The Qur'an says that the coming of Muhammad was written in the Torah and the Gospel possessed by Jews and Christians:

"Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them" (Surah 7:157, Pickthall).

That is not a minor claim. If Muhammad was genuinely foretold in the Bible, Christians must face the evidence. A prophecy does not cease to be true because its fulfilment is unwelcome.

Muslim apologists commonly appeal to four passages:

  • the prophet like Moses in Deuteronomy 18;
  • the Servant and Kedar in Isaiah 42;
  • the promised Comforter in John 14–16;
  • the Hebrew word maḥămaddîm in Song of Solomon 5:16.

Some presentations add other verses, but these are among the most recognisable arguments. They should not be dismissed merely because Christians find them unfamiliar. Each claim must be heard in its strongest reasonable form and then tested by the same elementary rules applied to every other text.

Who is speaking? To whom? Who is the subject? What does the whole passage say about him? How does later Scripture interpret the promise?

A genuine fulfilment must satisfy the prophecy. It is not enough to find an isolated similarity after the prophecy's audience, grammar and defining characteristics have been removed.

What would count as evidence?

It is entirely possible for one person to resemble another in some respects. Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were all male religious leaders. Each opposed unbelief, gathered followers and profoundly affected history. If broad resemblances establish prophetic fulfilment, however, innumerable later figures could be inserted into almost any prediction.

The question is not whether Muhammad can be made to resemble someone mentioned in Scripture. The question is whether the biblical author identifies a future figure by characteristics which Muhammad actually fulfils.

Three standards will govern the examination:

  1. Immediate context: words receive their meaning from the sentences and books in which they appear.
  2. Complete correspondence: the proposed fulfilment must account for the whole description, not one selected feature.
  3. Canonical interpretation: when Scripture itself identifies the fulfilment of an earlier passage, that interpretation cannot simply be ignored.

These standards are not uniquely Christian devices invented to exclude Muhammad. They are the ordinary requirements of responsible reading.

Deuteronomy 18: the Prophet like Moses

Moses tells Israel:

"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" (Deuteronomy 18:15).

God then says:

"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" (Deuteronomy 18:18).

The Muslim claim

The argument has two principal parts.

First, Muhammad appears to resemble Moses more closely than Jesus in certain biographical respects. Moses and Muhammad married, had children, led communities, exercised civil authority and brought comprehensive laws. Jesus did not marry, govern an earthly state or lead an army.

Secondly, "their brethren" is said to include the Ishmaelites, who were related to Israel through Abraham. The promised prophet may therefore arise from Israel's brother nation rather than from Israel itself.

Presented that way, the claim has more substance than a bare assertion. But it fails because it allows a selected comparison to overrule the text's own identification.

"From the midst of thee"

Moses is addressing the covenant nation of Israel. He does not merely say that the prophet will come from a distantly related people. He says, "from the midst of thee, of thy brethren".

The language is clarified one chapter earlier, where Israel is instructed concerning its future king:

"One from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother" (Deuteronomy 17:15).

Here the contrast is between an Israelite brother and a foreigner. "Brethren" is not functioning as an unlimited designation for every nation genealogically related to Abraham. In Deuteronomy 18, the singular Prophet stands within the succession of prophets raised up among Israel, in contrast with the diviners of the surrounding nations (Deuteronomy 18:9–15).

The broader context therefore supplies three mutually reinforcing expressions: "unto thee", "from the midst of thee" and "of thy brethren". Muhammad was not raised up from within Israel.

What makes the Prophet like Moses?

Lists comparing marriage, warfare and political government do not come from Deuteronomy 18. They are selected afterwards because they appear favourable to Muhammad.

Deuteronomy itself closes by explaining Moses' prophetic distinction:

"And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, In all the signs and the wonders, which the LORD sent him to do" (Deuteronomy 34:10–11).

The relevant biblical categories are intimate knowledge of God, divine words, mighty signs and a unique mediatorial office. Jesus does not cease to be like Moses because He did not marry. Scripture presents Him as surpassing Moses while fulfilling the pattern Moses established.

Moses delivered God's people from bondage; Christ accomplishes the greater deliverance from sin. Moses mediated the old covenant; Christ mediates the new. Moses gave the Passover pattern; Christ is "our passover" sacrificed for us (1 Corinthians 5:7). Moses was faithful as a servant in God's house; Christ rules as the Son over His own house (Hebrews 3:1–6).

Scripture names the fulfilment

The matter does not depend only upon resemblance. Peter quotes Deuteronomy 18 and applies it directly to Jesus:

"For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you" (Acts 3:22).

Peter then tells his Israelite hearers that God sent the risen Jesus to them (Acts 3:26). Stephen quotes the same promise while recounting Israel's history and identifies Jesus as the rejected Righteous One whose coming the prophets foretold (Acts 7:37, 52).

A Muslim may reject the authority of Acts, but he cannot claim that the Bible foretells Muhammad while discarding the Bible's explicit identification of the prophecy. That is no longer an argument from the biblical text. It is an argument against the biblical text.

Muhammad is not excluded because Christians devised an unflattering comparison. He is excluded by the stated audience, Israelite setting and apostolic interpretation of the promise.

Isaiah 42: is the Servant an Arabian prophet?

Isaiah introduces the Servant of the LORD:

"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" (Isaiah 42:1).

Later in the chapter we read:

"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" (Isaiah 42:11).

The Muslim claim

Kedar was a son of Ishmael (Genesis 25:13) and is associated with Arabian peoples. Isaiah 42 also describes the Servant bringing law or judgement to the nations and prevailing over his enemies. Muhammad preached in Arabia, established a community governed by revelation and brought the worship of one God to Arabian tribes. The reference to Kedar is therefore taken as a geographical marker identifying him.

This is probably the most plausible-looking of the four arguments because Kedar really does have an Arabian association. The error lies not in noticing Kedar, but in assigning Kedar the wrong role in the passage.

Kedar is not the Servant

The Servant is introduced in verse 1. Kedar appears in verse 11 among the places and peoples summoned to lift up their voices because of the LORD's worldwide work.

The distinction is grammatical and structural:

  • The Servant brings forth judgement to the Gentiles.
  • The isles wait for his law.
  • The wilderness, cities and villages of Kedar raise their voices.

The rejoicing audience is not thereby transformed into the Servant who causes the rejoicing. If London celebrates the arrival of a king, the king does not become a Londoner. Likewise, Kedar's participation in the song does not prove that the Servant arises from Kedar.

Isaiah elsewhere calls the heavens, the earth, the mountains and the forest to sing when God comforts and redeems His people (Isaiah 44:23; 49:13). Such language displays the reach of salvation; it does not identify the Redeemer's ethnicity.

The character of the Servant

The Servant's manner also matters:

"He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench" (Isaiah 42:2–3).

These words portray quietness, gentleness and faithfulness towards the weak. Verse 4 says that he will not fail until he has established judgement, but his mission must be understood as a whole. It is not enough to seize upon judgement, law or later divine warfare and ignore the Servant's stated manner.

Matthew names the Servant

Once again, the Bible supplies an explicit interpretation. After Jesus withdraws from those conspiring to destroy Him and heals the people without seeking public acclaim, Matthew writes:

"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles" (Matthew 12:17–18).

Matthew continues quoting Isaiah through the bruised reed, the smoking flax and the Gentiles trusting in His name (Matthew 12:19–21).

This identification is not based upon one place-name. Jesus receives the Spirit, displays the Servant's gentleness, brings God's revelation to the Gentiles and becomes the object of their hope. The passage's character, mission and inspired interpretation converge upon Him.

Kedar is genuinely present in Isaiah 42. Muhammad is not.

John 14–16: is Muhammad the Comforter?

On the night before His crucifixion, Jesus promises His disciples "another Comforter". The Greek word is paraklētos, which can describe a helper, advocate or one called alongside.

The Muslim claim

Some Muslims argue that Jesus was promising a later human messenger who would complete His teaching, guide people into all truth and speak only what he received from God. They compare this with Muhammad's claim to recite revelation rather than speak from personal desire.

Surah 61:6 says that Jesus announced a messenger to come after Him "whose name is the Praised One" (Pickthall), commonly understood as Aḥmad, a name related to Muhammad. John 14–16 is then offered as the surviving biblical form of that announcement.

A further argument alleges that Christians changed the original Greek word from periklutos, meaning "praised" or "illustrious", to paraklētos, "Comforter". If periklutos were original, it might be connected conceptually with Aḥmad or Muhammad, both derived from an Arabic root relating to praise.

The claim fails at every textual level.

Jesus identifies the Comforter

Jesus does not leave His identity open:

"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 14:26).

The Comforter is the Holy Ghost. No inference is required. The proposed identification with Muhammad contradicts the noun Jesus supplies.

The description cannot fit Muhammad

The surrounding promises make the identification even more decisive.

The Comforter would be given to the disciples and remain with them:

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever" (John 14:16).

He was already present with them and would dwell within them:

"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" (John 14:17).

He would remind those disciples of what Jesus had personally taught them (John 14:26). He would be sent by the Father in Jesus' name (John 14:26), proceed from the Father and testify of Jesus (John 15:26), convict the world concerning sin, righteousness and judgement (John 16:8–11), guide the apostles into truth and glorify Christ (John 16:13–14).

Muhammad came approximately six centuries after those disciples died. He did not dwell within them, bring Christ's teaching to their remembrance or remain personally with them for ever. He was a man visible to the world, whereas Jesus says the world cannot receive the Comforter because it neither sees nor knows Him.

The timing also belongs to the narrative. After His resurrection, Jesus tells the apostles to remain in Jerusalem until they receive "the promise of the Father" and power from the Holy Ghost (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4–8). At Pentecost, the Spirit comes upon them and Peter explains the event as the exalted Jesus pouring out the promised Holy Ghost (Acts 2:1–4, 16–18, 32–33).

John identifies the Comforter. Acts records His coming. Muhammad fits neither.

Was the word originally periklutos?

There is no Greek manuscript evidence that John wrote periklutos in these passages. The manuscripts read paraklētos. The alleged substitution is not a discovered textual variant; it is a conjecture created because the transmitted word does not name Muhammad.

It also fails internally. Changing one noun in John 14:16 would not remove "the Holy Ghost" from John 14:26, "the Spirit of truth" from John 14:17 and 15:26, the promise of indwelling, or the apostolic fulfilment at Pentecost. The theory would require a sustained rewriting of the entire discourse and its continuation in Acts, without leaving manuscript evidence of the supposed original.

Nor does a possible similarity in meaning prove identity across languages. "Praised" is not a unique personal fingerprint. Many people may be praised; that does not cause every occurrence of a related Greek adjective to become a prophecy of one Arabic name.

The Comforter argument does not fail on a technicality. It fails because Jesus explicitly says who the Comforter is and then describes a mission which Muhammad did not perform.

Song of Solomon 5:16: is Muhammad named in Hebrew?

The woman in the Song describes her beloved:

"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem" (Song of Solomon 5:16).

The Hebrew behind "altogether lovely" includes the word maḥămaddîm. Because its consonants are related to those in the Arabic name Muḥammad, some Muslim apologists play an audio recording or transliterate the Hebrew and claim that Muhammad appears by name in the Bible.

Hearing a resemblance is not translation.

Hebrew and Arabic are related Semitic languages. Related words and similar consonantal roots are therefore unsurprising. English speakers would not leave a French word untranslated merely because it resembled an English name.

The Hebrew noun maḥmād refers to something desirable, precious or lovely. In Song of Solomon 5:16 it appears in an intensive plural form and functions as a description: the whole of the man is desirable—hence the KJV's "altogether lovely".

The related word is used elsewhere of precious or desirable things, not of Muhammad. Isaiah speaks of "all her pleasant pictures" (Isaiah 2:16). Lamentations describes sanctuary treasures as "pleasant things" (Lamentations 1:10) and speaks of "all her pleasant things" lost in Jerusalem's ruin (Lamentations 1:11). Hosea speaks of "pleasant places" becoming overgrown (Hosea 9:6).

If the sound must be treated as the name Muhammad in Song of Solomon, consistency would place Muhammad among pictures, possessions and ruined treasures in the other passages. No Muslim interpreter reads the texts that way, because context and grammar forbid it.

The poem is not predicting a prophet

The daughters of Jerusalem ask the woman what distinguishes her beloved from another beloved (Song of Solomon 5:9). She answers by describing him from head to foot:

  • his head and hair;
  • his eyes and cheeks;
  • his lips and hands;
  • his body and legs;
  • his appearance and mouth.

She concludes, "This is my beloved, and this is my friend". Nothing announces a coming prophet, Arabia, a new revelation or events six centuries after Christ. The supposed prophecy exists only when one descriptive word is isolated from the love poem containing it.

Even if someone wished to read the Song typologically as portraying the love between the Lord and His people, that would not turn the Hebrew adjective into Muhammad's proper name. The immediate grammatical point remains unchanged.

Muhammad is no more named in Song of Solomon 5:16 than a person named Lovely is identified whenever the English Bible uses the word "lovely".

Four claims, one repeated method

The four arguments differ in detail, but they depend upon the same procedure.

In Deuteronomy, a list of biographical similarities is allowed to displace "from the midst of thee" and the apostolic identification of Jesus.

In Isaiah, a people summoned to rejoice are turned into the Servant who gives them reason to rejoice.

In John, an unsupported alternative Greek word is proposed while Jesus' explicit identification—"the Holy Ghost"—is set aside.

In Song of Solomon, a Hebrew description inside a love poem is left untranslated and presented as an Arabic proper name.

The pattern is cumulative. At every stage, Muhammad appears only after the controlling features of the passage have been reduced or removed.

That matters because Surah 7:157 places a serious burden upon the Islamic claim. It does not merely say that some later reader might find suggestive resemblances. It says that the unlettered prophet is written in the Torah and Gospel which Jews and Christians have with them.

If so, the identification should survive ordinary reading. It should become clearer as the context is restored, not disappear.

Instead, the opposite occurs.

The strongest remaining objection

A Muslim may answer that Christians interpret their own Scriptures through the New Testament and therefore assume the conclusion. Acts and Matthew identify Jesus because Christian authors naturally wished to claim Jewish prophecy for Him; those identifications cannot be used against Muhammad without circularity.

That objection changes the argument.

If the claim is historical—that Muhammad is predicted by the Bible we possess—then the Bible's own literary context and canonical interpretation are part of the evidence. A Muslim cannot appeal to Deuteronomy, Isaiah and John when a phrase appears useful, then disqualify Acts, Matthew and John's explicit explanations because they are Christian. That selects evidence by whether it agrees with Islam.

Even if Acts and Matthew were temporarily set aside, the proposed identifications would still fail:

  • Deuteronomy locates the Prophet within Israel.
  • Isaiah distinguishes the Servant from the rejoicing villages of Kedar.
  • John calls the Comforter the Holy Ghost and says that He will dwell within the disciples.
  • Song of Solomon uses a descriptive Hebrew noun within romantic poetry.

The New Testament identifications do not manufacture those contextual facts. They confirm the reading already demanded by them.

Another response is that the biblical text was altered to remove clearer predictions of Muhammad. But that abandons these four proof texts rather than defending them. It also returns us to the Injeel problem: where is the earlier manuscript, quotation or textual tradition containing the lost prophecy? A hypothetical corruption cannot turn an unsuitable surviving passage into a suitable one.

The positive biblical fulfilment

The Bible does not leave an empty outline waiting for Muhammad.

The Prophet like Moses is Jesus Christ, raised up among Israel, speaking the Father's words, accomplishing a greater exodus and mediating a better covenant.

The Servant of Isaiah is Jesus Christ, endowed with the Spirit, gentle towards the bruised, bringing judgement and hope to the Gentiles.

The Comforter is the Holy Ghost, sent by the Father and the Son, dwelling within Christ's disciples, testifying of Christ and continuing His work through the apostolic witness.

Song of Solomon celebrates the desirability of the woman's beloved. Its Hebrew vocabulary does not conceal the name of a later Arabian prophet.

This explanation possesses cumulative force because it does not require a new referent for each convenient fragment. It follows the audience, grammar, argument and canonical development of the passages themselves.

The verdict

Was Muhammad foretold in the Bible?

Not in these passages.

The claim from Deuteronomy must remove the Prophet from the people among whom Moses says He will arise and contradict the interpretation given by the apostles.

The claim from Isaiah must confuse Kedar's villages with the Servant they are summoned to praise and pass over Matthew's direct application to Christ.

The claim from John must replace an unattested Greek reading, ignore Jesus' words "the Holy Ghost", disregard the promised indwelling of the disciples and move the fulfilment six centuries beyond their lives.

The claim from Song of Solomon must convert a descriptive Hebrew noun into an Arabic personal name and detach it from the woman's declaration, "This is my beloved".

These are not four independent lines converging upon Muhammad. They are four instances of the same interpretative failure: resemblance is substituted for fulfilment, while context is treated as an obstacle to be escaped.

The contrast could scarcely be sharper. The Christian reading accounts for the whole evidence: the original audience, the identity of the speakers, the grammar, the literary setting, the defining characteristics and Scripture's own fulfilment. The Islamic reading survives only by repeatedly making exceptions to them.

Muhammad is not discovered in these passages by reading what they say. He appears only after what they say has been set aside.

The promised Prophet is Christ.

The Servant is Christ.

The Comforter is the Holy Ghost.

And the Scriptures should be permitted to say so.

---

Primary sources and further reading