Muhammad and the Bible

Muhammad Both Affirmed and Contradicted the Bible:

 

Muhammad repeatedly affirmed the inspiration and reliability of the Christian Scriptures (Surah 3:3-4, 5:47, 5:66, 5:68, 7:157, 10:94), yet he explicitly contradicted what it says:

 

• The Scriptures say that the angel Gabriel said Jesus is the Son of God (Luke 1:26-33), but Muhammad said that his revelations from Gabriel told him Jesus is not the Son of God (Surah 4:171; 5:17, 72, 75).

 

• The Scriptures say Jesus was crucified and resurrected (Matthew 27:35, 28:5-6; Mark 15:24, 16:6; Luke 23:33, 24:5-7; John 19:18, 20:1-18), but Muhammad said Jesus was neither crucified nor resurrected (Surah 4:157-158).

 

• The Scriptures teach the doctrine of the Trinity (Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:22; John 1:32-34; 2 Corinthians 13:14), but Muhammad denied the Trinity (Surah 4:171, 5:73).

 

• The Scriptures teach that God doesn't want humanity to sin but to be Holy (John 5:14, 8:11; 1 Peter 1:15-16), but Muhammad said that God does want humanity to sin (Sahih Muslim 37:6621, 6622).

 

• The Scriptures teach that Jesus claimed to be divine (Mark 14:62; John 8:58), but Muhammad said he that Jesus did not claim to be divine (Surah 5:72, 75).

 

• The Scriptures teach that Jesus existed before the world began (John 17:5), but Muhammad said Jesus was just a human who was created and came into existence at conception (Surah 3:59).

 

• The Scriptures teach that the forbidden fruit was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17), but Muhammad implied that the forbidden fruit was from the tree of life (Surah 7:20, 20:120).

 

• The Scriptures teach that God is our father (Matthew 6:8, 9, 14, 32; Luke 11:13), but Muhammad said that God is a father to no one (Surah 5:18, 19:88-93. In the Islamic tradition there are 99 names of Allah, and not one of them refers to Allah as Father).

 

• The Scriptures teach that in Heaven people are like angles and are neither married nor given in marriage (Matthew 22:23-30; Mark 12:18-25; Luke 20:27-36), but Muhammad said that in Heaven men will have 72 wives (Surah 37:48, 78:33; Sahih Al-Bukhari 60:402; Jami At-Tirmidhi 1663, 2562 (Dar-us-Salam reference); Sunan Ibn Majah 4337 (Dar-us-Salam reference)).

 

The Reliability of the Bible:

 

Some Muslims will claim that the Bible has been corrupted and isn't reliable. This is blatantly false.

 

The New Testament is the best attested book in ancient history. It was originally written in Greek, and there are over 5,800 Greek manuscripts that have been found. There's also over 18,000 manuscripts in other languages (Coptic, Latin, Syriac, etc.) that have been discovered as well, with some manuscripts dated extremely early (like the John Rylands fragment). The number of pages of Greek New Testament manuscripts are over 2.6 million, and if someone were to stack the New Testament manuscripts on top of each other they would be over one mile high, which absolutely dwarfs the approximate four feet high stack of manuscripts that the average classical writer would have. [1]

 

Influential Biblical scholar F. F. Bruce has written: "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament." [2]

 

Also, from just seven of the early church fathers the New Testament was quoted over 36,000 times (Justin Martyr, A.D. 100-165; Irenaeus of Lyons, A.D. 130-200; Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 150-215; Tertullian, A.D. 160-225; Hippolytus, A.D. c.170-c.235; Origen, A.D. 185-254; Eusebius, A.D. c.260-c.339). Almost the entire New Testament can be constructed just from the quotes of the early church fathers. [3]

 

So not only does the incredible manuscript evidence confirm the reliability of the Bible, but the Bible's contents are also confirmed by the thousands of quotes from the early believers & early church fathers.

 

There is no doubt about the reliability of the Bible. The manuscript evidence overwhelmingly confirms that the Bible can be trusted. The message and doctrines found in the Bible have been faithfully transmitted and preserved throughout history and anyone who says otherwise is blatantly incorrect.

 

Furthermore, over 30 different individuals mentioned in the New Testament have been confirmed to exist by ancient non-Christian sources and over 70 people in the Old Testament have been confirmed to exist by archaeology, further confirming the reliability of the Scriptures. [4]

 

Adding to the evidence of the reliability of the Bible, classical scholar and historian Colin Hemer also identified 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of the book of Acts that have been confirmed by historical and archaeological research. [5] The accuracy of Luke (who is the author of the book of Acts, along with the Gospel of Luke) is truly amazing and further confirms that the Bible is true and reliable.

 

So of the approximately 24,000 Biblical manuscripts that have been found, early Bibles like Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, etc… and the over 36,000 quotes of the New Testament by the early believers, guess how many of these manuscripts, Bibles, and quotes support the claim that the Bible has been corrupted and is untrustworthy? Zero.

 

As previously quoted in Chapter 13: Islamic Double Standards, Misconceptions, and Myths, Dr. William Lane Craig nicely sums up the reliability of the New Testament in his book A Reasonable Response: Answers to Tough Questions on God, Christianity, and the Bible:

 

“The New Testament is the best attested book in ancient history, both in terms of the number of manuscripts and the nearness of those manuscripts to the date of the original. What that goes to prove is that the text of the New Testament that we have today is almost exactly the same as the text as it was originally written. Of the approximately 138,000 words in the New Testament only about 1,400 remain in doubt. The text of the New Testament is thus about 99% established. That means that when you pick up a (Greek) New Testament today, you can be confident that you are reading the text as it was originally written. Moreover, that 1% that remains uncertain has to do with trivial words on which nothing of importance hangs. This conclusion is important because it explodes the claims of Muslims, Mormons, and others that the text of the New Testament has been corrupted, so that we can no longer read the original text. It’s awe-inspiring to think that we can know with confidence that when we pick Paul’s letter to the church in Rome, for example, we are reading the very words he wrote almost 2,000 years ago." [6]

 

There is no doubt about the reliability of the Bible. The manuscript evidence overwhelmingly confirms that the Bible can be trusted. The message and doctrines found in the Bible have been faithfully preserved throughout history, and anyone who says otherwise is blatantly incorrect.

 

The evidence is clear: we can be certain that the Bible is reliable and that it hasn't been corrupted over the centuries.

 

Muhammad exposed himself has a false prophet when he affirmed the inspiration and reliability of the Christian Scriptures.

 

 

 

Muhammad Makes it Impossible for Muslims to Reject What the Bible Says:

 

Because of Muhammad, Muslims cannot reject what the Bible says but instead must accept it as the Word of God for two reasons:

 

The First Reason/Argument:

 

Premise 1: Muhammad said, in the 7th century, that the Bible is the Word of God (Surah 3:3-4, 5:47, 5:66, 5:68, 7:157, 10:94).

 

Premise 2: The manuscript evidence shows that the Bible we have today is the same Bible that Muhammad had in the 7th century.


Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible we have today is the word of God according to Muhammad, making it impossible for Muslims to reject it.

The Second Reason/Argument:

 

Premise 1: Muhammad said the Bible is the Word of God (Surah 3:3-4, 5:47, 5:66, 5:68, 7:157, 10:94).

 

Premise 2: Muhammad says man cannot corrupt the Word of God (Surah 6:115, 18:27).
 

Conclusion: Therefore, according to Muhammad, the Bible could not, and can not, be corrupted, and thus must be accepted by Muslims.

 

 

 

Because of the Bible, It's Impossible for the Quran to be True:

 

The First Reason:

 

Another reason it's impossible for the Quran to be true is because Muhammad, in multiple verses in the Quran (Surah 3:3-4, 5:47, 5:66, 5:68, 7:157, 10:94), affirms the inspiration and reliability of the Christian Scriptures, and the Bible we have today is the same exact Bible Muhammad had in the 7th century when he said the Gospels were inspired and reliable (and there are actually Biblical manuscripts/Bibles that predate the time of Muhammad, like Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, etc…). So, Muslims cannot say the Bible has been changed or corrupted since the time Muhammad said the Gospels were reliable. Muslims, therefore, cannot reject what the Bible says, which leaves them and Islam in quite a dilemma. If the Bible is reliable, Islam must be false, since the Bible presents Jesus as God. Alternatively, if the Bible is unreliable, Islam must be false, because the Quran tells us that the Bible is reliable and is the Word of God. Either way, Islam is shown to be false.


 

The Second Reason:

 

It is impossible for the Quran to be true because the Quran affirms the inspiration and reliability of the Christian Scriptures (Surah 3:3-4, 5:47, 5:66, 5:68, 7:157, 10:94), as well as man’s inability to corrupt God’s Word (6:114-115, 18:27). Muslims therefore cannot reject what the Bible says, which leaves them Islam in quite a dilemma. If the Bible is reliable, Islam must be false, since the Bible presents Jesus as God. Alternatively, if the Bible is unreliable, Islam must be false, because the Quran tells us that the Bible is the Word of God and that the Word of God cannot be corrupted. Either way, Islam is shown to be false.


 

So according to the Bible, other early Christian writers outside of the Bible, and writings from secular sources, we can see that the Old Testament Prophets, God the Father, angels, demons, Jesus' disciples, and the enemies of Jesus all believed Jesus was Divine, or at least made the claim to be Divine. Then around 600 years after Jesus lived, Muhammad came along and claimed Jesus wasn't Divine and that He never claimed to be. Furthermore, Muhammad contradicted himself. Since Muhammad affirmed the Gospels as inspired and reliable, he contradicted himself by saying Jesus never made those claims when he affirmed the very sources as true that records Jesus making those claims.

 

In short, Muhammad said the Bible is true; the Bible says Jesus is God; Muhammad said Jesus is not God. So if Muhammad was correct about the Bible being true, he was wrong about Jesus. If he was correct about Jesus not being God, he was wrong about the Bible being true. Either way, he has to be wrong.

 

Muhammad stands condemned by the very Scriptures he confirmed to be revelations from God.

 

 

 

About Muhammad Incorrectly Saying He Was Written About in the Torah and the Gospels:

 

Muslims will often say that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible, and this should be expected since Muhammad himself incorrectly taught this (Surah 7:157, 61:6). However, when one reads through the Scriptures it is clear that Muhammad is nowhere to be found. Every attempt that Muslims make to try to find a reference to Muhammad in the Bible falls apart when ones simply reads the context of the verses and studies it out.

 

Some of the places in the Bible that Muslims have tried to say Muhammad can be found in are the books of Deuteronomy, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, and the Gospel of John. Let's take a look at all four:

 

Deuteronomy

 

In Deuteronomy 18:15 and 18:18 Moses said that God will raise up a prophet like him. Muslims say these verses are talking about Muhammad, but in reality these verses are actually talking about Jesus. Here are 5 problems with the claim that Moses was talking about Muhammad:

 

1) In Deuteronomy 34:10-12 it tells us what Moses was like, thus telling us what a prophet like Moses would be like: it's one that would know God face to face. Muhammad obviously didn't meet this requirement. Not only did Muhammad not know God face to face, but his supposed revelations didn't even come directly from God. Instead, Muhammad's supposed revelations came through the mediation of the angel Gabriel. Interestingly, just two verses down in Deuteronomy 18:20 God tells us what the criteria are of being a false prophet: it's somebody who speaks a word in God's name that He didn't command, and somebody who speaks in the name of other gods. According to Islamic sources, Muhammad is guilty of both of those in what's commonly referred to as the "satanic verses."

 

2) Muhammad also contradicted what Moses said. Muhammad taught another God than Moses did. Moses taught that God is a (spiritual) father (Deuteronomy 32:6), that the children of Israel are His children (Deuteronomy 14:1), and that God bore Israel (Deuteronomy 32:18), but Muhammad denied this in Surah 5:18.

3) In Acts 3:19-24, Jesus' disciple Peter also confirmed that this passage in Deuteronomy is referring to Jesus. So even Jesus' followers confirmed that this passage was talking about Jesus, not Muhammad.

 

4) In Surah 28:48 the people asked Muhammad to perform a miracle like Moses, and he would not. In fact, Muhammad actually made an excuse for not performing a miracle like Moses. He said since the people rejected the miracle of Moses, then there is no reason for performing a miracle like Moses because the people would just reject that as well. It's interesting that people during the time of Muhammad even noticed that Muhammad was not like Moses.

 

5) Finally, in the same passage just two verses down, Deuteronomy 18:20 also says that the one who speaks a word in God's name that He didn't command and who speaks in the name of other gods should be put to death. So again, not only was Muhammad not like Moses, but Moses would have actually had Muhammad put to death for being a false prophet because Muhammad once delivered a revelation that promoted polytheism by acknowledging the three goddesses al-lat, al-uzza, and manat (Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, pages 165-167; al-Tabari, Volume VI, pages 107-112; Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, on Surah 22:52-53). Later, Muhammad claimed that Satan had tricked him, and then receives another convenient revelation absolving him of that false revelation by saying that all prophets have said wrong things before because of Satan (Surah 22:52).

 

 

 

Song of Solomon

 

Some Muslims will try to say that Muhammad is mentioned in Song of Solomon, but this claim is about as desperate as it gets. In Song of Solomon 5:16 it says, "His mouth is most sweet, and he is altogether desirable. This is my beloved and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem" (ESV).

 

The phrase “altogether desirable” in Hebrew contains the word "machmadim," and "machmadim" sounds like the Arabic name "Muhammad." Some Muslims will play phonetic games and say that this is a reference to Muhammad, but this reasoning is ridiculous and is a sign of desperation. Just because a word in Hebrew sounds similar to a word in a completely different language (like Arabic), doesn't mean that they mean the same thing. Also, if one simply reads the passage in context, it's 100% clear that this is not any reference to Muhammad. Here are 7 huge problems with this claim:

 

1) If the Hebrew word translated as "altogether desirable" (machmadim) in Song of Solomon 5:16 is referencing Muhammad just because it sounds like the Arabic name "Muhammad," then by following this reasoning we must also conclude that Allah is a mouse, because the Hebrew word for mouse is "akbar," which sounds like the last part of the Arabic sentence "Allahu Akbar." So when a Muslim says "Allahu Akbar," they aren't just saying "God is most great," they are, according to this logic, saying "Allah is a mouse." So if this claim is taken seriously and applied consistently, it would show that the God of Islam is a rodent.

 

2) In Song of Solomon 5:16, the phrase “altogether desirable” in Hebrew is the word "machmadim," and this Hebrew word is a third person masculine plural noun that comes from the root word "machmad," and the word is not a proper name (like Peter, John, Muhammad, etc.) Instead, the word functions in this verse as an adjective even though it is a noun, because the word appears in an adjectival clause that describes the love that the women feels toward her husband.

 

3) This passage is a poem that describes the lover as being “altogether desirable," and has nothing to do with Muhammad. To make this verse about Muhammad is to commit eisegesis, which is reading a foreign concept into the text, due to preconceived ideas, that was never part of the original context.

 

4) There are 12 other places in the Old Testament where the Hebrew word "machmad" also appears (1 Kings 20:6; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Isaiah 64:11; Lamentations 1:10, 11; 2:4; Ezekiel 24:16, 21, 25; Hosea 9:6, 16 and Joel 3:5), so to be consistent if "machmad" in Song of Solomon 5:16 is a reference to Muhammad, then "machmad" in the other 12 verses should also be a reference to Muhammad. However, if you insert Muhammad into those other verses they will make no sense. And to make matters even worse for Muslims, if in Ezekiel 24:21 the word "machmad" is referring to Muhammad, then that means God said He would profane Muhammad, because that verse says, "Say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will profane my sanctuary, the pride of your power, the delight ["machmad"] of your eyes, and the yearning of your soul, and your sons and your daughters whom you left behind shall fall by the sword" (Ezekiel 24:21 ESV. Underline added for emphasis).

 

5) Another problem with the claim that Song of Solomon 5:16 is referring to Muhammad is is that in Song of Solomon 5:1, the husband of the lover says "I came to my garden, my sister, my bride, I gathered my myrrh with my spice, I ate my honeycomb with my honey, I drank my wine with my milk. Eat, friends, drink, and be drunk with love!" (ESV) The problem here is that drinking wine is forbidden in Islam because Muhammad said that wine is of Satan (Surah 5:90). So the idea that Muhammad consumed wine when he said it's of the devil is ridiculous.

 

6) In Song of Solomon 5:10-16 the women is describing her husband's body. Why would she suddenly speak of another man in verse 16 while she is enamoring and desiring her husband?

 

7) The Quran claims that Muhammad is mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel (Surah 7:157, 61:6), but the Song of Solomon is neither part of the Torah nor the Gospel. So not only does the context and the original Hebrew make it clear that Song of Solomon 5:16 is not talking about Muhammad, but even if it was this verse still wouldn't validate the claim found in the Quran that Muhammad is mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel.

 

 

 

Isaiah

 

Some Muslims will say that Isaiah 29:12 makes a reference to Muhammad, but if one simply reads the verse in context, it can be clearly seen that this claim backfires spectacularly. In Isaiah 29:12 it says, "And when they give the book to one who cannot read, saying, 'Read this,' he says, 'I cannot read.'" (ESV) Muslims may make this claim because in Sahih Al-Bukhari 1:3 it says that Muhammad couldn't read. However, if this verse was talking about Muhammad, then Muhammad stands condemned. When the verse is read in context, it is clear that this passage is actually talking about God's judgment on people who are rebelling against Him. The people in this passage refuse to obey God, so God judges them by taking away their discernment. So if Isaiah 29:12 was talking about Muhammad, then that means Muhammad is not a prophet, but rather a rebellious man who used his illiteracy as an excuse to stubbornly ignore God.

 

Another place in the book of Isaiah that Muslims claim is a reference to Muhammad is found in chapter 42. In Isaiah 42:1 it says: "Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations." (ESV) Some Muslims will try to say that this verse is talking about Muhammad. They will say this because Muhammad gave himself 99 names, and 3 of those names, they claim, are found in that verse. However, when one simply takes a honest look at this claim and at the context and studies out who this verse is actually referring to, this claim falls apart. First, the Gospel of Matthew explicitly says this verse is talking about Jesus. In Mathew 12:15-21 it explicitly says this verse in Isaiah is referring to Jesus (not Muhammad). So Matthew, Jesus' own disciple, explicitly says this is referring to Jesus. Second, to claim that the names of Muhammad are found in this verse is nonsense. Muhammad gave himself 99 names, so obviously by having an abundance of names it will be easy to find a source that happens to mention those names or something similar. Isaiah was written over 1,000 years before Muhammad's time, so Muhammad just chose names for himself that had already been written down. Think about it, someone from the seventh century gives himself 99 names, 3 of those names happen to be names already mentioned a 1,000 years earlier in the book of Isaiah, then his followers claim the book of Isaiah is talking Muhammad. This claim is ludicrous. I also could easily give myself 99 names, then look back at books written all the way up to a 1,000 years ago, find some books that happen to mention some of the abundance of names I gave myself or something similar, then claim those books were talking about me. This claim is completely ridiculous. Again, Isaiah was talking about Jesus, and this is confirmed by Matthew, Jesus' own disciple.

 

In Isaiah 42:11 it says, "Let the desert and its cities lift up their voice, the villages that Kedar inhabits; let the habitants of Sela sing for joy, let them shout from the top of the mountains" (ESV). Some Muslims will try to use this verse to support the claim that chapter 42 of Isaiah is talking about Muhammad, and the reason for this is because it references "Kedar" and "Sela". Muslims will try to say that Kedar is the region Muhammad was from. However, the region of Kedar was by the Sinai Peninsula in Northwest Arabia, which is too far north (by hundreds of miles) to be the region Muhammad was from. And Sela, Muslims claim, is referring to the city of Medina, the city in which Muhammad died, because there is a mountain in Medina called Sela. However, this again is false. Sela was the capital city of the ancient kingdom of Edom, a kingdom located south of the Dead Sea. Sela (like Kedar) is hundreds of miles north of Medina. So Sela was in Edom, a fact confirmed in 2 Kings 14:7. This verse, talking about Amaziah, who was king of Judah, says, "He struck down ten thousand Edomites in the Valley of Salt and took Sela by storm, and called it Joktheel, which is its name to this day" (ESV). Obviously king Amaziah didn't fight in Edom, then march south for hundreds of miles to conquer some mountain in Medina, then march back north hundreds of miles to return back to Judah. Clearly, Sela is a reference to a city in Edom, not a mountain in Medina.

 

Again, some Muslims will also say that Isaiah 42:13 is talking about Muhammad. However, this is about as clearly false as it could possibly get, and when it comes to this passage it is hard to understand how anyone could dare say such a thing. In one of the most desperate and incredibly deceitful things you'll ever see, a video posted on YouTube by an Islamic channel called "MercifulServant" says that Isaiah 42:13 is talking about Muhammad. In the video they quote the verse, but when they do they conveniently leave out the first two words of the verse and replace them with ellipsis. Why did they do this? Because the first two words explicitly say who the verse is talking about. The entire verse says: "The Lord goes out like a mighty man, like a man of war he stirs up his zeal; he cries out, he shouts aloud, he shows himself mighty against his foes." (ESV) Believe it or not, the Islamic YouTube channel tries to say this verse is talking about Muhammad. However, the beginning of Isaiah 42:13 explicitly says the One this verse is talking about is God. This is why the YouTube channel "MercifulServant" left out the first two words of the verse. This verse explicitly says this is about God, and there is no question about this whatsoever, but in a desperate attempt to defend the idea that Muhammad is a prophet, they purposely hide the first two words of the verse in order to trick people. This is about as bad and disingenuous as it gets, and in the process of trying to defend Muhammad, and ultimately Islam, they ironically committed shirk (associating partners with Allah, which is the unforgivable sin in Islam) because they claimed a verse that is clearly referring to God is actually referring to Muhammad. So either the creators of this video just blatantly lied, or they actually believe that Muhammad is God. Either way, they are wrong.

 

However, the Quran claims that Muhammad is mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel (Surah 7:157, 61:6), but the book of Isaiah, just like the Song of Solomon, is neither part of the Torah nor the Gospel. So not only does the context show that Isaiah is clearly not talking about Muhammad, but even if any of these verses were it still wouldn't validate the claim found in the Quran that Muhammad is mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel.

 

 

 

The Gospel of John

 

Probably the most common place in the Bible where Muslims say that Muhammad is mentioned is in the Gospel of John, Chapters 14 and 16. In those chapters Jesus made references to a "Helper." Muslims will often try to say that this "Helper" is a reference to Muhammad. However, Jesus was actually talking about the Holy Spirit. If one simply reads those chapters in their entirety and looks at those verses in context, it is 100% clear that Jesus was talking about the Holy Spirit. In fact, Jesus actually explicitly said that the "Helper" is the Holy Spirit in John 14:26, a verse conveniently never quoted by Muslims.

 

So the "Helper," who Jesus also called "the Spirit of Truth" (John 15:26, 16:13), is the Holy Spirit that Jesus sent on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:4-5, 8, 2:1-5). The Helper is a Spirit, not a human who would come 600 years later.

 

But things get far worse for the Islamic claim that the "Helper" was Muhammad. If the claim is true that the "Helper" Jesus talked about in the Gospel of John was Muhammad, then this causes 4 huge problems for Muslims:

 

1) In John 14:16 Jesus said God (the Father) will send the "Helper," and Muslims also believe that God sent the "Helper" since they believe the "Helper" was Muhammad. So, if Muhammad was sent by God, and Muhammad was the "Helper" that Jesus talked about, and Jesus sent the "Helper" (as Jesus Himself said in John 15:26), that means Muhammad was sent by Jesus. So this places Jesus in the position of God since God is the one who sent Muhammad and Muhammad was sent by Jesus. So when Muslims say that Muhammad was the "Helper" they are inadvertently equating Jesus with God.

 

2) Jesus says the "Helper" will bear witness about Himself (John 15:26), so if Muhammad was the "Helper" then why would he bear witness about Jesus? 

 

3) Jesus also says the "Helper" will glorify Himself (John 16:14), so if Muhammad was the "Helper" then that would mean Muhammad glorified Jesus, but that would only be appropriate if Jesus was God.

 

4) If Muslims want to quote from the Gospel of John, then why won't they look at what the other parts of John say? If they believe the Gospel of John is reliable enough to quote from it, then they are in trouble because John's Gospel badly contradicts what Muhammad and the Quran say. John affirms the Divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, etc..., yet Muhammad denied all of that. So any attempt to use the Gospel of John to try to support Islam implodes. It's unfortunate that Muslims like to cherry pick verses out of context in order to avoid the inevitable conclusion that Muhammad was a false prophet.

 

In conclusion, when one takes an honest look at the context with an open, unbiased mind, it's completely clear that Moses, Solomon, Isaiah, and Jesus were not talking about Muhammad. Muhammad is nowhere to be found in the Bible, and this simple fact is one of the many reasons we can know for sure that Muhammad was a false prophet.

 

[1] Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2017), 52-53.

[2] Ibid, 52.

 

[3] Ibid, 63-64.

 

[4] Joseph M. Holden and Norman Geisler, The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2013), 283-289, 303-305.

 

[5] Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), 256-259.

 

[6] William Lane Craig and Joseph E. Gorra, A Reasonable Response: Answers to Tough Questions on God, Christianity, and the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2013)

ABOUT US

The purpose of Who Was Muhammad is to shed light on the darkness of Muhammad, the founder of Islam.

CONTACT
SOCIAL MEDIA
  • Twitter Social Icon
  • Instagram Social Icon
  • YouTube Social  Icon

© 2017-2020 WhoWasMuhammad.org