find another three reliable sources for these prophetic interpretations in the last hour. All of them have been added into the article, so we just went from one real, modern scholarly source on these points in the entire article to four. That really strengthens the integrity of the article in my opinion. I also added the scholarly interpretation of the Paraclete passage, which, in my opinion, finally completes the page. 70.49.181.61 (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Return of incoherent information

@Editor2020:, I noticed you tried to bring all this information from the Paraclete article into the page. If you look at the edit history of the page from the last week, you'll realize it was all already there, and then removed, for several reasons, including 1) the swathe of incoherent citations and 2) the swathe of unreliable sources this section contains. If you want to make any specific addition from the Paraclete page, discuss them here first. In the meanwhile, I'm going to go to that page myself and start removing some of that information.70.49.181.61 (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

If you feel it shouldn't be there, take it out.Editor2020 (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Question

{{helpme}} Books of Ahmed Deedat, Rahmatullah Kairanawi are unreliable sources? Why? Should we remove them from reference? --Ahmad Kanik (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I've disabled the {{help me}} request, as it is more for questions about using Wikipedia rather than content questions. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ahmed Deedat is a Muslim missionary -- sourcing him would be like sourcing a priest. The author needs to have academic credentials and their work needs to be published in by a scholarly publisher. It doesn't look like Deedat and Kairanawi fit this description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Though they are experts, We should remove them. Muslim missionaries are not allowed --Ahmad Kanik (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The relevant Wikipedia policy page for determining who is "reliable" by Wikipedia standards is WP:RS. Alephb (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Ahmad, your attempt to add in these unreliable sources by Kalby and Deedat a second time -- with no explanation like the first time and this time after it was explained to you that they are not reliable -- has been reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.181.61 (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@70.49.181.61: You should use {{rs?}} and {{cn}} template without removing infornation and sources. Thank you. --Ahmad Kanik (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't. Please read the {{rs?}} link before misusing it. This template is used when it's questionable whether or not a source is reliable, and specifically states that if the statement based on the source does turn out to be, knowingly, unreliable, "the statement should be removed immediately." That's what the template says. You also clearly have no idea what {{cn}} says -- the template is for unsourced statements that require a source and do not currently have one. You're engaging in an WP:EDITWAR and if you bring back those sources again without convincing anyone here that they are, or might be, reliable, I'll take this to the edit warring noticeboard. Also, @Alephb:, I'd appreciate if I could drag you into this. 70.49.181.61 (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This is one of those disagreements that seems to come down to what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is about building articles around the information found in reliable sources, as outlined at WP:RS, among other places. Getting that right is important. Alephb (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: What do you think about this type of edits: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/869130413 -Ahmad Kanik (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

That edit is irrelevant to this discussion. Don't forget to look at the edit history, Primefac, since that big scary edit is actually just reverting an earlier edit by Editor2020 since it was full of unreliable and incoherent sources -- not to mention I created a subsection on this Talk Page with Editor2020 to discuss the nature of the sources with him to move forwards. 70.49.181.61 (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Update on my part: Editor2020 has just agreed with my reverting of his edit. 70.49.181.61 (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Qur'anic claims about Muhammad in the Bible

There should be a section in this page regarding the Qur'ans claims (and even Hadiths) of Muhammad being mentioned in the Bible. One such verse is Qur'an 7:157, there are others. I would add in the section myself but I'm not aware of any reliable sources to supplement such a section.

Something missing in the lead

The view of modern scholars. All in all, if the article is now reasonably stable (it may not be), it could be time to rewrite the lead per WP:LEAD and remove the banner. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I'll try working on it and repost it here to get your opinion before replacing the lead. 70.49.181.61 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've worked on the lead a little bit and added in the scholarly interpretation. There are three paragraphs in the lead, and the third one says the following;

"Some Muslim writers argue that expectations of forthcoming prophets existed within the Jewish community from before the lifetime of Jesus through to that of Muhammad, and that Muhammad was the final fulfillment of these expectations. Muslims consider Jesus and other biblical figures, such as Moses and David, as having laid the groundwork for Muhammad’s later efforts."

However, I don't see where any of this is explained later in the article, let alone has any citations. I suggest that this paragraph be removed. Thoughts?70.49.181.61 (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I haven't followed the changes in detail, but see good improvements. However this sentence is a bit hard to understand : "On the other hand, scholars have generally interpreted these verses as referring to the community of Israel or Yahweh's personal soteriological [never heard that word before] actions regarding the Israelite's or members of the faithful community.", and I think referreing to "Yahweh's personal actions" can be problematic. Alephb, any wisdom? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, "Several verses in the Quran, as well as several Hadiths, state that Muhammad is described in the Bible." doesn't seem to covered in the body. Of course, this needs secondary sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, "soteriological" is nerd-speak for "having to do with salvation". So "Yahweh's personal soteriological actions" is soemething like "Yahweh's own saving actions". Maybe Haggai 2:7 could be fit into this category, in which Haggai is describing a future scenario in which God makes Israel supreme over the other nations, and those nations bring tribute to Israel. I suppose one could maybe call this a "soteriological" action?

It would be nice if we could find a well-sourced statement that addresses the entire "reading-Muhammad-into-the-Bible" phenomenon. I'm sure I can guess what the mainstream scholarly position on this way of reading the Bible is, but it would be nice to have it citeable by a page number. Alephb (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean a nice citeable page that explains that the Islamic interpretation is not accepted by scholars? Well, I'd like a source clearly outlining that point as well, but I did a lot of searching and didn't find any -- scholars simply don't seem to be interested in writing anything about the Islamic interpretation and its contradiction to the scholarly one. But yeah, I'd like if that existed too. Though I did a ton of looking and found none.70.49.181.61 (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Or a nice citeable page that explains that the Islamic interpretation is accepted by scholars, and that these passages really are about Muhammad. Either way. Alephb (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

2019

Since it's content is about Islam and all, shouldn't there be the word Hazrat before his name and the abbreviation S.A.W (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) after? -- 09:27, 28 July 2019‎ 39.40.38.58

Wikipedia style is not to use such honorifics (linked somewhere from WP:MOS). AnonMoos (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Yep, MOS:ISLAMHON. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Pagemove

AntanO, please und this move, it's a bad idea. The article contains other views, even in the lead. Even if it was Islamic only it would probably be a bad idea, since there's no other articles on the topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The article has full of Islamic view. Can you point out some reliable Christian or Jewish view in this article? BTW, do not remove template. eg: Template:Citation_needed#How_to_respond_to_this_tag. --AntanO 14:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Earlier title indirectly says Muhammad was mentioned in the Bible. There is no such claim by Jewish or Christ scholars. If so, please add reliable source(s). Non-Islamic view tells him as antichrist, which is against Muslims' interpretation. Also, Deuteronomy 18:18-20 interpreted by Muslims that Muhammad was mentioned, but never by Jewish or Christ scholars. --AntanO 14:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• The article covers both favorable interpretations by Muslims and unfavorable interpretations by Christians. The new title is inaccurate and unnecessary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there anyone can show a single word "Muhammad" in Bible? If not, and if you tell in another way is interpretation. So, the article is Islamic claim/interpretation. --AntanO 17:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

What we can see in the Bible doesn't matter, in the WP-context that is WP:OR. This article is meant to be a summary of what reliable scholarly sources have written about the topic. It can probably be improved (though seems to be in a generally decent shape), but that is the aim. Whatever you or I thinks is in the Bible is beside the point, for this or any WP-article. And, "Muhammad was predicted in the Bible, as a forthcoming Antichrist, false prophet, or false Messiah" is a really strange Islamic claim/interpretation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If Bible doesn't matter, name it like Muhammad and the x or something good. Bible did not mention Muhammad as forthcoming Antichrist. It is interpretation. --AntanO 18:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

And there is nothing wrong with having well-sourced interpretation in an article like this, it fits well with "...and the Bible", someone made the connection. On WP, it's pretty much a given, since writing our own conclusions about bible-text is WP:OR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Islamic view should be address as Islamic view like Islamic views on Jesus' death. If not, it is POV. --AntanO 15:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

We can disagree to disagree on this too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've moved this back. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

That I agree with. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Don't do (move) without giving reason. I have clearly gave points. Talk page is to talk. --AntanO 15:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Reported at WP:ANI --AntanO 15:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@AntanO: You are the only user advocating the move to a title which demonstrably does not reflect the content of the article. Since other users did not agree with your move, if you are still interested you must seek consensus by proposing the move to the community. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Current consensus at Talk:Islamic_view_on_Muhammad_and_the_Bible#Requested_move_1_April_2018. Consensus can change, but so far it hasn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

If the move was wrong, tell me. I have given reasons already. --AntanO 15:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Read WP:MOVE and WP:NDESC --AntanO 15:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing in those guides that overrides what User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång and I have already told you about why your title does not reflect the article content or sources. You must propose a move and gain a broader consensus if you are interested in pursuing this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is full of Islamic doctrine through Islamic scholars. It is moved to right name. So what is your problem? Islamic view cannot identify Biblical view since Bible never mention single word about Muhammad. It is all Islamic doctrine. Do I want repeat it again and again? --AntanO 03:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Previous title should have tagged with POV and OR. I already told you reasons. Don't repeat without fact. Don't claim Islamic view as Biblical claim. If you do so, that against EV. --AntanO 03:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@AntanO: What about our previous explanations was confusing to you? The article very clearly and explicitly contains both Christian and Muslim views on potential references to Muhammad in the Bible. It's full of high-quality references. No one's personal beliefs about whether or not the Bible truly referred to Muhammad as either a good guy or a bad guy are relevant here. What is it that you still need clarified? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Islamic view claims that M was mentioned in the Bible, but Christian view never said like that or accept it. It talks about who M is and interpret Bible verses. So, both are different views and not support the objective (Islamic view) of the article. In this article, Christian interpretation isn't necessary or shorten and link to Medieval Christian views on Muhammad. Do you get my point? --AntanO 11:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@AntanO: Do you have any interest in or intention of complying with policy here around forming consensus for moves? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Why do you divert or avoid to answer? BTW, do you have any interest or intention? Read WP:CNN. So a better explanation is better than consensus. --AntanO 16:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Consensus is not solely about numbers, but "consensus is not numbers" is also not a license to continue edit-warring an idiosyncratic perspective through indefinitely. If you believe that consensus is on your side, propose a page move, and an administrator or uninvolved user will assess the consensus of the community as to your proposal. Do not follow through on your intention to edit-war your inaccurate title through to kingdom come. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Gospel of Barnabas

Gospel of Barnabas is not Bible. This section has to be removed or moved to suitable article. --AntanO 15:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems that the argument from argumenters is that it was part of the "actual" Bible. This is probably nonsense per mainstream scholarship but it makes it a part of the topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This is Bible, which is common usage, and it does not include Gospel of Barnabas. This is common sense, not nonsense. --AntanO 17:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The topic is "Muhammad and the Bible" and that includes what reliable sources has written on the topic. If they have mentioned GoB in this context, it's fine to have it in this article. Now, I haven't checked what the references actually say, but at a glance they seem to be good refs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It would be good if you write Muhammad and Gospel of Barnabas. Do not mixed it with Bible since the Gospel of Barnabas not part of Bible as per common sense. --AntanO 18:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you're reading the title to narrowly (see the "Requested move 1 April 2018" discussion above for a little context). The argument is that GoB is Biblical apocrypha, that is close enough. But we can disagree to disagree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, you could start an article Muhammad and the Biblical apocrypha. Otherwise, it could be WP:AWW. --AntanO 15:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Reported at WP:ANI. You can't remove tag unless it solved. You just stopped discussion and removed tag! --AntanO 15:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Revert

Removed this passage because it is uncited, implausible, and irrelevant: "Another Christian objection to the claim that Muhammad is prophesied in Isaiah 42 is that in the Quran Chapter 7, verse 157, it says Muhammad is mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel. However, the Torah is only the five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri and Deuteronomy). Isaiah is not part of the Torah." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Further

If you like to add Christian objection about Islamic view on Muhammad in the Bible, read Is Muhammad Mentioned in the Bible?. BTW, does Muslim accept Bible as reliable? --AntanO 12:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source. Moreover, I will reiterate that this article does not care about whether or not Muhammad was mentioned in the Bible in some objectively true sense. It is about interpretations of the Bible according to which Christians have believed that Muhammad was mentioned as a villain, and Muslims have believed that Muhammad was mentioned as a hero. I don't know how many other ways I can phrase this for you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Does Muslim accept Bible as reliable? --AntanO 16:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It probably depends on the muslim. The Qurʾan mentions the word Torah eighteen times, and confirms that it was the Word of God. But off-topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

AntanO -- The number of your sentence is distinctly odd (should be "Do Muslims..."). Anyway, the traditional view is that if the Bible contradicts the Qur'an in any way, then ipso facto it must be corrupt... AnonMoos (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't need your free grammar class. Mind your language. --AntanO 17:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Structure

Roscelese, it struck me now that it would make an amount of sense to make it

• Biblical verses claimed to be prophecies of Muhammad (Or maybe "Biblical verses claimed to mention Muhammad")
  • Islam
  • Christianty
  • Currently non-existant but potential others (there may not be any).

Perhaps GoB could be folded into the Islam-section. Opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the current organization of "Biblical verses" vs. "Christian views" doesn't make much sense since obviously the latter are also citing biblical verses. I'm indifferent as to whether or not the top-level organization is by source or by religion. Good catch. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"By source", do you mean having sections like Al-Samawal al-Maghribi, Martin Luther etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I mean like which verse/book, sorry. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I had a go at it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I think skipping the verse-by-verse subsection style would be a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hm, nothing against you, but now that I'm actually looking at it, I think it probably did make more sense to organize it by which religion. Maybe if we roll that back and just rename the "Biblical verses" section something more appropriate, like "Islamic views"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I liked mixing the religions up in brotherly harmony (it would be great if we could add a Bahai, Judaism or other opinion), actually you inspired it, but do as you think is best. Since both religions find Muhammed in both OT and NT, I like the general current structure, it feels inviting. The Bible is the foundation, what people do with it is secondary, something like that. And GoB fits a little better. I'd like to hear the opinion of Alephb and 70.49.181.61, but both seem to have buggered off. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I think just in terms of what the article is about, and making sure people can use it in a productive way, it makes more sense to organize it by religion - I fundamentally don't agree that "what people do with it is secondary," that's what the article is about, honestly. We could check others' opinions, though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with either, perhaps some watchers will chime in. Or is it worth the bother of an RFC? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Either way, "Canonical gospels" should also be under "Biblical texts claimed". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I think if you don't mind, then there's no need for an rfc. I can implement something later. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, I moved Canonical gospels to team Islam. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Issues

The article has some issues as it tagged. Whoever, object or like to improve the article can talk here. --AntanO 18:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Above sub-heading has more points (Refer Pagemove, Gospel of Barnabas and Further)--AntanO 18:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone need more explanations? Do I want to tell again? Feel free to express your view. --AntanO 19:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

//18:18 in his book Confutation of the Jews as a prophecy fulfilled by Muhammad.// It just mentioned prophecy fulfilled by Muhammad, but it failed to say how. Likewise, the article is full of POV, and not in EV standard. --AntanO 19:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to WP:TAGBOMB an article with random tags until you get your way. The article is not written from the POV of a "fan" and you have demonstrated no neutrality issues. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I have given reasons why it is POV and other issues. If I am wrong, point out reasons than suspecting user. WP:FAITH. If you can't give valid reason or not aware of the subject, you should learn and let others, who know subject can discuss. Similar issue found at Alexander the Great in the Quran. Why? Because Islamic "scholars" would like to to convert all into their theory. You could do outside, but not sure in Wiki. BTW, give me reasons against my questions? (I just started a few points and would give more once they solved). --AntanO 03:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Fans of what, bibles? POV-writing is in the line of "Muslim scholars have proven that the Bible foretells the coming of Muhammad" or "Luther shows that the Antichrist in NT is Muhammad". Describing these views through WP:RS is not in itself NPOV problems, nor is having more stuff about the Islam-side, if it's their "thing" it's not odd there's more written about it. "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If there are sources talking about the subject that are missing, bring them. If they don't exist, it's not a WP:NEUTRAL problem.

The mainstream position is that prophesies don't work, other than by generous interpretation, coincidence or like GoB, written after the fact. This is so obvious it's not mentioned here, but can be found elsewhere. If there are good sources that state "These interpretations about M are wrong or have changed" we can add them, but as indicated at Talk:Muhammad_and_the_Bible#Something_missing_in_the_lead, there may not be many scholars who thought it worth their time to write that, so we'll use what we've got. I don't see any article-wide glaring WP:OR either.

So, agree with Roscelese, tags are not appropriate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

"I have given reasons why it is POV and other issues." - you've made it clear that your "reasons" are that you personally don't subscribe to Islam. Do you have any policy-compliant "reasons"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

There are many things to discuss. I go by one by one (just 3 for now). 1. Did M mentioned in Bible? 2. Did Christianity accept M mentioned in Bile (Remember "Medieval Christian views on Muhammad" says Medieval)? 3. As you said These interpretations about M are wrong or have changed we can add them. Can we add Is Muhammad Mentioned in the Bible? --AntanO 17:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

1. Did M mentioned in Bible? Did you mean "Is M mentioned in Bible?" According to for example Martin Luther and others, yes.

2. Did Christianity accept M mentioned in Bile? "Christianity accept" has no meaining, Christianity is diverse and varied, some Christians thought/thinks one thing, some another. Again, Christians have said M is mentioned in the Bible. Possibly other Christians has said the opposite. Perhaps there are those that are not sure. Also, what Christians think is only part of this topic.

3. I'd say based on What We Believe: God exists, and man can know that God exists, by means of His manifold revelations, both in nature and through the inspired Word of God, the Holy Bible. The 66 books of the Bible are fully and verbally inspired of God, and have been transmitted faithfully; hence, they are inerrant and authoritative, and a complete guide for moral and religious conduct. that it's a source to be avoided, it is not a site that has a scholarly purpose (from the WP-perspective). But that is my opinion, check at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Can you/we clearly mention in the intro that "M is not directly mentioned in the Bible" but according... so and so?
• //"Christianity accept" has no meaining// Fine. But you can title as Islamic view or something.
• some Christians thought/thinks one thing, some another - Why can't you mention?
• Intro says Bible presaged his birth, teachings, and death But, I do not find supportive reference for them. What to do? --AntanO 17:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

On this last point, per my reading this is not that clear from the body of the article. Is it possible we actually agree on something? I made this [4] change, is that better? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

"Fine. But you can title as Islamic view or something. " - No, once again, we are not going to do this because the article includes both Christian and Muslim views on potential references to Muhammad in the Bible. Such a change would be nonsensical. GGS, I agree that the Apologetics Press source is not quality. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

"Can you/we clearly mention in the intro that "M is not directly mentioned in the Bible" but according... so and so?" The WP:LEAD states "Arguments that..." and "have interpreted..." IMO this is clear enough. Compare "Christians of the time designated Jesus as "the Christ" because they believed him to be the Messiah, whose arrival is prophesied in the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament." in Jesus. M is not mentioned in B by name because he was born centuries after it was written, also the languages are slightly different. But this, while not WP:BLUESKY, is so obvious that I don't know an RS that have bothered to point it out. If you find one, put it in the article.

"* some Christians thought/thinks one thing, some another - Why can't you mention?" Did not get that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

First, you have to see that this article is written in Islamic view and references supported with Muslim scholars. Then, POV added, and you can see HERE how it was changing by adding, deleting, twisting, etc. When I questioned only, you change some POVs which tell how you like to develop this article. Again, I tell you remove Christian view which is already mentioned in another article. Rename to suitable title and remove POV portion and have a neutral article. If not, let's talk :) --AntanO 03:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

What I understand of what you have written, I generally disagree with. You should also have a sense by now, from the three editors that have made the effort to write you replies, that your views and suggestions have little support on this article. There's probably some watchers but they are quiet for the moment. Consider WP:DROPTHESTICK. Unless anything changes, I will remove the "problem" banners in a few days, if they are still there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You cannot remove unless it solved. You avoids my question. If you want, i can list again. --AntanO 02:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Both of you just "disagree" without reasons. Give me valid reasons than logical play. Why can't you approach the article as per EV than religious doctrine? Don't baptize M into Bible since Islam disagree with Bible, but insert their ideology into Bible! --AntanO 03:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Both of you are not supportive to discussion. Eg: You have vandalized/change "Christian view" and shifted "Gospel of Barnabas" and removed tag too. This makes chaos and edit war. I cannot follow an order of discussion than jumping here to there due to your own style of editing, and it makes more POV! --AntanO 03:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Like your edit here [5], much of what you write is ungrammatical, often to the point that your meaning is very unclear. This makes it probable that you don't fully understand the replies you get on this talkpage either. That you declare that you haven't been given valid reasons does not mean that you haven't been given valid reasons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Do not come to the conclusion that I do not understand English or theology. Maybe, you can check out my contribution where I failed to pass English 'exam'. If there is grammar or spelling mistake/error, you can correct, tag or leave. I would request you to focus on the discussion rather than finding error on my language and theology. I have potential to find errors on you. but I am here to discuss and create article with EV. --AntanO 09:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

EV? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Value--AntanO 14:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I have seen that you have done some meaningful edits (It was on my list). If you really like to develop, we can discuss and impove the article (not to favor any religion). --AntanO 14:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I've belatedly removed these random, frivolous tags. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I support this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Isaiah and illiteracy

I'm finding sources that indicate that this is a thing people believe (that Isaiah 29:11-12 on the sealed book and the illiterate dude is a prophecy of Muhammad being illiterate) but nothing of citable quality. Just wanted to mention it on talk in case anything does turn up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Gospel of Barnabas

Could use some sources about what muslim scholars claims about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits 2

Roscelese, Materialscientist, I'd like your input on the edits by Piers77. I find the extensive changes, removal of Christian views from the lead, un-reffed additions and possibly the change of Bible-translation for some reason problematic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I think some of the changes to the lede are improvements and some are not. The new first paragraph is better overall, but I don't think the second and third (the quotation, and the Dead Sea Scrolls) bit are necessary, and it also needs to be clear in the first paragraph that we're talking about verses of the Bible, not the Quran!! I also agree that Christian views should be mentioned in the lede.

As I mentioned in a previous discussion, I believe that it is preferable to organize the article at the top level by Muslim and Christian views. Although sources may indicate that Muslim views are the most prominent thing to discuss in this article, it is confusing if the organization is not consistent and if there's a section on Christian views that isn't mentioned or alluded to in the lede at all.

Both versions of the article are overreliant on primary sources, but it seems (I could be mistaken) like this is slightly more of an issue with the new version. @Piers77:, a lot of your changes lacked edit summaries; can you talk about why you made some of these changes? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys! firstly, the Muslim belief that "Muhammad's coming was foretold by the other prophet of Islam (including Jesus), and that these prophecies can be found in the Bible, is a fundamental part of Islamic theology. It is rooted in the text of several Quranic verses as I noted in the article. It is also mentioned in many Hadiths. Moreover, the biographies of Muhammad that were written by Muslim scholars maintained that he was seen by the people of Medina as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies about the "long awaited Prophet of the Jews". This was a critical point from Muslims' point of view, because the people of Mecca and Taif, who didn't have knowledge of the Jewish Scripture, refused to believe in Muhammad. A reflection of what Jesus said: "No prophet is honored in his own hometown". On the other hand, the general view among Christians is that Muhammad is not mentioned at all. This is the mainstream view among them. The ones who say, from time to time, that he is mentioned here or there are generally seen by Christians themselves as proponents of fringe theories.

Secondly, why did I use the translation provided by Brenton Septuagint Translation of Deuteronomy 18:15 and Deuteronomy 18:18 instead of the translation provided by New American Standard Bible. Why did I do that? I would actually love to answer this question because I am really angry of how the translators of New American Standard Bible provided a dishonest translation of the original text in Hebrew of Deuteronomy 18:15 and Deuteronomy 18:18. This is a standing example (in front of all of us) of Tahrif (which means: alteration of the Scripture) that is being practiced by many Christians translating the Bible to English and other languages. I checked the original text in Hebrew of Deuteronomy 18:15: I noticed that the phrase "from among you" which appears in New American Standard Bible's translation doesn't appear in the original text in Hebrew. I also noticed that the phrase "from among their countrymen" which appears in New American Standard Bible's translation of Deuteronomy 18:18 doesn't appear in the original text in Hebrew. As a result, I used Brenton Septuagint's translation of these verses, because their translation is more accurate.

I also added the entire passage of the prophecy in Deuteronomy 18, because all the passage is relevant.--Piers77 (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea if you're right about translation from Hebrew or not, hopefully other editors can comment on that. My basic position is that the newer translation is easier to read for most readers, and that it's generally a bad idea to switch bible-translations in WP-articles, it gives the impression of some sort of King James Only movement POV. But again, you may be right. I've re-instated the "Muslim interpretation" heading and a little non-muslim commentary in the lead. The subject is probably more written about in islamic sources, but it is still interpretation. The article would probably benefit from interested editors checking that refs support content. There's too much "some Muslim scholars". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, the stronger statement "fundamental part of Islamic theology" would be better with some really good sources to back it up. The earlier "have formed part of Muslim tradition from the early history" sounds more plausible IMO (Islam/Islamic theology hardly mentions "bible"), but if there's good sources there's no problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Also again, the first sentence in this article should mention the Bible. The new version sounds like the topic has changed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

And of course, though this is not a new problem, the article lacks mention of the view of moderns scholars, there's only the Muslim/Christian thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Piers77, I see you provided refs for "fundamental", excellent. Will you please also per WP:NONENG also provide, in the citation, relevant translation? Also good if you could do that with other non-english refs in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång:, May I propose a different introductory paragraph, since the topic applies to both Muslim and Christian perspectives. As of now, the article seems skewed towards to Islamic perspective since it begins with "The belief that Muhammad was the "long awaited Prophet" prophesied by other prophets of Islam in the Bible is a ..." "The belief" fails to identify it as a Muslim view, and then proceeds to mention that Muhammad was prophesized by "other prophets of Islam in the Bible." The wording and sentence structure seems, in my view, to present it as a generally accepted view.

Here is my suggestion:

Both Muslim and Christian sources alledge that Muhammad was prophesized in the Bible for different reasons, such as the Muslim perspective of Muhammad's forthcoming to the Christian perspective of Muhammad being the anti-christ.

Muslims believe that Muhammad was the "long awaited Prophet" prophesied by other prophets of Islam in the Bible, and is a fundamental part of Islamic theology that traces its roots to the text of the Quran.

Modifications to my proposed introductory paragraph are welcomed and encouraged. ChaoticTexan (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Though the lead probably can be improved (I'm not sure "fundamental part of Islamic theology" is right), it's not surprising that there's more Islam in the WP:LEAD, see the rest of the article. It's mostly their "thing", not a 50/50 split. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, as of now it does seem more heavy towards Islam, although there are various Christian apologetics that interpret Muhammad similarly to those mentioned in the Christian interpretation. Both perspectives could definitely be expanded. Would it be appropriate to add scholary (theological/biblical studies) views on the Muslim interpretation? ('not necessarily a direct response to the Muslim view, it would be more general interpretations for said verses in Christianity since it is the bible the article is referencing'). Something about the introduction seems very leading into the Muslim perspective, instead of presenting it neutrally (in my opinion). I also agree that it being a fundamental part of Islamic theology is not appropriate. This seems to be within the area of Muslim apologetics as opposed to generally discussed theological views within the religion as a whole. ChaoticTexan (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Personally I thought the lead in this version was ok: [6]. Sources are tricky in this area, (see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2020_June_21#Muhammad_and_the_Bible) ideally the WP:RS we use should both adress the topic directly, otherwise we're in the WP:OR, and clearly show "in-universe" views as such (as in "Religionist X says Y"). And if we could find good sources for other perspectives than C and I, that would be good to include (Jewish, Bahai, Marxist, etc). I'm also interested in sources on the modern C perspective, for instance has any of the more recent popes said anything? What does todays Lutherans and Ortodox teach? Does Justin Welby have an opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The lead you referenced is actually excellent, I would be in an agreement to remove the current one and replace it with that. I'll try to research more perspectives, although I am doubtful it exist outside of Islam and Christianity. The issue with either is that they utilize sources that repeat points from the religion. So even if it is "scholarly" it is still rellying on the religious interpretation. Example, if someone references Islamic studies from a notable institution like Oxford, there is a good chance that the study is only repeating the Islamic view as opposed to criticizing/analyzing it from a neutral point of view. Although I would also be interested in secular views on the same verses, there are plenty of irreligious scholars with biblical studies. ChaoticTexan (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible: From Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm

[7] May have something useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I will check it out. Thanks for sharing!--Piers77 (talk) 05:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

reverting Islamicizing edits of Piers77

The Islamicizing edits of the user Piers77, an account created a few weeks ago with the sole purpose (according to their edit history) of bringing this page in line with Islamic orthodoxy, have been entirely removed. Editshmedt (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The following is clear documentation that Piers77 has excised any scholarly critiques of his Islamic beliefs that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible. My reversion of Piers77 edits can be found here and reveal the following:

1. Piers77 removed the section that said "Scholars consider that the poem [of Deut. 33:2] serves as a Yahwistic declaration for the blessing of the future of Israel as a socially unified whole that will benefit and prosper through YHWH's beneficence. The poem relates YHWH's movement from the south from Mount Sinai, the mountain where He resides, to His entrance on the scene as a "formidable invading force."" Clearly, the scholarly interpretation per Brueggeman's work is incompatible with reading Muhammad into a text that didn't include him to begin with.

2. Piers77 removed the section that said "In 1892, Isaiah 42:1-4 was first identified by Bernhard Duhm as one of the Servant songs in the Book of Isaiah, along with Is. 49:1-6; Is. 50:4-7; and Is. 52:13-53:12. The Old Testament identifies the servant of the Servant songs as the Israelite's in Is. 41:8-9; Is. 44:1; Is. 44:21; Is. 45:4; Is. 48:20 and Is. 49:3. John Barton and John Muddiman write that "The idea of a 'servant' played a small part in the earlier chapters, being used as a designation of the unworthy Eliakim in 22:20 and of the figure of David in 37:35, but it now comes to the fore as a description of major significance, the noun being used more than 20 times in chs. 40-55. Its first usage is obviously important in establishing the sense in which we are to understand it, and here it is clear that the community of Israel/Jacob is so described." The reason why Piers77 removed the scholarly interpretation of Isaiah 42 is clear. The servant is Israel, not Muhammad. Just like Christian apologists, Piers77 wishes to insert their prophet into a text which includes no such thing.

3. Piers77 edits are chock full drowned in Islamic apologetism and includes no discussion of recent scholarship. For example, Piers77 cites Munqidh Bin Mahmoud Assaqqar's The Promised Prophet of the Bible (2007). Scrolling through the removed parts of Piers77 edits, there are literally tons of Arabic language books written by Islamic clerics on the topic.

And it goes on and on. I'd rather Piers77 Islamicizing edits be excluded completely from here on out.Editshmedt (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I have also reverted Piers77 attempt to remove the scholarly translation of Deut. 18 with the Brenton Septuagint Translation, a translation that is over 150 years old, predates the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and virtually all modern scholarship on textual criticism. Not only that, but this isn't even a translation of the Hebrew Bible, it's a translation of the Septuagint. So, why exactly did Piers77 remove modern scholarly translations of Deut. 18 and replace it with a 150 year old outdated translation of a text that isn't even the Hebrew Bible? Simple - he's Islamicizing edits. The problem for Piers77 is that all modern scholarly translators state that Deut. 18 is speaking about a prophet being raised from "among your [Moses's] people" - i.e. the Israelite's. This is a big problem for Piers77 because it means that the consensus of modern scholarly translations of the original language of the text don't allow Muhammad to be forced into the text. Unable to read Hebrew himself or cope with this, Piers77 simply declares earlier in this talk page that modern scholarly translators are ... lying. He writes "I am really angry of how the translators of New American Standard Bible provided a dishonest translation of the original text in Hebrew of Deuteronomy 18:15 and Deuteronomy 18:18." As I noted earlier, I'd rather Piers77 Islamicizing edits be excluded completely from here on out.Editshmedt (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Piers77: Please respond or we will take it as consensus to revert your edits, and to reinstate what is suggested above.. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Introduction Change

The introduction to this article is very leading into the Muslim perspective instead of presenting the information from a neutral point of view. This discussion is meant to develop and improve on a proposed previous version that states the Muslim and Christian views plainly, instead of seemingly assuming perspectives as being objective. When they are both subjective.

Current Version

"The belief that Muhammad was the "long awaited Prophet" prophesied by other prophets of Islam in the Bible is a fundamental part of Islamic theology that traces its roots to the text of the Quran.[1][2] Quran 3:81, Quran 7:157, and Quran 48:29 are often cited in this context. Quran 61:6 says that Jesus himself brought good news about the close advent of Muhammad. Muslim historians and hagiographers (such as Ibn Ishaq) maintained that the people of Medina accepted Islam because of their awareness of these prophecies, and because they saw Muhammad as fulfilling them.[3] The messianic prophecy in Isaiah 42 about the "Chosen One of God" rising among the children of Qedar in mount Sela was cited by Muhammad's own companion Abd Allah ibn Amr.[4][5]

Christians like John of Damascus and John Calvin argued that Muhammad was the Antichrist or a false prophet.[6]"

"The belief that Muhammad was the "long awaited Prophet" prophesied by other prophets of Islam in the Bible is a fundamental part of Islamic theology that traces its roots to the text of the Quran" --- This fails to identify the belief as a muslim perspective, and proceeds to present the Muslim perspective as seemingly objective due to the poor sentence structure with "Muhammad was the "long awaited Prophet" prophesied by other prophets of Islam in the Bible."

This was a previous version that acknowledges both the Muslim perspective and Christian view on the discussed verses. Although modifications to this and citations are encouraged and welcomed.

Previous/Proposed Version

"Arguments that prophecies of Muhammad exists in the Bible have formed part of Muslim tradition from the early history of Muhammad's Ummah (Arabic: أُمَّة‎, community).[1] Christians like John of Damascus and John Calvin have interpreted Muhammad as being the Antichrist of the New Testament. The name "Muhammad" does not occur in the Bible.

Muslim writers have expanded on these viewpoints and have argued that they can specifically identify references to Muhammad in the text of the Bible, both in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and in the Christian New Testament. Several verses in the Quran, as well as several Hadiths, state that Muhammad is described in the Bible. On the other hand, scholars have generally interpreted these verses as referring to the community of Israel or Yahweh's personal soteriological actions regarding the Israelites or members of the faithful community. The apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas, which explicitly mentions Muhammad, is widely recognized by scholars as a fabrication from the Early Modern Age. Some Muslim scholars also claimed Paraclete (Greek New Testament) as Muhammad, which also has been criticised and rejected by scholars."

For the part of "The name "Muhammad" does not occur in the Bible." I would propose a modification that specifies that sentence for the english language. Although another sentence can be added refererring to the Muslim POV alledging that the meanings associated with Muhammad are believed to be in the bible. Hence the lack of "Muhammad" in english.

For the portion that mentions scholars have generally interpreted these verses as referring to the community of Israel or Yahweh's personal soteriological actions regarding the Israelites or members of the faithful community which was uncited in the previous version, it would be good to incorporate biblical scholastic views from possibly secular and or academic Christian studies if applicable as a replacement. ChaoticTexan (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The old lead is definitely far better than the one that currently exists, which is obviously a product of Islamicizing editors on Wikipedia. I will restore this previous version and account for the modifications you propose. Another reason for removing the current lead as it exists is the fact that all its citations are unreliable - either going to Arabic language books or obscure blogs. Editshmedt (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Arabic language books are not bad in themself per WP:NOENG, there may be excellent sources in arabic, but I can't read them so I have no opinion on if they're WP:RS or not. It could be helpful if those who wish to use them as refs provided translations of the relevant parts. Also, I don't think refs in the article supports lead text "Many Christians throughout history, such as John of Damascus and John Calvin" as in this [8] version. Let's not overdo it. Otherwise, I liked the old version better, since I think "fundamental part" is exageration. However, I know that Roscelese mentioned part of the new lead they liked somewhere above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right, they're not bad in and of themselves, but I've seen no effort by anyone adding in these books to demonstrate their reliability. Thus, until they can be shown to be WP:RS, we should not default assume they are. I agree that "Many Christians throughout history" can be changed, I would say to "A number of Christians throughout history". Otherwise, I do advocate returning to this version.Editshmedt (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, it can do with wikilinks and 2-3 paragraphs like in this version [9]. However, stuff like "On the other hand, scholars have generally interpreted these verses as referring to the community of Israel or Yahweh's personal soteriological actions regarding the Israelites or members of the faithful community" and "Some Muslim scholars also claimed Paraclete (Greek New Testament) as Muhammad, which also has been criticised and rejected by scholars." has little (if any) support in the article, since it's almost entirely in-universe Islam/Christianity stuff. Possibly because nobody has found any other scholarship (and we shouldn't go WP:SYNTHing).

I can't even find a WP:RS for "the name "Muhammad" does not occur in the Bible" or the position "Muhammad is not mentioned in the Bible, because it was written before he was born". It's quite annoying. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging ChaoticTexan so you know there's some talking. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, the phrase "Muhammad's name is not in the Bible", while obviously true, is, I admit, of little consequence in and of itself, and so I have no issue excising it. However, you would be wrong to suggest that the quote beginning with "On the other hand" is not supported within the page. See the sections on Deut. 33:2; Is. 42 in the page. Most of the sections in this page need to be removed anyways because they're either based on unreliable sources or no sources at all. You're right that scholars haven't specifically commented on the paraclete identification and rejected it, but since there is abundant citation that the paraclete has been identified as the Holy Spirit, we can change this phrasing to "Some Muslim scholars also claim the Paraclete as Muhammad, but scholars understand the Paraclete to the Holy Spirit." Overall, the following can be the new lead accounting for these changes;

"Arguments that prophecies of Muhammad exists in the Bible have formed part of Muslim tradition from the early history of Muhammad's Ummah (Arabic: أُمَّة‎, community).[1] A number of Christians throughout history, such as John of Damascus and John Calvin, have interpreted Muhammad as being the Antichrist of the New Testament.[2][3] Muslim writers have argued that a number of specific passages within the biblical text can be specifically identified as references to Muhammad, both in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and in the Christian New Testament. Several verses in the Quran, as well as several Hadiths, state that Muhammad is described in the Bible. On the other hand, scholars have generally interpreted these verses as referring to the community of Israel or Yahweh's personal soteriological actions regarding the Israelites or members of the faithful community, such as in the cases of Isaiah 42. The apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas, which explicitly mentions Muhammad, is widely recognized by scholars as a fabrication from the Early Modern Age.[4][5][6] Some Muslim scholars also claimed Paraclete (Greek New Testament) as Muhammad, although scholars identify the Paraclete with the Holy Spirit."

To my knowledge, this incorporates all the criticisms thus far.Editshmedt (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification! I agree that the "Many Christians throughout history" can be modified. As previously mentioned in other discussions, this article is complex since it does rely heavily on religious perspectives, and utilizes sources that regurgitate said perspectives. With that being said, I could not find reliable sources online, even the "'research'" posted on academia.edu regarding "Muhammad in the bible" is obviously biased. One research work has (pbuh) after Muhammad's and Jesus' names. Would it be possible to mention something along the lines of "Muhammad's name is not directly mentioned in the bible" possibly followed by the Muslim view? Would any if this qualify under WP:WTC? The debate stems from the indirect meaning instead of the literal name "Muhammad". If it's not possible then I would be fine with its removal. Regarding what Editshmedt said, I do like that it mentions general scholaistic views. Although we do need to take caution as Grabergs said with WP:SYNTH. The statements should be geared towards citing scholastic views and plainly stating the meaning of certain verses, possibly without directing it as a counter-view towards the Muslim perspective. ChaoticTexan (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

There's no point looking for a source that explicitly says Muhammad's name is not directly mentioned in the Bible, especially since no scholar would bother writing such a truism. No one has opposed my lead I proposed about a week ago now, and so I will add it in soon if no one still does.Editshmedt (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Just letting you know what's going on. @Editshmedt: Yes, I understand what you are saying, hence my question if it falls under "When a source or citation may not be needed". Since I'd assume it is generally known that Muhammad is not directly mentioned in the bible, potentially it may not need to be cited. Although I do like the lead you wrote. As of now, I am in agreement to replace the current intro with the one you wrote. Since yours does not seem as heavily one-sided like the current one. ChaoticTexan (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no judgement at the moment on whether it can be included with or without a citation. One way we can proceed is by replacing the current lead with the proposed one I gave earlier (I guess I appreciate that you at least agree it doesn't seem as biased as the current one) and then you can add a new page on the Talk Page where we can focus on whether "Muhammad's not mentioned by name in the Bible" can be added without citation as a separate issue.Editshmedt (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The current references in the Lead section are not formatted correctly and need to be fixed. Editor2020 (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Removing several sections from this page

The following are sections in this page I seek to remove for the following reasons:

gen 21 (this is about the ummah, not muhammad; the citations are unreliable and only go to arabic language books); gen 49 (no citations); psalm 110 (no citations); isaiah 21:7 (the only citation is unreliable and 150 years old); isaiah 54 (about mecca, not muhammad); daniel 2 (no citations); habakkuk 3:3 (about the hejaz, not muhammad); zechariah 4 (no citations)Editshmedt (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Editshmedt, note that the first paragraph under Tanakh currently makes no sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Deleted it. If someone failed to take the time to at least make the paragraph they want to input coherent and add in a citation or two, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.Editshmedt (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit

MaterialscientistJeppizChaoticTexanRosceleseTgeorgescu Some extra input/eyes could be useful at this time per this edit [10] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know much about Muhammad. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

And the Bible? ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Reference "Watt (1991) pp. 33–34"

If someone can expand what that ref is, please do Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)