At the request of a Muslim back in August 2013, I had two videos sent to me to respond to on YouTube on YouTube, One by Yahya Snow and the other by BeholderGuard on their claims about Deuteronomy 18. The original video I made in response has been removed and instead this article shall be put in it's place. *(Correction note at the bottom)
Yahya Snow's claims
The first things that Snow says in his video is the following:
"He (David) is going to loudly exhibit his ignorance and bias by suggesting that all Jews believed this Prophet to come can only be and Israelite (and not an not and Ishmaelite, ie Arab). According to him nobody thought it could be referring to a non-Israelite. We will not see that some Jews (Rabbis) actually thought the prophet that they were waiting for COULD OF BEEN A NON-JEW (i.e. Arab)"
Snow then proceeds to quote from the Chumash Commentary to try and show that One Rabbi said that there could be a prophet from among the Gentile nations, or rather I should say, Snow plays part of a debate that Zakir Hussain did with Samuel Green.
There is a problem however, How does Snow know that the commentary on the small snippet that he showed applies to Arabs? After all, it could refer to the Edomites, the Ammonites, the Moabites or any other semitic group. I don't see how this would prove a prophet would come from the Arabs with absolute certainty. Besides, the context actually goes against what the commentary asserts.
The prophet like Moses is already defined earlier in Deuteronomy 18. Chapter 34 says in verse 10:
"10 Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, 11 who did all those signs and wonders the Lord sent him to do in Egypt—to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land."
Snow's grasping at a Rabbinic commentary doesn't prove it's Muhammad, even if we grant the commentary as reliable. In fact, the very Sam Shamoun says in his article "Analyzing Muslim Arguments for Muhammad’s Supernatural Feats", he says:
"It is the rather explicit teaching of the Quran that Muhammad performed no supernatural, verifiable miracles apart from the inspiration that he received. The Quran in several places emphatically negates the idea of Muhammad performing physical feats such as raising the dead, healing the sick, opening physically blind eyes etc. We present those citations here in order for our readers to see for themselves the Quran’s outright denial that Muhammad was able to perform the miraculous. All quotations taken from A.J. Arberry, unless noted otherwise:
And they that know not say, 'Why does God not speak to us? Why does a sign (ayatun) not come to us?' So spoke those before them as these men say; their hearts are much alike. Yet We have made clear the signs (bayyanna al-ayati) unto a people who are sure. S. 2:118
Yet if thou shouldst bring to those that have been given the Book every sign (ayatun), they will not follow thy direction; thou art not a follower of their direction, neither are they followers of one another's direction. If thou followest their caprices, after the knowledge that has come to thee, then thou wilt surely be among the evildoers. S. 2:145
They also say, 'Why has no sign (ayatun) been sent down upon him from his Lord?' Say: 'Surely God is able to send down a sign (ayatan), but most of them know not.' S. 6:37
They have sworn by God the most earnest oaths if a sign (ayatun) comes to them they will believe in it. Say: 'Signs (al-ayatu) are only with God.' What will make you realize that, when it comes, they will not believe? S. 6:109
They say, 'Why has a sign (ayatun) not been sent down upon him from his Lord?' Say: 'The Unseen belongs only to God. Then watch and wait; I shall be with you watching and waiting.' S. 10:20
The unbelievers say, 'Why has a sign (ayatun) not been sent down upon him from his Lord?' Thou art ONLY a warner, and a guide to every people. S. 13:7
The foregoing text presupposes that Muhammad’s only function was to warn people, not to perform miracles. After all, the statement "Thou art ONLY a warner" would make no sense if a warner could in fact perform wonders. In other words, being a warner wouldn’t preclude Muhammad from doing any signs unless, of course, the point being made by the Quran is that such individuals who assumed this role were not empowered to do miracles."
I'll post the article here so you can take a look and judge for yourself: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Azmy/mhd_miracles.htm
Sam and I are on the same page, Muhammad did no miracles like Moses, whereas Jesus and the other OT prophets did and Jesus is the ultimate fulfilment of Deuteronomy 18:18. My comments on this issue can be found here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/comments-on-deuteronomy-18.html
Snow can quote the commentary all he wishes, it doesn't guarantee that Muhammad is the prophet like Moses because his own Quran testifies that the only miracle Muhammad has was the Quran.
He then gives a Jewish Narration that talks about a Rabbi accepting Muhammad as the prophet the Jews had been waiting for, once again playing a segment from the Green/Hussain debate where he quotes from the Hadith.
What is interesting is Abdullah Smith quotes the same narration on the Answering Christianity website and uses it as his licence to try and say that the Jews were expecting a prophet from another nation.
The problem is with the tradition is that it assumes that future prophets would come at any given time. The Jews expected the Messiah to come. As long he had not come, there was the possibility of further prophets, but the Messiah would be the culmination of God’s history and the end of prophecy. So how can Muhammad be greater than the Messiah in status.
Both the traditions from Snow's videos I would need to try and find again.
Furthermore, Jews and Christians, despite their perspectives, both will agree that the Messiah will bring everlasting peace and prophecy will cease as a result. If Jesus is the Messiah, then what is the point of Muhammad coming at all? Now Jesus did speak of true prophets coming after him, but they will bring a message that is consistent with Jesus. However, Muhammad contradicted the teaching of Jesus, thus he cannot be a true prophet on this basis.
There is an interesting page where Sam Shamoun proposes a very interesting dilemma for the Muslims which I recommend reading and you can judge for yourself.
Snow's last point in reference to David is the following:
"He does not take face to face literally. He claims it means somebody who has a high relationship with God"
He then quotes from a Hadith then says:
"We have just seen Prophet Muhammad fit the first criteria he put foward as clearly the Prophet has a high status in the sight of God"
And of course he mentions the miracles which again, the Quran doesn't say that Muhammad did miracles.
Not to mention the very videos that Snow butchered and tries to refute, REFUTES HIS ENTIRE POINT ABOUT MIRACLES TO BEGIN WITH!!!
I need to find Snow's video before I can post a link to it.
Next I shall move on the Beholder Guards video "Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the Bible 100% proof! ".
You can find the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxyFiaM9XSo
He firstly rambles about how Christians believe Jesus was this and Moses wasn't. What this man fails to mention is that Christians believe Jesus is prophet, priest, king and God. But being a priest, king or God doesn't refute our position, nor does Jesus dying for our sins. The criteria of being a prophet like Moses is one who sees God face to face and does miracles like Moses which I mentioned before.
Also, David Wood in a previous Jesus or Muhammad show which Snow ABUSES actually defined what he meant by seeing God face to face and that Muhammad failed this because Muhammad recieved revelation from Gibril.
Furthermore, All the criteria about Moses and Muhammad being 40 and Jesus being 12 and other stuff like that including getting married which BeholderGuard raises in his videos are IRRELEVANT points to being a prophet like Moses. The prophecy was made because of the Israelites requested that they didn't want to see God in his majesty lest they die and YHWH honoured the request and raised up prophets who would come after him, including Jesus and excluding Muhammad.
Regarding what Deuteronomy 24:36 says innocence, It is not addressing vicarious atonement, it is referring to us being responsible for our own sins. For example If I do evil or good, my dad is not responsible and vice versa. But the passage is not addressing nor even talking about vicarious atonement, no refutation of the Christians, its the same with Ezekiel 18:20.
Also, the appeal to the destruction of the calf and the kaaba's idols is another red herring considering the fact that Idolatry was not a problem that Jesus had to contend with in Jerusalem, so again, a moot point.
In Isaiah 29, God is judging the Israelites for their iniquity and sin and is taking away the little illumination they have along with handing them over to their rebellion as punishment. Also consistency demands this, if there is going to be an illiterate prophet in that passage, what about the individual? Is he another prophet? Also, here is a link to one of Nakdimon316's videos that deal with this issue. I fully recommend looking at this series of videos: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL88BCDB4B84A16D10
Regarding the point about the prophet, Christ and Elijah, Appealing to the Jews ignorance about the Christ and the prophet will not work and even IF the prophecies were not fulfilled until the resurrection that is irrelevant also because the Jews didn't know that the Prophet and the Christ were one of the same not to mention they were asking a JEW about who they were, not an arab.
Deuteronomy 33:2 doesn't speak of Muhammad coming at all, it is referring to YHWH God in the context, so unless BeholderGuard wants to commit shirk, he should not be applying this passage to Muhammad and his appeal to Micah 1:3-4 is fallacious when you read in context because it is a judgement passage against Judea and Samaria and is speaking of an entirely different point all together, what this is is desperation and deception on the part of BeholderGuard. Deuteronomy 33:2 and Micah 1:3-4 do not speak of the same event but speak of two separate ones, BOTH WITH THE LORD COMING!!! Also, Deuteronomy 33:2 is a PAST EVENT that has already occurred.
Next is the classic Song of Solomon 5:16 which is sheer desperation. The word in question is Mahammadim which means wholly desirable and the Hebrew says: (say the phrase here). It doesn't matter how you pronounce the word, the fact remains it is not talking about Muhammad.
Furthermore, an online translator is not a perfect tool, if not, it is unreliable with respect to certain phrases. Also, BeholderGuard should of mentioned that the word Machammadim is used without the im suffix in Isaiah 64:11 and Ezekiel 24:16. If this BeholderGuard were consistent, he would have to say that Muhammad was being laid waste to in Isaiah 64:11 and that Muhammad is Ezekiel's wife in 24:16 being taken away from Ezekiel VIA DEATH!!! Also the IM is not a plural of respect, it is an intensive plural. The plural of respect of im doesn't exist. People in the Bible who respect great men do not say Mosheim or Dawidim or Yeshayahuim or whatever else. God isn't even called YHWHIM. You won't find this so called plural of respect in the TANAKH, it's simply not there.
The same video series by Nakdimon also addresses this abuse of word.
James White has also addressed this in a video he did on ABN called "Does the Name of Muhammad Appear in Song of Solomon 5:16?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JikrXk51L0M
Now of course the tired argument which BeholderGuard presents is Muhammad being the Comforter and that Christians present a "tired argument about Allah being a Father" and of course his claim Son of God means Servant of God.
Firstly, Son of God can mean servant of God or an adopted child of God or being the unique Son of God. BeholderGuard's point collapses because even if Son means servant, it only depends on context. Jesus uses the term son of himself in Mark 12, Jesus says this:
"12 Jesus then began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. 2 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3 But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4 Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. 5 He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed.
6 “He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’
7 “But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 8 So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard."
Even if there was a supposed semitic idiom, Jesus doesn't use it AND HE WAS A JEW!!!! Jesus when using SON of Himself doesn't mean literal as in physical offspring and it doesn't mean servant, THUS, the Christian's point stands, that Allah has NO son, thus, Muhammad is guilty of promoting a false God. Also, If Son means servant in reference to Jesus, then John 3:16 speaks of God sending his only unique SERVANT, which not only disqualifies the prophets and the apostles, but ALSO MUHAMMAD is disqualified as being a servant of God even if he claims to be one.
Also, the Sons by the Tons argument shows even MORE that Muhammad is a false prophet because he denies that Allah has a son. But again, the point about Son meaning Servant still refutes Islam because that would mean Muhammad would be condemning us for calling God our Father.
I have a video called "Ahmed Deedat's Good Arguments" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsaTR9P0xYo which shows the fallacious reasoning of Ahmed Deedat and those who use his argument of sons by the tons and the Servant of God point utilized by BeholderGuard and Sami Zaatari.
The context of John 14 shows it is the Holy Spirit and all the earliest manuscripts that we have show that the Greek says Comforter (parakletos), NOT praised one (periklytos). There is no evidence that Christians CHANGED this word. All the manuscripts we have say parakletos, not periklytos and how appealing to different translations of the Bible helps his case I have no idea whatsoever.
Next BeholderGuard appeals to 1 John 2 to try and say that Muhammad cannot be an anti-christ because John is already speaking of Anti-Christ's spirit being in the world. Yes, but how does this exonarate Muhammad? The point is John is warning about anti-christs that are present in the world and even so, future anti-christs will come as well. in Addition to this, BeholderGuard doesn't quote the following passages.
"20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.[e] 21 I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also."
Notice John makes it clear if you deny the Son, you don't honor the Father and as I demonstrated, the son meaning servant argument will NOT work even here. Muhammad does stand condemned by the very chapter that Guard in his haste appealed to. John's warning about anti-christs persists to this day. Even if Muhammad testifies Jesus is the Christ, he denies him being the Son, thus stands condemned by the Bible once again.
Also, all the Spirit of Truth passages in John 14 and 16 or not prophecies about Muhammad, the identity of the Spirit of Truth is NOT guesswork, He is clearly the Holy Spirit, NOT Muhammad. Furthermore, Muhammad was sent by Allah was he not? If Jesus and the Father or one or the other sent Muhammad, wouldn't that make The Father or Jesus or Both Allah who sent Muhammad? Considering that God sends prophets?
But to apply John 14 or 16 to Muhammad is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, considering from a biblical perspective his life was not exactly a high standard of conduct, which others have pointed out, namely Shamoun and Wood.
Guard also claims that abiding forever refers to the "perpetuity of his laws and the way of life and the book that was revealed to him". This is quite a far stretch considering that is not what Jesus is indicating even implicitly. Jesus is referring to a close future, not a distant one. The close future is the day of Pentacost where the disciples felt the Holy Spirit come on them in power. After Jesus went to heaven, sometime later, the Holy Spirit had come to indwell the believers.
Next, Muhammad did not glorify Jesus at all, The Holy Spirit however, DID and does to this day by pointing Christians to Jesus and enabling us to glorify him.
By far the strangest point is regarding Daniel 9:24-27. How you could read Muhammad into that is quite frankly utterly absurd, The Anointed One who was cut off was Jesus but for some odd reason BeholderGuard claims its Muhammad because of the Arabic in the Quran Al-Mustafa. Problem,
The sealing up vision and prophecy was never done with Muhammad at all. I have a video where Anthony Rogers speaks on the issue of Daniel 9:24-27, although I would differ with him on the point about the third temple which is not an issue I am going into here but certainly, there is no indication of Muhammad even in Daniel 9.
Also, the rebuilding of Jerusalem was conducted in the days of Zerubabbel, not by Hadrian, so the timing of Guard is way off, because the 490 years refer from the time of a decree which Christians differ on, and of course the 70 weeks ended with the second temples destruction. I have commented on Daniel 9:24-27 here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2014/05/addendum-to-contra-blumenthal-daniel.html
Though Daniel 9:24-27 is debated among Christians, it certainly doesn't include Muhammad as part of the equation, Especially when you look at how the early church fathers had interpreted this passage.
Another view I would recommend is one video by David Pawson on Daniel 9:24-27 which can also be found in his book "Unlocking the Bible". The second part of the talk on Daniel he does speaks about Daniel's 70 weeks 19 minutes roughly into the video.
Regardless, 490 years are the total number of years, be they lunar or solar, thus, Muhammad is still disqualified.
Anyway, I hope I have addressed these two Muslims to the best of my ability by the Grace of the Triune God YHWH. If you are without Christ, May he bring you to everlasting peace and freedom to abandon falsehood and bow the knee to Jesus here and now before it is too late.
Thanks for taking the time to read.
*20th of November 2015:
The original intro said this.
"At the request of a Muslim back in August 2013, I had two videos on YouTube, One by Yahya Snow and the other by BeholderGuard on their claims about Deuteronomy 18. The original videos have been removed and instead this article shall be put in it's place"
However this sentence has been corrected. It's an error I have corrected and it should of said:
"At the request of a Muslim back in August 2013, I had two videos sent to me to respond to on YouTube on YouTube, One by Yahya Snow and the other by BeholderGuard on their claims about Deuteronomy 18. The original video I made in response has been removed and instead this article shall be put in their place. *(Correction note at the bottom)"
While I am grateful that an error was pointed out to me, I would suggest BeholderGuard to not rashly jump to conclusions of lying. My apologies to the audience for not correcting this sooner.
27th of November 2015 edit.
I think I couldn't find Yahyas video previously when this paper was penned. If I find his video again. I may post a link to it.