Sorry Christians, Deuteronomy 18:15-18 does not apply to your Jesus.

According to Bible, Deuteronomy 18:15-18 does not apply to Jesus as "that Prophet". Here are few of reasons why.

First point, Jesus said a Prophet cannot be killed outside Jerusalem (Luke 13:33) yet, you find Jesus was crucified in Golgotha which is located out Jerusalem thus, Jesus by his own admission is not a Prophet hence, Deuteronomy 18:15-18 does not apply to him. Interestingly, according to the Talmud "that Prophet" in Deuteronomy 18 will have the authority to change the law, (Talmud Yavamot 90b). Jesus said he did not come to break the law Matthew 5:17.

Second point. Jesus said to the Jews, "the kingdom of God will be taken away from them and given to a nation producing its fruit" (Matthew 21:43). If Jesus was that Prophet mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:15-18 then why would the kingdom of God be taken away from the Jews and given to another nation when the "criteria" is, 'God will raise a Prophet from their own brethren'?  This would mean "from your own brethren" is not the Jewish people, rather it referring to someone outside the Jewish nation.

Finally, Jesus never claimed to be that Prophet from Deuteronomy 18:15-18 why? Because point one self-refutation. Point two, confirmation to the Jews the kingdom of God belonging to them will be given to another nation bearing its fruit. Why didn't read Deuteronomy 18:15-18 at the synagogue to make his case even stronger? Instead, he read parts of Isaiah. If Moses really wrote about him as claimed in John 5:46, Luke 24:44 then read from Deuteronomy? (Torah), why read from the Nevi'im (Scroll of Isaiah at the synagogue, Luke 4:16-17) written roughly 700 years later?  Do you see the problem when Christians try to fit Jesus with Deuteronomy 18. Sorry it doesn't work!

The Torah and Talmud both teach a "false prophet" should be killed, (Deuteronomy 18:20, Talmud Sanhedrin 89a). Is Jesus of the New Testament excluded as a false Prophet? Let's find out.

Jesus prophesised to his disciple regarding the desolation of second temple “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” (Matthew 24:2). Notice how Jesus made a bold prophecy that "not one stone will be left on another". The question is, was this prophecy fulfilled? Unfortunately, it was not. Till now the western wall remains standing with the walls so high it will make you raise your head.  And yes! the stones are on top of each other. This is a blatant false prophecy making Jesus a false Prophet.

The Talmud reads no more prophets will arrive after Prophet Malachi, (Talmud Sotah 48b, Bava Batra 12b). This would mean the line of Prophethood from the descended of Isaac has ended with Malachi, i.e. all the Israelites Prophets have played their part and no more is expected. Jesus was a Jew thus, to the Jews, Jesus cannot be a Prophet since prophethood has ended.  If the line of Prophethood from the descendent Isaac has stopped then we are left with Ishmael's line of descendent. It is the line of Ishmael who qualify to bring a Prophet to the people, and unlike the Jews they hold no single race as superior thus, this Prophet will be universal.

Jesus according to Matthew supposed to have said, he will send "Prophets, wise men and scribes" (Matthew 23:34). Question is, which Prophet came after Jesus? We can conclude Jesus of the New Testament does not qualify as a true Prophet, and the Jews knew that. The Jews were well aware of another Prophet to arrive who is not an Israelite Jew. 

We learn from the Talmud all Jewish prophets ended after Malachi (Sotah 48b, Bava Batra 12b)

Rabbis questioning John the Baptist whether he was that Prophet in John 1:21 was referring to the Arab Prophet found in Isaiah 42. They knew the line of Isaac ended and now the line of Ishmael started. They went out searching.

Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face (Deuteronomy 34:10)

 Interestingly, the Samaritan Torah reads as "there will not arise again" (The Anchor Bible Dictionary vol.5)

 Both past and future tense makes a big change. This would mean Jesus of the NT does not qualify as that "prophet" mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:18, which Peter used in Acts 3:22.

 

"a prophet who predicts peace must show he is right. Only when his predictions come true can we know that he is really from the LORD.” (Jeremiah 28:9)

 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matt 10:34)

"I will raise up a prophet like you…" (Deuteronomy 18:18)

Wait! According to Christians, Jesus is Yahweh? So, using Deuteronomy 18:18 we find an awkward rendering of who Yahweh is

Jesus is Yahweh who is also a Prophet who is also like Moses? This would mean Moses was another God side by side with Yahweh hence, Exodus 7:1 fits in perfectly

Using the Christian concept of Jesus being Yahweh would make Yahweh being like Moses. Yahweh created man in his own image.

Read John 6:13-14 Jesus, rejected he was tat Prophet.

The Messiah (המשיח- Ha-Mashiac) is mentioned 4 times in the Torah all refer to the Leviticus priests. Here's the problem, Jesus said Moses wrote about him (Luke 24:44-46) if this is true why don't we find any reference where Moses wrote המשיח pointing to Jesus where is this text?

 

מְשִׁיחִ֖ Messiah is mentioned 39 times in the Hebrew bible. המשיח The-Messiah, (definite article) is mentioned 4 times in the Hebrew bible. Jesus of the New Testament claimed Moses wrote about him, John 5:46, Luke 24:44-46, the question is, where is he mentioned as The Messiah המשיח (definite article) in the writings of Moses?

 

Please provide the book, chapter and verse in Hebrew thanks.

 

 

“Like Moses” The similarity Between Moses and Muḥammad, is so striking, that even the non-Muslim sources specifically mention it. Including, 1. The TIME Magazine 1974 2. Collins Gem Dictionary of the Bible 3. The Encyclopedia of Religion

The Qur’ān affirms Moses is like Muḥammad ﷺ

“From your Brethren” Genesis 25:18; 16:12 says Ishmael dwelt among his Brethren (Israel and Edom) Deut 23:7 calls Edomite, Brethren of the Israelites, Hence, Ishmaelites are the Brethren of the Israelites, as recognized by the Rabbis as well.

Biblical Scholar Admits the term “of your Brother” refers to the non-Israelites.

Maimonides and others admit, the Phrase “of thy Brethren” can refer to the Ishmaelites.

Some may ask, what about the extra letters in V. 15 “from within you”. does it not restrict it within the Israelites? A: Itʼs only present in the Masoretic Text (MT), which is post-Islāmic. All other versions, including the SP, LXX and even when the NT cites it, it's not there.

To further prove, it is a non-Israelite, Dt 34:10 says, “There since has there arise in Israel a Prophet like Moses” According to the Samaritans it is, “There Never will arise in Israel Prophet like Moses” Meaning, the Prophet like Moses must arise outside Israel.

Rabbis Admit, this means the Prophet must arise among the Non-Israelite Nation (i.e the Ishmaelites)

An admission that the promise of Ishmael to a Great nation was manifested through the rise of Islam

Even the secular scholars, admit there is a contradiction between Dt 18:18 and Dt 34:10, In order to avoid it, you have to admit Dt 18:18 is not about an Israelite.

Rabbis say this verse means angel will bring revelation to That Prophet. We know Jibrīl (Gabriel) bought revelation of Allāh ﷻ, to Muḥammad ﷺ.

Some may ask, doesnʼt the NT say Jesus was the Prophet like Moses in John 5:46? No, Bible scholars mentioned the meaning to be something else.

Scholars mention Jesus will fulfill the Prophecy of being like Moses, Basically accepting heʼs not That Prophet.

St. Augustine admits Jesus is not like Moses, it wonʼt ever convince a jew, and we (Christians) are forced to accept him as such.

“Spoke to God face to face” Dt 34:10 Scholars mention it to mean, speaking freely like a Friend, Muḥammad ﷺ was the friend of Allāh.

He ﷺ spoke to God, without any intermediary, as mentioned by, 1. al-Ḥāfiḏh Ibn Kaṯhīr

2. Ibn Al-Qayyim رحمه الله compares Moses speaking with Muḥammad ﷺ

3. Ibn ʿUṯhaymīn رحمه الله in his Creedal work, explained God spoke to Muḥammad ﷺ without any Intermediary.

Some may ask what about Dt 17:15 limiting Brethren to the Israelites? Scholars Mention this passage originally comes centuries later, and was retrojected in Deut. Nothing to do with Dt 18:18

The Constitution of The Monarchy in Israel, Baruch Halpern.

The Jewish Study Bible, The Pentateuch (Oxford Bible Commentary) by Barton, John.

Retrojecting something in the Text is a common Jewish Habit, even Jewish-Christian scholar Michael Brown admits it.

n conclusion, Moses if like Muḥammad ﷺ Prophet like Moses must be from the Brethren of the Israelites (i.e Ishmaelites) He must speak what God command He Must speak with God face to Face He Must speak in Godʼs name

The hadith about the sheep eating the page containing the verse about stoning and breastfeeding in the house of ‘Aa’ishah is not saheeh

 

Question

There is this hadith that a Christian is posting in Internet forums. It is hadith no. 1944 in Sunan Ibn Maajah, Kitaab an-Nikaah, which has to do with a goat eating the Qur’an. It was posted in a forum for discussion between Muslims and Christians. I would like to know the whole story about this matter and its history.

Answer

Praise be to Allah.

Firstly: 

Talking about the hadith mentioned in the question requires a little detail from specialists in the study of hadith. It is not sufficient to give a general answer or an answer based only on one’s personal view of the matter. Therefore we hope that the questioner will learn and pay attention to the way in which we will trace different versions of the hadith, with different chains of narrators. Thus the facts about it will become clear, in sha Allah. 

All versions of the hadith are based on the following chain of narrators: 

‘Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Hazm, from ‘Amrah bint ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan, from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her). The isnaad ends with her and does not go back to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah upon him). 

The hadith was taken from ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr by a number of narrators and their narrations are as follows: 

1.

It was narrated by Yahya ibn Sa‘eed al-Ansaari. His version says: It was revealed in the Qur’an that ten definite breastfeedings are required (to establish the relationship of mahram), then it was also revealed that five definite breastfeedings are required. 

This was narrated by Imam Muslim in his Saheeh (no. 1452) and others. We may note that this version does not say anything about the story of the goat or tame sheep eating any of the pages of the Holy Qur’an. 

2.

It was narrated by Imam Maalik (may Allah have mercy on him). His version says: Among that which was revealed of the Qur’an was the ruling that those ten definite breastfeedings are required to establish the relationship of mahram, then that was abrogated and replaced with five definite breastfeedings. When the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) died, this was among the things that were recited in the Qur’an. 

This was narrated by Maalik in al-Muwatta’ (Kitaab ar-Ridaa‘, hadith no. 17), and via him by Imam Muslim (1452) and others. We may note here that the report of Imam Maalik from ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr also does not include any mention of the story of the goat or tame sheep eating anything of the Mus-haf. Rather one sentence is added to it at the end: When the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) died, this was among the things that were recited in the Qur’an. 

3.

It was narrated by Muhammad ibn Ishaaq. His version says: The verse of stoning and breastfeeding of an adult ten times was revealed, and it was written on a leaf that was kept beneath a bed in my [‘Aa’ishah’s] house. When the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) fell sick, we were preoccupied with his situation, and a little animal of ours came in and ate it. 

This was narrated by Imam Ahmad in al-Musnad (43/343), and Ibn Maajah in as-Sunan (no. 1944); the latter version says: When the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it. 

As you can see, this version does mention the odd phrase that is additional to what was narrated by the two great imams, Yahya ibn Sa‘eed al-Ansaari and Maalik ibn Anas (may Allah have mercy on them both). This is what the questioner referred to in his question. In this version of the hadith it says that a tame sheep – which is a sheep that people feed in their homes – came in and ate the page that contained the verse of stoning and the verse of breastfeeding an adult. 

This difference was sufficient for the scholars of hadith to rule that the version narrated by Muhammad ibn Ishaaq was da‘eef (weak), and that it was to be rejected and regarded as odd. In their view, the odd hadith is any hadith in which a trustworthy narrator differed with that which was narrated by other trustworthy narrators who were more accurate than him in the narration or were greater in number. This is a sound academic principle, because how can one narrator have additional wording in a hadith that others also narrated from the original narrators, when the latter are greater in number, more accurate in memory and narration, and of higher status in knowledge of hadith? Why didn’t they also narrate this additional or different material? Is there any other way to understand what happened, except by referring to that rule in order to know where some narrators differed in their narration and included some odd material in it? If that is not the case (and you do not want to refer to that rule), then how could this debater convince us that Muhammad ibn Ishaaq learned of the hadith of ‘Aa’ishah that which both Yahya ibn Sa‘eed al-Ansaari and Maalik ibn Anas had forgotten, when they were both leading scholars and senior figures in their field? In fact Sufyaan ath-Thawri (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Yahya ibn Sa‘eed al-Ansaari was, in the view of the people of Madinah, of a higher standard in the field of hadith than az-Zuhri. ‘Ali ibn al-Madeeni regarded him as one of the most authentic and trustworthy narrators of hadith, and one of those concerning whom one would have no sense of unease with their hadith at all. Ahmad ibn Hanbal said concerning him: He is one of the most accurate in narration. Wuhayb said: I came to Madinah and I did not see anyone but you might feel comfortable with some of what they narrated and have reservations about other reports of theirs, except Maalik and Yahya ibn Sa‘eed (i.e., all of their reports could be accepted without reservation).

See: Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (11/223) 

So how about if we know that Muhammad ibn Ishaaq is criticised by some scholars of hadith, and there were some mistakes that were noted in his narrations, and it was noted that he differed in some of his narrations from the narration of some leading trustworthy scholars? We cannot accept the narration of such a person if it differs from the narration of other trustworthy narrators, and we do not accept from him any weird or odd wording that other trustworthy narrators did not narrate. 

Hanbal ibn Ishaaq said: I heard Abu ‘Abdullah say: The narration of Ibn Ishaaq cannot be used as proof. 

‘Abdullah ibn Ahmad said: He – i.e., Ahmad ibn Hanbal – did not use his reports as evidence when discussing what is Sunnah. 

Ayyoob ibn Ishaaq said: I asked Ahmad ibn Hanbal: O Abu ‘Abdullah, if Ibn Ishaaq is the only narrator of the hadith, will you accept it? He said: No, by Allah, for I have seen him putting together the words of many narrators in a single hadith, and not separating the narration of one person from that of another. 

Yahya ibn Ma‘een classed him as da‘eef in one report narrated from him. An-Nasaa’i said: He is not qawiy (strong). Ad-Daaraqutni said: The leading scholars differed concerning him, and he is not an authority; rather his narration may be taken into consideration (alongside others)

See: Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (9/45).

We have previously discussed Muhammad ibn Ishaaq in detail in fatwa no. 148009

What will make the matter clearer is the fact that al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad, like ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr, narrated the hadith without the additional material of Muhammad ibn Ishaaq.

At-Tahhaawi narrated in Sharh Mushkil al-Athaar (11/486): Muhammad ibn Khuzaymah told us: al-Hajjaaj ibn Minhaal told us: Hammaad ibn Salamah told us, from ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn al-Qaasim, from al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad, from ‘Amrah, that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said: Among the things that were revealed in the Qur’an, then abrogated, was that the relationship of mahram cannot be established except by ten breastfeedings, then after that it was revealed: or five breastfeedings. 

To sum up, the story of the sheep eating a page of the Holy Qur’an in the house of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) is da‘eef (weak) and is not proven. 

Ibn Qutaybah ad-Daynoori (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

The versions of the hadith narrated by Maalik are different to those narrated by Muhammad ibn Ishaaq, and Maalik is more accurate, according to the scholars of hadith, than Muhammad ibn Ishaaq.

End quote from Ta’weel Mukhtalif al-Hadith (p. 443) 

The commentators on the Musnad of Imam Ahmad said: 

Its isnaad is da‘eef because the only one who narrated it was Muhammad ibn Ishaaq, and its text contains something odd.

End quote from the Mu’sasat ar-Risaalah edn (43/343) 

Al-Aloosi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

With regard to the additional material having been on a page that was kept with ‘Aa’ishah and was eaten by the tame sheep, it is a fabrication and lie of the heretics that this was lost as the result of being eaten by a tame sheep without being abrogated. This is what it says in al-Kashshaaf.

End quote from Rooh al-Ma‘aani (11/140) 

Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

It was proven that the wording was abrogated, but the sheet on which it was written remained, as ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said – then it was eaten by the tame sheep; but no one needs it (that verse). Something similar may be said with regard to the verse on breastfeeding, and there is no difference between the two. The proof of that is that they memorised (the verse) as we have mentioned. So if it was confirmed as being part of the Qur’an, the fact that the sheep ate it would not have changed the fact that it was part of the Qur’an, based on the fact that they had memorised it. 

Thus we may conclude with certainty that no two Muslims differ concerning the fact that Allah, may He be exalted, enjoined upon His Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) the conveying of the message, and that he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) conveyed it as he had been instructed to do. … And we may conclude, with regard to the verses that were lost, that if the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) had been instructed to convey them, he would have done so, and if he had conveyed them they would have been memorised, and if they had been memorised then the death of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) would not affect the matter at all, just as the fact that he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) died did not affect anything else of what he had conveyed of the Qur’an.

End quote from al-Muhalla (12/177)                        

Al-Baaqilaani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

There is no one on the face of the earth more ignorant than one who thinks that the Messenger and the Sahaabah were all careless with regard to the Qur’an and that they would not memorise it and learn it by heart, and that they would rely for confirming it on a sheet that was placed under the bed of ‘Aa’ishah only, a sheet that was thrown on the floor and disrespected, until the neighbourhood sheep came in and ate it, resulting in the loss of that sheet and whatever was written on it! 

We wonder what it was that could have allegedly led the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) to such negligence, helplessness and carelessness, when he had been entrusted with the religion and had been instructed to protect it and preserve it, and to appoint scribes to write it, as he had a large number of people who were skilled in the field of writing, whose main task was to write down the Qur’an that was revealed to him, and to write down covenants, deeds, trusts and other matters that might occur or be connected to the Messenger, especially since there was a need to keep a record of it. 

The main task of the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was only to explain and protect the Qur’an, and protect the religion; he had no occupation or any other worldly concerns to distract him from that, except some efforts he might undertake to support and reinforce the religion, and to promote and explain the Qur’an. Otherwise, how could it be possible that all of these people and all of the Sahaabah would not be aware of the verses about breastfeeding and stoning, so that no one would know about them or refer to them, except ‘Aa’ishah alone? 

Therefore, based on what we have described about how the Messenger was devoted to conveying the message, and the Sahaabah were keen to learn and memorise it, it is not possible that they could have lost something of the Book of Allah, may He be exalted, whether it was small or great; people of such calibre should be the greatest of people in memorising it and preserving what was revealed of it and what happened concerning it, such as the dates when it was revealed, the reasons for revelation, and what abrogated and was abrogated.

End quote from al-Intisaar li’l-Qur’an (1/412-418) 

Whatever the case, what the Muslim is required to do is to constantly be aware and careful, so he should not believe everyone who makes some claim, and he should not follow every rumour, myth or story that is narrated here or there, especially in Internet chat rooms and forums, because they may be visited by knowledgeable and ignorant people alike, both speakers of truth and liars, sincere people and hateful hypocrites. Such matters require investigation and verification, by asking knowledgeable people and referring to authentic Islamic books; many such resources are widely available, praise be to Allah. Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “And follow not (O man i.e., say not, or do not or witness not, etc.) that of which you have no knowledge (e.g. ones saying: ‘I have seen,’ while in fact he has not seen, or ‘I have heard,’ while he has not heard). Verily! The hearing, and the sight, and the heart, of each of those you will be questioned (by Allah)” [al-Isra’ 17:36].  

For more information, see the answers to questions no. 22029 and 106399

And Allah knows best.

Who is the antichrist?

 

Jesus was never mentioned by Moses; by name, nor did Moses accept Jesus as "Christ the Messiah". Let's go to 1 john 2:22 and use its criteria to identify who is the antichrist

 

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22)

 

Doesn't this show that Moses of the Bible was the antichrist for denying Jesus as the Christ. If you disagree please show us where Jesus was called the messiah by name in the Torah. think about it if Moses really did mention Jesus by name or call him the Messiah allegorically, why then don't we find any such explanation of this allegorical saying interpreted by Jewish rabbis in any of their classical writing's throughout history?

 

there are no early writings from Jewish rabbis regarding Jesus being mentioned by Moses. the Talmud/ Mishna make no mention of Jesus being the Messiah. No orthodox Jew ever made mention of Jesus being the son of God, or said Moses said the son of God will be the Messiah.

 

Then he said, "When I was with you before, I told you that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44)

 

Jesus even said Moses spoke everything about him, so where do we find the explicit mention of Jesus by name in the Torah by Moses or any other Prophets per say?

 

If Moses was unaware of Jesus, then we can conclude using 1 John 2:22 he was the antichrist.

 

Now, there is a way out from this Christians. All they have to do is, admit the Torah they have has been corrupted/altered by those evil rabbis who took the name of Jesus out which probably would make more sense rather than twisting their text and trying to find a name which isn't in there in the first place.

 

One wonders if the Jews would accept such absurdity from Christians for admitting their so called saviours name being erased?

There's more:

"Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son." - 1 John 2:22.

I was shown actual textual evidence regarding 1 John 2:22: Manuscript GA 023 

For verse 22, everything in this verse, after, "Who is the liar, if not one denying that Jesus is..." is missing. It does not contain, "Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son."

The above manuscript greatly affects the claim made by Mr. Claus who stuck to the idea that this verse applies to the Prophet of Islam Pbuh, if one is looking at the earliest textual evidence of this verse. 

For the record GA 023 has folios dating between ~300 CE and 600 CE, this folio (page) falls into the earlier period of ~300 CE. This is the earliest manuscript of  1 John we have. It is missing the phrase after, "Who is the liar".

In short 1 John 2:22 has missing words after, "Who is the liar," and a partial text until, "Jesus is". The words, "Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son," are later additions to later manuscripts.  

I advise my Christian friends to not use this verse as their shield in the future, as this is only going to backfire on them. I would like to thank Br. Ijaz Ahmad for giving me this information.