Chapter X of the book deals with verse 15 of the ‘Song of Solomon’, which is about ‘His Legs and Countenance’. The wording of the verse is ‘His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon sockets of fine gold: his countenance is as Lebanon, excellent as the cedars.’ This verse includes two independent descriptions. The first description relates to the legs of the ‘beloved’ and the second one relates to his countenance. First sentence of the verse is: ‘His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon sockets of fine gold’. The Pulpit Commentary explains it as follows:

So in the description of the legs we have the combination of white and gold, the white marble setting forth greatness and purity, and the gold sublimity and nobleness; intended, no doubt, to suggest that in the royal bridegroom, there was personal beauty united with kingly majesty.

The commentator asserts that these words undoubtedly signify the combination of personal beauty and kingly majesty in the bridegroom. As far as ‘Personal Beauty’ is concerned:

 It was never said of the child Jesus, (…) that he was exceedingly fair; nay, he had no form nor comeliness, (…).

As to his ‘Kingly Majesty’, it is not a statement of fact, but is a grave mockery, to assign it to a person, about whom it is recorded in the Gospel of Matthew:

Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium [governor’s residence] and gathered the whole garrison around Him. And they stripped Him and put a scarlet robe on Him. When they had twisted a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand. And they bowed the knees before Him and mocked Him, saying, ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ Then they spat on Him, and took the reed and struck Him on the head.

When the description of the evangelists regarding the last days of Jesus Christ (pbAh)be studied, one comes across an unsteady, unstable, and wavering person. On the one hand, he wishes, ‘O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup [of death] pass from Me’. On the other hand, he seems to accept it half-heartedly saying, ‘nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.’ No doubt the last words claimed to have been uttered by Jesus, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ (My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?) reveal the belief in the Oneness and Omnipotence of God, but at the same time they show his human limitations and complaint. Keeping in view the critical nature of the moment, they are not compatible with the ideals of perseverance and steadfastness. No doubt they are very apt and meaningful for supplication in solitude, but pronouncing these words openly in public at the time of sufferings reveals lack of commitment, courage and confidence in one’s mission and ideals. ‘Stateliness’, ‘steadfastness’, and ‘magnificence’ are quite irrelevant words for Jesus Christ (pbAh). Such words can neither be applied literally nor figuratively to the life of Jesus Christ (pbAh); on the other hand, they are quite relevant to the life of Prophet Muhammad (pbAh). The unwavering steadfastness of Prophet Muhammad (pbAh)in extremely adverse circumstances of the battlefields of Badr and Hunayn is a rare phenomenon in the annals of the world history. Keeping in view these facts, one is forced to admit the adroitness of Matthew Henry to twist the facts in his favour. He asserts:

This bespeaks his stability and steadfastness; where he sets his foot he will fix it; he is able to bear all the weight of government that is upon his shoulders [one is at a loss to find any substance to this blatant misstatement], and his legs will never fail under him. This sets forth the stateliness and magnificence of the going of our God, our King, in his sanctuary.

 It is a mere mockery to apply these words to Jesus (pbAh); but when these words of King Solomon (pbAh) be compared to the facts and features of Prophet Muhammad (pbAh), one is not to face any disappointment.

Taking the words even literally, it is an established fact that Prophet Muhammad (pbAh) was of white and bright colour as has been explained in the text of the book. Thus the association of the legs with marble indicates internal strength and external beauty. The Prophet’s hands and feet were heavy, large and magnificent. It is a common phenomenon that the parts of the body which remain covered under the clothes are white whereas the colour of the parts of the body of even the white people which are open to sun, becomes brownish (golden), especially in hot countries. It may be noted here that Prophet Muhammad (pbAh) generally wore the sandal that did not cover the whole feet. The slim shanks resembling white marble pillars on the brown, bulky, and beautiful feet (sockets of gold), present a true and exact picture of the beloved of King Solomon (pbAh). Whoever compares King Solomon’s account of his beloved’s relevant features with the features of Prophet Muhammad (pbAh), would face no difficulty in discovering the reality. It would be interesting to note that the detailed account of even the commentators of the Bible tallies only with Prophet Muhammad (pbAh), and the features of Jesus Christ (pbAh) have nothing to do with it.

The second part of verse 15 is: ‘His countenance is as Lebanon, excellent as the cedars’. Matthew Henry explains this sentence as:

His countenance (his port and mien) is as Lebanon, that stately hill; his aspect beautiful and charming, like the prospect of that pleasant forest or park, excellent as the cedars, which, in height and strength, excel other trees, and are of excellent use. Christ is a goodly person; the more we look upon him the more beauty we shall see in him.

The Hebrew Bible word for ‘countenance’ is ‘מראה’, i.e. ‘mar’eh’. It means:

From 7200 [ra’ah; a primary root; to see, literally or figuratively:- advise, approve, appear, consider, perceive, think]; a view (the act of seeing); also an appearance (the thing seen), whether (real), a shape (esp. if handsome, comeliness; often plural, the looks), or (mental) a vision, (...) countenance, fair, favoured.

The literal meanings of Lebanon are ‘heart, courage, intellect and understanding’. The cumulative sense of this simile can be interpreted as below:

The beloved of King Solomon is like beautiful snow-covered mountains of Lebanon in apparent beauty and comeliness. His eyes are replete with love and affection. On the one hand he is a huge and high mountain of courage and valour and on the other hand, he is great in his intellect, understanding, and right thinking.

It has been explained above that according to the account of the New Testament these qualities cannot be attributed to Jesus (pbAh). On the other hand, as far as Prophet Muhammad (pbAh) is concerned, it depicts his complete picture.

The second simile of the sentence is ‘excellent as the cedars.’ The Hebrew word for this ‘excellent’ is ‘בחר’, i.e. ‘bahar’. It means: ‘To try, i.e. (by impl.) select, acceptable, appoint, choose (choice), excellent, join, be rather, require’.

The beautiful colour and silk-like softness and smoothness of its wood, the beauty of the fabrication of its tissues, its tenacity and durability, its immunity and resistance against termite and corrosion, its soft and perpetual fragrance, the strength and firm ground grip of its roots, its long life, vast spreading of its branches, its soothing shade, and its lofty stature make it matchless in value and quality. Thus the simile can be explained as follows:

This magnificent, choicest, and distinguished person of the tribe of Kedar and the impressive, invincible, and sweet word of Allah presented by him are beneficial and benevolent and the beauty and virtue incarnate like the cedar tree. He is esteemed and cherished as the fragrant, good-looking, strong, smooth, and soft cedar wood. The grip of his root (base or foot) is firm. His branches (influence of his teachings) are stretched far and wide. He is extremely pleasant, agreeable and desirable.

Chapter XI, XII, XIII, and XIV of the book deal with the next and the last verse (16) of this prophecy which is the most important one. In extreme love and devotion King Solomon (pbAh) pronounces even the name of his beloved ‘Muhammad the Magnificent’ in this verse, which is a rare phenomenon in the history of the Biblical prophecy. The wording of the verse is: ‘His mouth is most sweet, yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.’ Its first clause, ‘His mouth is most sweet’ has been explained in Chapter XI under the heading of the ‘Speech of His Mouth’.

This clause has been explained by Pulpit Commentary as:

His mouth was all sweetness (the literal rendering), both his holy words and his gracious looks. (...). The very tones of that most sacred voice must have had an indescribable sweetness.

Thus it becomes clear that the word ‘mouth’ of this clause stands for ‘speech’. It has not been used here in the literal sense of the physical ‘mouth’ or ‘lips’. The word ‘mouth’ has been used in the Bible a number of times in the sense of ‘speech’.

It may be noted here that Prophet Muhammad (pbAh) conveyed two things through his mouth: the Holy Qur’an and his own words regarding the Islamic culture.

As regards his own words, they are admitted to be very sweet and eloquent. Some of his sayings have been recorded in the text of the book.

The material of the Qur’an is even more magnificent. It is a masterpiece of its kind and style of literature. Some excerpts from the Holy Qur’an that exhibit its eloquence, sweetness and captivating force have been recorded in the text of the book.

A brief study of external evidence has also been afforded in the text of the book which shows that the Holy Qur’an is universally admitted to be sweetness in itself. Some of the non-Muslim scholars have also acknowledged it. A few instances have been afforded here. Henry Stubbe asserts:

The language, the stile [sic.], the numbers are all so exquisite and inimitable, that Mahomet himself doth frequently urge this as the grand authentic testimony of his Apostleship, (...), it being generally esteemed as standard of the Arabic language and eloquence.[1]

George Sale is a renowned Orientalist. He has undertaken great labour to prove that the Qur’an is not the word of Allah, but is the work of Muhammad (pbAh). He translated the Quran (with footnotes) into English and gave it the name of ‘alkoran of Muhammad’ which reveals his designs. In the beginning of it he wrote a detailed introduction under the heading of ‘The Preliminary Discourse’. In section ‘3’ of this introduction he was forced to pay due compliments to the impressiveness and sweetness of the Qur’an. Here are some excerpts from this ‘Preliminary Discourse’:

The Koran is universally allowed to be written with the utmost elegance and purity of language, (...). It is confessedly the standard of the Arabic tongue, (.…). And to this miracle [the Qur’an] did Mohammed himself chiefly appeal for the confirmation of his mission, publicly challenging the most eloquent men in Arabia, (...) to produce even a single chapter that might be compared with it. (...). A poem of Labid ibn Rabia, one of the greatest wits in Arabia in Mohammed’s time, being fixed up on the gate of temple of Mecca, an honour allowed to none but the most esteemed performances, none of the other poets durst offer any thing of their own in competition with it. But the second chapter of the Koran being fixed up by it soon after, Labid himself (then an idolater) on reading the first verses only, was struck with admiration, and immediately professed the religion taught thereby, declaring that such words could proceed from an inspired person only. (...). He must have a very bad ear who is not uncommonly moved with the very cadence of a well-turned sentence; and Mohammed seems not to have been ignorant of the enthusiastic operation of rhetoric on the minds of men; (...), and so strangely captivated the minds of his audience, that several of his opponents thought it the effect of witchcraft and enchantment, as he sometimes complains.[2]

Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Sa’d have recorded the event of Tufayl bin ‘Amr Dawsi’s embracing Islam, which is a great evidence of the captivating force of the eloquence of the Qur’an. The same is the case of ‘Umar bin Khattab’s embracing Islam.

There are a number of instances of the impressiveness of the beautiful style of the speech of the Prophet and the words of the Qur’an. This is rather the sole source of expansion and diffusion of Islam. One more event regarding ‘Utbah bin Rabi‘ah (Abu Sufyan’s father-in-law) has been afforded in the text of the book to elaborate the theme further.

The book of Allah presented by Prophet Muhammad (pbAh), the holy Qur’an, is a living miracle as to its matchless beauty of style, impressive words, eloquence, rhetoric, revolutionariness, and comprehensiveness, for all times to come. In addition to it, the easy, brief, and compact sayings of the holy Prophet are also unique in impressiveness, eloquence, rhetoric, wisdom, and sweetness. On the other hand the words of Jesus Christ (pbAh) are not to be found on the face of the earth that someone may reckon their sweetness, beauty of style or impressiveness. Whatever one finds in the N. T. of the Bible, is not the original Aramaic word of Jesus Christ. The original words of Jesus Christ (pbAh) were never recorded and published in black and white in the Aramaic language, in which he had delivered them. The Gospels that one finds in the NT of the Bible today, are the composition of some oral traditions regarding Jesus’ lifeby some almost unidentified persons. They were written in the Greek language from the very beginning. They had never been recorded in Aramaic, the language in which they were originally delivered by Jesus Christ (pbAh). As such it can be safely asserted that the words ‘his mouth is most sweet’ can by no stretch of sense be applied to the words of Jesus Christ. It is only Prophet Muhammad (pbAh)at whom the words ‘his mouth is most sweet’ perfectly apply.

Chapter XII of the book ‘He is Exactly Muhammad the Magnificent’ deals with the second clause of verse 16. The wording of the verse is ‘He is altogether lovely’.

The English word ‘altogether’ stands for the Hebrew word ‘כל’ (k+l, i.e. Kull), which means: ‘From 3634: the whole; (in) all manner, altogether, whatsoever’. Entry No. 3634 means: ‘To complete:- (make) perfect’. The next word is ‘lovely’ which, according to the Revised Standard Version, is ‘desirable’. In Hebrew it is ‘םחםדים’ (M+H+M+D+I+M). Strong’s Dic. records the meanings of m+h+m+d 'םחםד'as: ‘From 2530; delightful; hence a delight, i.e. object of affection or desire:- beloved, desire, goodly, lovely, pleasant’. 2530 is ‘(h+m+d): a prim. Root; to delight in:- beauty, greatly beloved, covet (desire eagerly); delectable (delightful, pleasant) thing, desire, pleasant, precious’.

First of all, it is to be noted that it is the sole place in the whole of the Hebrew Bible where this word ‘םחםדים’ (M+H+M+D+I+M) has been used in its present form and has nowhere else been used in the Bible in this form.

Secondly, the Hebrew word consists of six letters (m-h-m-d-i-m). The last two letters (i,m) denote the plurality for majesty and honour. The word ‘Elohim’ (the Lord, God) is a very pertinent and relevant example of it. The Jews, are monotheist people and they believe in the unity of God. Still they generally use the plural form of the word ‘Eloha’, i.e. ‘Elohim’ as a gesture of majesty and honour. There are other examples in the Bible as well where this suffix has been used for the words other than ‘God’. The preceding clause of this very verse (his mouth is ‘most sweet’) is a clear example of it. Here the Hebrew word for ‘most sweet’ is 'םםתקים' (mamittaqim), which is the plural of ‘mamittaq’ and means ‘plural of sweet: sweets’. It has been rendered as ‘most sweet’ by the translators of the Bible, which denotes the grandeur of quality and not the plurality of number. It indicates that ‘His utterance (mouth) bears every kind of sweetness and beauty in the most perfect form.’ There are examples of a number of names of places which have been given in the Bible in the plural or dual form, whereas they stand for singular places, e. g. Mt. Gerizim, Mizraim, etc.

Thirdly, Strong’s Dic. states that its primary root is ‘hmd’ under entry No. 2530. ‘Muhammad’ is an adjectival passive participle from this root, which means ‘Object of love and praise and liking’. Of course it is a meaningful word, but here it has been used as a proper noun. It is a common practice in the Bible that most of its proper nouns are meaningful words as well. It is the context that ascertains whether the word has been used as a proper noun or as a meaningful word.

In the passage under study, Solomon (pbAh) describes attributes of his beloved: he is beautiful; he is powerful; he has such and such attributes; he belongs to Arabia; his speech or the utterance of his mouth is most sweet; etc. The listener would now naturally like to know his proper identity. That’s why Solomon tells them ‘he is by all means Muhammad the Magnificent [about whom I have already told you that he is the inhabitant of Arabia].’

Fourthly, Muhammad being a meaningful word, Prophet Muhammad (pbAh) is out and out Muhammad in true sense of the word. Its meanings in Hebrewhave been given above. In Arabic as well it has similar meanings. Edward W. Lane has given its meanings as: ‘To approve; to be such as is praised, commended, and approved’. He explains the word ‘Muhammad’ as: ‘A man praised much, or repeatedly, or time after time: (L.K.) endowed with many praiseworthy qualities’.

Fifthly, some prominent Christian commentators of the Bible apply the words ‘He is altogether lovely/desirable’ to Jesus Christ. The Pulpit Commentary asserts: ‘Verse 16. “Altogether lovely [םחםדיםוכלו(w+kull+u Mhmd+im)]” We apply these words to the Lord Jesus Christ, and affirm that they are true of him. (...), but Christ is the Beloved of all ages’. You ‘apply these words to the Lord Jesus Christ, and affirm that they are true of him.’ But on what ground? The words, spoken by Solomon in Hebrew, pronounce: ‘wa kullu Muhammadim (םחםדיםוכלו)’. They mean: ‘He is altogether Muhammad (pbAh) the Magnificent’. To whom an impartial listener would apply these words: to Muhammad (pbAh) or to Jesus Christ (pbAh)? It is, moreover, to be noted that Solomon (pbAh) had just narrated the attributes of his ‘praised one’ in this passage in a fair detail which explicitly apply to Muhammad (pbAh) only and not to Jesus Christ (pbAh) in any way.

Sixthly, the word ‘Muhammadim’ (in the plural form for majesty) has been used only once in the entire OT of the Bible. No doubt it has been used in the Hebrew Bible for nine times[3]besides this as a derivative of ‘חםד’ (h+m+d); but at all these nine places it has been used in singular form and as an adjective or a noun. It has neither been used with the sign of plurality ‘im’; nor it indicates a proper noun at any of these places. At all those nine places the Hebrew spellings of the word are ‘םחםד’ (M+H+M+D). It can be pronounced either as: ‘Mahmad’, or ‘Muhammad’. The primary root of both these words is ‘חםד’ (h+m+d).

In the passage of the ‘Song’ under discussion here, Solomon (pbAh), after giving fairly detailed attributes of his beloved from his uncle ancestor (Ishma‘el)’s progeny, pronounces his actual proper name ‘Muhammad’ (pbAh), which, according to the unvocalized consonantal alphabet, was inevitably to be written as ‘M+H+M+D’. When there genuinely and physically exists an exact application of this word, which fitly suits the context, it is misleading to translate this proper noun or to apply it to Jesus Christ.

Chapter XIII of the book, ‘My Beloved My Friend’, deals with the third clause of verse 16 of the ‘Song’, i.e. ‘This is my beloved, and this is my friend’.

The Heb. word which has been translated here as ‘beloved’, is ‘דוד’ (dod). Strong’s Dic. has recorded its meanings as: ‘Lover, friend, spec. an uncle, beloved, father’s brother, uncle’. It shows that the ‘beloved Muhammadim’, whom King Solomon (pbAh) mentions here, does not belong to his real brothers, i. e. the Israelites. He rather belongs to Israel (Jacob)’s uncle Ishma‘el (pbAh). The Christians have applied it to Jesus Christ without any ground, because he can by no means be called an uncle from the paternal side, as he was not from the seed of any man. He was miraculously born without any father whatsoever. As to his maternal side as well he cannot be called Solomon’s dod (uncle or cousin): firstly, because his mother, the Virgin Mary, was not from the seed of any of Solomon’s uncles, but was from the direct lineage of King Solomon (see Mt, chapter i; Lk iii:23-38); and secondly, because the word can only be applied to ‘father’s brother’ and cannot be applied to ‘mother’s brother’. In this way King Solomon (pbAh) made his statement more clear by saying that my this ‘beloved’ is not a stranger to me, he is rather my cousin. If Solomon (pbAh) had intended to refer to some of his friends quite outside of his family, he would have used the word ‘אהב’ (’ahab), which means: ‘Love; beloved; lovely; friend’. If he had intended to indicate that his this ‘beloved’ was from among the Israelites, the more pertinent Hebrew word to be used here, should have been ‘ידיד’ (yedeed), whose feminine is ‘ידידה’ (yedeedeh). Both of these words are from the same primary root as ‘dod’ and mean ‘loved, amiable, beloved, an Israelite or Israelitess’. Had Solomon’s ‘beloved’ been from the Israelite lineage, he must have used the word ‘yedeed’ and not ‘dod’. But he has precisely, scrupulously, cautiously, and intentionally used the proper word ‘dod’, which exclusively means a cousin from the line of father’s brother and not a brother from the real father’s side.

The last word of this clause of the verse is ‘friend’, which is one of the most important and decisive words of this prophecy. The Hebrew word used for it by King Solomon (pbAh) is ‘רעor ריע’ (rea‘ or reya‘). According to Strong’s Dic, it means: ‘7453. From 7462; an associate (more or less close); companion, fellow, lover, neighbour, another’. And the entry No. 7462 ‘רעה’ (ra‘ah) means: ‘A prim. Root, to tend a flock, generally to rule, to associate with (as a friend), companion, herdman, shepherd’. The Heb. and Aramaic Lexicon of the OT has also recorded its meanings as: ‘Comrade, companion, neighbour, another, someone’s colleague, neighbour with a shared boundary’. In this way King Solomon makes his this prophecy more clear. He explains that his this friend is:

i) His Comrade, companion, and colleague, Muhammadim (pbAh), is an apostle, a prophet, and a king like him (Solomon). It may be borne in mind here that Jesus Christ (pbAh) had never been a king in worldly terms.

ii) He (Muhammadim [pbAh]) does not belong to his (Solomon’s) own land, Canaan, but he is from his neighbouring country with shared boundary (Arabia), which is the ground reality without any doubt. On the contrary, Jesus was his country-fellow and cannot be called his neighbour.

iii) He (Muhammadim [pbAh]) is his associate as a prophet; whereas Jesus is attributed as ‘Lord’ and ‘Son of God’(and not a prophet) by the Christians.

iv) He (Muhammadim [pbAh]) is ‘another’, i.e. he is an Ishma‘elite, whereas Jesus Christ (pbAh)  was very much an Israelite and cannot be attributed as ‘another’.

v) He (Muhammadim [pbAh]) is a ruler (according to the meanings recorded in Strong’s Dic., entry 7462), whereas Jesus Christ (pbAh) had never been a ruler in worldly terms.

vi) He (Muhammadim [pbAh]) had also remained a herd-man or shepherd (at his early age) whereas Jesus Christ (pbAh) had never been a shepherd or herdman. He can hardly be claimed to be other than a carpenter.[4]

All these qualities can truly be applied only to Prophet, Muhammad (pbAh).

Now there remains only the last phrase of the prophecy to be explored, which is: ‘O daughters of Jerusalem’. It has been explained in Chapter XIV of the book.

‘Daughters’ here obviously means ‘citizens or inhabitants; whether male or female’. The next word is ‘Jerusalem’ or ‘yer-oo-shaw-lah-yim’ (ירושלים). The Strong’s Dic. explains it as: ‘yer-oo-shaw-lah-yim A dual (in allusion to its two main hills); founded peaceful; Jerushalaim or Jerushalem, the capital city of Palestine, Jerusalem’. Hastings Dictionary of the Bible has recorded a scholarly research on this word. It says:

(...), Its meaning (as spelt U-ru-sa-lem and URU- sa-lim) is ‘city of Salim,’ or ‘city of peace’, which agrees with the rendering by Jesenius, ‘abode of peace’. (...), and the word Sa-lem is elsewhere found in the Tel-el-Amerna letters with the meaning of peace. (...) The monumental spelling favours the view that the city may have been first called Salem only; but it is not doubtful that it was called Jerusalem as early as the time of Joshua.[5]

It thus becomes clear that Jerusalem stands for ‘City of peace’ or ‘abode of peace’, which, in Arabic language is ‘al-Balad al-Amin’ or ‘Dar al-Salam’. But it should be noted here that the word used in the Bible at this place is not Jerusalem, i.e. in singular number; it is rather ‘ירושלים’ (yer-oo-shaw-lah-yim) in dual number, implying two Jerusalems, for which the Strong’s Dic. arbitrarily claims to be ‘in allusion to its two main hills’. It is as if to say that the phrase ‘two eggs’ means only one egg in allusion to its two parts: its yoke and its white (albumen). It can thus be appreciated that as the phrase ‘two eggs’ stands for two different eggs and not for two parts within one egg; in the same way the phrase ‘two Jerusalems’ would naturally mean two different Jerusalems or two different cities with the name Jerusalem; and not two hills in one Jerusalem. It thus signifies that King Solomon (pbAh)is telling the citizens of both the abodes or cities of Peace, bearing the same name of ‘Jerusalem’, that his beloved of the progeny of his uncle Ishma‘el belongs to his neighbouring country, Arabia, and he is none other than Muhammad the Magnificent (pbAh).

Let us now consider what the phrase ‘two Jerusalems’ actually signifies. The Israelites are well acquainted with the Jerusalem (City of peace) of Canaan, which relates to them,but where is the second Jerusalem (City of peace)? Its answer is unequivocally recorded in the Bible. It says:

Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.[6]

It means that, according to Paul, the ‘City of peace’ of the Israelites is Jerusalem; whereas the ‘City of peace’ of the Ishma‘elites is Makkah, which, in Arabic, is called ‘al-Balad al-Amin,[7]’ where Hagar lived and was buried.

As far as the Jerusalem (‘City of peace’) of the Ishma‘elites (Makkah, which, in the holy Quran, is named as ‘al-Balad al-Amin) is concerned, students of history know it well that it has always remained a ‘City of peace’. Even Abraha al-Ashram of Yemen could not harm or desecrate it.

As far as the Jerusalem (City of peace) of the Israelites is concerned, a very brief account of its destructions is afforded hereunder from the Illustrated Bible Dic:

As early as the 5th year of Solomon’s successor Rehoboam, the Temple and royal palace were plundered by Egyptian troops (1Ki. 14:25f.). Philistine and Arab Marauders again plundered the palace in Jehoram’s reign. In Amaziah’s reign a quarrel with the king of the N kingdom, Jehoash, resulted in part of the city walls being broken down, and fresh looting of Temple and palace. (...). Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon captured Jerusalem in 597 and in 587 BC destroyed the city and the Temple. At the end of that century the Jews, now under Persian rule, were allowed to return to their land and city, and they rebuilt the Temple, but the city walls remained in ruins until Nehemiah restored them in the middle of the 5th century BC. (...). In about 168 BC, Antiochus IV entered Jerusalem, destroying its walls and plundering and desecrating the Temple; (...). Roman Generals forced their way into the city in 63 and 54 [BC]; a Parthian army plundered in 40 [BC]; and three years after that Herod the Great had to fight his way into it, to take control. He first had to repair the damage created by these various incursions; then he launched a big building programme, erecting some notable towers. (...). The Jewish revolt against the Romans in AD 66 could have but one conclusion; in AD 70 the Roman General Titus systematically forced his way into Jerusalem, and destroyed the fortifications and the Temple.[8]

The calamities of Jerusalem were not without reason. The Israelites had worked hard to deserve it. Some of the relevant excerpts have been recorded in the body of the book which show that they rebelled against the Lord; they had forsaken Him, they had provoked to anger the Holy One of Israel, and they were sinful people.

The sanctity and peace of Jerusalem had been destroyed so many times that the application of the word Jerusalem (City of peace) to it loses all justification, whereas, on the other hand, its destruction was fully justified due to the wickedness of its citizens.

This is the fate of the security of the so-called ‘City of Peace’. Israel herself caused the desecration of the holy city. She could not guard the sanctity of her Jerusalem. But there is another Jerusalem (City of peace) of Arabia. It is Jerusalem (City of peace) in true sense of the word. Nobody was allowed to capture it for destruction and plunder. It remained a ‘City of peace’ forever.

Solomon (pbAh) addresses the inhabitants of both these Jerusalems (the Israelites’ and the Ishma‘elites’) to be cautious, conscious, and alert to welcome the apostle of Allahwho is his Ishma‘elite cousin. There is a message in it for his Israelite brothers not to show callousness towards this apostle from the progeny of Ishma‘el and not to behave like the Israelite damsel who did not open to her beloved when he was calling her, but when he went away she repented.

The love, respect, and gratitude of King Solomon (pbAh) for his beloved Ishma‘elite cousin was not without reason. His Israelite brothers had attached a lot of blasphemy, religious and moral turpitude and had indulged in his character assassination. Here is an excerpt from W. Smith’s DB:

And the King soon fell from the loftiest height of his religious life to the lowest depth. Before long the priests and prophets had to grieve over rival temples to Molech, Chemash, Ashtroth, and forms of ritual not idolatrous only, but cruel, dark, impure. This evil came as the penalty of another. 1Kings 11:1-8. He gave himself to ‘strange women.’ He found himself involved in a fascination which led to the worship of strange gods. (...). With this there may have mingled political motives. He may have hoped, by a policy of toleration, to conciliate neighbouring princes, to attract a larger traffic. But probably also there was another influence less commonly taken into account. The widespread belief of the East in the magic arts of Solomon is not, it is believed, without its foundation of truth. Disasters followed before long as the natural consequence of what was politically a blunder as well as religiously a sin.[9]

King Solomon (pbuh) has been depicted here as a very wicked man. He has been shown as committing idolatry and witchcraft and other sins. It was through the Holy Qur’an revealed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that Allah Almighty exonerated him from all such accusations. Not to speak of ‘giving himself to “strange women” and a fascination which led to the worship of strange gods mingled with political motives’, we find him beautifully preaching ‘Monotheism’ even to the Queen of Yemen, as a result of which she willingly embraced Islam, as stated in the Holy Qur’an:

 قَالَتْ رَبِّ إِنِّي ظَلَمْتُ نَفْسِي وَأَسْلَمْتُ مَعَ سُلَيْمَانَ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ[10]

She [the Queen of Yemen] said, ‘My Lord, surely I have wronged myself, and I submit with Solomon to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.’

As to King Solomon’s (pbAh) indulgence in magic and witchcraft, the Holy Qur’an explicitly announces,

وَمَا كَفَرَ سُلَيْمَانُ وَلَـكِنَّ الشَّيْاطِينَ كَفَرُواْ يُعَلِّمُونَ النَّاسَ السِّحْرَ[11]

Not that Sulayman disbelieved: it is the devils who disbelieved. They teach men witchcraft.’[12]

After fifteen centuries of desecration and character assassination of the holy King Solomon (pbAh), it was through the Prophet of Arabia (pbAh) that he was honourably acquitted by Allah Almighty of all false charges and his innocence was established. It was therefore a pleasant duty of King Solomon (pbAh) that he should pay homage to his real benefactor in advance in this way.


The Hebrew Words of the Prophecy

Entry/Page of Strong’s Dictionary.

English Words

Hebrew Words


tion of Heb


Meanings as recorded in the Strong’s Dictionary of the Heb. Words in the B.





Lover, friend, esp an uncle, beloved, father’s brother.






Dazzling, i.e. sunny; bright; clear, white [‘A bright shining brightness; it is not the same as lavan, which would mean dead white’ (Pulpit Bible Commentary, p.122)].





To show blood in the face; flush; turn rosy.





Raise a flag; fig. to be conspicuous; chiefest.


Ten thousand



Ten thousand; myriad.





Top; company; excellent; first; ruler; chiefest.





Pure (gold); hence gold itself.





A trailing bough.




Scachar/ schahor  

Black, dusky from 7835 [i.e., ‘identical with 7836 (i.e., ‘be up early at any task with the implication of earnestness’), through the idea of the duskiness of early dawn’].





A raven (from its dusky hue); 6152 and 6154 are also ‘ereb and mean Arabia; 6163 is ‘Arabiy: ‘an Arabian or inhabitant of Arabia’.


Fitly set



Fulness; a plump socket (of the eye); from 4390, [i.e., ‘full, fil, fulfil’].





Probably from the same as 3196 [i.e., ‘wine; by impl. intoxication’]; a dove.





To be soft; the cheek (from its fleshiness).





Something piled up; bed.





Fragrance; by impl. spicery; the balsam plant; smell, spice, sweet (odour).





Sweet; a spicy herb.





A tower (from its size or height); fig. A (pyramidal) bed of flowers; castle.





The lip; by impl. language; language, speech, talk, words.





From an equiv. of 7797 [i.e.’to be bright i.e. cheerful, rejoice’] a lily;





To ooze, to fall in drops; fig. to speak by inspiration, prophesy.




M+H+M+D/ Muhammad

From 2530 [chamad, i.e. to delight in; greatly beloved; goodly; pleasant thing, precious thing]delightful, a delight, i.e. object of affection or desire, lovely.






From 7462 [‘To rule; to associate with: companion, herdman, shepherd’]; friend, fellow, an associate (more or less close):- lover, neighbour, (an) other.





To have affection for (sexually or otherwise):- beloved, friend. (It has not been used here)






Loved:- amiable, beloved.

fem. Of 3039; beloved; an Israelitess. (It has not been used here)





A dual (in allusion to its two main hills); founded peaceful; Jerusalem.