Tag Archives: Tanakh

Torah's Hidden Message: Muhammad ﷺ and Jesus (ع) in the Light of Gematria (Part III)

Posted on by
Reply

Where do we find the Torah’s hidden messages? Arba’ah Turim is the basis of the Sulchan Aruch; but Ba’al ha-Turim is the basis of the hidden messages of Torah. Ba’al ha-Turim found them in gematria (number patterns), acrostics, formations of letters, and Scriptural word patterns.

The gematria is the famous Rabbinic interpretative technique which it depends on the numerical value of Hebrew letters. Therefore, Gematria is a computation of the numeric value of letters, secret alphabets, or substitution of letters for other letters. Sefer Bereshit (Genesis) 12:6 also represents a computation of the numeric value of letters which so-called the gematria, especially on the use of the Hebrew term אז (az) literally meaning “at that time. ”

ויעבר אברם בארץ עד מקום שכם עד אלון מורה והכנעני אז בארץ

Vay-ya’avor Avram ba aretz ‘ad meqom Shechem ‘ad elon Moreh ve ha-Kana’ani az ba aretz (Sefer Bereshit 12:6).

“Abraham passed into the land as far as the site of Shechem until the plain of Moreh, the Canaanites were then in the land.”

Midrash ha-Gadol notes that the gematria (numerical value) of the Hebrew term אז (az) literally means “at that time” it equals 8, the intimation being that the Canaanites would be in the land until Abraham’s eighth generation when the land would be conquered by his descendants, Abraham – Isaac – Jacob – Levi – Kehath – Amram – and Moses equal 7 generations. Joshua, the eighth generation would conquer the land [1].

After that, G-d also said to Abraham in the Sefer Bereshit (Genesis 17:5-6).

ולא יקרא עוד את שמך אברם והיה שמך אברהם כי אב המון גוים נתתיך. והפרתי אתך במאד מאד ונתתיך לגוים ומלכים ממך יצאו.

Ve lo yiqqare ‘od et shimcha Avram ve hayah shimcha Avraham ki av hamon goyim netatticha. Ve hifreti ot’cha be-meod meod u-netatticha le goyim u-melachim mim-mecha yetzeu.

“You shall no longer be called by your name Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you most exceedingly fruitful, and make nations of you and kings shall descend from you.”

There are 2 key-phrases in the Sefer Bereshit 17:5-6, God said to Abraham about a heavenly covenant.

  1. The phrase אב המון (av hamon) literally means “father of a multitude” and the gematria of this phrase is 208, the same as that of יצחק (Yitzhaq), lit. name of Isaac [2].  Interestingly, there is a phrase ותהר רבקה אשתו (ve tahar Rivkah ishto), lit. “and his wife, Rebecca conceived” in the Sefer Bereshit 25:21. The gematria of אשתו (ishto), “his wife” is really refering to the wife of Isaac, and the Hebrew word אשתו (ishto) is also equal to that of קש ואש (qesh ve esh), lit. “straw and fire”, 707. Both Hebrew terms refer to Esau and Jacob about whom it is written: והיה בית יעקב אש (ve hayah beyt Ya’akov esh) lit. “and the house of Jacob shall be a fire”, ובית עשו לקש (u-beyt Esau le qesh) lit. “and the house of Esau for straw” (Obadiah 1:18). Obviously, the gematria of this word אשתו (ishto) is 707, the same as that of קש ואש (qesh ve esh), 707 [3].
  2. The phrase במאד מאד (be-meod meod) literally means “most exceedingly fruitful”, and the gematria of this phrase is 92, the same as that of מחמד (Mahammad), lit. name of the prophet Muhammad SAW. The numeric value of both במאד מאד and מחמד is equal, 92. Compare the phrase במאד מאד (be-meod meod), “most exceedingly” in the Sefer Bereshit 17:20 with the phrase הבה נתחכמה (habah nitchakkemah), “come, let us outsmart”, in Sefer Shemot 1:10. The gematria of במאד מאד (be-meod meod), “most exceedingly” is 92, the same as that of מחמד (Muhammad), “most preciously”, 92. That is to say that Ishmael will beget Muhammad, the offspring from among the twelve princes, שנים עשר נשיאם (sheneim ‘ashar nesi’im), lit. “the twelve princes.” Also, the gematria of הבה (habah), “come” is 12. That is to say, Pharaoh said: “Let us outsmart the twelve (tribes)” [4].

Obviously, the gematria of the phrase במאד מאד (be-meod meod), “most exceedingly” is 92. It is equivalent to that of the name מחמד (Muhammad), 92. The phrase is really referring to a name, the offspring of Ishmael. It is possible in the episteme of Hebraic gematria. The phrase כי מן הבאר ההוא (ki ha-be’er hahiv), lit. “for from that well” in the Sefer Bereshit 29:2 has the same code, it also really referring to a name, the offspring of Jacob. The gematria of the phrase (345) is equal to that of משה (Moshe), lit. “Moses (the prophet)” [5].  It teaches us that Moses is a spiritual well of God for Israelites. Similarly, the phrase גוי וקהל גוים יהיה ממך (goy u-qehal goyim yihyeh mim-mecha), “a nation and congregation of nations shall descend from you” (Sefer Bereshit 35:11) is also referring to both names, the offspring of Jacob. The gematria of the phrase (349) is equivalent to that of both names ירבעם ויהוא (Yerobeam ve Yehu), lit. “Jerobeam and Jehu”,  is 349 [6].

This verse consistently presents itself as fulfilling a propecy and a promise made by God in the Sefer Bereshit, in the Torah. It also proves that the genealogy of the prophet Muhammad ﷺ through his grandmother, Salma binti Amr, the daughter of Exilarch, the Resh Geluta, the house of King David. Obviously, the prophet is really the son of Isaac through the prophet’s grandmother, Salma binti Amr, the wife of Hashim bin Abd Manaf. Al-Mutthalib bin Abd Manaf himself had children from a Jewish woman of the people of Khaybar – wulida min Ahl Khaybar (Ibn Habib’s kitab al-Munammaq). He married this woman, namely Asma’ binti Abdullah. Hashim married Salma binti Amr an-Najjar clans, the noble woman, and this marriage became by far his most important one since Salma gave birth to Abd al-Mutthalib, the grandfather of the prophet, see Michael Lecker. A Note on Early Marriage Links between Quraishis and Jewish Women. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam [7].

Not only the prophet Muhammad ﷺ as the son of Isaac through his grandmother; Jesus is also the son of Isaac because the genealogy of Jesus through his mother, Mary. Muhammad ﷺ and Jesus are similar, but not exatcly the same. The phrase אב המון (av hamon), “father of a multitude” represents to Abraham, see Sefer Bereshit 17:4 “You shall be a father of a multitude of nations.” The gematria of the phrase is 208, the same as that of the name of יצחק, Isaac; so also the phrase of במאד מאד (be-meod meod), “most exceedingly fruitful” represents to Abraham, see Sefer Bereshit 17:6 “I will make you most exceedingly fruitful.” The gematria of the phrase is 92, the same as that of the name of Muhammad ﷺ; not to Jesus (Yeshu). The gematria of ישו (Yeshu) is 316. Therefore the gematria of the promise במאד מאד (be-meod meod) lit. “exceedingly fruitful” is not equal to that of ישו (Yeshu).

Obviously, according to the Jewish Law (Halacha), Muhammad ﷺ and Jesus are Jews through a grandmother or a mother. Similar but not exactly the same. Muhammad ﷺ is a legitimate child, but Jesus is an illegitimate child. RAMBAM in his Iggeret ha-Teyman wrote:

ותחלת מי שמצא זה הדעד היה ישו הנוצרי שחוק עצמות. והוא מישראל, ואף על פי שהיה אביו גוי ואמו ישראלית, העיקר בידינו גוי ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד כשר. וזה נקרא אצלנו ממזר להפליג בחרפתו.

u-techillat mi shemmatza za hadda’at – hayah Yeshu han-Notzri shechuq ‘etzmot. Ve hu mi Yisrael, ve af ‘al phi shehayah aviv goy ve immo Yisraelit – ha’aqqar be yadenu goy ra’eved habba ‘al bet Yisrael havvelad kosher, ve za niqra tezlanu mamzer le haflig be cherphato.

“The first one who devised this plan was Yeshu of Nazareth may his bones be crushed. He was a Jew because his mother was Jewish, although his father was a gentile. Our Law states that a child born of a Jewish woman and a gentile, or of a Jewess and a slave is a kosher Jew (Yebamot 45a). We only call Jesus a mamzer – illegitimate child in a manner of speaking” [8].

David H. Stern, from a movement of Messianic Judaism also confirms that the Jewish and non-Jewish descent are invariably traced through the mother, not the father. The child of a Jewish mother and a Gentile father is Jewish; the child of a Gentile mother and a Jewish father is a Gentile [9].  Also, Pinchas Lapide said: “the “Toledoth Yeshu” neither denies the historicity of Jesus, nor conceals his his miracles and cures, nor questions his Jewishness – for rabbinical Law states that every son of a Jewish mother is a Jew” [10].

Meanwhile, in other verse, the Sefer Bereshit (Genesis) 17:20 there is a key-verse as follows:

ולישמעאל שמעתיך הנה ברחתי אתו והרביתי אתו במאד מאד שנים עשר נשיאם יוליד ונתתיו לגי גדול.

Ve le Yishmael shema’ticha hinneh berachti oto ve hifreiti oto ve hirbeiti oto be-meod meod sheneim ashar Nesi’im yolid u-netattiv le goy gadol.

“But regarding Ishmael I have heard you, I have blessed him, made him fruitful and will increase him most exceedingly; he will beget 12 princes and I will make him into a great nation.”

This verse also proves that HASHEM also made a heavenly covenant to Abraham through the use of Hebrew term במאד מאד (be-meod meod), literally means “most exceedingly fruitful” with reference to the descendant of Ishmael himself. Similarly, the gematria of the promise במאד מאד (be-meod meod) which is to refer to the Ishmaelite one of the verse is equal to that of מהמד (Muhammad). And the numeric value of both terms is equal, 92. The verses indicate that the prophet Muhammad ﷺ is also the son of Ishmael through his great grandfathers. Interestingly, the gematria of the Hebrew name ישמעאל (Yishmael) is 451; it is equal to that of both Hebrew names אברם (Abram), 243 dan הגר (Hagar) 208. Obviously, the gematria of ישמעאל (Yishmael) is 451, the same as that of אברם והגר (Abram ve Hagar), 451.

Meanwhile, there is also the use of gematria in the Gospel of Matthew. St. Matthew begins with the genealogy of Jesus in order to show that he meets the requirements set by the TaNaKH (Torah Nevi’im ve Khetuvim) for who Jesus must be a descendant of David through the Jewish interpretative technique which depended on the numerical value of Hebrew letters, דוד (David). The name David, the 14th name in the list consists of 3 Hebrew consonants, דוד (Dalet-Vav-Dalet), the numerical value of which are respectively 4, 6, and 4; giving a total of 14, and 14 is thus the symbolic number of דוד (David). For a reader of Matthew’s Greek gospel to recognize any such numerical symbolism would have to depend on quite a sophisticated awareness of Hebrew numeroloy. There is certainly evidence for gematria in Jewish and early Christian writings, sometimes involving Hebrew letters, sometimes Greek, but usually it is signaled by an explicit link drawn between the letters and their numerical value. St. Matthew has made no such explicit connection, and it can be at best a matter of conjecture whether he intended or would have recognized it [11].

St. Matthew makes a list of Jesus’ genealogy with many omitted Biblical names (Matthew 1:1-17). St. Matthew marginalizes many names to prove the link with the gematria of the name דוד (David) which it is 14. For him, all the generations from Abraham to David are 14 generations; and from David untill the carrying away into Babylon are 14 generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Jesus are 14 generations, but this is really a broken gematria. Also, the gematria of דוד (David), 14 is not equal to that of ישו (Yeshu), 316.

Footnotes:

  1. See Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz. Sefer Bereshit: A New Translation with A Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources (New York: Mesorah Publications, ltd., 2009), p. 438.
  2. See Rabbi Nosson Scherman. Ba’al ha-Turim Chumash (New York: Mesorah Pulications, Ltd., 2013), p. 128.
  3. See Rabbi Nosson Scherman. Ba’al ha-Turim Chumash (New York: Masorah Publications, Ltd., 2013), p. 209.
  4. See Rabbi Nosson Scherman. Ba’al ha-Turim Chumash. Sefer Shemos (Brooklyn, New York: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 2010), p. 517.
  5. See Rabbi Nosson Scherman. Ba’al ha-Turim Chumash (Broklyn, New York: Mesorah Publications, 2013), p. 261.
  6. see Rabbi Nosson Scherman. Ba’al ha-Turim Chumash. Bereshit (Brooklyn, New York: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 2013), p. 321.
  7. JSAI 10 (Jerusalem: the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1987), pp. 24-29
  8. See Abraham S. Halkin. Moses Maimonides’ Epistle to Yemen: the Arabic Original and the Three Hebrew Versions. Edited from Manuscripts with Introduction and Notes (New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1952), p. 13.
  9. See David H. Stern. Jewish New Testament Commentary. A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament (Clarksville, Maryland: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1992), p. 281.
  10. See Pinchas Lapide. Israelis, Jews and Jesus (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979), p. 76
  11. See R.T. France. The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007), p. 31

Menalar Ulang Kuasa Teks Suci: Veda Mahabharata dan Sefer Torah

Posted on by
Reply

הרא קרישנה הרא קרישנה
קרישנה קרישנה הרא הרא
הרא רמה הרא רמה
רמה רמה הרא הרא

Hitungan kalendar Yahudi, sekarang ini adalah 5778, sejajar dng kalender Masehi yakni 2018 M. Hitungan kalendar Kristen sekarang adalah 2018, sedangkan hitungan kalender Budha sekarang ini adalah 2562. Jadi kelahiran Sang Budha lebih awal dan lebih tua dibanding kelahiran Sang Kristus, 2018 M. Bila Sang Budha sebagai avatara ke-9 maka Sri Krishna adalah avatara ke-8. Jadi berkaitan dengan kajian kesejarahan, maka Krishna tidak mungkin eranya sezaman dengan Kristus. Artinya, masa kehidupan Krishna jauh lebih terdahulu dibanding era kehidupan Kristus. Vyasa-deva sang kompilator kitab Mahabharata saja hidup sebelum era Sang Buddha. Itu berarti bahwa Krishna memang dilahirkan jauh sebelum era Sang Buddha.

Dalam kitab Srimad Baghavatam Purana I.3.24. disebutkan:

tatah kalau sampravrtte
sammohaya sura dvisam
Buddho namnanjaya sutah
kikatesu bhavisyati.

“then the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana in Kikatesu – the province of Gaya (Bihar) just for the purpose of delucing those who are envious of the faithful theist.”

Hitungan kalender Yahudi dimulai sejak pasca banjir Nuh. Persoalannya: cerita mengenai banjir Nuh itu terkodifikasi dalam Torah yang diterima oleh Musa, dan jarak antara Nuh hingga masa Nabi Musa itu ratusan tahun. Jadi wajar bila kehidupan Krishna lebih dulu ada dibanding masa kehidupan Musa. Dengan demikian, amat wajar bila ada kesejajaran cerita (common narrative) antara kitab Torah dan kitab Mahabharata, similar but not exactly the same.

Di dalam kitab Torah disebutkan adanya tokoh yang bernama Kain yang membunuh Habel, dan kemudian akhirnya Kain dikutuk serta diusir oleh TUHAN, migrasi menuju wilayah Timur (lihat Sefer Bereshit/Genesis 4:11-16). Pada Sefer Bereshit 4:16 ayatnya berbunyi demikian: וישב בארץ נוד קדמת עדן – vayyesev be-eretz Nod qidmat Eden (“dan dia/Kain menetap di tanah Nod, di sebelah Timur Eden”). Kain memang pergi ke arah Timur – yang dalam bahasa Hebrew (Ibrani) disebut “qidmat” (קדמת), yang berasal dari akar kata “qedem” (קדם), dan wilayah Timur itu yakni menuju kawasan Nod (נוד). Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzhak) menyatakan Istilah nama wilayah Nod bermakna “wandering” – the land where exiles wander about …… Notably, the eastern region always forms a place of refuge for murderers.” (Sefer Bereshit/Genesis: A New Translation With A Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources, Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 2009:158). Rashi menafsirkannya sebagai wilayah הרוצחים – ha’rotzechim (para pembunuh). Sementara itu, di dalam kitab Mahabharata disebutkan adanya tokoh yang bernama Aswattama yang membunuh keturunan Pandawa, dan kemudian akhirnya Aswattama dikutuk oleh Krishna dan diusir, serta migrasi menuju wilayah Barat. Berkaitan ttg tokoh Aswattama yg diusir Sri Krishna hingga ke wilayah Arva-sthan yang merupakan wilayah kaum Mleccha (non-Arya) ini amat penting dikaji. Dalam bhs Sanskrit, istilah Arva-sthan berasal dari gabungan 2 kata kunci yakni Arva (migrasi/berpindah) + sthan (wilayah), coba bandingkan dng sebutan “Hindu-sthan” dalam bahasa Urdu, yang bermakna “wilayah Hindu.” Istilah Hindusthan juga berasal dari gabungan 2 kata kunci yakni Hindu (lembah Hindu/Sindhu) + sthan (wilayah).

Istilah “Arva” ini sepadan dengan istilah bahasa-bahasa rumpun Semit, terutama bahasa Arab dan Ibrani. Dalam bahasa Arab misalnya, muncul kata عرب (‘Arab) dan dalam bahasa Ibrani (Hebrew) muncul juga kata עבר (‘Ever/ ‘Eber) yang kedua istilah Semitic tersebut bermakna “nomad”, “berpindah”, “migrasi” dan “menyeberang.” Intinya istilah Arva atau Arva(n) terkait dng tradisi masyarakat Urban yang meniscayakan komunitas migrasi. Dan dalam kamus bahasa Sanskrit karya Vaman Shivram Apte ‘The Practical Sanskrit – English Dictionary’ (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas, 1987) ternyata dijelaskan bahwa istilah Arva(n) juga bermakna: “kejam”, “kasar”, “pembunuh.” Hal ini juga dibenarkan oleh pakar embriologi bhs Sanskrit, Made Harimbawa. Jadi Arva-sthan adalah wilayah Arva(n) yakni wilayah “para pembunuh.” Itulah sebabnya Aswattama telah migrasi ke wilayah Arvasthan dan memulai peradaban dan agama baru di sana. Bahkan Aswattama dikutuk hidup sangat lama (chiranjivi) utk memperbaiki kesalahannya dan menuntun anak keturunannya di wilayah “para pembunuh.” Begitu juga sang tokoh dari tradisi Semit yang bernama Kain, dia dikutuk hidup sangat lama utk memperbaiki kesalahannya dan agar dapat menuntun keturunannya di wilayah “para pembunuh.” Cerita yg sangat paralel ini sangat menarik. Kajian teks ini tentu saja akan menjembatani relasi kajian kesastraan yang berkaitan dengan analisis teks dari segi kebahasaan. Dalam konteks ideologi kepengarangan yang berbasis narasi pengisahan ini, apakah sang tokoh yang bernama Kain itu yang menyebarkan teks Semit ke wilayah Arya? Atau sebaliknya, justru sang tokoh yang bernama Aswatama itulah yang menyebarkan teks Arya ke wilayah Semit? Persoalan migrasi teks suci tersebut tergantung dari sudut pandang iman masing-masing.

Berdasarkan pembuktian manuskrip, kitab Mahabharata faktanya memang lebih tua dibanding kitab Torah (Pentateuch). Tulisan tangan tertua dari Taurat itu abad ke-2 SM., yakni manuskrip the Dead Sea Scrolls (naskah Laut Mati), sedangkan manuskrip yang berisi kutipan-kutipan bacaan teks kitab Mahabharata yang termaktub dalam buku gramatika bahasa Sanskrit karya Panini itu ternyata telah ditulis pada abad ke-4 SM. Jadi pastinya teks Mahabharata justru jauh lebih tua atau lebih kuno dari pada teks Torah (Pentateuch/ the Old Testament) karena secara de facto teks Panini ditulis pada abad ke-4 SM.

Bila Abraham lahir sekitar tahun 2165 SM., maka Sri Krishna telah lahir 4000 tahun SM. Jadi dengan demikian agama Hindu lebih tua dibanding agama Yahudi, dan Sri Krishna telah ada sebelum Abraham dilahirkan. Bahkan agama Hindu (Brahmanic religion) telah eksis sebelum kelahiran agama-agama Abrahamik yang disebut Abrahamic religions: Yahudi, Kristen dan Islam. Apalagi fakta membuktikan bahwa cerita mengenai Abraham justru termaktub dalam kitab Torah, kitab yang ditulis oleh Musa yang mana jarak antara Abraham dan Musa sendiri itu ratusan tahun. Jadi penentuan tahun kelahiran Abraham masih spekulatif. Satu-satunya alat bukti yang valid adalah menggunakan analisis terhadap teks TaNaKH (the Old Testaments) itu sendiri melalui kajian linguistik komparatif (filologis), yaitu dengan cara melacak adanya pengaruh kosakata Vedic Sanskrit dan Persia (Arya) dalam bahasa Ibrani Masoret (Semit). Silakan Anda pelajari karya Prof. James Barr dalam karyanya yang berjudul “Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testaments (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), khususnya pada hlm. 101 – 111 beliau secara khusus membahas tentang subtema: “Loanwords and Words of non-Semitic Origin.”

Dalam buku saya berjudul “Aryo-Semitic Philology: the Semitization of Vedas and Sanskrit Elements in Hebrew and Abrahamic Texts (Surabaya: Airlangga University Press, 2018) terdapat kajian yang patut dipertimbangkan. Dalam karya riset saya ini hanya sekedar melanjutkan dan memperdalam kajian Prof. James Barr, Ph.D. yang saya fokuskan tentang adanya Sanskrit Loanwords dalam Biblical Hebrew sebagaimana yang termaktub dalam The Old Testaments (Perjanjian Lama). Hal ini semakin mempertegas validitas adanya migrasi teks Arya ke wilayah Semit.

Istilah הדו (Hoddu) dalam kitab TaNaKH (Torah Neviem ve Khetuvim) berbahasa Ibrani, sebagaimana yang termaktub dalam kitab Esther (Sefer Esther) yang ditulis di wilayah tradisi Arya, ternyata term הדו (Hoddu) merupakan istilah kosakata Sanskrit yang ter-Ibrani-kan atau Hebraized Sanskrit term. Dengan kata lain, istilah הדו (Hoddu) merupakan kosakata Judeo-Sanskrit sebagai bentuk Ibranisasi dari kosakata khas keagamaan Hindu dari tradisi Arya yang kemudian diadopsi dalam bahasa Ibrani Masoret (Biblical Hebrew).

Teks keagamaan Hindu bertradisi Arya ini migrasi ke wilayah Semit, maka muncullah kosakata “Hoddu” dalam bahasa Ibrani, yang berasal dari kata “Hindhu” dalam bahasa Sanskrit. Dan, istilah “Hindhu” dalam bahasa Sanskrit itu ternyata juga sepadan dng sebutan “Hindustan” dalam bahasa Urdu. Begitu pula munculnya istilah Ibrani תוכיים (tukiyyim, “parrots”) dalam Perjanjian Lama (the Old Testament) yang termaktub dalam kitab Raja2 (the book of Kings) dan kitab Tawarikh (the book of Chronicles) ternyata asalnya merupakan adopsi dari kosakata Tamil “tukiyyim” (parrots), dan istilah ini ternyata berasal dari kosakata bahasa Sanskrit yakni “sukim” (parrots). Menariknya, dalam kitab Talmud, Bava Batra 15.a.2 disebutkan: וירמיה כתב ספרו וספר מלכים וקינות (ve Yermiyahu katav sefero ve sefer Melachim ve Qinot – Jeremias scripsit librum suum et librum Regum et Threnos), yang artinya: “dan Nabi Yeremiyah sendiri yang telah menulis kitab Yeremiyah, begitu juga kitab Raja-raja dan kitab Ratapan.” Dan fakta historis membuktikan bahwa Nabi Yeremiyah menulis kitab-kitab tersebut di wilayah yang terhegemoni tradisi Arya. Dengan demikian, tidaklah mengherankan bila istilah תוכיים (tukiyyim) merupakan bentuk Ibranisasi dari kosakata Sanskrit (“sukim“) yang bisa disebut sebagai Hebraized-Sanskrit term. Amazing.

Kajian berdasarkan analitis sejarah, linguistik, filologi, sastra, inskripsi, dan agama memang amat menarik untuk ditindaklanjuti. Itulah kewajiban kita para akademisi untuk jujur pada disiplin keilmuan masing-masing.

Screen Shot 2018-06-21 at 14.34.14

Antara Hindu dan Hoddu (הדו) dalam Kitab Suci Yahudi.

Posted on by
Reply

שלום עליכם
السلام عليكم

Hoddu urdu

Ada kutipan teks Urdu dalam buku saya berjudul “Aryo-Semitic Philology: the Semitization of Vedas and Sanskrit Elements in Hebrew and Abrahamic Texts (Surabaya: Airlangga University Press, 2018).

Istilah הדו (Hoddu) dalam kitab TaNaKH (Torah Neviem ve Khetuvim) berbahasa Ibrani, sebagaimana yang termaktub dalam kitab Esther (Sefer Esther) yang ditulis di wilayah tradisi Arya, ternyata term הדו (Hoddu) merupakan istilah kosakata Sanskrit yang ter-Ibrani-kan atau Hebraized Sanskrit term. Dengan kata lain, istilah הדו (Hoddu) merupakan kosakata Judeo-Sanskrit sebagai bentuk Ibranisasi dari kosakata khas keagamaan Hindu dari tradisi Arya yang kemudian diadopsi dalam bahasa Ibrani Masoret (Biblical Hebrew).

Fakta tektual ini justru membuktikan adanya kesinambungan akar sejarah keagamaan dari tradisi Brahmanic (Arya) ke tradisi Abrahamic (Semit). Bila teks keagamaan Hindu bertradisi Arya ini migrasi ke wilayah Nusantara, maka muncullah kosakata “Geni” (api) dalam bahasa Jawa, yang berasal dari kata “Agni” (api) dalam bahasa Sanskrit. Begitu pula munculnya kosakata “Santri” (orang yang belajar kitab-kitab Islam di pesantren) dalam bahasa Jawa merupakan bentuk Islamisasi dari terminologi keagamaan Hindu (Islamized Brahmanic term) yang asalnya diadopsi dari kosakata bahasa Tamil, yakni “Santri” (orang yang belajar kitab Veda dan Vedanta); dan istilah ini ternyata juga berasal dari kata “Sastri” (orang yang belajar kitab Veda dan Vedanta) dalam bahasa Sanskrit, sedangkan kitab Veda dan Vedanta itu sendiri disebut “Sastra” dalam bahasa Sanskrit.

Jadi sebenarnya banyak kosakata Sanskrit yang diadopsi dalam bahasa Jawa. Bahkan, istilah “Jawa” itu sendiri dalam bahasa Jawa merupakan istilah serapan dari bahasa Vedic Sanskrit, yakni dari kosakata “Yava-dvipam” yang kemudian telah mengalami proses Jawanisasi menjadi “Jawa-dwipa” yang artinya “pulau Jawa.” Hal ini tentu maknanya merujuk pada konteks wilayah Jawa. Identitas wilayah Jawa memang telah tercatat dalam kitab Veda Ramayana, sehingga tidak mengherankan bila teks Veda akhirnya juga migrasi ke wilayah Nusantara, khususnya wilayah Jawa. Dalam Veda Ramayana, bagian Kiskinda-khanda 40:30 disebutkan:

yatnavanto Yava-dvipam
sapta rajyopa-sobhitam

(selanjutnya kalian akan memasuki wilayah pulau Jawa yang termasyhur, dan terdiri atas 7 kerajaan).

Sebaliknya, bila teks keagamaan Hindu bertradisi Arya ini migrasi ke wilayah Semit, maka muncullah kosakata “Hoddu” dalam bahasa Ibrani, yang berasal dari kata “Hindhu” dalam bahasa Sanskrit. Dan, istilah “Hindhu” dalam bahasa Sanskrit itu ternyata juga sepadan dng sebutan “Hindustan” dalam bahasa Urdu. Begitu pula munculnya istilah Ibrani תוכיים (tukiyyim, “parrots”) dalam Perjanjian Lama (the Old Testament) yang termaktub dalam kitab Raja2 (the book of Kings) dan kitab Tawarikh (the book of Chronicles) ternyata asalnya merupakan adopsi dari kosakata Tamil “tukiyyim” (parrots), dan istilah ini ternyata berasal dari kosakata bahasa Sanskrit yakni “sukim” (parrots).

Menariknya, dalam kitab Talmud, Bava Batra 15.a.2 disebutkan: וירמיה כתב ספרו וספר מלכים וקינות (ve Yermiyahu katav sefero ve sefer Melachim ve Qinot – Jeremias scripsit librum suum et librum Regum et Threnos), yang artinya: “dan Nabi Yeremiyah sendiri yang telah menulis kitab Yeremiyah, begitu juga kitab Raja-raja dan kitab Ratapan.” Dan fakta historis membuktikan bahwa Nabi Yeremiyah menulis kitab-kitab tersebut di wilayah yang terhegemoni tradisi Arya. Dengan demikian, tidaklah mengherankan bila istilah תוכיים (tukiyyim) merupakan bentuk Ibranisasi dari kosakata Sanskrit (“sukim“) yang bisa disebut sebagai Hebraized-Sanskrit term. Amazing.

Dengan demikian, peradaban Arya ternyata bukan hanya menyebar ke wilayah Nusantara, tetapi juga menyebar ke wilayah peradaban Semit (Timur Tengah).

Book Release: “Aryo-Semitic Philology: The Semitization of Vedas and Sanskrit Elements in Hebrew and Abrahamic Texts” (Surabaya: Airlangga University Press, 2018)

Posted on by
Reply

img-20180522-wa00118403580893794179019.jpg

Banyak para akademisi telah membaca buku “The Foreign Vocabulary of the Quran” karya Arthur Jefferey (Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1938). Karya ini memang familiar di antara para misionaris untuk membuktikan adanya loanwords (kosakata asing) non-Arabic dalam Quran. Namun, kita juga harus jujur mengakui bahwa para ahli Biblikal faktanya telah mengakui adanya pengaruh kosakata asing (loanwords) non-Hebrew dalam Alkitab Perjanjian Lama (TaNaKH). Munculnya pengaruh kosakata asing (loanwords) dalam teks Perjanjian Lama (PL/TaNaKH) merupakan suatu keniscayaan dalam proses penjadian teks, apalagi penjadian teks TaNaKH yang kemudian ‘disucikan.’ Teks tidak pernah lahir dalam ruang hampa, dan teks itu sendiri muncul dalan konteks sosial, relasi bahasa dan interaksi budaya yang mengitarinya.

Dalam riset linguistic, Prof. James Barr, Ph.D., penulis buku “Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament” (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1968) menyebutkan adanya hegemoni loanwords and words of non-Semitic origin dalam teks Perjanjian Lama (Biblical Hebrew Texts). Prof. Mats Eskhult, Ph.D., penulis “The Importance of Loanwords for Dating Biblical Hebrew Texts” (London-New York: T & T Clark International, 2003) dari Department of Asian and African Languages, Uppsala University (Swedan) juga memaparparkan bahwa bahasa-bahasa dominan yang berpengaruh dan terekam dalam teks TaNaKH (Perjanjian Lama) meliputi 4 bahasa utama, yakni bahasa Akkadia, bahasa Aramaic, bahasa Koptik (Ancient Egytian) dan bahasa Persia.

Ini membuktikan bahwa teks Perjanjian Lama tidak pernah ‘menjadi’ secara steril dan terasing daei bahasa-bahasa lain yang mengitarinya.

Sementara itu, Prof. Arthur Jeffery, Ph.D. penulis buku “The Foreign Vocabulary of the Quran” (Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1938) dan J. Spencer Trimingham penulis buku “Christianity among the Arabs in pre-Islamic Times” (London: Longman, 1979) juga menyebutkan adanya 4 bahasa-bahasa dominan yang berpengaruh dan terekam dalam Quran, yaitu bahasa Hebrew (Ibrani), Suryani (Syriac), Persian dan Etiopia (Amharic).

Berdasarkan pembuktian filologis, saya mencoba utk menyuguhkan karya saya berjudul “Aryo-Semitic Philology: The Semitization of Vedas and Sanskrit Elements in Hebrew and Abrahamic Texts” (Surabaya: Airlangga University Press, 2018) sebagai alternatif bacaan kepada para pembaca tentang adanya pengaruh kosakata asing non-Hebrew di antaranya hegemoni bahasa Sanskrit dan Persian – sebagaimana yang termaktub dalam Perjanjian Lama.

Hegemoni bahasa Sanskrit dan Persia merupakan bahasa-bahasa utama dalam tradisi Arya; dan kedua bahasa tersebut ternyata jejaknya amat dominan dalam bahasa Ibrani Masoret (Biblical Hebrew). Bahasa Sanskrit dan bahasa Persia justru dominan menaklukkan (‘conquer’) bahasa Ibrani Biblikal, yang jejaknya termaktub dalam teks Perjanjian Lama (PL).

Saya berharap, karya saya yang berjudul “Aryo-Semitic Philology: The Semitization of Vedas and Sanskrit Elements in Hebrew and Abrahamic Texts” merupakan karya kritik dan sekaligus sebagai karya pembanding atas bukunya Arthur Jeffery yang berjudul “The Foreign Vocabulary of the Quran.”

Is Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) mentioned by the name in the Bible?

Posted on by
Reply

Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel… [Al A’raaf 157]

It comes to my attention, initially published in Al Bayan site, a very interesting research written by a researcher by the name of Faisal Al Kamily who argues using linguistic argument that Hosea 9:6 a clear prophecy about Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) so I thought it will be beneficial to make this research accessible in English. However I believe this post is for open minded people and those who are honest in asking, the evidence that prophet Muhammad was indeed prophesied in the TaNaKH as it speaks for itself, but for one who has bigotry on Prophet Muhammad and Islam, no amount of evidence will be convincing.

NB: <<The research is originally in Arabic and I translated it myself to make it accessible for english readers but I’m not a professional translator, so my apologies if my translation causes anyone’s eyebrows raised.>>

Is Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) mentioned by the name in the Bible?

Part I

Christian and Jewish scholars claim that the name محمد “Muhammad” was not written in their so called “holy” books whatsoever. Thus the the saying of Allah in the Quran Al A’raaf 157 merely just an effort to legitimize and sanctify the final prophethood the message of Islam as a religion which supersede Judaism and Christianity. We will see that despite of these false allegations however if the claim is true, the story in the so called holy bible is actually not the story taken from the true Torah and the Gospel which are revealed from God, accordingly, if the name of “Muhammad” is not mentioned in the holy books ie previous revelation it would be a deciding factor in refuting the holy Quran.

“Holy Bible” is divided into two main parts: Old Testament which is equally believed by the Jews and the Christians, and contains laws and stories from time span the beginning of creation to the fifth century BC approx. It was written by a number of unknowns whom we know nothing about them, the New Testament is accepted only by the Christians and it includes the story of Christ, the book allegedly has been composed by: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in addition to that there are some are letters some attributed to Paul the Jew and some to others.

To reassure the hearts of the believers and to make the unbelievers more broken hearted, and for muslims are not accused of being impartial in any way in this response. Here are passages from the Old Testament that Jews and Christians have to accept that the name of “Muhammad” is still intact , despite the tampering. Regardless of the authenticity or inaccuracy of the (old testament) text attributed to a prophet among the Israelite prophets, there remain the evidence of the historical background of the Prophet (Muhammad) mission — as well as evidence of the mention of his noble name from the time of authentic revelation hidden by rabbis and monks, like they did in other books. In this part of the article, I shall present a clear case of distortion (Taḥrīf), a case where accepting the text despite lacking its coherence original meaning, which I will seclude in the second part (of this article), God willing.

These passages appear in the book of Hosea – It is one of the books of the Old Testament canon – In the context of rebuking of the Israelites for the wrongdoings and sins they committed “the Lord” says:

1 Rejoice not, O Israel, As other peoples exult; For you have strayed Away from your God: You have loved a harlot’s fee By every threshing floor of new grain. 2 Threshing floor and winepress Shall not join them, And the new wine shall betray her. 3 They shall not be able to remain In the land of the LORD. But Ephraim shall return to Egypt And shall eat unclean food in Assyria. 4 It shall be for them like the food of mourners, All who partake of which are defiled. They will offer no libations of wine to the LORD, And no sacrifices of theirs will be pleasing to Him; But their food will be only for their hunger, It shall not come into the House of the LORD. (Hose 9:1-4)

After the passages of rebuke, the Lord asks them, saying:

<<Hosea 9:5-7>>

Mah-ta’asu leyom mo’ed; uleyom chag-yahuwah.

Ki-hinneh halechu mishod, mitzrayim tekabbetzem mof tekabberem; Mahmad lechaspam, kimmos yirashem, choach be’oholeihem.

Ba’u yemei happekuddah, ba’u yemei hashillum, yede’u yisra’el; evil hannavi, meshugga ish haruach, al rob avonecha, verabbah mastemah.

And its translation in accordance with most of the Arabic and non-arabic translations (this is my own translation based on Van Dykes Arabic bible – Eric Kisam):

5What will you do in feast days, in the festivals of the LORD 6Behold, they have gone because of destruction, Egypt gather them, Mof bury them, The desirable things of their silver, Weeds are their heirs; Prickly shrubs occupy their [old] homes. 7Come in have the days of inspection, Come in have the days of recompence, Israel do know! a fool [is] the prophet, Mad [is] the man of the Spirit, Because of the abundance of their sins, And great [is] the hostility.

Most of the Arabic and non arabic translations exegetes this text as a some kind of weird situation that hardly expresses any useful benefit, but is it merely contradictory sentences with no connection?. What is the “day of the season”? What is the “day of the Lord’s Day”? What is the meaning of “Let Israel know it! The prophet is a fool, The inspired man is mad because of the abundance of their sins and hatred”?

Here are examples of the translations and their discrepancies:

The Septuagint

Therefore, behold, they go forth from the trouble of Egypt,… [1]

New International Version

Even if they escape from destruction, Egypt will gather them,…[2]

Revised Standard Version

For behold, they are going to Assyria; Egypt shall gather them…[3]

This puzzle of this discrepancy quickly fades away if the examiner returns to the Hebrew text in the book of Hosea to see why the various translations are far from accurate, because it depends on those who are not specialist in the “Semitic” languages[4] although being the expert in the field you see they sometimes skip the Hebrew lexical meaning and rush to any meaning which bear the context, and they do not posses intuitive skill to present the desired meaning from among dozens of meanings sometimes because most of the translations were done by non semites.

The Greek Septuagint added the word “talaiporias,” which means distress and trouble (or sometimes ruinned) to the word “Aiguptou” (ie, “Egypt”) to become the phrase “the trouble of Egypt.” Although this meaning is acceptable in itself, yet it doesn’t go with the intended rhyme in the original the text, as will be explained shortly.

We also note that what the Greek version (Spetuagint) is contrastly different with “the new international version” (NIV) on two key words “trouble” and “destruction”, so “from the trouble of Egypt” becomes “destruction, Egypt …”

The RSV version have been greatly exaggerated that one left to wonder: which clumsy hand did it? The letter “m” (meaning “from” «min») was translated into “to” «ilā», which is exactly the antonym of the meaning! Then the word “shud” שֹּׁ֔ד is translated as “Assyria”, and become “they are going to Assyria”. What is the similarity between (שׁ – ד) and (ע – שׁ – ו – ר) in Hebrew such the reasoning of the interpreter to arrive at such translation? Is it an example of the tampering by the translators?, this can not be interpreted as such except this is a deliberate bias or sheer ignorance. Perhaps the readers haved warned the publishing house of this fatal flaw, so in the new revised standard version (NRS) it now becomes “For even if they escape destruction” similar to the new international version (NIV).

The Hebrew language was a dialect of ancient Arabic dialects, such as Sab’iyah and Tsamudiyah, spoken by the Canaanite Arabs who inhabited Palestine. Then the Jews took their tongue for them, and called “Siffat Kana’an“; that is “Sefat kena’an שְׂפַ֣ת כְּנַ֔עַן” “the tongue of Canaan” as attested in the Book of Isaiah (19:18). However, since it has lost its syntax case markings (the I’rab) – like many of the ancient Arabic dialects – it has became difficult to define the meanings precisely as in the above text. If the word “Masraim” was read as nominative case, it would not be related to “shud” (ie: trouble), in fact it is is a resumed sentence (musta’nifa). British Encyclopedia states: In semitic language [like the classical arabic] there are originally three case endings: Nominative (rafa’), Accusative (nasb), and Genitive (jar). However, those cases markings were not fully preserved except in some Akkadian dialects and in classical Arabic. “[5]

as I mentioned: The reader of two passages (v5 and 6) shall automatically notice in their original Hebrew, that in them the symmetry and rhyme is always in the sentences without use or being irregular.

The text says:

Mitzrayim tekabbetzem[6] (Egypt shall gather them )
Mof tekabberem (Mof shall bury them)
Mahmad lechaspam (their precious silver?)
Kimmos[7] yirashem (thorny weed shall inherit them)
Choach be’oholeihem (Prickly shrubs occupy their places)

Notice in short that the first three sentences begin with “Mem”, and each sentence ends with the plural construct “mem” which corresponds to “them” in Arabic, which reminds us of the rhyme of Andalusian poetry.

When the correct rule of the text were followed, it turns out that the word “mitzrayim” should be as nominative possessive composite (rafa’ mubtada) and not as the genitive/ (mudāf ilayhi) as suggested by the Septuagint version. The mistake in Septuagint is it view “(mi)shod mitzrayim” as mudāf – mudāf ilayhi construction, thus the wordings of the two paragraphs were re-arranged as follows:

Tekabbetzem mof (Mof shall gather them)
Tekabberem Mahmas (Μέμφις) (?)[8] shall bury them)
Lechaspam kimmos yirashem ( And their silver thus turn into ruin)
Choach be’oholeihem (Prickly shrubs occupy their tents)

In this way, the septuagint version has lost the pattern and the intended rhyme even more it has violated the rules of case ending (I’rab) in the third sentence, as I will show in the second part of the article, God willing.

Notes:
[1] «διὰ τοῦτο ἰδοὺ πορεύσονται ἐκ ταλαιπωρίας Αἰγύπτου dià toûto idoù poreúsontai ek talaipōrías Aigýptou».
[2] “Even if they escape from destruction, Egypt will gather them.”
[3] «For behold, they are going to Assyria; Egypt shall gather them…».
[4] Coining the term “semitic” is on language despite its mistake, it is correct to say: «Ancient Arabic» or so
[5] Encyclopedia Britannica. “Semitic Languages”.
[6] from the the Hebrew “qabats קָבַץ” (equivalent with arabic “qabada قبض” meaning ”to seize”) in the sense of “to gather” or ”to hold”.
[7] A nettle i.e. a plant.
[8] Which is a distortion of the original word «M – H – M – D» as I will show in the second part, God willing.

Part II

It was mentioned in the first part of this article, a text from the Old Testament which refer to “Muhammad” (pbuh) by name explicitly in the books of the jews and christians, but there are proof the deliberate distortion in the hebrew translation of the text, and I have shown some instances, now more importantly is to prove that the quoted paragraph should be read in the following order, taking into account the commas/separations:

<<Hosea 9:5-6>>

Mah-ta’asu leyom mo’ed; uleyom chag-yahuwah?

Ki-hinneh halechu mishod:
mitzrayim tekabbetzem,
mof tekabberem,
mahmad lechaspam,
kimmos yirashem,
choach be’oholeihem..

And I have proven that this reading is the only one that maintains the symmetry of the sentences and its rhyme. But in this part, I will focus on the meaning of the text to see how the translators manipulated text who refer clear prophecy of the Al Mustafa (Muhammad pbuh) – to become sentences that are very incohesive and meaningless.

The exegesis of the text

As for the saying: “Mah-ta’asu leyom mo’ed; uleyom chag-yahuwah?” It has nothing to do with the feast days and festivals. This is apparent from the context; it is an intimidation and warning for the Israelites who have departed from God’s way and disobeyed His messengers.
The translation says <<What will you do in feast days, in the festivals of the LORD??>> it took away the goal and change the threat to festival. The Hebrew text says: (le-yom לְ-י֣וֹם) meaning «for the day» and not (be-yom ב-י֣וֹם) «in a day». Therefore, the correct translation is: “What are you doing for to the day of the promise [1] and the day that the Lord will gather you?” The word Hag ”חַג” in Hebrew is pertaining to “mass gathering”; The meaning of the sentence is mentioned in the words of God (The Qur’an) – the Almighty – addressing the children of Israel:

وَاتَّقُوا يَوْمًا لاَّ تَجْزِي نَفْسٌ عَن نَّفْسٍ شَيْئًا وَلا يُقْبَلُ مِنْهَا عَدْلٌ وَلا تَنفَعُهَا شَفَاعَةٌ وَلا هُمْ يُنصَرُونَ

And fear a Day when no soul will suffice for another soul at all, and no compensation will be accepted from it, nor will any intercession benefit it, nor will they be aided. [Al-Baqarah: 123].

As for the saying, “Ki-hinneh halechu mishod: mitzrayim tekabbetzem, mof tekabberem”

And it is interpreted it as: <<Even if they escape from destruction, Egypt will gather them, and Memphis[2] will bury them [or] hide them>>

It is a very close meaning to the Words of Allah – the Almighty – in the Qur’an Al Karīm:

وَإذْ نَجَّيْنَاكُم مِّنْ آلِ فِرْعَوْنَ يَسُومُونَكُمْ سُوءَ الْعَذَابِ يُذَبِّحُونَ أَبْنَاءَكُمْ وَيَسْتَحْيُونَ نِسَاءَكُمْ وَفِي ذَلِكُم بَلاءٌ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ عَظِيمٌ

And [recall] when We saved your forefathers from the people of Pharaoh, who afflicted you with the worst torment, slaughtering your [newborn] sons and keeping your females alive. And in that was a great trial from your Lord. [Al-Baqarah: 49].

But the persecution of the Egyptians is not in all the paragraphs which says about the afflictions of the Israelites. It continues: “Mahmad lechaspam מַחְמַ֣ד לְכַסְפָּ֗ם ,” and here is the bottomline. This phrase was translated as “the precious thing of silver”, which is an apparent distortion of two main things:

The first is that the phrase (idāfa) of “Mahmad” (meaning “precious”) to “chaspam” (ie, “their silver” or “their money”) is of great importance, for the occurence of the preposition (harf ul ĵar) <<לְ>> between them. In the Grammar of Hebrew Language by Wilhelm Gesenius, it is cited that the proper term of the phrase is (Mahmad chaspam), and thats the joint wording of the phrase in Hebrew.

Secondly, if we accept the validiy of the argument in “mahmad lechaspam”, as “their preciousness silver [or their money]” is nevertheless not a useful sentence, it is a construct contains subject (mubtada) who lacks the predicate (Al khabar), or the predicate has been omittedt we do not know. This forced the translator to connect with (kimmos yirashem קִמּוֹשׂ֙ יִֽירָשֵׁ֔ם ), as follows, and said: “Their preciousness (of) silver will be taken over them by thorny weed” It is an awful attempt to escape the problem, but the sentence is not improved despite this fix; because if we translated the Hebrew text literally it would have become “the preciousness (of) their silver thorny weed shall inherit them”; meaning the plural sentence ”הם” return the singular “preciouness,” which is not correct in the Hebrew language. Rather, it is said: “the preciousness (of) their silver thorny weed shall inherit it “, If we assume that the pronoun refer to “silver”- which is very unlikely – the objection is valid; it is singular and not plural in its Hebrew original. This indicates that they are two sentences rather than one sentence.

What is the meaning of the sentence then? a brief, concised term of “mahmad lechaspam” in its literal meaning, is “Muhammad to their Lord,” as “Muhammad” is a proper noun which refers to the Prophet – and not an adjective “precious” – This testify to at least two things:

First: The sentence without this form is not complete, there is no meaning and no word declension (mabnī), as stated above.

Second: When the translators of the Septuagint were exposed to this paragraph, they realized that Muhammad was a proper name, so they did what they did they tried to change the name to Machmas/Μαχμας (the city of Machmas). Perhaps one can excuse the translators on the possibility for not being able to recognize letter “Dalet ד‬” in the Hebrew origin, I say:

First: The letter of ש‬ “Shin” and ד‬ “Dalet” in Hebrew nothing resemble the mixture and the confusion between them is unlikely; the former is similar in form to number (5) and the latter is similar to number (6).

Second, suppose we follow this speculation, the city of Machmash as the translators want here, in Hebrew it is not written as “mahmas / מחמשׂ‬, ” but rather “makmas”/ מכמשׁ‬ with Kaf כ and ‬ Shin שׁ. The distortion was not only in one letter, but in two letters.

The critic may object: “Mahmad is not the same with Muhammad.” The answer: that the Hebrew text remained for more than a thousand years were without vowel signs until added by the “masoretes” the Jewish scholars between the sixth and ninth century AD, according to their judgement and made some mistakes. The word before the distortion of the masoretes was “MHMD” without vowel signs, and it was not “Mahmad“, and this is what the scholars of the Old Testament gather with acquiescence in order to hide the trace of «Muhammad» knowing about the Prophet (pbuh).

And the intention of the passage (is to show) that Muhammad (pbuh) will discipline them with their wealth, and this happened when the sons of Nadeer were expelled to Syrian and Khayber, so even one of them destroy the door of his house and roof in the night abandon it behind, as mentioned in Surat Al-Hashr:

هُوَ الَّذِي أَخْرَجَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ مِن دِيَارِهِمْ لأَوَّلِ الْـحَشْرِ مَا ظَنَنتُمْ أَن يَخْرُجُوا وَظَنُّوا أَنَّهُم مَّانِعَتُهُمْ حُصُونُهُم مِّنَ اللَّهِ فَأَتَاهُمُ اللَّهُ مِنْ حَيْثُ لَمْ يَحْتَسِبُوا وَقَذَفَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمُ الرُّعْبَ يُخْرِبُونَ بُيُوتَهُم بِأَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَيْدِي الْـمُؤْمِنِينَ فَاعْتَبِرُوا يَا أُوْلِي الأَبْصَارِ

It is He who expelled the ones who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think they would leave, and they thought that their fortresses would protect them from Allah ; but [the decree of] Allah came upon them from where they had not expected, and He cast terror into their hearts [so] they destroyed their houses by their [own] hands and the hands of the believers. So take warning, O people of vision. [Al-Hashr: 2].

وَمَا أَفَاءَ اللَّهُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ مِنْهُمْ فَمَا أَوْجَفْتُمْ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ خَيْلٍ وَلا رِكَابٍ وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ يُسَلِّطُ رُسُلَهُ عَلَى مَن يَشَاءُ وَاللَّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ

And what Allah restored [of property] to His Messenger from them – you did not spur for it [in an expedition] any horses or camels, but Allah gives His messengers power over whom He wills, and Allah is over all things competent. [Al-Hashr: 6].

As for saying: “kimmos yirashem, choach be’oholeihem” I will rely the translation on the Arabic versions: “thorny weed shall inherit them, and prickly shrubs occupy their places” for the sake of argumen will not be accepted, in order to not to take up too much time of the reader.

Then the Lord returns to the warning of the children of Israel from the consequences of their kufr, and that the days of reckoning have arrived. He Says “Ba’u yemei happekuddah, ba’u yemei hashillum” which The days of punishment have come, the days of recompense have come. The use of past tense here is an indication of assurance of that it is inevitably occurring, as the saying of God Almighty -:

أَتَى أَمْرُ اللَّهِ فَلا تَسْتَعْجِلُوهُ

The Command of Allah has come up; so do not seek to hasten it. [AnNahl: 1].

Then (God) explained the justification for this threat and ultimatum, and said: “yede’u yisra’el; ewil hannavi“. And translated as in Van Dyke translation: “Israel will know, the foolish prophet, the man of crazy spirit.” You notice the ending is weak and ambiguous, most of the Arabic and non arabic translations considered the Hebrew verb «Yada יָדַע» derived from «Yod – Dalet – Ayin ד – ע » which mean “knowing” , however it is plausible to suggest that it is in fact derived from « Dalet – Ayin – He ד – ע – ה » which cognate with Arabic Da’ā «دعا» which mean « to call». This is consistent in hebrew with what James Barr has classified in his book “Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament”[3]. Thus the sentence (yede’u yisra’el; evil hannavi, meshugga ish haruach) consists of a transitive verb with two objects, a doer/subject with its initial part second object, and latter part first-object, then a second possessed object with its latter part first-object. Therefore, the literal translation of the paragraph is: “Israel calls the prophet a fool, and the man of the mad spirit”, and “Israel” here is meant to be the children of Israel.

God Almighty said -:

كَذَلِكَ مَا أَتَى الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِم مِّن رَّسُولٍ إلاَّ قَالُوا سَاحِرٌ أَوْ مَجْنُونٌ * أَتَوَاصَوْا بِهِ بَلْ هُمْ قَوْمٌ طَاغُونَ

Similarly, there came not to those before them any messenger except that they said, “A magician or a madman.” * Did they suggest it to them? Rather, they [themselves] are a transgressing people. [Adh-Dhāriyāt 52-53]

Then the text which the Jews had paid for this insults and rejection, it said: al rob awonecha, we rabbah mastemah “to the multitude of your sins and the excess of your hostility”[4]. The reason for the Jews denying the Prophet as well as insulted them – attested by their journey – their excessive hostility, which God – the Almighty – Said:

لَتَجِدَنَّ أَشَدَّ النَّاسِ عَدَاوَةً لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُوا

You will surely find the most intense of the people in hostility toward the believers [to be] the Jews and those who associate others with Allah (the Pagans) [Al-Mā’idah: 82].

In the story of Safiya bint Huyay ibn Akhtab – she said: “”I was the sweetheart of my father and uncle, Abu Yaser. Whenever they are with their children and see me, they take me and leave them. When the Prophet – peace be upon him – came to Medina, my father and uncle went to him from the morning and did not come back until the sunset time. They were very tired and walking slowly. Seeing that, I met them courteously as I usually do, but no one cared about me due to their dejection. I heard my uncle, Abu Yasser, saying to my father: Is it he? My father said: yes he is (the Prophet). My uncle said: do you know him surely? My father said: yes. My uncle said: then what will you do? My father said: He will be my enemy forever “[5].

Here I conclude the exposition with above mentioned Van Dykes Arabic translation of the text, followed by my translation of the original Hebrew original and leave the readers decide.

Van Dyke translation

(my adaptation to english – Eric Kisam):

The seeker translation

What will you do about feast days, About the festivals of the Lord Behold, they have gone because of destruction, Egypt gather them, Moph buried them, The desirable things of their silver, Weeds are their heirs; Prickly shrubs occupy their [old] homes. Come in have the days of inspection, Come in have the days of recompence, Israel will know! a fool [is] the prophet, Mad [is] the man of the Spirit, Because of the abundance of their sins, And great [is] the hostility.

“What are you doing (preparing) for the day of the promise, and the day that the Lord will gather you? They are the ones who survived the afflictions: Egypt captures them, and Moph bury them, and (the Prophet) Muhammad will plunder them, and the weeds will inherit them, and Prickly shrubs will be in their houses. The days of punishment shall come, and the days of recompense shall befall. The children of Israel will call the Prophet a fool, and his revelation as mad, due to the magnitude of their sin and their persistent hostility.

الَّذِينَ آتَيْنَاهُمُ الْكِتَابَ يَعْرِفُونَهُ كَمَا يَعْرِفُونَ أَبْنَاءَهُمْ وَإنَّ فَرِيقًا مِّنْهُمْ لَيَكْتُمُونَ الْـحَقَّ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ * الْـحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكَ فَلا تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْـمُمْتَرِينَ

Those to whom We gave the Scripture know him as they know their own sons. But indeed, a party of them conceal the truth while they know [it]. The truth is from your Lord, so never be among the doubters. [Al-Baqarah: 147-147]

Notes:
[1] Mo’ed מוֹעֵד in the hebrew text.
[2] Moph: an ancient Egyptian city.
[3] Barr, James. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1987), p. 23.
[4] This is shift from the third person to second person; in other words a shift from the third person form “Israel calls” to the second person construct, “your sins” and “your hostility”, This is a rhetorical device that drew the listener or the reader into something significant. It has been used previously when saying “What are you doing?…They are the ones who survived the afflictions”. ” while the basis should be ” You are the ones who survived the afflictions.” This does not concern us very much here, but I just wanted to show variation of the use of pronouns and that does not alter the original meaning of the text at all.
[5] Seerah Ibn Hisyam 915/1.
[6]”Ish Haruach אִ֣ישׁ הָר֔וּחַ ” translated as “man of the spirit” meaning: «with revelation» which is a description of Muhammad — in the exalted Qur’an which was revealed to him his revelation was termed as a «rūḥan روحاً ie. spirit» God says –

: وَكَذَلِكَ أَوْحَيْنَا إلَيْكَ رُوحًا مِّنْ أَمْرِنَا مَا كُنتَ تَدْرِي مَا الْكِتَابُ وَلا الإيمَانُ وَلَكِن جَعَلْنَاهُ نُورًا نَّهْدِي بِهِ مَن نَّشـَـاءُ مِنْ عِبَادِنَا وَإنَّكَ لَتَهْدِي إلَى صِرَاطٍ مُّسْتَقِيمٍ [الشورى: 25].

And thus We have revealed to you an inspiration «rūḥan روحاً» of Our command. You did not know what is the Book or [what is] faith, but We have made it a light by which We guide whom We will of Our servants. And indeed, [O Muhammad], you guide to a straight path – [Ash Shurā 25]

Ishmael, peace be upon him, part I: “Wild Ass” Man?

Posted on by
Reply

ismail

نبي الله إسماعيل


Brief philological analysis on the term “Wild Ass” in Genesis 16:12

Many christians in the west see Muslims, Arabs, and what is happening in the middle east as a direct fulfilment to Genesis 16 11-12 by deeming all prophet Ishmael (ص) (Ar. إسماعيل‎ ʾIsmāʿīl) descendants  i.e. Prophet Muhammad (ص) , the Arabs and Muslims in one derogatory category “wild ass of men”.

Continue reading →