The question of whether the Bible foretells Muhammad is not a modern polemical invention. It grows from the Qur\u2019an itself, which describes the \u201cunlettered prophet\u201d as one whom the People of the Book find \u201cwritten with them in the Torah and the Gospel\u201d (Al-Aaraf 7:157). It also presents Jesus announcing, \u201ca messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad\u201d (Al-Saff 61:6). If these statements are true, the biblical text ought to bear witness to Muhammad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Muslim scholars took up this task early. Ibn Ishaq\u2019s biography of the Prophet (8th century), preserved in the recension of Ibn Hisham, already identifies the Johannine Paraclete with Muhammad. In the 9th century, the convert Ali ibn Rabban al-Tabari assembled a long catalog of biblical proof-texts in his Kitab al-Din wa\u2019l-Dawla. In the modern period, popular works such as Abdul-Ahad Dawud\u2019s Muhammad in the Bible, Ahmed Deedat\u2019s What the Bible Says About Muhammad, and Jamal Badawi\u2019s lectures have made a fairly stable set of arguments familiar far beyond academic circles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The arguments therefore deserve a serious and patient answer. A bare denial helps no one. The more useful task is to show why each proposed reading fails, and what the passages actually say. That is the aim of this article.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A Note on Method<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Four principles govern the analysis below. They are not special Christian rules; they are the ordinary tools of responsible interpretation in any textual tradition, including the Islamic sciences of tafsir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Deuteronomy 18:15\u201318: The Prophet Like Moses<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him\u201d (Deuteronomy 18:18). This is the passage most often cited. The argument rests on three phrases, and each must be read within Deuteronomy\u2019s own vocabulary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cFrom among their brothers\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The claim is that Israel\u2019s \u201cbrothers\u201d are the descendants of Ishmael, Isaac\u2019s half-brother, and that Muhammad therefore qualifies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Deuteronomy defines the phrase for us. Three verses earlier, Moses says God will raise up a prophet \u201cfrom your midst, from your brothers\u201d (18:15; Hebrew miqqirbeka me\u2019aheka<\/em>). The word qereb<\/em>, \u201cmidst,\u201d appears again in 18:18 (miqqereb \u2018ahehem<\/em>). A prophet \u201cfrom the midst\u201d of Israel is an Israelite.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The surrounding laws confirm this. Israel\u2019s king must be one \u201cfrom among your brothers\u201d; Israel \u201cmay not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother\u201d (17:15). The Levites \u201cshall have no inheritance among their brothers\u201d (18:2), where \u201cbrothers\u201d can only mean the other tribes. Throughout the book, \u2018ah<\/em> consistently denotes a fellow Israelite (compare 15:7, 15:12, 24:14). Edom is sometimes called Israel\u2019s \u201cbrother\u201d (2:4, 23:7), but never in a context of appointing Israel\u2019s leaders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, Deuteronomy 34:10 observes that \u201cthere has not arisen a prophet in Israel<\/em> like Moses.\u201d The narrator assumes the expected prophet will arise in Israel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cLike you\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Muslim argument lists biographical parallels. Moses and Muhammad both married, fathered children, led armies, governed a community, gave a law, and died natural deaths. Jesus, it is said, did none of these.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The difficulty is that biographical parallels are infinitely elastic. Many figures married, led, and died. Jesus shares striking parallels with Moses too: a ruler\u2019s massacre of infants that he escaped (Exodus 1:22; Matthew 2:16), a sojourn in Egypt (Matthew 2:15), a forty-day fast (Exodus 34:28; Matthew 4:2), and the inauguration of a covenant \u201cin blood\u201d (Exodus 24:8; Luke 22:20).<\/p>\n\n\n\n More importantly, the Torah itself tells us what made Moses distinctive as a prophet. Numbers 12:6\u20138 contrasts him with all other prophets: God spoke to them in visions and dreams, but to Moses \u201cmouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles.\u201d Deuteronomy 34:10\u201312 closes the Torah by defining Moses by two features: God knew him \u201cface to face,\u201d and he performed \u201call the signs and wonders\u201d in Egypt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Measured by that standard, Jesus is the closer match. The Gospels portray him in unmediated communion with the Father (Matthew 11:27; John 1:18; 5:19-20). They also describe extensive public miracles. Muhammad\u2019s revelation, by contrast, came through an angelic intermediary. While later hadith literature attributes miracles to him, the Qur\u2019an presents the Qur\u2019an itself as his decisive sign and records his refusal to produce signs on demand (Q Al-Isra17:90-93; Al-Ankabut 29:50-51).<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI will put my words in his mouth\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This phrase is taken to describe the dictation of the Qur\u2019an through Gabriel. But the language describes prophetic speech generally (compare Jeremiah 1:9), and Jesus claimed it for Himself repeatedly:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The phrase therefore does not distinguish Muhammad from Jesus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The earliest interpretation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The first-century church read this text messianically and applied it directly to Jesus (Acts 3:22-26; 7:37). The Gospels show that \u201cthe Prophet\u201d was a live expectation in Jesus\u2019 day (John 1:21; 6:14; 7:40). One may reject the Christian claim, but it is the reading that arose within the community that received Deuteronomy, some six centuries before the Muslim one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n John 14-16: The Paraclete<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In the Farewell Discourse, Jesus promises that the Father will send \u201canother parakletos<\/em>\u201d (John 14:16), variously translated as Helper, Advocate, Counselor, or Comforter. Muslim apologists advance two arguments: textual and interpretive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The textual argument<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The textual claim is that John originally wrote periklutos<\/em>, \u201crenowned\u201d or \u201cpraised,\u201d an equivalent of the Arabic Ahmad<\/em> (Al-Saff 61:6), and that Christians later altered it to parakletos<\/em>. There is no manuscript evidence for this reading. Every Greek manuscript of John that contains these verses reads parakletos<\/em>, from the early papyri (such as P66 and P75, commonly dated around AD 200) through the great 4th-century codices. The early versions agree. The Syriac tradition, for example, simply transliterates the Greek as paraqlita<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The earliest Muslim treatment of the passage also tells against the theory. Ibn Ishaq quotes John 15 from a Christian Aramaic version that renders the term munahhemana<\/em>, \u201cthe comforter.\u201d He identifies this figure with Muhammad, and he notes that the Greek term is paraqlitis<\/em>. The first Muslim writer to engage the text, in other words, knew the reading parakletos<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The corruption theory therefore requires an alteration so early and so complete that it left no trace in any language, in any church, or in the Muslim sources themselves. That is an extraordinary claim, and the evidence for it has not been produced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The interpretive argument<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Even apart from the manuscripts, the text describes someone who cannot be a 7th-century prophet:<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is sometimes argued that the masculine pronoun ekeinos<\/em>, \u201che,\u201d shows the Paraclete is a man. But the pronoun agrees grammatically with the masculine noun parakletos<\/em>. In any case, Christian theology has always regarded the Spirit as personal, so a personal pronoun is exactly what one would expect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Following the thread<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The New Testament itself traces the promise to its fulfillment:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The promise was given to specific people, located in a specific city, and fulfilled within weeks. The earliest readers understood it that way, and the text leaves little room for another reading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Deuteronomy 33:2 and Habakkuk 3:3: Sinai, Seir, and Paran<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe LORD came from Sinai and dawned from Seir upon them; he shone forth from Mount Paran; he came from the myriads of holy ones\u201d (Deuteronomy 33:2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Muslim reading sees a sequence of three revelations: Sinai for Moses, Seir for Jesus, and Paran, identified with the Hijaz, for Muhammad. The \u201cten thousands\u201d are then matched to the ten thousand who accompanied Muhammad at the conquest of Mecca in 630.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Geography<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The identifications do not hold. Seir is the mountain country of Edom, south-east of the Dead Sea (Genesis 32:3; 36:8). It has no connection with Jesus, who was raised in Galilee and ministered in Galilee and Judea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the biblical text, Paran is the wilderness through which Israel traveled after leaving Sinai, near Kadesh in the Negev and northeastern Sinai (Numbers 10:12; 12:16; 13:3, 26). Genesis 21:21 places the young Ishmael there, which underpins the Muslim identification. But the Bible\u2019s own geography locates Paran several hundred miles north of Mecca.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Genre and tense<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The verse opens Moses\u2019 final blessing on the tribes. It uses past-tense verbs to recall God\u2019s coming to Israel at the giving of the Law. Its three placenames are parallel poetic designations for the southern desert region from which God approached, a familiar pattern in early Hebrew poetry (Judges 5:4-5; Psalm 68:7-8, 17). Habakkuk 3:3 uses the same imagery: \u201cGod came from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran.\u201d Teman, like Seir, is a name associated with Edom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The \u201cmyriads of holy ones\u201d are the heavenly host who accompany God in a theophany, as Psalm 68:17 makes explicit. The Hebrew rebabot<\/em> denotes an indefinite multitude, not a precise figure of ten thousand. The verse describes a manifestation of God Himself, not a succession of human prophets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Isaiah 42: The Servant and the Villages of Kedar<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Isaiah 42:1 introduces God\u2019s chosen servant, on whom he has put His Spirit. Verse 11 calls \u201cthe villages that Kedar inhabits\u201d to rejoice. Since Kedar was a son of Ishmael (Genesis 25:13), the argument runs, the servant must be an Arabian prophet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Audience, not origin<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The passage does not say the servant comes from Kedar. Kedar appears within a hymn (Isaiah 42:10-12) that summons the whole earth to praise: the sea and its creatures, the coastlands, the desert and its towns, Kedar, and the inhabitants of Sela. These are the audience of the praise, not the origin of the servant. The same logic would make the servant a native of the coastlands or of Sela.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The identity of the servant<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The identity of the servant in Isaiah 40-55 is a long-debated question. Isaiah sometimes names the servant as Israel (Isaiah 41:8; 44:1; 49:3), and some readers take the figure collectively. Yet the servant also has a mission to Israel (49:5-6) and suffers on behalf of others (52:13-53:12). That tension is precisely why Jewish and Christian readers alike have looked for an individual who embodies Israel’s vocation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The New Testament answers the question explicitly. Matthew 12:17-21 quotes Isaiah 42:1-4 in full and applies it to Jesus\u2019 ministry. The details fit that application: the servant \u201cwill not cry aloud or lift up his voice in the street; a bruised reed he will not break\u201d (Isaiah 42:2-3). He is given \u201cas a covenant for the people, a light for the nations\u201d (Isaiah 42:6), language Simeon applies to the infant Jesus (Luke 2:32). The anointing with the Spirit (Isaiah 42:1) parallels Isaiah 61:1, which Jesus read in the Nazareth synagogue before declaring, \u201cToday this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing\u201d (Luke 4:18\u201321).<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Christian reading, then, does not depend on a single association. It rests on the internal portrait of the servant and on an interpretive tradition that begins in the first century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Isaiah 60 and Isaiah 21<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Isaiah 60: the glorified city<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Isaiah 60 mentions the flocks of Kedar and the rams of Nebaioth, another son of Ishmael, which \u201cshall come up with acceptance on my altar\u201d (Isaiah 60:7). Some Muslim writers connect the chapter to Mecca and the Kaaba.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The chapter names its own subject. It addresses a city whose walls foreigners will rebuild (Isaiah 60:10) and whose gates will stand open continually (Isaiah 60:11). Verse 14 identifies it: \u201cthe City of the LORD, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel.\u201d The Arabian flocks come to Zion as tribute, just as the wealth of the nations and the ships of Tarshish do (Isaiah 60:5, 9). The chapter describes Jerusalem\u2019s restoration, and it contains no prophet at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Isaiah 21:13-17: the oracle concerning Arabia<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This oracle announces that \u201cwithin a year, according to the years of a hired worker, all the glory of Kedar will come to an end\u201d (Isaiah 21:16). The Muslim argument links it to the Battle of Badr, where the Meccan Quraysh were defeated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Three problems arise. First, the oracle is addressed to Isaiah\u2019s own world. It sits within a series of oracles against Babylon, Edom, Arabia, and Jerusalem (Isaiah 13-23), all concerned with the upheavals of the Assyrian age in the 8th century BC. Assyrian records do report campaigns against Arab peoples, including Qedarites, under Sargon II and Sennacherib. Second, the chronology is not as tidy as claimed. Badr took place in March 624, roughly eighteen months after the hijra of 622. Third, nothing in the text mentions a prophet, a migration, or a battle against Kedar\u2019s own kinsmen. The connection is supplied from outside.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The neighbouring verse 21:7, with its riders on donkeys and camels, is sometimes read as Jesus and Muhammad. But verse 9 explains the vision: \u201cFallen, fallen is Babylon.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n A caution on Kedar symbolism<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Kedar does not carry a single, fixed meaning in Scripture. In Isaiah 42 it rejoices; in Isaiah 21 it is judged. In Psalm 120:5-7, the psalmist laments dwelling \u201camong the tents of Kedar\u201d with those who hate peace: \u201cI am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war.\u201d The psalm uses Kedar as a figure for a hostile foreign setting, and it says nothing about Muhammad. The point is methodological. If the name Kedar in one passage signals Muhammad, consistency would require applying the other passages as well. The better conclusion is that these texts are not about him at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Isaiah 11: The Shoot and the Root of Jesse<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit. And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him\u201d (Isaiah 11:1-2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Jamal Badawi has cited a suggestion, drawn from the Encyclopaedia Biblica (1899-1903), that the name Jesse might be a contracted form of Ishmael. If so, the \u201cshoot from Jesse\u201d could be read as a descendant of Ishmael.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The suggestion has no support in the text. The Hebrew names are distinct: Yishay (Jesse) and Yishmael (Ishmael). Jesse is a well-attested figure, the father of David (Ruth 4:22; 1 Samuel 16), and Isaiah\u2019s image of a shoot from a felled \u201cstump\u201d depicts the Davidic dynasty cut down and then renewed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The passage also refutes the identification internally. Verse 10 calls the same figure \u201cthe root of Jesse,\u201d who \u201cshall stand as a signal for the peoples.\u201d A shoot is a descendant; a root is a source. If Jesse were Ishmael, the figure would be the source of his own ancestor, which cannot describe Muhammad or any ordinary human being.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The New Testament takes up exactly this double description. Paul quotes Isaiah 11:10 and applies it to Christ (Romans 15:12). Revelation calls Jesus \u201cthe Root of David\u201d (5:5), and has Jesus say, \u201cI am the root and the descendant of David\u201d (22:16). In Christian theology the paradox is resolved by the incarnation: the eternal Son is both David\u2019s Lord and David\u2019s son (compare Mark 12:35-37). Whatever one makes of that claim, the passage is Davidic from beginning to end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Genesis 49:10: Shiloh<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler\u2019s staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Muslim argument holds that Shiloh means \u201cpeace,\u201d that Islam is a peace-word, and that the verse therefore announces Muhammad and Islam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The word itself<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Shiloh is genuinely difficult, and honesty requires saying so. Scholars have proposed several readings: the place-name Shiloh (1 Samuel 1-4); a phrase meaning \u201cto whom it belongs\u201d (shelloh), which Ezekiel 21:27 may echo; or \u201ctribute to him\u201d (shay loh). The Septuagint and several ancient versions follow the \u201cto whom it belongs\u201d line.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What the word does not obviously mean is \u201cpeace.\u201d Shalom comes from the root sh-l-m, and the Arabic islam from its cognate s-l-m. Shiloh is usually related, if at all, to a different root meaning \u201cto be at ease.\u201d The equation Shiloh = peace = Islam requires two uncertain steps before any argument begins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The context<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The verse is part of Jacob\u2019s blessing on Judah. It promises that royal rule will belong to Judah\u2019s line until a figure comes whom the nations will obey. Muhammad was not of the tribe of Judah, and the blessing is specifically Judah\u2019s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ancient Jewish interpretation read the verse messianically. The Aramaic Targum Onqelos renders it: \u201cuntil the Messiah comes, whose is the kingdom.\u201d The Christian reading stands in continuity with that tradition. Jesus is presented as the son of David from the tribe of Judah (Matthew 1:1-3; Hebrews 7:14; Revelation 5:5), to whom universal obedience belongs (Psalm 2; Philippians 2:9-11). And if a peace-title is sought, Isaiah 9:6-7 gives the Davidic king the name \u201cPrince of Peace\u201d and promises that \u201cof the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Jeremiah 28:9: The Prophet Who Prophesies Peace<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAs for the prophet who prophesies peace, when the word of that prophet comes to pass, then it will be known that the LORD has truly sent the prophet.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The argument pairs this verse with Luke 12:51, where Jesus says He came not to bring peace but division. Since Islam is associated with peace, Muhammad is presented as the true prophet of peace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What Jeremiah meant<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The verse is not a commendation of peace-prophets. It is a warning. Jeremiah is confronting Hananiah, who has promised that the Babylonian yoke will be broken within two years (Jeremiah 28:2-4). Jeremiah replies that the prophets before him mostly announced judgment. A prophet who announces peace against that grain carries the burden of proof and must wait for events to vindicate him (Jeremiah 28:8-9). Hananiah\u2019s prophecy failed, and he died that same year (Jeremaiah 28:17). The verse applies the test of Deuteronomy 18:21-22 to a specific false prophet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What Jesus meant<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In Luke 12:51-53, Jesus describes the effect of His coming: allegiance to Him will divide households. This is a description of consequences, not a rejection of peace as a goal. The same Jesus blesses the peacemakers (Matthew 5:9), tells his disciples, \u201cPeace I leave with you; my peace I give to you\u201d (John 14:27), and greets them after the resurrection with \u201cPeace be with you\u201d (John 20:19). Paul summarizes the gospel as \u201cpeace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ\u201d (Romans 5:1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The biblical hope also includes peace in its fullest, public sense: a reign of justice in which \u201cthey shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain\u201d (Isaiah 11:9; cf. Isaiah 9:6-7; Micah 4:3). Christians expect that peace at Christ\u2019s return. Neither Jeremiah nor Luke supports the proposed contrast.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conclusion: The Pattern Worth Noticing<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Across these passages, a common interpretive move recurs. A text with a clear historical and literary setting is linked to Muhammad through a chain of associations, and the text is then rebuilt around that chain:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Each link may seem plausible in isolation. But each chain bypasses what the passage itself says about its subject, its audience, and its setting. In several cases, a verse in the same chapter excludes the proposed reading outright: 18:15 in Deuteronomy, 14:26 in John, 11:10 in Isaiah, 60:14 in Isaiah.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is not a standard peculiar to Christian apologetics. It is the standard any careful reader would apply to the Qur\u2019an. A Christian who argued that a qur\u2019anic verse secretly referred to Christian doctrine by way of name association, while ignoring the surrounding verses, would rightly be told that he was not reading the Qur\u2019an on its own terms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When the passages are followed carefully, in their language, their context, and their earliest interpretation, they do not lead to Muhammad. They lead to Israel\u2019s history, to the Davidic Messiah, and to the Spirit poured out at Pentecost. For the Christian reader, they lead where they always have: to Jesus of Nazareth.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The question of whether the Bible foretells Muhammad is not a modern polemical invention. It grows from the Qur\u2019an itself, which describes the \u201cunlettered prophet\u201d as one whom the People of the Book find \u201cwritten with them in the Torah and the Gospel\u201d (Al-Aaraf 7:157). It also presents Jesus announcing, \u201ca messenger to come afterSeguir leyendo “Does the Bible Predict the Coming of Muhammad?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"author":236231845,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_seo_schema_type":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_wpcom_ai_launchpad_first_post":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"{title}\n\n{excerpt}\n\n{url}","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"_wpas_customize_per_network":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1587","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peSSf1-pB","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/al-haqiqa.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1587","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/al-haqiqa.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/al-haqiqa.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/al-haqiqa.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/236231845"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/al-haqiqa.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1587"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/al-haqiqa.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1587\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1589,"href":"https:\/\/al-haqiqa.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1587\/revisions\/1589"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/al-haqiqa.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1587"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/al-haqiqa.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1587"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/al-haqiqa.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1587"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\n
\n
\n