I’ve been watching a lot of Zakir Hussain debates lately as he seems to be the new superstar apologist over in England. He has debated James White twice. The second time was recent and I’ve done a few posts on that debate. The first time was back in 2012 where he debated Dr. White on whether or not Muhammad is foretold in the Bible. I should point out that I don’t think that Zakir Hussain has been in a debate with cross examination. That would be interested to see him defend his theories under firm questioning.
Zakir Hussain naturally stated that Muhammad was the Paraclete which Jesus spoke of in chapters 14, 15, and 16 of the Gospel of John. When he was confronted with John 14:26 which specifically states that the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit, he simply brought up one Syriac manuscript with a variant that just says the Paraclete was the Spirit and could therefore be a Prophet. When White exposed this inconsistency Hussain said it is no different than what Christians do with Isaiah 7 and the Virgin Birth Prophecy. That is not true in the slightest. The Jews accuse the Septuagint of a mistranslation, not a variant. The remainder of the Syriac manuscripts say Holy Spirit but all Septuagint translations render the word Almah as virgin. He’s comparing apples and oranges.
However, choosing to overlook John 14:26, we see that these three chapters cause an even larger problem for the Muslim. The problem of Shirk. To a Muslim, Allah is not a Father and he has no Son. In these three chapters about the Paraclete, God is referred to as Father a total of 44 times. He’s even referred to as Father in the specific verse that they use to have the prophecy. In John 14:16 we read:
And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever.
Why would the Islamic Prophet Jesus refer to God as Father and not Elohim, Yahweh, or Allah? This is a problem that Islamic apologists must deal with. Why would Jesus refer to Himself as the Son three verses earlier when according to Islamic tradition, Allah has no Son. To say that Allah is Father and Jesus is the Son is to commit Shirk. According to Islam, that is what these three Paraclete chapters do. By Zakir Hussain, Shabir Ally, Zakir Naik, or any Islamic apologist claiming that when Jesus spoke of the Paraclete, He spoke of Muhammad, they are committing Shirk.
Many Muslims when confronted with anti-Islamic statements in the Bible, usually say it’s been corrupted. If they say that all of the references to Father and Son are corruptions and later interpolations, how do they know that the Paraclete references aren’t a later addition? In fact, in his debate with David Wood, Zakir Hussain said that John was the least historical Gospel. Ironically this doesn’t stop him from mining the three Paraclete Chapters for a Prophecy of Muhammad.
In order for Muslims to believe that the Paraclete chapters are genuine, they have to commit Shirk, since these chapters refer to God as Father and Jesus as Son. They are some of the most anti-Islamic chapters in the whole Bible. I don’t think that’s a step that Zakir Hussain wants to take. If Hussain admits these statements have been tampered with, his Paraclete prophecy of Muhammad evaporates. I wouldn’t want to be in his dilemma.
The Jews said, “Ezra is the son of God,” and the Christians said, “The Messiah is the son of God.” These are their statements, out of their mouths. They emulate the statements of those who blasphemed before. May God assail them! How deceived they are!
– Surah 9:30
Greetings. The issue lies on basis of collective (Hebrew) and self (Greek). How do you define “bani Elohiym” (sons of God) and “ruach” (spirit) according to your Catholic dogma? …in your own words?
Until everyone comes to common terms, people will stay divided over the proof of the metaphysical and believing in a limited Theos.
Thank you.