Islam In The Bible?
I am not a Jewish rabbi or a Christian minister. I am a 21-year old logic student, as well as being a Chinese Christian. In the interests of presenting an unbiased argument, however, I will attempt to respond to your "challenges" from a purely secular (and logical) perspective.
Your final conclusion is that Islam is "true", and this is supported by the following sub-conclusions:
1. Mohammed’s liberation of Mecca fulfills the prophecy of Deuteronomy 33:2.
2. Isaiah 21:7 prophesizes the coming of Mohammed.
3. All Muslims are blessed because Genesis 12:1-3 states that all decedents of Abraham will be blessed
>Conclusions 1-3 suggest that the Bible predicts the coming of Islam
>Therefore Islam is true
Let’s begin by examining each of the sub-conclusions:
Conclusion 1 – Mohammed’s liberation of Mecca fulfills the prophecy of Deuteronomy 33:2.
Your argument is constructed in the following manner:
| Premise 1 | The events of Deuteronomy 33:2 have not come to pass within biblical chronology. |
| Premise 2 | Mount Paran refers to Mecca. |
| Premise 3 | The "ten thousands of saints" are soldiers of Mohammed’s army. |
| Premise 4 | From Mohammed "came a fiery law for them." |
| Conclusion | Mohammed’s liberation of Mecca fulfills the prophecy of Deuteronomy 33:2. |
For the argument to be sound,
all the premises must be true.Let’s begin with an exposition of Deuteronomy 33:2. "The LORD came from Sinai, and dawned on them from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran, and He came with ten thousands of saints; from His right hand came a fiery law for them." This verse does not state that a prophet will lead an army of 10,000
into Mecca – it suggests that God "came with ten thousands of saints" to pass a "fiery law" from Mount Paran.With that in mind, the first premise becomes debatable. Any number of biblical events could qualify for the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 33:2. Deuteronomy 33 is entitled "Moses’ Final Blessing on Israel". It is entirely possible that Moses himself was the "right hand" of the LORD, handing down "a fiery law" (ten commandments) to the children of Israel from Mount Paran (possibly another name for Mount Sinai) in Exodus 19-20.
Premise 2 is again debatable. There is no exhaustive evidence to suggest that Mount Paran is Mecca.
On your website, you state that:
The Bible clearly says that Paran is south of Sinai in Egypt;
"He said: 'The LORD came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones from the south, from his mountain slopes.' (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 33:2)"The NIV states that "He came with myriads of holy ones from the south" – this could mean that only the "holy ones" (not the LORD) came from the south, which is highly probable since NKJV makes no mention of the LORD himself coming from the south. Assuming the LORD did come from the south, I can reconstruct your argument in the following form:
| Premise 1 | The LORD came from Sinai. |
| Premise 2 | He came from the south. |
| Premise 3 | He shone forth from Mount Paran. |
| Supported Conclusion | The LORD came from Sinai (the south) to
Mount Paran, where He shone forth. Therefore, Paran is north of Sinai. |
| Given Conclusion | Therefore Paran is south of Sinai. |
This argument is invalid because it has committed the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi (missing the point). The premises are irrelevant to the given conclusion; instead, they support a different conclusion. Biblical scholars agree that Mount Paran was located in "a desert tract forming the northeastern division of the peninsula of Sinai".
Premise 3 is unlikely to be true simply because "ten thousands of saints" could be any multiple of 10,000. There could have been 20, 30, 50, or 100 thousand saints – the NIV Bible simply chooses to construe this as "myriads of holy ones". If Deuteronomy 33:2 had read "ten thousand saints" instead, there would be more reason to believe that Premise 3 is true.
Premise 4 is false. If Deuteronomy 33:2 is the prophecy of Mohammed’s coming, it would follow that from him "came a fiery law for them." In the context, "them" can mean either children of Israel or the "ten thousands of saints". According to your account, Mohammed did not bring "a fiery law" to either of them; he brought an army of 10,000 to liberate Mecca. Hence, the premise is false.
Since the truth of the first 3 premises cannot be substantially corroborated, and Premise 4 is false, we cannot conclude that Mohammed’s liberation of Mecca fulfills the prophecy of Deuteronomy 33:2.
Conclusion 2 – Isaiah 21:7 prophesizes the coming of Mohammed
| Premise 1 | Isaiah 21:7 prophesizes the coming of a prophet who will ride a camel. |
| Premise 2 | Mohammed rode a camel. |
| Conclusion | Isaiah 21:7 prophesizes the coming of Mohammed. |
First of all, we cannot affirm the truth of the first premise. Isaiah 21 is entitled "The Fall of Babylon Predicted", and verse 7 reads, "And he saw a chariot with a pair of horseman, a chariot of donkeys, and a chariot of camels, and he listened earnestly with great care." There is no evidence in the context to suggest that this verse relates to Jesus or Mohammed, since neither was involved in the fall of Babylon.
Even if we assume the premises are true, this argument is invalid and takes on the form of modus ponens (affirming the consequent). To illustrate the invalidity of this argument form, consider the following:
| Premise 1 | If Napoleon were in fatal car accident, he would be dead (True). |
| Premise 2 | Napoleon is dead (True). |
| Conclusion | Therefore, Napoleon was in a fatal car accident (False). |
Conclusion 3 – All Muslims are blessed because Genesis 12:1-3 states that all decedents of Abraham will be blessed.
| Premise 1 | Genesis 12:1-3 states that all decedents of Abraham will be blessed. |
| Premise 2 | All Muslims are descendents of Abraham. |
| Conclusion | Therefore all Muslims are blessed because Genesis 12:1-3 states that all decedents of Abraham will be blessed. |
You have stated on your website that Ishmael is the "father of the Muslims". According to the Bible, Abraham had two sons – Ishmael and Isaac. "Descendents of Abraham" would then be
exclusively composed of two distinct ethnic groups – descendents of Ishmael (modern day Arabs, not Muslims) and descendents of Isaac (modern day Jews). Since Black American Muslims, Malay Muslims, African Muslims and Indian Muslims cannot trace their ethnic lineage back to Ishmael, they are not descendents of Abraham. Premise 2 is false, which would imply that the argument is unsound.The only logical conclusion that we can make from the first premise is that Arabs and Jews are blessed (regardless of religion). There is strong evidence to
suggest this conclusion is true. Arabs control the world’s largest supply of oil and enjoy immense wealth as a result. Israel was miraculously restored in 1948, and Jews are among the most talented people in the world today (nearly a fifth of Nobel Prize winners are Jewish, including Albert Einstein).As a side note, Genesis 12:1 reads, "Get out of your country, from your family and from your father's house, to a land that I will show you." A few verses later, "they came to the land of Canaan" (Genesis 12:5). The context clearly indicates that "the land that I will show you" is Canaan. The land of Canaan is modern day Syria; hence, Genesis 12:1 could not possibly be referring to Mecca (which is located in Saudi Arabia).
Final Conclusion – Islam is true
| Premise | The Bible predicts the coming of Islam. |
| Conclusion | Islam is true. |
The premise can be discounted since the 3 sub-conclusions that support it are either invalid or unsound arguments. Even if we assume that the premise is true, there is no causal link between the premise and conclusion. We cannot infer that "Islam is true" simply because "the Bible predicts the coming of Islam".
I would like to conclude by saying that I respect your religious orientation and that it is not my intention to offend you in any way. When I say that an argument is invalid or unsound, I am not saying that the resulting conclusion is necessarily false. The possibility exists that Islam is true; however, it is fallacious to use the Bible to affirm this. Consider the following:
If the Bible is errant, then it should not be used as the basis for your arguments. If the Bible is inerrant, then Islam has to reconcile innumerable contradictions that exist between the Koran and the Bible, most notably the status, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Written by Leonard Lin
All Bible quotations are taken from the NKJV, unless otherwise stated.