Is there a prophecy written in advance about Muhammad?

There are critiques under this topic as well. Islamic thinkers have said: “The coming of Muhammad as a prophet is mentioned in the Gospel.” Back then I too did not know the meaning of that verse. It is written in John as well. In chapter 14, verses 16-17 and 25-26, it is understood that the holy spirit is meant; yet again, in John chapter 15, verses 26-27, and most importantly in chapter 16, verse 13, it is certain that a person is spoken of, not the holy spirit. Come, let us work through this topic a bit more thoroughly.

When Jesus Christ and some of the other prophets were prophesying, they sometimes treated two events and separate times under a single prophecy. Because of this, one might suppose that all of it applied to a single event. For instance, a prophecy concerning a universal end is one thing; a prophecy concerning only the end of Jerusalem and the temple is another matter—yet it is not treated under a separate topic, but under the same one. (See Matthew 24:1-31 ; Mark 13:1-32 ; Luke 21:5-28). A person can see this difference only when he researches carefully. Again, for example, that Jerusalem would be laid waste is written plainly only in Luke 21:20. In the other prophecies, however, it is all told as though it were one and the same event. Although Luke writes about the subject from a different angle, he leaves the reader with a different impression. That is, this time, when a person reads what is written in Luke, he may suppose that this event was only for Jerusalem and may expect an end to come immediately after this event. Those who read Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, may understand that only a prophecy of a universal end is meant. The truth is that, since Jesus knew the similarity between the events that would happen in the last days and the events that would befall the Jerusalem of that time, he told both of these subjects under a single prophecy.

In short, just as those prophecies tell of two different but similar events in one place, so it is with the prophecy about Muhammad in John. In this prophecy a “Comforter” is spoken of. This comforter, the Holy Spirit, was given to all those believers after Jesus’ death. And they miraculously began to speak in the languages of nations they did not know and had not learned beforehand. Moreover, this spirit came upon those people in a visible manner. (Acts of the Apostles 2:1-4 and 10:44) But John 15:26 also writes as follows:

“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness about me.

With this verse it cannot be clearly proven whether it is said about Muhammad or a prophet or not. But John 16:7-14 is written in a way that admits no doubt whatsoever. Come, let us read Jesus’ words on this matter together.

“I am telling you the truth, it is for your benefit that I go away. If I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send Him to you.

When He comes He will convict the world concerning sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come. Concerning sin—because they do not believe in me.

Concerning righteousness—because I am going to the Father, and you will see me no longer.

Concerning judgment—because the ruler of this world has been judged.

I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.

However, when He, that is, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth. He will not speak of His own accord, but will speak only what He hears, and He will declare to you the things to come.”

In the Gospel, whose original language is Greek, saying “He” means a male person. In Turkish it is hard to notice this. In Turkish it is impossible to distinguish the gender of the pronoun used for a person, as in this example.

We said the Gospel was written in Greek. It was also translated into many other languages. Some languages, such as Arabic, Greek, English, French, and German, are called rich languages. That is, when you use a word, it generally comes to one meaning. In poor languages, however, a single word can be used in many meanings. For example, “çalmak” in Turkish means both to steal and to play a musical instrument. Or “gül,” meaning smile, at the same time refers to a flower. “Yat” means both sleep and refers to a boat on the sea. There are many examples like this. This situation exists in those languages we call rich as well, but it is said to be less than in the poor ones. Then a host of grammatical differences also come into play. Again in Turkish, once you say “O,” it can now be a woman, or a child, or a man; it may even refer to an object. Now, in new Turkish, when God and the prophets are spoken of, they write it with a capital “O.” In our day they were all the same. Still, I do not know whether there is exactly such a change in Turkish grammar. You can see this difference between the new translation and the old translation of the Turkish Holy Bible. At least this has been done when speaking of God and of Jesus. Concerning persons, however, it still follows the old familiar convention. But in Greek, in German, in English, once you say “He,” it is certainly understood whether it is a man or a woman, an object or a child. Because in those languages a separate word is used for each gender. For this reason it is hard to prove this situation from the Turkish Holy Bible, but there are still many other methods of proof. I hope you will understand as I explain the subject.

Furthermore, what is the Holy Spirit? This too needs to be explained.

The Holy Spirit is not a person, but God’s active force. Like a person’s hand or arm—and the hand or arm is not a person. That is, if my hand strikes someone, I cannot say, “I didn’t do it, my hand did.” They would call me “crazy” and throw me into the asylum. Or a person who talks with his hand is not normal either. And yet, what things we do with our hand! But all these, and the members of our body (like the hand, arm, foot, eye, mouth), are governed by our brain—in short, by us. Otherwise, these organs we have listed possess neither the intelligence to think, nor a personal will to act, nor anything of the sort. To make a comparison, the Holy Spirit is like this too—that is, it is God’s active force. This much only we know. Concerning God’s creation of the world by His power and His use of His spirit, it is written as follows:

The earth was formless and empty; and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and God’s Spirit was moving over the waters. Genesis 1:2

Because the Witnesses do not believe in the trinity, their knowledge about God’s spirit resembles what I have explained here. They too say about God’s spirit, “this is His active force.” Unlike religions such as the Catholic and Protestant, they do not regard God’s Spirit as a person. This knowledge is also in harmony with the Holy Bible and the Quran. Indeed, the Christian religions too, most of all, base themselves as proof on these prophetic words that Jesus spoke about Muhammad, and make the Holy Spirit a person and worship it as God. I will try to explain what I mean with proofs.

In one verse, Matthew 12:32, it says, “Whoever speaks a word against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” What is meant by the Holy Spirit in this verse is feeling hatred toward God Himself, toward His works, toward what He has done and will do. If the Holy Spirit were, as the Christian world believes, a third God apart from God and Jesus, then would this verse not have to count them all? That is, God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Why does it say only the Holy Spirit? If we were to believe like the Christian world, then according to this verse a person could hate God but not the Holy Spirit! And how absurd that would be. What is actually meant here is only God, and the Holy Spirit is not a separate person from Him. The Holy Spirit is only His force, His might, His active power to act.

Concerning the Holy Spirit, as I said, thank God the Witnesses have a partly correct understanding. But because of the wrong understanding they have on other subjects, this correct knowledge they possess ends up ensnaring them by their own hand. Indeed, if we understand one verse correctly and interpret another wrongly, we ought to notice something—namely, that we have made a mistake somewhere. The other alternative is that we do not admit our mistake and try by hook or by crook to force all our other explanations to fit one another. The clearest example I want to give on this subject will be the very example I am now discussing: is Muhammad meant, or the Holy Spirit? Let us come to that verse in John that admits no dispute.

However, when He, that is, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth. He will not speak of His own accord, but will speak only what He hears, and He will declare to you the things to come. The verse in John 16:13.

After these explanations, think for yourself about the verse I have written again above. Jesus says: “He will not speak of His own accord.” First, the “He” that occurs here means a male person. No one objects that this is so. As I said, since Turkish is poor in this respect, we ourselves may have difficulty understanding it. Second, in saying “will not speak of His own accord,” it means, then, that He has the ability to speak of His own accord. And this plainly means the existence of His own will. How can the Holy Spirit have the ability to speak of its own accord? Our hand too is a force, but it cannot do anything of its own accord. Leave aside the hand—even our mouth cannot speak of its own accord. Unless we have a bodily disability, they all depend on our will; we govern all these organs from our brain.

Continuing further about that person, Jesus says: “will speak only what He hears.” And on top of that, whoever this is also has the ability to hear. Do our hand and arm hear? If God’s Spirit is His active force, how can we say it possesses these characteristics? Yes, the holy spirit does possess these characteristics, but not as a person. Our ears hear, but the ear is not a person possessing gender. Because in the prophecy, saying He will not speak of His own accord but will speak only what He hears, it is perfectly plain that He has a personality of His own. Not only will He have His own will, His own faculty of hearing, and the ability to speak, but He will also be a person—and a male person at that. A male pronoun is used for God too, that is true. But nowhere in the Holy Bible—apart from this verse written only in John—is anything like this written about the Holy Spirit, and in John the holy spirit is not meant. Because the “He” that occurs here is not the Holy Spirit but a male person, indeed a human being.

No matter how much we force this verse, we simply cannot twist it elsewhere—neither like the Christian world nor like the Witnesses. But when it is said to be a human being, a male person, a prophet, Jesus’ words fit perfectly. This time the meaning of those words becomes more understandable and logical.

Because a human being has his own will—that is, the ability to speak and to hear of his own accord. When he does these things not of his own accord but because another has said so, it is meant that he obeys—and these too are attributed to a human being. If our hand and arm belong to our own body, does anyone say “my hand obeys me”? People would look at us stupidly. Because obedience is not expected from lifeless things. Our hand is like a tool, an instrument, a machine, a computer. Their moving does not make them living beings possessing personality. What I mean is living beings that have free will, that can think, that have intelligence and feelings. Obedience is expected only from them, that is, from persons. If we make the Holy Spirit possess a will of its own, then by speaking not of its own accord but what it hears, it not only becomes a separate person but at the same time possesses a will and personality separate from God as well. And by this we would make God a blind block, an idol, with no hand or arm—that is, no strength or power. Indeed, if all the power is in the Holy Spirit, and it is another God, then it means the God we know has no power at all. On this subject Christian logic and belief work exactly like this. Those are places where nonsensical knowledge about God is dense.

The Quran, for its part, confirms this subject I have discussed and says:

Remember when Jesus, the son of Mary, said: “O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of God to you, confirming the Torah that came before me and giving good news of a Messenger who will come after me, whose name will be Ahmad… Surah As-Saff, 61:6

The critiques on this subject are great too. Ahmad means the one who is praised, the one to whom thanks are given. Christians, for their part, say: “Jesus said ‘comforter,’ he did not say ‘one who is praised.’” As I said, people who talk like this either do not know the book in their hands or do it deliberately. If Muhammad’s name had been not Ahmad but some other Arabic name meaning comfort, would they have believed it, then? Absolutely not. So long as a person wants to object, he finds so many ways. Let us bring some clarity to this subject too by giving an example from the Gospel.

We said there are many prophecies about Jesus Christ. It would be enough to dwell on just one. And in the Gospel too, these are verses concerning Jesus’ birth. The apostle Matthew writes them all out with explanation. There it says:

Mary will bear a son. You shall call his name Jesus. For it is he who will save his people from their sins.” Matthew 1:21

All this took place to fulfill the word spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin will conceive and bear a son. They shall call his name Immanuel.” Immanuel means, God is with us. Matthew 1:22-23 (Isaiah 7:14)

The apostle Matthew also explains the meaning of Immanuel. The name Jesus, for its part, means “Saving God” or “God Saves.” Just as these names are not word-for-word the same in the prophecies about Jesus, there are prophecies written with many other names of various meanings about Jesus. Sometimes it is Shiloh (Genesis 49:10), sometimes Immanuel, and sometimes it is expressed as the Word, that is, the utterance. John 1:1 and verse 14.

Note: The verse John 1:1, in the apostle John, is not wrong, but it can be misunderstood. There it says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. In fact, saying the Word was a god would have been more meaningful and distinguishing. Because in past topics we read that many gods exist, and even that God characterized His prophets as gods. To be able to distinguish, in this sentence it should have said “a god.” Because those verses speak both of God and of Jesus. Otherwise it becomes hard to make the distinction another way. Such translations force a person to believe according to the Christian mindset, whether he likes it or not. The Holy Bible translation the Witnesses themselves made is, from time to time, just like these biased translations the Christians make under the influence of their own doctrines. I am not saying it is wrong, but when they translate books, they are also very keen to use words in line with their doctrines at all costs. That is, impartiality just does not come about.

To sum up the subject briefly: with the names foretold in advance about Jesus Christ and other prophets, let us not expect those persons to come with that same proper name word for word. About the prophet John it says “the voice of one calling in the wilderness.” Yet the meaning of John’s name is not that. John means “God is merciful.” “Calling in the wilderness” was emphasizing a prophecy about his actually calling people to repentance in the wilderness and baptizing them from their sins—not his name. (John 1:21-23)

While all these truths are so, how then could it be expected that Muhammad’s name absolutely had to be word-for-word the same as “Comforter” rather than “Ahmad”? Here the words have meanings as descriptions. Just as Immanuel, saying God is with us, has a meaning, so too the name Jesus, meaning Saving God, is meaningful. Just as Ahmad means “the one who is praised,” comforter too is meaningful, and these expressions were fulfilled upon those prophets. But just as the Jews, as these people do, did not believe in Jesus, so their not believing in Muhammad is nothing new. Besides, if the person who wrote or proclaimed this Quran were a fraud, why would he draw the matter out so much? He would say, “Jesus spoke about me; the comforter he mentioned there is me.” Some people may think, “Ah! If only it had been so.” As if, had it been so, they would have believed! No, this time they would have said he was even more of a fraud. Actually, if Muhammad had really been a fraud, then I believe that those who pass themselves off as Christians would have been the first to believe in him—but that is a separate subject.

I have not treated all the topics here paragraph by paragraph. Some parts truly were not even worth writing. The “Watchtower” article put out by the Witnesses’ Governing Body, while it even accepts the revelations Muhammad received, writes that these voices originated not from God—that is, from the angel Gabriel—but from jinn, from evil spirits. What shall we say to such a fraudulent and organized institution that claims to be the sole channel God uses! Well then, from what source do they themselves take those rotten fruits they possess, which they proclaim and which I have written of throughout this book? Will they say from God? Yes, and they proclaim it so shamelessly. Concerning members who leave the organization because of fraud, injustice, self-conceit, and many other uglinesses, by saying “God sifted His people through a sieve,” they not only defend their own errors alone but also attribute all those uglinesses they commit to God as well.

In my view, understanding the road they take is easy, but understanding those who follow them is hard. These poor wretches too, like donkeys, have taken those fraudulent people’s loads onto their backs, and those people, all the way from America, say “giddy-up” to all those people around the world. Please, let us prove and understand at last that we are human beings, not donkeys. And do not suppose this driving-on is a trait peculiar to the Witnesses alone. I generally work on my writings about this religion by concentrating on subjects related to them, and for that reason I use their names—that is all. Otherwise, there are on our earth many states, oppressions, institutions, religions, and sects that would make you long for the Witnesses. Is it not plainly obvious that the world is not under God’s will but, until a certain time, under Satan’s will? Otherwise, would we in our prayers fervently want God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven? (This is the model prayer of all Christians, Matthew 6:10)

These are all the answers I will give in response to this series of writings the Witnesses wrote about the Quran. Since these subjects are treated continually in my book, accept those too as answers belonging to these. I have skipped some parts that occur in these series but whose answers I have written under other topics. For example, I had mentioned what I discussed with the environment minister. For this reason I have not taken up again and again here subjects like “Was Jesus killed or was he not killed?” which also appear in the magazine.