In the Quran, Muhammad made the following claim about the Torah and the Gospel:
Surah 7:157
157 Those who follow the Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel in their possession. He directs them to righteousness, and deters them from evil, ...
This claim is extremely important, because Muhammad is acknowledging that the Christians and Jews still have the Torah and the Gospel, and we know for a fact what the Torah and the Gospel looked like in the 7th century, because we have copies of the entire Bible from long before then.
This means that if Muhammad were here today, he would have to show you, in your Bible, where he is. Since he neglected to give the reference from either the Torah or the Gospel which was supposed to mention him, Muslims have undertaken this task, and proposed many verses over the years that allegedly vindicate Muhammad's claim.
The most commonly-proposed verses, which will be covered in this article, are as follows. Click the link to jump to a specific section:
We will go through each of the above, and examine whether or not they could be prophecies of Muhammad.
Before beginning, it's essential to understand the very strange view of the Bible that Muslims are forced into by the Quran. Muhammad affirmed the inspiration of the Torah and Gospel (Surah 3:3-4, 5:43-48, 5:68, etc.), he affirmed that the Torah was written with God's own hand (Sahih al-Bukhari 6614, Sahih Muslim 2652a), and he affirmed that none can change the words of God (Surah 6:114-115, 18:27). But, since he had no idea what the Bible taught, he proceeded to prolifically contradict it, on a whole host of doctrines.
As later Muslims got more familiar with the Bible, and found that it didn't affirm what Muhammad taught at all, they were forced to repudiate their own prophet, and claim that the Bible had been so completely corrupted that almost every verse in every chapter had been altered, or lost, and as a result, only the Quran was to be trusted. Verses like Surah 7:157, however, have them searching through what they believe is a hopelessly corrupt, Satanic, forged scripture, trying to find something that they can nonetheless claim is a divinely-inspired prophesy that Muhammad said would be there.
That means that every Muslim proposal that will be discussed below is a non-starter. On what basis do they prove that every last verse below isn't a part of the wholesale corruption that they assert has overtaken the entire Bible? In other words, why bother going through our Scripture to find something that you can use, after you've already blasphemed God and Jesus Christ by saying that they lied about preservation (Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 24:35, etc.), and after declaring our Scripture to be a Satanic forgery?
Muslims assert that because Muhammad was descended from Ishmael, the blessing of Ishmael in verse 20 below is a prophecy of Muhammad, and so is the reiteration of that blessing in Genesis 21:
Genesis 17:19-21
19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
Genesis 21:12-13, 17-18
12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.
13 And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.
17 And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is.
18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.
Firstly, the nature of the blessing on Ishmael was that God was to "multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation". This was fulfilled during the life of Ishmael (Genesis 25:12-16), and has nothing to do with Muhammad.
Muslims assert that "great" must mean something like "noble", and was therefore yet to be fulfilled, demonstrating their complete ignorance of the Bible, because that's not what that term means at all, which in this context describes size (Deuteronomy 2:10, 2:21, 7:1, 9:1, 11:23, Joshua 23:9, Jeremiah 6:22-23, etc.), not nobility or morality.
Secondly, I've included the context of all of the passages above to demonstrate that they all describe Ishmael's rejection by God, and God's covenant being made with Isaac instead. In fact, Ishmael was so rejected, that God repeatedly called Isaac Abraham's "only son" (Genesis 22:2, 22:12, 22:16). Therefore, Ishmael isn't even in the Biblical line of Abraham. He is prophetically meaningless, and no prophets ever came from him.
Some Muslims have attempted to salvage this situation, by asserting that the following verse from the book of Matthew is in reference to Ishmaelites becoming the chosen of God:
Matthew 21:43
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
This is the definition of Scripture twisting. The only possible way someone could think that this verse applies to Ishmaelites in Arabia 600 years later is if they burned the rest of the New Testament, and pretended that this verse fell out of the sky.
This verse refers to the fact that God's nation in the New Testament consists of all believers in Jesus Christ (Acts 15:13-19, Ephesians 2:11-13, 19), no longer bound by the carnal ordinances of the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenant:
1 Peter 2:5, 9-10
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an 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:
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
It was prophesied in the Old Testament that God would bring Gentiles into His chosen people (Hosea 2:23). Then Jesus Christ shows up, dies for the sins of mankind, rises from the dead, and opens the door of the New Covenant to all nations (Matthew 28:19, Romans 9:25-26), just as prophesied. Therefore, the kingdom is taken from the unbelieving Jews, and given to all believers in Jesus (Acts 28:25-29).
To reiterate, the idea that Matthew 21:43 is God designating Ishmaelites - who are not found in any context anywhere - as His new covenant people, is the height of dishonesty and insincerity. It is a joke of a claim, only succeeding in demonstrating that the Muslim position is truly intellectually bankrupt.
In summary, the blessings on Ishmael were fulfilled 2,000 years before Muhammad was born, and were part of God's explicit rejection of Ishmael in favor of Isaac. If Muhammad was a descendant of Ishmael, that would be utterly meaningless.
Deuteronomy 18:15-19, and specifically verses 15 and 18, is by far the most common passage in the Old Testament alleged by Muslims to be a prophecy of Muhammad:
Deuteronomy 18:15-19
15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
Muslims assert that because Muhammad was a descendant of Ishmael, here God was promising the Jews to raise up a prophet from the Ishmaelites, which is Muhammad.
However, the passage itself says that the prophet would come "from the midst of thee", and would be "of thy brethren", and "from among their brethren", which indisputably, in context, can refer only to Jews (Deuteronomy 17:14-15, 17:18-20, 18:1-2, 18:15-16), not Ishmaelites. Every single time the phrase "among your brethren" is used in Deuteronomy, it refers to the Israelites. Ishmaelites are nowhere mentioned in the entire book of Deuteronomy, and had no place whatsoever in the Exodus account.
And, as covered above, God's covenant was made with the Jews, not the Ishmaelites (Exodus 19:1-24:8). Hagar and her son Ishmael were cast out from Abraham, specifically because the chosen seed was Isaac, not Ishmael (Genesis 17:19-21, 21:10-12) - which prophesied the New Covenant which would be ushered in 2,000 years later (Galatians 4:22-31). Jesus Christ, the promised seed (Genesis 3:15), came from Isaac (Matthew 1:2, Luke 3:34), and not Ishmael. And, it was Jesus Christ who fulfilled this prophecy (Acts 3:22-26, 7:37, 7:52), having met all the criteria for fulfillment over 500 years before Muhammad was born.
Muslims - most famously, Ahmed Deedat - will rattle off similarities between Moses and Muhammad, in order to establish Muhammad as being "like Moses". However, notice in what sense the prophet would be "like Moses", in verse 16. He would be an intermediary between God and the people, who were terrified of God's presence, and speak to the Lord face-to-face on their behalf (Exodus 33:11, Numbers 12:6-8). This is face-to-face interaction with God is the mark of this prophet, as a parallel passage at the end of the same book teaches clearly:
Deuteronomy 34:10-12
10 And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,
11 In all the signs and the wonders, which the LORD sent him to do in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to all his land,
12 And in all that mighty hand, and in all the great terror which Moses shewed in the sight of all Israel.
Notice, "the prophet like Moses" is specifically described as one who would be "in Israel", "whom the Lord knew face to face", and was mighty in "signs and wonders". All of this describes Jesus Christ, and His relationship to the Father (Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22). None of this describes Muhammad, who wasn't in Israel, denied that he was a miracle-worker (Surah 6:37, 10:20, 13:7, 17:59, 29:48-51, etc.), and didn't even claim to speak directly to God, or hear directly from God, but rather an angel.
Finally, this passage should be the last passage in Scripture that a Muslim would ever want to draw attention to, because of the verse that immediately follows it:
Deuteronomy 18:20
20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
Not only was Muhammad entirely ignorant of God's name - which is used four times in the passage in question - but Muhammad, according to himself, spoke words given to him by Satan, promoting the worship of three Pagan goddesses. This incident of the Satanic Verses is covered in this article, and by itself, completely disqualifies Muhammad as a prophet sent by God. Rather, on the basis of his own testimony, he should have been put to death as a false prophet, for speaking things that God didn't command him to speak.
Another passage appealed to by Muslims is the following, from Deuteronomy chapter 33:
Deuteronomy 33:1-4
1 And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death.
2 And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.
3 Yea, he loved the people; all his saints are in thy hand: and they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words.
4 Moses commanded us a law, even the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob.
Muslims assert that verse 2 of this passage refers to Muhammad conquering Mecca - which they also assert is referred to as "Paran" - with 10,000 soldiers in the year 630 AD. Further, Paran is where Ishmael settled (Genesis 21:21), and Muhammad is claimed to be a descendant from Ishmael.
Firstly, this is not a prophecy. It's a blessing that Moses gave to the people before he died. In it, he references Seir, and Paran, places which they had just visited during the Exodus (Numbers 10:12, 12:16, 13:3, Deuteronomy 2:1-29), and he's describing what God already did there.
From Biblical references, we know that Paran is between Midian and Egypt (1 Kings 11:18, Genesis 21:21), and near Kadesh (Numbers 13:26), Laban (Ashnah), Tophel, Hazeroth, and Dizahab (Deuteronomy 1:1), placing it either next to, or in the Sinai Peninsula, nowhere near Mecca or Medina. No map of the Israelites' wandering in the wilderness that I have ever seen puts them anywhere near Medina, let alone Mecca, yet they visited Paran during that journey. So, Paran is not Mecca, nor Medina, and neither of those places have any Biblical link to Ishmael.
Secondly, it says "The Lord" (YHWH) shined forth from Mount Paran. Muhammad knows nothing about the name of God used here, having shunned it entirely, as covered in this article. Since this verse uses a name of God that Muhammad rejected, it definitely doesn't prophesy of him.
Thirdly, the verse doesn't say "10,000 soldiers". It says "ten thousands" - plural - of His saints. This means a multiple of 10,000, and refers in context to the millions of Israelites (Deuteronomy 33:3, Exodus 12:37), who were with Moses, used as a type of the Heavenly host of that is with God in Heaven, also referred to with this same type of language (Psalm 68:16-17, Daniel 7:9-10, Jude 1:14). If it were referring to Muhammad's 10,000 murderous, idolatrous thugs who took over his hometown, there would be no need for the plural. The plural here is used to indicate a practically innumerable multitude.
Finally, the "Law" mentioned in verse 2 refers in context to the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 33:4), given during the Exodus (Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5), and not the Quran. The Quran contradicts many points of God's actual Law as revealed during the Exodus, including commanding people to do something which God directly calls an "abomination" (Surah 2:230, Deuteronomy 24:1-4).
In summary, this verse is a reflection on what God had already done at that point in the Exodus, in a land nowhere near Muhammad, having a name which Muhammad was ignorant of, and a giving a Law which Muhammad demanded his followers to contradict in scores of different ways. This kind of reflection is done elsewhere in Scripture (Judges 5:4-5, Psalms 68:7-8). Every aspect of this passage has a very clear, easy-to-understand Biblical context referencing what had just happened in the Exodus, which has to be entirely ignored, in order to try to make it a prophecy about Muhammad, which it is definitely not.
Note also, that this is the last verse in the Torah that Muslims reference with any degree of regularity as pertaining to Muhammad. This means that we could stop right here, and declare victory, because Muhammad is definitely, indisputably not found in the Torah. However, we will cover other alleged references from elsewhere in the Old Testament, even though we don't have to, just to further demonstrate that Muhammad definitely isn't there, either.
Continuing on, the following is the main passage in Psalms used by Muslims as a prophecy of Muhammad:
Psalm 84:4-8
4 Blessed are they that dwell in thy house: they will be still praising thee. Selah.
5 Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee; in whose heart are the ways of them.
6 Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.
7 They go from strength to strength, every one of them in Zion appeareth before God.
8 O LORD God of hosts, hear my prayer: give ear, O God of Jacob. Selah.
Muslims assert that the "valley of Baca" in verse 6 refers to Mecca, and the "well" refers to the Zamzam well in Mecca.
Firstly, this doesn't refer to Muhammad, because even if we grant every Muslim claim about this passage, Muhammad is nowhere to be found. Muhammad's claim was that he would be found mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel, not Mecca, and not the Zamzam well.
Secondly, this doesn't refer to Muhammad, because yet again, "The Lord" (YHWH) is used seven times in this short chapter - seven rebukes to the false god "Allah", which is the only name Muhammad ever preached under.
Thirdly, the passage says that "every one" of those who went to the valley of Baca "appears in Zion before God". The name "Zion" refers to Jerusalem specifically (Isaiah 40:9), or Israel more broadly (Zechariah 9:13), in every instance in which it is used in the Old Testament, which is often. If we take the southernmost tip of Israel, it is still over 1,100 kilometers away from Mecca. Add another 200 kilometers, if Zion is referring to Jerusalem. Attempting to link the two locations, such that all who are in one come into the other, is geographically impossible, and defies common sense.
Fourthly, the passage doesn't say "they make a pilgrimage to Baca", it says that they "pass through the valley of Baca", on their way to Zion. It's a thoroughfare, not the destination. The destination is Zion. Where did Jews live, when this was written? They lived in Israel. So, this was a valley, within Israel, that Jews would go through on their way to Jerusalem. Why would Jews, who lived in Israel, take a 2,500 kilometer round-trip detour, on their pilgrimage to Jerusalem?
Fifthly, the passage does not say "there is a well in Baca". It says "those passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools". This is referring to people digging places - plural - for rainwater to accumulate, or digging into sand until they reach a waterline, which doesn't describe the Zamzam well at all. Some also interpret this verse metaphorically, as valley of Baca is sometimes translated "valley of weeping", and this could in that case refer to the (happy or sad) tears of the pilgrims.
Finally, there is the Kaaba problem. Muslims believe that the Kaaba in Mecca was God's first and most important shine on the entire planet, and was appointed as the place of worship for all of mankind by God during the life of Abraham (Surah 22:25-29). So, even if against all reason, we grant you this passage in Psalms, why does it only receive one dinky, obscure mention in the entire Bible? And why, instead, do we have thousands and thousands of references to Israel, Jerusalem, the Temple, and the Tabernacle? Maybe it's because Muhammad made up a bogus story about an irrelevant Pagan cube in his hometown, and only illiterate Pagan Arabs were silly enough to believe it.
In summary, the valley of Baca, sometimes translated "valley of Weeping", was likely a valley just outside of Jerusalem. It is definitely not the city of Mecca, over 1,100 kilometers away. Even if it were to be about Mecca, that would say nothing about Muhammad, and whether he was God's prophet, for the same reason that all the Biblical mentions of Judah don't make Judas Iscariot - who preached in Judea - God's prophet.
Very common amongst Muslims, because of its usage by Zakir Naik, is the argument that Song of Solomon chapter 5 refers to Muhammad by name:
Song of Solomon 5:16
16 His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.
You may read the above, and wonder what in the world this has to do with Muhammad. Welcome to one of the strangest, weakest arguments ever given for any truth claim.
Muslims argue that because the Hebrew word for "lovely" is pronounced "machmâd" (מַחְמָד), and that sounds like "Muhammad", this is Muhammad being referred to by name in the Old Testament.
Firstly, the Hebrew word is plural in this sentence - "maḥămaddîm" (מַחֲּמַדִּ֑ים). This means that Muslims are asserting that Solomon's bride is saying "He is altogether (multiple) Muhammads". It makes no sense to use a proper noun like this, because that's not what's being done here. And, Muslims have to change the word into its singular form, because it makes no sense to use the plural to refer to Muhammad either.
Secondly, the context of this passage has nothing to do with Muhammad, or Allah. It says nothing at all about Muhammad's life, message, or anything of the sort. Instead, this is simply taking a word in another language, and asserting that it refers to someone entirely absent from any context, because it sounds similar to their name.
Furthermore, the word "machmâd" is used 11 other times in the Bible (1 Kings 20:6: 2 Chronicles 36:19, Isaiah 64:11, Lamentations 1:10, 2:4, Ezekiel 24:16, 24:21, 24:25, Hosea 9:6, 9:16, Joel 3:5). Let's look at another instance, to see how our Muslim friends would have to read the Bible, if they are to be consistent:
2 Chronicles 36:19
19 And they burnt the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the
goodlyMuhammad vessels thereof.
It is no more ridiculous and acontextual to assert that above, "machmâd" is a reference to Muhammad, than it is to do so in the passage in question from Song of Solomon.
Given the criteria of this argument, I could find myself, or anyone else, in the Bible, the Quran, or any piece of literature of a significant length. This is as foolish as saying that I, Noah, am being referenced in a sentence where someone says "know a". Or, this is as foolish as saying I found a reference to Allah in the Bible, because I found the word "akbâr" (עַכְבָּר), except the Hebrew word "akbâr" means "mouse". Therefore, this argument has proven that every time Muslims say "Allahu Akbar", they are blaspheming Allah, and calling him a mouse.
This is not a reference to Muhammad, and the fact that anyone would attempt to use this argument reveals the utter dearth of verses which could even be twisted to support Muhammad's claim.
The first passage from the book of Isaiah used by Muslims is as follows:
Isaiah 21:13-17
13 The burden upon Arabia. In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye travelling companies of Dedanim.
14 The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him that was thirsty, they prevented with their bread him that fled.
15 For they fled from the swords, from the drawn sword, and from the bent bow, and from the grievousness of war.
16 For thus hath the LORD said unto me, Within a year, according to the years of an hireling, and all the glory of Kedar shall fail:
17 And the residue of the number of archers, the mighty men of the children of Kedar, shall be diminished: for the LORD God of Israel hath spoken it.
Muslims assert that verse 15 refers to Muhammad's flight from Mecca to Medina, and then verses 16 and 17 refer to his conquering of Mecca. They also link Muhammad to Tema, and Kedar, who are two of Ishmael's sons (Genesis 25:13-15).
Firstly, establishing the context of this passage is important. It is nestled within an eleven chapter section in Isaiah, where from chapter 13-24, God pronounces judgement on the nations around Israel, including Babylon (Isaiah 13-14), Moab (Isaiah 15-16), Damascus (Isaiah 17-18), Egypt (Isaiah 19-20), the desert (Isaiah 21), Israel itself (Isaiah 22), and Tyre (Isaiah 23).
This means that any location near Israel was going to find its cameo in this section of Isaiah. Arabia being mentioned is not unique, nor is it remarkable. All of these judgments came to pass in the life of Isaiah, and the judgment in the passage in question happened "within a year" (Isaiah 21:16) of the prophecy being given, meaning it was completed over 1,000 years before Muhammad was born.
Muslims cannot simply ignore the "within a year" stipulation, just as Moabites couldn't ignore the "within 3 years" stipulation for their prophecy (Isaiah 16:14). If Muslims want to make verses 14 and 15 about Muhammad's flight to Medina from Mecca, that happened in 622 AD. Then, if verses 16 and 17 refer to him conquering Mecca, that happened in 630 AD - 8 years later. Therefore, trying to impose this passage on those two events doesn't match, because the time frame given in the passage was exceeded by a factor of 8. If you're going to cite our Bible, Muslims, let the text speak for itself, rather than cutting out bits and pieces that invalidate your misinterpretation.
Secondly, in verse 16, "The Lord" (YHWH) is used. Since Muhammad rejected that name in favor of his own name for God, and never preached under that name at any point in his life, this is definitely not a prophecy of him.
Thirdly, Muslims view Muhammad's conquest of Mecca as a good thing - restoring the inhabitants of the land to worship of the one true God, and bringing Monotheism back to his hometown. So, if verses 16 and 17 refer to Muhammad taking Mecca, what sense would it make to say "all the glory of Kedar shall fail", when restoring them to Monotheism is the most glorious thing that any Muslim could want to happen to any people group?
In summary, this was a prophecy which came to pass in the life of Isaiah, in the time frame specified by the Lord (YHWH) in the passage. It brought about a curse on the people of the land, not a blessing. Therefore, in order to twist this passage to affirm Muhammad, Muslims had to ignore the name of the Lord, they had to ignore the time frame given in the passage, and they had to declare that Muhammad cursed the Kedarites when he conquered them, and restored them to worship of Allah.
The second passage from the book of Isaiah used by Muslims is as follows:
Isaiah 29:10-13
10 For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.
11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:
12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.
13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
Muslims assert that verse 12 is a reference to Muhammad, who said "I cannot read", when told to read by the angel Gabriel, when Gabriel first appeared to him in a cave.
Muslims, this is one of the last passages that you would want to be about Muhammad. In context, this is describing disobedient sinners who are spiritually blinded, and are rejecting what God is telling them to do. The ones that can read cannot understand, and the ones who can't read don't bother to learn, so the Lord says they "have removed their heart far from me".
This passage is quoted by Jesus Christ in the New Testament as representing hypocrites and false teachers, who taught man's commandments as if they were God's:
Mark 7:5-7
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Therefore, this is not about Muhammad, but if it was, then it would be declaring him a liar and a false prophet, who invented his own commandments in spite of God's, in both the Old and New Testament.
This third and final passage from Isaiah has, in recent years, become quite popular for Muslims to appeal to in support of Muhammad being foretold in the Bible:
Isaiah 42:1-13
1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.
3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.
4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.
5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.
8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
9 Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.
10 Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise from the end of the earth, ye that go down to the sea, and all that is therein; the isles, and the inhabitants thereof.
11 Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the villages that Kedar doth inhabit: let the inhabitants of the rock sing, let them shout from the top of the mountains.
12 Let them give glory unto the LORD, and declare his praise in the islands.
13 The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies.
Their assertion that this refers to Muhammad hinges on verse 11's reference to Kedar, who again, is one of Ishmael's sons (Genesis 25:13). This is becoming a pattern. Muslims are simply trying to link anything and everything in the Bible that references Ishmael to Muhammad, even though by doing so, they've disqualified him as an Abrahamic prophet altogether (Genesis 17:19-21, 21:10-12). No covenant was made with Ishmael. He was rejected. He is prophetically irrelevant, except to serve as an example of bondage to "the Law of sin and death" (Galatians 4:22-31, Romans 8:2).
Further, Muslims' assertion that Muhammad was an Ishmaelite can't even be substantiated. The genealogies that Muslims give of Muhammad, which are forged, and created long after he died, only have about 25 generations between him and Ishmael. They lived 2,500 years apart. That means that, being extremely generous, approximately 60% of the names are missing from his genealogy, even if we assume the ones that later Muslims gave are real, which they aren't.
Coming to the passage in question, in the first place, this could not be a prophecy of Muhammad, because six times in this passage, "The Lord" (YHWH) is used. Muhammad rejected this name, in favor of his own name for God. Done. Disqualified. Another non-starter, just as the other five passages discussed so far that use the Lord's name. Get the name of God right, then come back to us and show us where our Scripture talks about your little false religion.
Secondly, verse 4 says that "he shall not fail, nor be discouraged". Muhammad got so discouraged that he repeatedly went to kill himself by jumping off a mountain, multiple times throughout his prophetic career (Sahih al-Bukhari 6982).
Thirdly, the reference to Kedar is being used as an example of the Gentiles - mentioned repeatedly in the passage (Isaiah 42:1, 4, 6) - who are going to have the Gospel preached to them, and this passage is fulfilled in Acts 13:46-47, demonstrating the "servant" to be none other than Jesus Christ. Salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22), not the Kedarites, or the Ishmaelites.
Finally - and this applies to all passages from Isaiah above, as well - Muslims have no right to even attempt to quote the book of Isaiah, because it contains a prophecy about a child being born who will be called "The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6-7), and also calls God "our Father" (Isaiah 63:16, 64:8) - both things that Muhammad rejected, and considered blasphemous (Surah 5:18, 19:88-92, etc.). This could be done with every single book of the Bible that Muslims try to quote in support of Muhammad. Sorry Muslims, you don't get to cite our Scripture, and then claim it's corrupted and Satanic.
In summary, this is another passage that says nothing about Muhammad, in which Muslims cannot help but blaspheme the Lord Jesus Christ, by yet again robbing Him of verses which pertain to Him, in order to give them to a sinner.
Muslims assert that verse 3 of the following is a prophecy of Muhammad, once again on the sole basis of geographical references to Paran and Teman:
Habakkuk 3:2-8
2 O LORD, I have heard thy speech, and was afraid: O LORD, revive thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known; in wrath remember mercy.
3 God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise.
4 And his brightness was as the light; he had horns coming out of his hand: and there was the hiding of his power.
5 Before him went the pestilence, and burning coals went forth at his feet.
6 He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow: his ways are everlasting.
7 I saw the tents of Cushan in affliction: and the curtains of the land of Midian did tremble.
8 Was the LORD displeased against the rivers? was thine anger against the rivers? was thy wrath against the sea, that thou didst ride upon thine horses and thy chariots of salvation?
I've included the context, in order to make this claim foolish, without the need for explanation. No commentary is required. Just read it. Who is it describing? Muhammad? Is Muhammad "The Lord" (YHWH), the "Holy One" (Habakkuk 1:12, Ezekiel 39:7, Hosea 11:9), and "God"? Is Muhammad's "brightness as the light"? Are "his ways everlasting"? Is is true that "his glory covered the Heavens, and the earth was full of his praise"?
The worst sin a Muslim can commit is Shirk - associating partners with Allah. Any Muslim attempting to use this passage in reference to Muhammad has gone beyond the most explicit definition of Shirk, hijacking a passage aimed at glorifying the God who made the universe, and applying it to a murderous, idolatrous, adulterous sinner from 7th century Arabia.
Muslims assert that verse 7 below refers to Muhammad, using a similar argument to that used for the Song of Solomon passage, in which they find Muhammad in the Hebrew word for "desire", "chemdâh" (חֶמְדָּה):
Haggai 2:6-7
6 For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land;
7 And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.
This argument is somehow even weaker than the Song of Solomon passage. Unlike that passage, "chemdâh" doesn't even sound like "Muhammad". Even if it did, that would be meaningless, for all of the same reasons that it was meaningless in Song of Solomon 5:16.
Further, the "this house" mentioned in verse 7 refers to the second Temple in Jerusalem, as is understood by reading the rest of the book (Haggai 1:2, 1:14, 2:3, 2:9). The second Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, 500 years before Muhammad was born, precluding any idea that he is anywhere in this passage. Jesus, however, visited the Temple on multiple occasions, and by His presence, and ushering in of the New Covenant (Matthew 27:51), made the second Temple to excel the first (Haggai 2:9).
Finally, that ever-present name of "The Lord" (YHWH) once again makes an appearance, testifying that Muhammad had no idea what God he was even trying to affirm, when he discarded that name in favor of his own name for God.
In John chapter 1, John the Baptist is questioned by some Jews in regard to his prophetic role:
John 1:19-21
19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
Muslims, who acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah (Surah 3:45, etc.), point out that the Jews asked about the Messiah and "that prophet" separately, therefore, they are not one in the same, and Muhammad is "that prophet" - a reference to the "prophet like Moses", already discussed above in the section on Deuteronomy 18:15-19.
Firstly, the Jews present with John the Baptist in John chapter 1 are not an authoritative source of doctrine for Christians. Jews said a lot of things in the Gospels, including denying that Jesus was the Messiah (Luke 23:35), accusing Him of trying to overthrow the government (Luke 23:2), and saying He is demon-possessed (Matthew 9:34). However, if we were going off of the testimony of the Jews, we would have to conclude that Jesus was "that prophet", because that's what they later testified en-masse, according to the same book:
John 6:14
14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.
Jesus, and not Muhammad, is "the prophet like Moses" for all of the same reasons discussed in the aforementioned section on Deuteronomy 18. He is identified as such explicitly by the Apostles (Acts 3:22-26, 7:37, 7:52) - first-century Jews whose opinions we actually regard.
Recall that Muhammad said that "we" would find him mentioned in the Gospel that we have in our possession. Christians, when looking for doctrine, would never use the words of random Jews to contravene a clear statement of an Apostle, and the testimony of the rest of Christ's ministry concerning His fulfillment of being the "prophet like Moses". So, the idea that honest Christians examining their own Scripture would see Muhammad in this is, once again, a laughable, joke of a claim.
Secondly, we are in one of the worst chapters for a Muslim to ever find themselves in. God is called "The Father" twice in this chapter (John 1:14, 18), Jesus is called His Son (John 1:14, 18, 34, 49), and we are told that we can become the sons of God by faith in Christ (John 1:12). It is a chapter in which Jesus is explicitly said to be God, who created all things:
John 1:1-3, 14
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
So, Muslims, why are you citing anything in this chapter, when it disproves your false religion in many distinct ways? Do you only believe part of the Scripture? Do you know what the Quran says about people who only believe in part of the Scripture? It says they will burn in Hell (Surah 2:83-85).
In summary, this is just another lazy attempt at usurping Christ's status as the prophet like Moses, who was prophesied to come. It's a tremendously dishonest, illogical claim.
In John chapter 14-16, Jesus makes frequent reference to the "Paraklētos" (παράκλητος), usually translated "Comforter", "Helper", or "Advocate":
John 14:16-17, 26
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 15:26
26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 16:7-14
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
Muslims assert that the Comforter discussed in the passages above is none other than Muhammad.
Firstly, in John 14 through 16, Jesus calls God "The Father" no less than 45 times, something which Muhammad taught was sinful and blasphemous (Surah 5:18, 19:88-92, etc.). All of the passages mentioning the Comforter also have the Father in the immediate context, or even the same sentence. Jesus also teaches in chapter 14 that "no man comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6), and that He answers prayers (John 14:13-14) - two things that Muhammad would have deemed extremely blasphemous. So, how could any of this be used as a prophecy of Muhammad? What is the point of playing this game where a text that violently contradicts everything you're saying can actually be used as proof you're correct, so long as most of its context - and the entire rest of the book that it's from - is thrown away and ignored? Anyone could do that with any text to support any belief.
Secondly, the Comforter is explicitly identified in John 14:26, and it's categorically not Muhammad:
John 14:26
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Thirdly, everything in the context of these chapters demonstrates that this was something that was going to happen to the disciples themselves, in their lifetime. He is directly addressing His disciples, and telling them that the Comforter will come to them, so that God continues to abide with them, even though Christ ascends to the Father:
John 16:7
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
Fourthly, the things that the Comforter is described as doing could definitely not be said of Muhammad. Did Muhammad "abide with" the disciples "forever" (John 14:16)? Was Muhammad "dwelling with" them, soon to be "in them" (John 14:17)? Is Muhammad "The Spirit of truth", which the world cannot see (John 14:17)? Did Muhammad teach the disciples "all things" (John 14:26), and guide them into "all truth" (John 16:13)? No, because Muhammad is not the Holy Spirit, who is being referred to here, and who came during the lives of the disciples, fulfilling these chapters (John 20:22, Acts 2:1-4, Ephesians 1:12-14, etc.).
Fifthly, Jesus said that He, in conjunction with the Father, "will send" the Comforter (John 15:26, 16:7). Do Muslims believe that Jesus sent Muhammad? No, they believe Jesus is beneath Muhammad, as although Jesus was a prophet, Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets (Surah 33:40).
Finally, I once again want to draw attention to the fact that Allah said in Surah 7:157 that we would find Muhammad mentioned in the Gospel that we have in our possession. Could any honest Christian, reading their own Scriptures in context, conclude that that is true? No. Rather, only a dishonest Christian, who is fine twisting, distorting, and ignoring what their Scriptures say, could arrive at Muhammad in the Gospels. Is that what Allah, the God of the universe, was expecting Christians to do?
This is the single go-to passage in the New Testament for Muslims trying to find prophecies of Muhammad. It is ridiculous, in the true sense of the word, that anyone would try to make any part of this refer to Muhammad. In fact, it's so ridiculously dishonest, both intellectually, and Biblically, that I would question whether or not anyone who genuinely believes that this is referring to Muhammad is totally hardened by God, or demon-possessed.
Muhammad made a claim, we tested that claim, and found it false. After 14 centuries of looking, Muslims are unable to produce a single verse of Scripture which could even potentially be about Muhammad. And, in order to satisfy the criteria of Muhammad's claim, they would need one in both the Torah and Gospel.
In the New Testament, when an Old Testament prophecy is fulfilled, the Old Testament passage in focus is often quoted, allowing us to know exactly what the author had in mind. Muhammad was totally silent on which verses supposedly affirmed him, because he had no idea himself, having, at best, an oral familiarity with certain parts of the Bible.
It wouldn't matter if Muhammad himself tried to use the above verses to support his claim. If he were sitting next to me, with the Bible open in front of him, the fact would still remain that none of the above get within 100 million miles of prophesying of him. Any Christian on earth with a high school education could run circles around Muhammad, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Kathir, Maududi, or any great Muslim mind trying to twist these verses in favor of Muhammad - not because we are smarter, but for the simple fact that we are right, and they are wrong. There is nothing in the Bible that hints at Muhammad. This is not even a debate, it's a claim that any Christian who has even a surface-level familiarity with the Bible finds laughable, because of how obviously and egregiously false it is.
Muslim apologists are able to pull the wool over the eyes of their gullible followers, for the sole reason that those followers have never read the Bible. Therefore, a few verses like the above, twisted to create an apparition of their prophet, seems plausible to them. But, the Bible is a very long book. It is about ten times longer than the Quran. And, actually reading it in its entirety reveals themes that permeate the Old and New Testaments - priesthood, covenants, God as Father, blood atonement, the Messiah, and so on. It is coherent, self-contained, and has a focused narrative from Genesis to Revelation.
Anyone who actually reads this narrative will understand that it leaves absolutely no room for anyone like Muhammad. He is totally remote from the Biblical story which culminates so clearly in Jesus Christ, and the religion that he invented is barren of any of the Biblical themes shared so intimately between the Old and New Testaments. I don't want to look at 10 verses, Muslims, I want to look at 10,000 verses. When we do, I - or any Christian who has been born again for more than a month - will show you Jesus, and Jesus, and more Jesus, and won't need to rely on the tricks that Muslims had to pull above to deceive you.
When a person who is concerned about the truth is confronted with the above information - that is, when they investigate Muhammad's claim in Surah 7:157 - they will leave Islam. If you have chosen to remain a Muslim in spite of the evidence, after reading this article, you have demonstrated that you do not care about the truth at all, and are insincere.
The truthfulness of the Quran depends on this claim being true, and we know for a fact that it's not - and can easily demonstrate that every such verse that has ever been, or will ever be proposed to defend the claim is being grossly misused. Therefore, the Quran is not from God, and Islam is false. Surah 7:157 is an indefensible, false claim. Another 14 centuries won't change that fact. Bring us more verses, Muslims, and we'll show the world how you've lied in another 5 ways, in an attempt to defend the false prophet Muhammad.