The following passages are among those used by Islam in an attempt to prove that Muhammad was prophesied in the Bible:

(Qur'an 7:157) "She had heard about this from her brother Waraqa bin Nawfal, who was a [Hanif turned] Christian and had studied the scriptures; he had discovered that a prophet from the descendants of Ishmael was to be sent to this people; this had been one of the purposes of his study." (Tabari VI:6) Speaking of the Jews, "It is He [Allah] Who has sent among the unlettered inhabitants of Mecca a Messenger from among themselves, to rehearse and recite to them His Signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom, although they had been, before, in manifest error." (Qur'an 62:2) Again, speaking of the children of Israel, "After the siege exhausted and terrorized them, the Jews felt certain that the Apostle would not leave them until he had exterminated them. So they decided to talk to Ka'b Asad. He said, 'People of the Jews, you see what has befallen you. I shall propose three alternatives. Take whichever one you please.' He said, 'Swear allegiance to this man and accept him; for, by Allah, it has become clear to you that he is a prophet sent from Allah. It is he that you used to find mentioned in your scripture book. Then you will be secure in your lives, your property, your children, and your wives.'" (Ishaq:461) And finally, "Those who follow the Messenger (Muhammad), the Prophet who can neither read nor write whom they find written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 18:15) and the Gospel (John 14:16); he commands them to Islam."

Muhammad saw himself as the Messiah, God's final messenger. However, all of Yahweh's prophets were Jewish; none were Arab. Secondly, the New Testament is clear: there would be no great prophet after Christ. And third, an exposition of the original Hebrew and Greek texts of Deuteronomy 18:15 and John 14:16 clearly shows that both of these passages refers the Jewish Messiah, Yahshua. Only by a complete disregard of the principles of Biblical exegesis and interpretation, could these passages be strangled enough to speak of Allah, Islam and an Arab prophet named Muhammad.

Excerpts from Prophet of Doom

From chapter 6, "Heart of Darkness"

Take a deep breath. The next Hadith begins with an inordinately long sentence. Tabari VI:6 "It is alleged that he consummated his marriage to her there as soon as he married her, that he lay with her and that she conceived Muhammad; then he left her presence and came to the woman who had propositioned him, and said to her, 'Why do you not make the same proposition to me today which you made to me yesterday?'" To which she replied, "The light which was with you yesterday has left you, and I have no need of you today."

Remember, these Hadith found paper in Baghdad centuries after Muhammad's passing. By that time, the Muslim scholars who authored them had well-defined agendas. In particular, they had to make their guy look as godly as that Christian guy, or they'd be out of business. The Gospels proclaimed that Christ was the light of the world, so Muslims contrived this Hadith to make their prophet appear similarly enlightened. And if you think that I'm being too cynical, listen to the next line from Tabari. "She had heard about this from her brother Waraqa bin Nawfal, who was a [Hanif turned] Christian and had studied the scriptures; he had discovered that a prophet from the descendants of Ishmael was to be sent to this people; this had been one of the purposes of his study."

Holy hogwash. The Bible says no such thing about the descendants of Ishmael. It says that he'll give rise to twelve rulers and that his descendants will live like wild asses of men, hands raised against their brothers, living in hostility with the world. While prophetic, it's hardly prophet material.

So why did the Muslim scholars choose to deceive us? They needed to, that's why. And within their community they could get away with it. And Arabs would never be wiser for it. They were illiterate, and even the miniscule percentage who could read were out of luck when it came to the Bible. There is no trace of an Arabic translation of the Old Testament prior to that of Saadias Gaon in 900 A.D., decades after this delusion was promulgated. And the oldest Arabic New Testament was published by Erpenius in 1616 from a transcription of a 1171 Coptic scroll.

In the territories controlled by the Muslim warlords of the seventh through tenth centuries, words were irrelevant, as unimportant as evangelists. Islam grew by sword through conquest, not by words and reason. And those who benefited from this ruse knew that by the time their deception was exposed, it would be too late; the victory would have been won.

For those who may think I am perhaps making too much of too little, consider this: Tabari VI:7 "When Abdul Muttalib was taking Abdallah to marry Aminah they passed by a female soothsayer called Fatimah, a convert to Judaism from the people of Tabalah who had read the scriptures and who saw light in his face. 'Young man.' she said, 'would you like to lie with me now, and I will give you a hundred camels?'" Contriving a phony Christian endorsement of the Muslim prophet was not enough. Now a Jewish soothsayer is called to verify the light. But why would a Jew react this way? The Judeo-Christian scriptures say nothing - zip, zero, zilch - about the father of a prophet having a light in his face. Further, Judaism and soothsaying are mutually exclusive. Jews serve Yahweh; soothsayers serve Satan.

From chapter 6, "Heart of Darkness"

Virtually everything associated with Muhammad was decidedly unprophet-like. His birth was not foretold. The circumstances surrounding it were nasty. He couldn't perform a miracle. He never issued a single prophetic utterance that came true as predicted. His scripture was abysmal - devoid of context and chronology. It focused on hate, violence, and punishment. His "new" religion was simply repackaged paganism blended with a plethora of plagiarized and twisted Bible stories. What little was inventive was tragic. War was elevated to a paramount religious duty. Plunder was approved, as was incest, thievery, lying, assassination, genocide, and rape to name a few Islamic innovations. Paradise became a lustful orgy. The would-be prophet's depictions of hell told us more about him than about the place. And his life was an example of what not to do, rather than how to behave. Then there was his god - a trickster, angry and demented.

According to the Qur'an, the Meccans knew the prophet was full of it. They ridiculed him on every occasion - a hundred variations of the never-ending argument were faithfully recounted in the Islamic holy book. But the Meccans were eventually conquered and criticizing the prophet became a deadly game. So the next time the Muslim hierarchy was confronted with the notion that their man didn't measure up was when they paraded his legacy out to the literate word. The enlightened didn't buy it either, and for all the reasons we have just mentioned.

That put the Muslim warlords in a tough spot. They had raided everyone from India to Spain. Now they needed to control that which they had conquered. And they recognized that there is no better way to subdue a population than to impose a religion. So about a hundred and fifty years after the prophet's death, the Persians rolled out the first version of the Islamic "religion." It was as dismal a failure as it had been in Mecca. Their subjects said, "This guy's no prophet and this stuff isn't scripture." By way of example, Al-Kindi, a Christian polemicist employed in the Caliphal court in 830 A.D. wrote: "The result of this process by which the Qur'an has come into being is that it's patently obvious to those who have read these scriptures that Muslim histories are all jumbled together and intermingled. It is an evidence that many different hands have been at work therein, and caused discrepancies, adding or cutting out whatever they liked or disliked. As such, the conditions are right for a new revelation to be sent down from heaven."

So the Islamic sages retreated to Baghdad and went back to the drawing board. Over the course of the next hundred years they buffed up their boy and their book, releasing a new and improved Islam. This time there were miracles and Christians and Jews ever at the ready to testify on the prophet's behalf.

Let's listen in, but with a critical ear, to see how well the sages cleaned up the prophet of Islam. Under the title, "The Messenger of Allah Is Recognized by the Monk Bahira" Tabari parades out a Hadith shared by Ishaq. Tabari VI:44/Ishaq:79 "Once Abu Talib was going on a trading expedition to Syria with a party of Quraysh, but when he had made his preparations and was ready to set out, the Messenger, so they allege, could not bear to be separated from him." Before I go on, I'd like to point out something that should be obvious. Tabari and Ishaq share a set of code words. When they say, "so they allege," "it is alleged," "it is said," "some say," or "Allah knows best," they are simply reporting what they were told to write. They don't believe it any more than you should.

"Talib took pity on him, 'By Allah, I will take him with me, and we shall never part.' or words to that effect. The caravan halted at Busra [Bostra?] in Syria, where there was a learned Christian monk named Bahira in his cell. There had always been a monk in that cell, and their knowledge was passed on, it is alleged, [the code words again] by means of a book which was handed down from generation to generation." There is no record of this monk, his cell, or his book outside this Hadith. But that's small potatoes compared to what comes next.

Tabari VI:44/Ishaq:79 "Bahira prepared a meal for them because while he was in his cell he had seen the Messenger shaded by a cloud which marked him out from among the company. When they halted in the shade of a tree, he observed the cloud covering the tree and bending down its branches over Muhammad until he was in the shade. Bahira descended from his cell and sent the caravan a message inviting them all. When he saw the Messenger, he observed him very intently, noting features of his person whose description he had found in his Christian book." Judeo-Christian prophets aren't described physically in any "book." But in order to create a Christian endorsement from a learned monk, the Muslims have invented this monk, story, and book.

"After the company had finished the meal and dispersed, he asked the Messenger about certain matters which had taken place both when he was awake and when he was asleep. Muhammad told him, and he found that these things corresponded to the description which he had found in his book. Finally he looked at his back, and saw the seal of prophethood between his shoulders in the very place described in his book." Camel-dung - every word of it. First, the Gospels are clear. No great prophet after the Messiah is foretold. Second, there isn't a set of "awake and asleep" criteria for a divine calling, which is probably why the Hadith doesn't bother listing them. Third, there is no Biblical "seal of prophethood." The concept was derived from Arabian pagan mythology to designate occult practitioners who talked to demons. Furthermore, the "seal" was actually nothing more than a hairy mole. (Tabari IX:159)

From chapter 6, "Heart of Darkness"

The Muslim sages who can't remember what their prophet told them in Mecca are telling us that they can recreate a conversation between opposition parties in Syria. Let's listen in, and while we're doing so, let's try to determine why the Hadith contains this dialog in the first place. "The monk turned around and suddenly beheld seven men advancing from the land of the Byzantines. He went up to them and said, 'What brings you here.' They replied, 'We have come because this prophet is appearing in this month. Men have been sent to every road, and we have been chosen as the best of men and have been sent to your road.'" There isn't a prophetic utterance in any Christian book about an Arab prophet. Yet we are led to believe that Christians not only knew exactly when, but precisely where, they would find such an unspecified person. This is desperate to the point of pathetic. If Muslims need to contrive such preposterous lies to make Muhammad appear prophetic, he most certainly wasn't

Yet they continue to lay planks on this flimsy foundation: Tabari VI:64 "Zayd bin Amr [a Hanif poet from whose words Muhammad based early Qur'anic revelations] said, 'I expect a prophet from the descendants of Ishmael, in particular from the descendants of Abd al-Muttalib.'" In actuality, the first written confirmation of this precise prediction came three hundred years after Muhammad's birth. By comparison, the last of the Biblical Messianic prophecies, for which these Islamic predictions were contrived to compete, were committed to writing 400 years prior to Christ's birth. And unlike all things Muslim, Christians have a paper trail. The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible compiled in Alexandria in 275 B.C., survives to this day.

The post-dated Hadith of Zayd, a man who rejected both Islam and Muhammad, continues: "I shall inform you of his description so that he will not be hidden from you. He is neither short nor tall, whose hair is neither abundant nor sparse, whose eyes are always red, and who has the seal of the prophethood between his shoulders. His name is Ahmad [a variant of Muhammad], and this town [Mecca] is his birthplace and the place in which he will commence his mission. Then his people will drive him out and hate the message which he brings, and he will emigrate to Yathrib and triumph."

The Islamic sages who put these words in the Hanif's mouth three centuries after his death, want you to know that every faith - Judeo-Christian to Satanic - agrees: "I have traveled around in search of the faith of Abraham. [The only pre-Islamic mention of Abraham is in the Bible. Apart from the Torah, nothing is known about him - not even his name. And the Torah is clear: Abraham didn't have a religion; he had a relationship.] Every person whom I ask, whether Jew, Christian, or Magian, says, 'This faith lies where you have come from.' and they describe him as I have described him to you. They say that no prophet remains but he.' Amir said, 'When I became a Muslim, I told the Messenger what Zayd had said, and I gave him his greetings. He said, 'I saw him in Paradise dressed in flowing robes.'" Although Zayd composed most of the Qur'an's first score of surahs, he rejected Muhammad's credentials and thus Islam. By his own admission, he can't be in the Islamic paradise.

These "endorsements" are so preposterous it begs the question: what must educated Muslims think when they read such nonsense? You don't have to be a religious scholar to know that the Jewish Messiah can't be an Arab or that Christians believe that the Messiah is the final prophet. So when this obvious deception was brought before Islam's lone messenger for certification and he endorsed the lie, what must they think? Do they think? Why would one trust a man who must lie - or be lied for - to validate his calling?

From chapter 14, "The Anti-Semite"

Inviting Jews to Islam, the prophet preached: Ishaq:250 "Stand in awe of Me lest I bring down on you what I brought down on your fathers. The vengeance that you know of, the bestial transformation and the like." Turning Jews into apes and swine was Allah's perverse rendition of bestiality.

"Believe in what I have sent down, confirming what you already have. Be not the first to disbelieve it." (Qur'an 2:41) The Jews weren't in a race. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's ironic in a way. Had the Jews not been in Yathrib, Islam would never have survived. Without the money Muhammad confiscated by stealing Jewish homes, property, and businesses, and selling Jewish women and children into slavery, he wouldn't have been able to bribe enough militants to conquer the merchants of Mecca, much less the whole Middle East. Without the scripture he bought from the Yathrib Jews, Muhammad wouldn't have had enough religious material to make the Qur'an appear believable. Void of bastardized Bible stories, Islam's holy book is little more than hellish threats, lewd enticements, racist rants, and a call to war.

Ishaq:250 "Fear Me and do not mingle truth with falsehood or hide the truth which you know. Do not conceal the knowledge which you have about My Messenger. You recognize what he has brought to you because you find it with you in the books that are in your hands. You are readers of scripture. Why do you forbid men to believe in the prophecy you have and in the covenant of the Torah. You must pronounce My Apostle to be true." [Qur'an 2:40] Give a dishonest man enough rope and he will eventually hang himself. Desperately trying to establish his own credibility, Muhammad destroyed the last bastion of Allah's. The line, "you will find it with you in the books that are in your hands," says that the Torah of the seventh century A.D. confirmed Muhammad's Islam. It contained "prophecy" pointing to him. Its "covenant" was what "he brought." According to Allah, the Torah proclaimed the "Apostle was true." But nothing could be further from true. The Masoretic text of Muhammad's day matches today's Torah - verbatim. Read it and weep. Sorry pal, you're dead.

To demonstrate just how feeble Muhammad's mental prowess really was, I present the Sira's next paragraph: Ishaq:250 "Allah said to them, 'Enter the gate with prostrations and say, 'Hitta.' Say what I command you. But they changed that word making a mockery of His command. With regard to their changing that word, the Apostle said according to someone above suspicion: 'They entered the gate they were ordered to enter with prostrations in a crowd saying, 'Wheat is in the barley.'" Yep, the Torah that just anointed Messiahship on the Arab prophet was corrupt. The Jews had edited out the Arabic word "Hitta" from their scriptures, making a mockery of Allah's commands. Unfortunately, the Arabic word wouldn't come to have a written form for 2000 years. Yet we're told it was edited out of written scripture. If you're curious, "Hitta" means "unloading." It's nonsensical. And "barley and wheat" were associated with the Meccans and their idol Manat (Ishaq:39), not Yahweh and the Jews. Muhammad was as dumb as the rock he called "god." You can fix a lot of things but you can't fix stupid.

The paragraph goes on to report: Ishaq:250 "Allah raised the mountain above the Jews so that they might receive what was brought to them; and the bestial transformation occurred when Allah turned Jews into apes." [Qur'an 2:65] A billion souls believe this beast of a man was a prophet. Sadly, they don't know his spirit was Satanic.

I am certain the Yathrib Jews told him that his Five Pillars conflicted with Yahweh's Ten Commandments. So the prophet who insisted his brand-new Islam confirmed 2000-year-old Judaism said, Ishaq:251 "Moses commanded them to prostrate themselves and his Lord spoke to him and they heard His voice giving them commands and prohibitions so that they understood what they heard. But when Moses went back to the Jews a party of them changed the Commandments they had been given." [Qur'an 2:75] As you might expect, Muhammad didn't bother explaining what the Commandments originally proclaimed, which of the ten the "party" changed, how they corrupted them, why they bothered, or even how they could have gotten away with the most monumental edit of all time.

From chapter 20, "The Tormented Terrorist"

Ever desperate for confirmation, the Muslim sages bring us this: Tabari VIII:105 "Al-Zuhri said, 'A Christian bishop whom I met in the time of Abd al-Milik [a Umayyad Caliph who ruled from 685 to 705] told me that he was acquainted with an affair involving the Messenger, Heraclius and his intelligence. According to the bishop, when Heraclius received the letter from Muhammad, he wrote to a man in Rome who used to read from the Hebrew what they use to read, mentioning the affair of the man, describing him, and informing him of what he had received from him. The ruler of Rome wrote back to him; "He is indeed the prophet we have been awaiting. There is no doubt about it. Follow him, and believe him."'" The Old Testament had been translated into Greek in Alexandria in 275 B.C. It was then translated into Latin in the fourth century. A Roman would have read the Latin Vulgate. Further, Muhammad wasn't foretold in the Bible. And the only thing Christians await is the Messiah's return. So, why are the Muslims lying - again? And why are they such bad liars?

Tabari VIII:105 "Heraclius then gave orders to gather the commanders of the Romans for him in a palatial building and ordered its doors to be closed on them. He looked down on them from an upper chamber because he was mortally afraid of them. He said, 'People of the Romans, I have received this man's letter calling me to his religion. By Allah, he is indeed the prophet whom we have been awaiting and whom we find in our Books. Come, let us follow him and believe him, that our life in this world and the next may be secure.' Without exception, they snorted angrily at him and hastened to the doors of the building." Somewhere, sometime, someone may have contrived a less believable endorsement, but by Allah, it's hard to imagine.

This feeble attempt at legitimizing Muhammad's claim to have been foretold in the Bible continues with the Christian bishop and Byzantine king saying that he was mentioned by name and described in detail. They don't say where, of course, because it isn't there. And with 25,000 ancient Bible fragments and copious Roman books, not a word can be found anywhere to corroborate anything in this preposterous tale. The "Muhammad-was-foretold-and-described proof" is repeated a hundred times in the Qur'an and Sunnah. Yet neither Muhammad, Allah, nor their contemporaries ever identified a single supportive verse. Centuries later Muslim apologists claimed these verses were in Deuteronomy and John. I deal with those lies on page 608.

From chapter 23, "Jihad"

In a desperate attempt to legitimize his counterfeit, Muhammad attempted to usurp Yahweh's authority. Whether deceived, delusional, or just dishonest, these erroneous claims are advanced to cast Allah as Yahweh and to authenticate Islam: Qur'an 5.12 "Indeed Allah made a covenant of old with the Children of Israel, and We appointed twelve captains among them. And Allah said: 'I am with you if you perform regular prayers [obligatory Islamic worship], pay the zakat tax with regularity [the zakat was from Qusayy, not Abraham], believe in My Messengers…" Muhammad is referring to himself, not knowing that Yahweh never used humans as "messengers." Angels are Yahweh's messengers; it's what the Hebrew word for "angel" means. Men were called to be rabbis (teachers), prophets, and priests. "…obey and support the Messengers [i.e., fight for them], and loan Allah a beautiful loan [Yahweh didn't need money, but Muhammad did to advance his war machine.], verily I will wipe out from your evils, and admit you to Gardens with rivers flowing; but if any of you, after this [message from Muhammad], resist, you have wandered astray.'" Not only did Muhammad falsely claim that his Islamic mantra was Jewish doctrine, his voice slipped back out of plural to singular (Our to My). He didn't get any better at this, even with practice. Further, the Biblical paradise isn't about rivers, and godly loans aren't equated to forgiveness.

To help us understand these verses, the Noble Qur'an adds: "The Jews were ordered in the Torah to follow Prophet Muhammad." It references Qur'an 7:157: "Those who follow the Messenger (Muhammad), the Prophet who can neither read nor write whom they find written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 18:15) and the Gospel (John 14:16); he commands them to Islam." We've been through this drill before. While Team Islam couldn't read, I can. And I assure you that no Arab was called a prophet, and no man was called a messenger. But he was right in a way. When the Bible spoke of Satan, it said that he would use prostration, taxation, terror, a new gospel, and a boastful false prophet to deceive mankind.

Since the Qur'an translators were kind enough to provide the alleged prophetic Torah and Gospel references, let's check them out. First, Deuteronomy 18:15 "Yahweh [therefore not Allah], your elohiym (deity) shall qum (raise up or ordain) for you a nabiy (man who speaks by inspiration, predicting and teaching) from the qereb (midst or heart) of you, from your awkh (brethren) [i.e., a Jew] like me. You shall shama (hear) him." That was a repudiation of Muhammad's claims, not a confirmation.

A better verse would have been the 18th, but only if taken out of context, as Moses is talking to his tribe - the priestly Levites - about the Messiah who would come from the tribe of Judah. "I will raise them up a nabiy (an inspired prophet and teacher) from their qereb (midst or heart) awkh (a brother) like me, and will nathan (ascribe) my dabar (advice, book, counsel) through his mouth; and he shall speak all I appoint for him. And if anyone fails to heed the words he speaks in my shem (name, character, and authority) I will call him to account. But the prophet who ziyd (presumptuously) debar (subdues (i.e., imposes submission or Islam)) and recites a book in my name which I have not commanded him to utter, or who speaks in the name of other elohiym (gods [like Allah]), that prophet shall die."

While the 15th and 18th verses referred to Yahshua the Messiah, not Muhammad the perverted pirate, the 22nd verse was prophetic of Allah's apostle and his presumptuous recital. But not in a positive way.

Team Islam claims John 14:16 contains the Gospel prediction of Muhammad's arrival. So that we don't err by taking Christ's words out of context, I'll begin with the 6th verse: "Iesous [ Strong's Concordance says "Iesous" was designed to replicate Yahshua or Yehoshua, Hebrew for savior. There was no "Y" in Greek.] said, 'I am [Yahweh means "I Am"] the hodos (way or route) and the truth, and the life; no one erchomai (appears before or accompanies) the Pater (Father), but through Me. [Therefore, not through Muhammad.] If you ginosko (know or understand) Me, you ginosko My Father also. You have horao (seen, experienced, beheld) Him.... He who has horao Me has horao the Father. [Yahshua is claiming that he is Yahweh in the flesh.] Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father meno (abiding or dwelling) in Me does His works. Pisteuo (trust in or rely upon) Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise rely upon the account of the works themselves. [Christ performed countless miracles to confirm his deity.] Amen (This is trustworthy) what I say to you; he who pisteuo (trusts in and relies upon) Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I poreuomai (traverse, travel, or go) to the Father. And whatever you aiteo (ask, desire, or require) in My onoma (name, authority, or character), that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. If you agapao (love in a moral sense) Me, you will tereo (keep an eye on) My entole (prescriptions).'"

That brings us to John 14:16: "And I will ask the Father, and He will didomi (give or bestow upon) you allos (a) Parakletos (Intercessor, Advocate, Comforter), that He may meno (abide, indwell, or be with) you aion (forever); that is the Pneuma (Holy Spirit) of Truth, whom the world cannot lambano (receive), because it does not theoreo (discern, experience, consider, or behold) Him or ginosko (know or understand) Him, but you ginosko Him because He meno (abides or dwells) with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you orphanos (bereaved, comfortless, or fatherless); I will erchomai (come back and enter) you. After a little while the world will see Me no more [He's predicting his crucifixion]; but you will theoreo (experience, behold, or look upon) Me; because I live [He's predicting his resurrection], you shall live also. [That's the Gospel: we get to live forever with Him because He sacrificed Himself as payment for our sins - the final solution.] In that day you shall know and understand that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you." The Spirit of the Messiah, Yahshua, is the Holy Spirit, which is Yahweh. They are three manifestations of the same thing, just as our height, width, and depth are three manifestations of our physical body. So, rather than predicting the arrival of an Arab terrorist who is long dead, Yahshua was promising us that his eternal spirit will reside in us. In all of the Bible, it's hard to imagine Islam picking verses more damaging to their claims.

Meanwhile, back in Medina, the mean, angry, intolerant, and racist false prophet behaved as the Bible predicted: Qur'an 5.13 "But because of their breach of their covenant We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard. They change the words from their (right) places [the illiterate prophet pronounced] and forget and abandon a good part of the message that was sent them. Nor will you cease to find deceit in them. It's the time bomb of Islam: "They change the words from their (right) places and forget and abandon a good part of the message that was sent them. In another translation we find the god who breached the covenant of Hudaybiyah preaching: "And because of their breaking their covenant We have cursed them and made hard their hearts. They altered words from their context and they neglected a portion of the message they were reminded of." There is even ambiguity between the translations. The first was written in present tense as if the editing were ongoing. The second was written in past tense as if the alterations were history. So the bottom line is: Islam is clueless. Muhammad didn't know what changed, when it changed, or why it changed because it didn't change.

The Jews told Muhammad that his version of their Torah was preposterous. Christians had done the same with regards to his errant recasting of Yahshua. Both knew that Muhammad wasn't a prophet, that Allah wasn't Yahweh, and that the Qur'an didn't confirm the Judeo-Christian scriptures. This placed Muhammad in an impossible position. Every literate and godly person around was calling him a liar, his god a fraud, and his revelations fictitious.

The Qur'an was clear: Muhammad purchased Talmud stories from the Jews in Medina. When Muhammad "changed the words from their right places and forgot a good part of the message" they held him accountable. They mocked him, rejected him, and disbelieved him. This tormented him.

The Jews knew he hadn't received the surahs from Gabriel or from God. They held the receipts. This is why they had to be eliminated. The evidence, and the people who held it, had to be obliterated before they obliterated Islam. The Nadir and Qurayza were hunted down and slaughtered to keep you and me from knowing the truth. It is why Muhammad mustered the largest raids of his life against Christians.

Muhammad's claim is impossible to defend. The People of the Book, the Children of Israel, the Jews, could not have "changed the words from their right places and forgot a good part of the message" nor could they have "altered words from their context and neglected a portion of the message they were reminded of." Unaltered, unchanged, unforgotten, and rightly placed words scribed on scrolls comprising the Bible were discovered in Qumran dating back to 250 B.C., fully a thousand years before the oldest surviving Qur'an. On them we find Yahweh's name written 6,868 times and Allah's not even once. We find no reference to religion much less to the religion of Abraham, Adam, or Noah. Despite what Allah claims, Lot, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Saul, David, and Solomon weren't Muslims. There is no mention of Mecca or the Ka'aba in the Scriptures, and yet stories of Jerusalem and the Temple abound.

It is absurd to believe that more than a thousand years before an illiterate megalomaniac, a perverted pedophile, a profiteering pirate, a bloodthirsty terrorist, emerged in Arabia that pious Jewish scribes purposely altered the whole of their scriptures just to foil him. The scope of their conspiracy would have had to have gone beyond millions of people plotting together to write Yahweh, Messiah, Jew, Jerusalem, and Temple into the written record and Allah, Muhammad, Muslim, Mecca, and the Ka'aba out - tens of thousands of times. All of Middle Eastern history, four thousand years of it, from Persia to Egypt, would have had to have been perverted, too, for the Bible to be as errant as the Qur'an requires it to be. Yet no scholar, historian, or archeologist has ever discovered any artifact to suggest that the Bible is in error. In fact, the opposite is true. Moreover, Yahweh's Ten Commandments and his message of choice, love, relationship, and atonement are nowhere to be found in Allah's mean spirited and immoral rant. So the Qur'an's central claim is impossible. That means Islam cannot possibly be true.

There is a reason Muhammad, Allah, the Qur'an, and Muslim scholars don't explain how, when, or why the Jews "altered words from their context and neglected part of the message." They can't because the Jews didn't

Some have said, "It doesn't matter what you believe, only that you believe. We all worship the same God and there are many paths to him." That's like saying that it doesn't matter if a bridge over a gorge will carry your weight, only that you believe it will." To say that we all worship the same God is to say that God is schizophrenic. He's so stupid, he can't remember his name or message. And how can opposite paths - "fear and obey" and "choose to love" - lead to the same place? It isn't tolerant to allow or encourage someone to risk his or her life on a bridge that is obviously faulty. Their faith will only get them killed. Faith in the wrong object is fatal.

Qur'an 5.14 "From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We made a covenant, but they forgot and abandoned a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, stirred up enmity and hatred among them to the Day of Doom. Soon will Allah show them the handiwork they have done." The Christian scriptures are comprised of the most prolifically and contemporaneously documented writings in all of antiquity. There are a thousand times more manuscript fragments, dating ten times closer to the events they describe, than there are for the second-best documented book - the Iliad by Homer. Further, the central message of the Gospels is salvation through Christ's sacrifice on the cross - something Islam denies. Yahshua preached love, not fear; relationship, not jihad. The Gospel message is as different from the Qur'an as any two books ever written. To say that Allah delivered both messages makes Muhammad too stupid for words - or barring that, as deceitful as the Devil.

You'd think that after twenty-two years of making these things up, Muhammad would have come up with a more credible story. But at least the Bible and Qur'an have one thing in common - they are both focused on the Jews. Qur'an 5.15 "O People of the Book! There has come to you Our Apostle, revealing to you much that you used to hide in your Scripture, suppressing and passing over much. There has come to you from Allah a (new) light (Muhammad) and a clear Book [the Qur'an]. Although it's a detail, it warrants mentioning: not a word of this was written. The only man who tried had been murdered. The Qur'an wasn't a book - nor would it become one for quite some time. And even when it was finally committed to paper, it would be poorly written, plagiarized, contradictory, racist, immoral, demented, violent, out of chronological order, devoid of context, and inaccurate. Simply stated: it became the worst book ever written. It inspires the hellish behavior we have come to know as terrorism.

Excerpts from the Feedback Pages

Now I will quote from the Bible, - (HOLY BIBLE) Deuteronomy 18:18."'I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." (BH)

This confirms that you haven't read Prophet of Doom. It confirms that you haven't even read the exchanges with other Muslims. It confirms that you didn't read what came before and after the 18th verse. And it confirms that you can't think.

If the Bible is worthy of quoting as if it were inspired, how can it conflict with the Qur'an in every way and on every page? How can every character, story, doctrine, and spirit be so different? When Muhammad claimed in his Qur'an that his recital was a confirmation of the Torah and Gospel, he demonstrated a complete ignorance of these books because nothing could be further from the truth. He stole religious words from the rabbis and fictitious tales from the Talmud and got away with it because Muslims would rather lash out in anger than pause to think.

The verse you quoted out of context is covered in Prophet of Doom. Here is what it says: To help us understand these verses, the Noble Qur'an adds: "The Jews were ordered in the Torah to follow Prophet Muhammad." It references Qur'an 7:157: "Those who follow the Messenger (Muhammad), the Prophet who can neither read nor write whom they find written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 18:15) and the Gospel (John 14:16); he commands them to Islam." We've been through this drill before. While Team Islam couldn't read, I can. And I assure you that no Arab was called a prophet, and no man was called a messenger. But he was right in a way. When the Bible spoke of Satan, it said that he would use prostration, taxation, terror, a new gospel, and a boastful false prophet to deceive mankind.

The Qur'an translators were kind enough to provide the alleged prophetic Torah and Gospel references, so let's check them out. First, Deuteronomy 18:15 "Yahweh [therefore not Allah], your elohiym (deity) shall qum (raise up or ordain) for you a nabiy (man who speaks by inspiration, predicting and teaching) from the qereb (midst or heart) of you, from your awkh (brethren) [i.e., a Jew] like me. You shall shama (hear) him." That was a repudiation of Muhammad's claims, not a confirmation.

A better verse would have been the 18th, but only if taken out of context: "I will raise them up a nabiy (an inspired prophet and teacher) from their qereb (midst or heart) awkh (a brother) like me, and will nathan (ascribe) my dabar (advice, book, counsel) through his mouth; and he shall speak all I appoint for him. And if anyone fails to heed the words he speaks in my shem (name, character, and authority--i.e., Yahweh) I will call him to account. But the prophet who ziyd (presumptuously) debar (subdues (i.e., imposes submission or Islam)) and recites a book in my name which I have not commanded him to utter, or who speaks in the name of other elohiym (gods [like Allah]), that prophet shall die."

The beginning of the passage is a prophecy regarding the Jewish Messiah, who would be a Jew from the House of David, and thus not a Levite--or priest--the audience Moses was addressing. The end of the passage is a warning about false prophets, false doctrines, and false gods. So in a way, it could well have been speaking about Muhammad. But sadly, not in a positive sense. (Craig)

Pls note that Muhummed is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon 5:16. The Hebrew word used there is Muhammuddim. The end letters IM is plural of respect majesty and grandeur. Minus 'im' the name would be Muhamud translated as 'altogether lovely' in the Authorised Version of the Bible or 'The Praised One' 'the one worthy of Praise' i.e. MUHUMMED!(P.B.U.H) (BH)

First, the rather flowery poetry is from Solomon's bride. She is describing Solomon. So unless you think that Solomon was Muhammad and that a woman who lived 1500 years before Muhammad was born was in lust with him, you've got the wrong passage. Furthermore, your translation is errant. Strongs, the world's most respected Hebrew and Greek Concordance, points to its number 4261 for "altogether lovely." It is "machmad" [and thus not "Muhammuddim" as you claimed](from the root 2530 "chamad"). According to Strongs, it means: "delightful, hence a delight, i.e., an object of affection or desire: beloved, desirable, goodly, lovely, a pleasant thing." It does not mean "praised" as you claimed. The root of machmad is 2530: "chamad." Chamad means: "to delight in, beauty, beloved, covet, delectable thing, delight, desire, lust." Therefore, all of this is sexual, as you would expect from a bride. But for you to see it as "Muhammad" is desperate. (Craig)