A Qur’anic prophecy about a medieval rabbi.

 

A Qur’anic prophecy about a medieval rabbi.  

 

One of the more humorous claims of Rashad Khalifa concerns an interpretation of a verse in Surah Ahqaf. Dr. Khalifa believers Surah 46:10 was revealed as prophecy about Rabbi Yehuda Ha Hasid. Rashad believed that this 13^th century mystic confirmed the Qur’an’s 19 based numerical structure of revelation. We addressed Dr. Khalifa’s claims about the math-miracle in previous scriptures in-depth already. We will focus on Dr. Khalifa’s interpretation of 46:10. Dr. Khalifa translates the verse as follows:

 

[46:10] Say, "What if it is from GOD and you disbelieved in it? A witness from the Children of Israel has borne witness to a similar phenomenon,* and he has believed, while you have turned arrogant. Surely, GOD does not guide the wicked people."

 

The subtitle to 46:10 in the “Final Testament” has the name of the Jewish mystic:  Rabbi Judah the Pious.    It is puzzling at first sight why the name of a lesser known rabbi would make the pages of a Qur’an translation.  Dr. Khalifa tells us the reason for the title in the footnote: *46:10 This witness is Rabbi Judah the Pious (11th Century A.D.), who discovered the same 19-based mathematical code in intact fragments of the scripture (see Appendix 1)

 

Dr. Rashad Khalifa claimed that the “witness from the children of Israel” was none other than Rabbi Judah the Pius.  Rashad thought that the similar phenomena described had to do with the mathematical codes, allegedly in both scriptures. Dr. Khalifa claimed that Rabbi Yehuda discovered these codes in “intact fragments” of the “scripture.”   Edip Yuksel, in his “Reformist translation of the qur’an” writes that Rabbi Yehuda discovered this pattern “in the original parts of the old testament” (Reformist Translation, Yuskel,Edip pg. 321, footnote 46:10)

 

What are these “intact fragments” Dr. Rashad Khalifa is referring to? Edip Yuksel, just as his mentor, believe these fragments are the “original parts of the old testament..”  Is that really the case? Dr. Rashad Khalifa found the source of his claim in Studies of Jewish Mysticism by Joseph Dan. We addressed the problems with Dr. Khalifa’s interpretation of the evidence elsewhere. But no where in Studies of Jewish mysticism does it refer to “intact fragments” or even a reference to the “old testament.”  Joseph Dan tells us name of the text written by Yehuda called Sodot ha Tefilah (Secrets of the Liturgy) which by name tell us is a commentary on the liturry. Sodot ha Tefilah is a commentary on the Amidah prayer, a liturgy not found in the bible but created by rabbis during the time of the second temple era.  Someone knowledgeable in Judaism would not make the mistake that Dr. Khalifa and Edip Yuksel made.  Dr. Khalifa did in identifying the text Joseph Dan and Rabbi Yehuda were talking about.   Edip Yuksel was wrong in identifying the text as part of the “old testament.” Dr. Khalifa however was intentionally misleading by using the term “intact fragments” to describe the text in question as Joseph Dan never used any of these terms. In fact copies of the Amidah prayer are found everywhere (just as they were in the days of Rabbi Yehudah.)  But Dr. Khalifa wants us to believe that there was some pure manuscript of the Torah that Yehudah had access to but this is nothing but deceit.

 

Who was the witness to the children of Israel in 46:10. Many of the traditions refer to Abdullah ibn Salam as the witness among the Israelites as he converted to Islam during the time of the prophet.  The problem with this interpretation according to some people as that the Surah was revealed in Mecca and Abdullah did not convert to islam until the believers established themselves in Madinah. Other commentaries believe the witness is Moses based on the prophecy of a prophet to come like unto him found in the book of Deuteronomy.  We share Dr. Khalifa’s opinion (which he followed rather inconsistently) that the Qur’an should be interpreted universally and not limited to a specific time and place. Maulauna Maudoodi, summing up the opinion of ibn kathir writes ,” What seems to be nearer the truth is that which the commentator Nisaburi and Ibn Kathir have stated. They say: Here, by a witness is not meant any particular person but a common Israelite. The meaning is this: The teachings that the Quran is presenting before you are not new so that you could deny them by offering the excuse that they were novel teachings which had never been presented before man in the past.” (Towards understanding the Quran) And God knows best.