Meherally in trying to form some sort of conclusion states,
"History records that prophet Muhammad was known for his truth and honesty, long before he received his revelations." [1].
Meherally again offers no support for this claim, we need merely to look at Muslim history to see that Muhammad like any other human being had his imperfections,
"Have We not expanded thee thy breast? And removed from thee thy burden [transgression], which did gall thy back?" Surah 94:1-3
The following prayer is made by the prophet of Islam,
"O God, wash my iniquities with snow-water" Al Bukhari [3]
Muhammad was never described as a man without sin, in comparison to Jesus of whom the Bible states,
"[He] committed no sin, nor was guile found in his mouth" 1 Peter 2:22
"and in him there is no sin" 1 John 3:5
The Quran also testifies,
"I am only a messenger of thy Lord that I may bestow on thee [Mary] a faultless son [Jesus]." Surah 19:19 [2]
Surely the one to follow Jesus should be of equal faultlessness to be the successor of one without sin.
The next section of Meherally's argument is the most interesting one, as the descriptions the Lord Jesus Christ gives of the Paraclete, that could never apply to Muhammad or any other human being are conveniently bolstered up by the Quran instead.
This tactic completely confuses Meherally's argument, as one is not sure whether to consider the Paraclete to be a human being or a book, or by virtue of claiming that both entities fit the description we are left to assume that Muhammad and the Quran are one and the same thing.
Let us consider some of the confusion presented by Meherally's approach
"he shall take mine and shall disclose it to you." John 16:14b
Meherally in response states, "Note: Muhammad did declare himself a Prophet/Messenger of God..." [1]
In response to the first part of the same verse
"He shall glorify me," John 16:14a
Meherally's response, "Note: the Quran glorifies the birth of Jesus..." [1].
In a single verse, in which he refers to the same entity, the Paraclete, Meherally has pointed to two different entities in a last ditch attempt to wrest some sort of conclusion that Islam is the religion predicted in the scriptures at the beginning of time.
[1] Did Jesus and Isaiah prophesy the coming of Muhammad? - Akbarally Meherally
[2] The meaning of the glorious Qur’an - M.M.Pickthall
[3] Hadith Al Bukhari
In this section Al-Kahdi uses one verse from the gospel of John as the cornerstone of his argument. Firstly Al-Kahdi points out that before Jesus, Elijah must come first (Mark 9:12) this is supported by Old Testament prophecy from Malachi 4:5. Al-Kahdi then goes on correctly to confirm that John the Baptist was Elijah the one to come before Jesus.
He then uses John 1:19-21 to ‘refute’ this
"Now this is John’s testimony, when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, ‘I am not the Christ’. They asked him, ‘Then who are you? Are you Elijah?’ He said ‘I am not.’ ‘Are you the Prophet?’ He answered ‘No.’ " John 1:19-21 (Al-Injil)
From these verses, he draws three conclusions;
1) That John the Baptist is not Elijah
2) That there is a sequence i.e. Elijah >> The Christ >> The Prophet
3) He seems to infer that Jesus cannot be The Prophet
In response we can draw three points from Al-Kahdi’s exegesis.
Here we see a classic case of taking one part and throwing away the other, whilst Al-Kahdi is quite happy to accept the verse on the pretext of points 2 & 3, he falls silent on the first. From his final comments on his paper, we do not know whether indeed John the Baptist was Elijah or whether he was not. So Al Kahdi (like so many other Muslim apologists before him), suggests that these verses somehow suggest a chronological sequence of three separate prophets that are being prophesied here, namely:-
John the Baptist >>>> Jesus the Messiah >>>> The Prophet Muhammad
This argument falls down when using this verse to support Al-Kahdi’s theory, because John the Baptist answers ‘no’ to being Elijah. Therefore Al-Kahdi’s and many Muslim Apologist’s theories on this verse suggesting a chronological succession of the prophets holds no water. We shall see later on why John the Baptist said no to being Elijah.
Despite the patchiness of his argument, Al-Kahdi appeals to the reader by arguing the fact that these words are written in the Bible and should be directly interpreted, without any regard to the context of the verse within the chapter.
In verses 19-21, we have to remember WHO IS ACTUALLY ASKING THE QUESTIONS? in this case it was the Jewish Rabbis and Levitical Priests. Now we must remember the words spoken by them are their words and their interpretation of how things were meant to happen at the time of the coming of the Messiah. As a consequence this does not mean that their observations must be correct, and does not even suggest that their words are words of prophecy, we would only assume words of prophecy to come from a prophet, none of these men ever claimed or were recorded as being prophets.
Al-Kahdi assumes that this interpretation should be taken literally when he argues that this ‘is what the Bible says’.
This line of reasoning ‘because it says so’, is simply not logical, to prove the point, let us take for example the following verse from the book of Psalms
‘Fools say to themselves, "There is no God"’ Psalm 14:1 (al-Zaboor)
Using Al-Kahdi’s reasoning we could take the direct meaning and ignore the speaker of the words and categorically state that ‘the Bible says there is no God’, based on the evidence, ‘the Bible says so’. The result is of course ridiculous and does not make sense, if we read the verse in context with regards to who is speaking (the fool) we can therefore reason the opposite that the Bible in fact says that there is a God, but it is fools who deny this.
Up to now, we have just been considering the major flaws in considering Al-Kahdi’s theory in the three distinct prophecies expounded by this verse. Now we have to put all the pieces together into context to find out what this verse, in context with the rest of the chapter means, and how do John the Baptist (Yahaya), Christ Jesus (Isa al Masih) and Muhammad bear in relation to this chapter from John.
Let us consider the verse again in the light of the fact, that it was representatives of the Sanhedrin who were asking the questions, in verse 20 John confirms to them that he is not the Messiah. They then go on to ask whether John is Elijah, which he denies. This denial seems very strange if we assume that Elijah in this context means the one to come before the Messiah, because after answering this question in verse 23 John makes it quite clear that he is the one who is to announce the coming of the Messiah.
"John replied in the word of Issiah the prophet, ‘I am the voice of the one calling in the desert, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’ " John 1:23 (al-Injil)
So the question we need to ask in keeping in context of the chapter is if the role of Elijah was not to be the one who announces the coming of the Messiah, then what did the Jews mean by Elijah? Rather than understanding that Elijah was to be the one who announces the coming of the Messiah (Malachi 4:5) the Jews interpreted Elijah as the prophet Elijah, as mentioned in the Old Testament (Al Taurat), who had come back from the dead. This was not an uncommon misinterpretation amongst the Jews, for when Jesus asked the Apostles as to who the people though he was it is recorded them as believing that he among other things was Elijah come back from the dead (Luke 9:8, Mark 8:28, Matthew 16:14). Jesus confirms this when he speaks of John the Baptist (Yahaya)
"...Elijah has already come and people did not recognise him" Matthew 17:11 (al-Injil)
Finally the people ask if John was ‘the Prophet’, alluded to here by Al-Kahdi and so many other Muslim apologists as being Muhummad, the prophet of Islam. However if we put this question into a context of Biblical prophecy we know that the Bible speaks of only one Messiah who is to be the prophet to come like unto Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18
"I will send them a Prophet like you from among our own people." Deuteronomy 18:18 (al-Taurat)
So in fact the title of the Prophet can only be applied to the Messiah who indeed is confirmed in the Bible as being Jesus Christ (Isa al Masih)[1]. Later on in the same next chapter of the Gospel of John Andrew and Simon upon meeting Jesus exclaim to Peter
"We have found the Messiah!" John 2:41 (al-Injil)
Jesus is also confirmed as being the Prophet after performing the miracle of feeding the 5,000 people, when the people claim
"Surely this is the Prophet who was to come into the world" John 6:14 (al-Injil)
So in concluding we find not three prophecies but reference to one, which is confirmed by the Bible to be Jesus the Messiah (Isa-al-Masih), a misunderstanding of who Elijah was and absolutely no prophecy pertaining to Muhummad.
[1] See the first prophecy to see that Deuteronomy 18:18 can only refer to Jesus Christ (Isa al Masih) and not Muhammad as alluded to by Al - Kahdi.
[1] Three distinct prophecies Misha al Khadi
[2] The meaning of the glorious Qur’an - M.M.Pickthall