In his preaching, Muhammad repeatedly claimed to be in the line of the Jewish Biblical prophets, and to be continuing their message. For instance:
Surah 3:3
3 He has revealed to you ˹O Prophet˺ the Book in truth, confirming what came before it, as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel
However, the religion that he delivered is completely different from the Bible, and demonstrates nothing like the intimate relationship shared between the Old and New Testament. This relationship is significant, because even Jews who reject Christianity have the same Old Testament that Christians do. And, for those with eyes open to see the truth, the testimony of the Old Covenant, and how it is gloriously fulfilled in the New Testament, is one of the most powerful witnesses to the truthfulness of Christianity.
Therefore, this article will cover some of these themes which permeate the entire Old and New Testaments, and yet are utterly missing from Islam, proving it to be a false religion, invented by a usurper.
When speaking to Moses out of the burning bush, the Lord said:
Exodus 3:15 (LSB)
15 And God furthermore said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name from generation to generation.
The divine name, commonly rendered in English as "Jehovah" or "Yahweh", is given above as God's "name forever", and His "memorial-name from generation to generation".
Consequently, this name is used over 6,000 times in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, it is embedded in the names of the two most important characters - Jesus Christ Himself, and John the Baptist, whom Jesus said was the greatest prophet to ever arise in Israel (Matthew 11:11, Luke 7:28), and was the prophesied forerunner of the Messiah (Malachi 3:1, Isaiah 40:3-5). "Jesus" means "Yahweh saves", and "John" means "Yahweh is gracious", and they are referred to over 900 times in the New Testament.
Further, both of them are named directly by an angel in the New Testament (Matthew 1:21, Luke 1:13), so these theophoric names were very intentional, not incidental, or something which could be an accident.
Finally, the divine name is used repeatedly in Revelation 19:1-6, in a vision given by Jesus Christ to the Apostle John, which praises God identically to how the Psalms do, by name (Psalm 104:35, etc.).
So, we see a special divine name revealed in the Old Testament, and used extensively thereafter. In the New Testament, we see new, meaningful introductions of the divine name in Jesus, the focus of the entire New Covenant, and elsewhere.
In Islam, however, the name is entirely missing. Muhammad never demonstrated any awareness of the name whatsoever, except when he used it on accident, by referring to people like Jesus and John, whom he was attempting to hijack for his own purposes. There is no meaningful new use of the name, however, despite there being an entire Quran, and tens of thousands of Hadith narrations. Never did Muhammad explain it, or demonstrate that he understood its significance. Instead, he favored his own name for God, which is the generic Arabic word "Allah", which he made into a proper name, and was never once used by any Jewish prophet in either Testament.
This disconnect in Islam with regard to the name of God is also covered in its own article here.
In the Old Testament, God is repeatedly called "Father", and believers are His "children" (Genesis 6:1-4, Exodus 4:22, Deuteronomy 14:1, 32:5: 2 Samuel 7:14, Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7, Psalm 2:7, 2:12, 73:15, 89:26, Isaiah 43:6, 63:16, 64:8, Hosea 1:10):
Deuteronomy 14:1
1 Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.
We see the same thing many dozens of times in the New Testament (Matthew 7:11, John 1:12, Galatians 3:26, 4:4-6: 1 John 5:1, etc.), for instance:
Matthew 6:9
9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
However, when Muhammad preached about God, he said:
Surah 19:88-92
88 They say, “The Most Compassionate has offspring.”
89 You have certainly made an outrageous claim,
90 by which the heavens are about to burst, the earth to split apart, and the mountains to crumble to pieces
91 in protest of attributing children to the Most Compassionate.
92 It does not befit ˹the majesty of˺ the Most Compassionate to have children.
Surah 37:151-52
151 Indeed, it is one of their ˹outrageous˺ fabrications to say,
152 “Allah has children.” They are simply liars.
Clearly, the false prophet Muhammad found the concept of God having children ridiculous, and rejected it completely as a lie, whereas the Old Testament and New Testament prophets, including the Lord Jesus, were united in their preaching that God was the Father of believers.
Therefore, Muhammad's entire concept of God was faulty, and wholly different from the Father described by the Biblical prophets.
The theme of blood atonement permeates the entire Bible, starting at the very beginning, in the Garden of Eden itself. There, after Adam and Eve sin, God clothes them with coats of skins to replace their self-made plant-based clothing (Genesis 3:7, 3:21). Not long after, we see that Abel's bloody sacrifice is accepted, whereas Cain's bloodless sacrifice is rejected (Genesis 4:3-5).
Later on, under the Mosaic Law, we read endlessly of "sin offerings" (Exodus 29:14, 29:36, 30:10, Leviticus 4:3, 4:8, 4:20-25, 4:29-34, Numbers 6:11-16, etc., etc.), and the principle of blood atonement is explicitly established:
Leviticus 17:11
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Beyond the sin offerings, we also have symbology like the Passover, in which God told the Israelites to kill a spotless lamb, and spread its blood on their doorpost, in order to be spared from judgment (Exodus 12:1-13).
With the advent of the New Testament, we learn that all of these sacrifices never actually took away sins, but instead were serving as a signpost to point us toward the one efficacious sacrifice of the Lord Jesus:
Hebrews 10:1-4, 11-12
1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Hebrews 9:12
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
So, the sacrifice which Jesus Christ made was the culmination of all of those Old Testament pictures. God, in each of those Old Testament prescriptions, was testifying of the one sacrifice which was to come - that of Jesus on the cross.
However, Muhammad famously rejected the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus (Surah 4:157-158), and therefore, the fulfillment of this major aspect of the Old Testament. Yet, after he denied the Lord's atonement, he never replaced it with anything. Never does he attempt to explain why the Jews did their offerings, or what they were supposed to mean, or why he did not prescribe sin offerings for Muslims.
Truthfully, if Jesus never died on the cross, Christians are all just deceived, heretical Jews, which have unjustly stopped the sin offerings prescribed in the Old Testament. Why didn't Muhammad restore them? Why didn't he expound them, or castigate Christians for ceasing to do them, when the first Christians were all Jews? Why, instead, was the theme of blood atonement absent entirely from his religion?
Finally, it should be noted that there are animal sacrifices in Islam (Surah 2:196, 5:2, 5:97, 22:28-37, 48:25), but there is never any atonement-related language used in connection with them, and Muslims explicitly reject that they have anything to do with payment for sin. The principle of blood atonement is simply nowhere to be found, anywhere, in Muhammad's religion.
The theme of God making covenants with His chosen people - the very namesake of the Old and New "Testaments" - is very closely related to the above theme of blood atonement, because of how each Testament was ushered in.
The Old Covenant, made between God and the children of Israel, marked them as His chosen people, with whom He would have a special relationship:
Exodus 19:5
5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
And, this covenant was confirmed by the sprinkling of blood on the people, at the base of Mt. Sinai:
Exodus 24:7-8
7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.
8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.
Above, we see that the Old Covenant began at a definite point - the sprinkling of the people with blood.
And, in addition to the establishment of the first covenant between God and a people group, the Old Testament also explicitly prophesies of a New Covenant which was to come:
Jeremiah 31:31-34
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
The above clearly points to a New Covenant, and is quoted directly in Hebrews 8:7-10.
And, like the first covenant, this New Covenant was dedicated with blood - the blood of Jesus Christ:
Hebrews 9:15-21
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
Above, we see that the New Covenant, like the Old Covenant, began at a definite point - the death of Christ. This doctrine is based on the words of the Lord Jesus at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:17-20).
Yet, not only did Muhammad never demonstrate any meaningful understanding of the Old or New Covenant, he also denied the death of Christ. So, there should have been no such thing as a Christian, and Muhammad should have said so. There should have only been Jews, living under the Old Covenant. The New Covenant was entirely invalid, and fraudulent, if in fact Christ never died. Did Muhammad ever preach on such a thing, or attempt to correct Christians on this covenant teaching, in light of his denial of the death of Christ? No, of course not. He was silent on it, because he was ignorant of it.
In summary, the theme of God making covenants with His chosen people is one of the pillars of the Bible. Yet, Muhammad denied the seminal event that brought in the New Covenant, and never demonstrated an understanding of such a theme, nor ever pointed to a seminal event (like the sprinkling at Mt. Sinai, or the crucifixion) which "began" any covenant between Allah and Muslims. This is because he was preaching an entirely different "God" to the God of the Bible.
The first instance of priesthood in the Bible is in the book of Genesis, where we encounter Melchizedek - "The priest of the Most High God" (Genesis 14:18-20). Melchizedek was greater than Abraham (Hebrews 7:6-7), and was probably the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, as he had "neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually" (Hebrews 7:3).
Then, under the Mosaic Law, the sons of Aaron from the tribe of Levi were appointed to serve as priests, fulfilling all the ordinances of the Old Covenant (Exodus 28:1-4, 28:43). Additionally, there was to be a single High Priest, who was tasked with going into the Tabernacle alone on the Day of Atonement, and sprinkling the blood on the altar (Leviticus 16:1-34). Finally, all the children of Israel were described as a "kingdom of priests" (Exodus 19:6).
In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is called our "High Priest" (Hebrews 2:17, 3:1, 4:14-15, 5:10, 6:20, 7:26-28, 8:1, 9:11, 10:21). And, it was in Christ that the Levitical priesthood was abolished, replaced with an eternal priesthood after "the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 5:6, 5:10, 6:20, 7:11, 7:17, 7:21), as prophesied in Psalm 110:4.
This is expounded at length in Hebrews chapter 7:
Hebrews 7:9-28
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
Above, we see that the Levitical priesthood found its fulfillment in the everlasting priesthood of Jesus Christ.
And, just as Israel was called a "kingdom of priests" in the Old Testament (Exodus 19:6), Christians are likewise described in the New Testament as a kingdom of priests (Revelation 1:6, 5:10), offering up spiritual sacrifices unto God (Hebrews 13:15):
1 Peter 2:5, 9
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
Taking all of the above into consideration, it's evident that the theme of priesthood established in the Old Testament receives much attention in the New Testament, and is proven to be fulfilled in a meaningful way in Jesus Christ. Biblically, a priest is an intermediary between humans and God, and Christ has wholly embodied that role for all of mankind, forever (1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 8:6).
In contrast, there is no concept of a priesthood in Islam. Muhammad never establishes a Muslim priesthood, he never calls Muslims a nation of priests, and he never tries to explain the relationship of Muslims to God with regard to the need of the Jews for the Old Testament Levitical priesthood, or the fulfillment of that priesthood in Christ. He was entirely ignorant of the theme, and so his religion lacks the concept completely.
Israel is the Promised Land, sworn to Abraham (Genesis 15:18), and inherited by Joshua and the children of Israel after the Exodus. Jerusalem, in particular, is a city which God consistently views in a special way (2 Chronicles 6:5-6, Psalm 48:1-2, 87:2-3, 132:13-14, Jeremiah 3:17, Zechariah 8:3, etc.). References to Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem are made over 3,000 times in the Old Testament.
This emphasis on Israel and Jerusalem carries over into the New Testament. All of the major events of the New Testament happen in Israel, including the crucifixion of Christ. Israel, Jerusalem, and Judaea are mentioned over 250 times in the New Testament. And, when God speaks of the city in which He is to dwell after the second coming, he calls it "New Jerusalem" (Revelation 21:2):
Revelation 3:12
12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
However, this common thread of emphasis on Israel and Jerusalem in the Bible is categorically not what we would expect to see, if we were only to read the Quran.
Instead, we would expect to see hundreds, or even thousands of mentions of Mecca, because according to Muhammad, the Kaaba in Mecca was God's first and most important center of worship:
Surah 3:96
96 Surely the first House ˹of worship˺ established for humanity is the one at Mecca - a blessed sanctuary and a guide for ˹all˺ people.
Surah 22:25-29
25 Indeed, those who persist in disbelief and hinder ˹others˺ from the Way of Allah and from the Sacred Mosque - which We have appointed for all people, residents and visitors alike - along with whoever intends to deviate by doing wrong in it, We will cause them to taste a painful punishment.
26 And ˹remember˺ when We assigned to Abraham the site of the House, ˹saying,˺ “Do not associate anything with Me ˹in worship˺ and purify My House for those who circle ˹the Ka’bah˺, stand ˹in prayer˺, and bow and prostrate themselves.
27 Call ˹all˺ people to the pilgrimage. They will come to you on foot and on every lean camel from every distant path,
28 so they may obtain the benefits ˹in store˺ for them, and pronounce the Name of Allah on appointed days over the sacrificial animals He has provided for them. So eat from their meat and feed the desperately poor.
29 Then let them groom themselves, fulfil their vows, and circle the Ancient House.
According to the above, the Kaaba in Mecca was "the first House of worship established for humanity", and Allah instructed Abraham to "call all people to the pilgrimage". So, why is the entire Bible utterly bereft of any mention of the Kaaba, or Mecca, and all of the practices that we were supposed to do there? Why instead are there many thousands of mentions of Israel, and Jerusalem, and the Temple, and the Tabernacle?
It is simply foolish to the point of insanity to believe that God ordained the Kaaba as the hub of worship for the children of Abraham, and yet not a single reference - not even in a laughable, dishonest twisting of Psalm 84 - was made of it, in God's prior revelation to mankind.
And, it isn't just missing from the Bible. It's missing from the volumes of Intertestamental Jewish Literature, which was written before the time of Christ, and all Jewish commentaries and histories ever written. It's also missing from all of the Ante-Nicene Christian writers, who lived hundreds of years before Muhammad, and for whom we have thousands of pages of writings.
So, how is it that the only sources that anyone has for the life of Abraham completely failed to mention the most important center of worship that he established for all of mankind, and all of those for whom the Kaaba was appointed the center of worship demonstrate absolutely no knowledge of so much as the city that it was housed in?
For non-Muslims, the answer is simple. It's because Muhammad made up a story about a Pagan cube in his hometown, which was a laughable fabrication, deserving less than ridicule. Muslims, however, in addition to believing that there were "Muslim" followers of Jesus who conveniently left no trace whatsoever of having ever existed, also must believe that there were "Muslim" followers of Abraham's prescriptions for Kaaba worship at Mecca, who similarly left no trace, even though Islam affirms that Moses (~500 years after Abraham) and David (~1,000 years after Abraham) were Muslim. Yet, they somehow failed to mention all of these practices, or even Mecca at all, even once?
If you believe Muhammad's claims about Abraham and Mecca, you will believe anything, and there's nothing I can do to help you. It's simply foolishness and insanity.
To anyone with eyes still open to see the truth, it's evident that the Old and New Testament have an intimate connection with each other, and many Old Testament themes find their culmination and fulfillment in the New Testament. This is made even more apparent when the prophecies of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament are examined.
In Islam, however, these themes are missing, and this intimate connection is absent. In creating his brand new religion, the false prophet Muhammad demonstrated a complete ignorance of the religious tradition that he claimed to be affirming. Nothing reveals that more clearly than a study of broad Biblical themes.