Muhammad, Prophecy, and the Theological Criterion of a True Prophet

An academic critique arguing that Muhammad did not fulfill the weightier prophetic expectations of the Judeo-Christian canonical tradition

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba — Shimba Theological Institute

Abstract

This paper examines the claim—advanced here as a theological hypothesis—that Muḥammad of 7th-century Arabia does not meet the canonical prophetic criteria set forth in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament and, therefore, from that Judeo-Christian theological vantage point, should be judged a false prophet. The argument proceeds in three stages: (1) articulation of a rigorous theological-hermeneutical criterion for what constitutes a bona fide prophet within the biblical tradition; (2) analysis of the principal prophetic expectations (messianic, covenantal, and eschatological) found in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament that later figures claiming prophetic status are measured against; (3) a critical appraisal of Muslim claims that Muḥammad fulfills biblical prophecy and of the internal Islamic corpus of prophetic predictions attributed to Muḥammad. The paper concludes that Muḥammad fails to satisfy the substantive prophetic markers (as understood in the canonical Judeo-Christian framework) and therefore, within that framework, must be assessed as a false prophet. Counterarguments are noted and discussed.

Introduction

The question whether a given claimant to prophetic office is genuine or false is not merely historical; it is theological and hermeneutical. For Jews and Christians the test is traditionally not popularity or charisma but conformity to earlier revelation and to the explicit markers of authentic prophecy preserved in Scripture. This study does not attempt to adjudicate the internal piety or moral character of Muḥammad as a historical person; rather it asks whether Muḥammad, as a prophetic claimant, fulfills the canonical prophetic expectations of the Bible and the New Testament. If a claimant fails those criteria, then within that theological system the claimant is properly designated a false prophet (cf. Deut. 13; Deut. 18:15–22; Matt. 7:15–23; 24:24).

Methodological premises and theological criteria for “true prophecy”

For clarity I adopt the following working criteria drawn from the canonical Jewish and Christian traditions:

Conformity to prior revelation (canonical continuity). A true prophet speaks on behalf of YHWH (or, in Christian perspective, in continuity with the self-revelation culminating in Christ). The prophet’s message must cohere with the Torah and the prophetic corpus (Deut. 13; 18:15–22).
Christological fulfillment (for Christian assessment). From a Christian hermeneutic, the ultimate test of prophetic authenticity is conformity to the person and work of Jesus Christ. Messianic and soteriological expectations in the Hebrew Bible that Christians read as fulfilled in Jesus are decisive markers.
Veracity of predictive prophecy. When a claimant asserts predictive prophecy as a credential, the predictions must be specific, verifiable, and not subject to after-the-fact interpretation. Deuteronomy 18:21–22 gives an empirical test: a prophecy that does not come to pass identifies the speaker as a false prophet.
Ethical and theological fruit. Jesus himself taught that the “fruit” (ethical, theological, soteriological effect) of prophetic ministry reveals its origin (Matt. 7:15–20).

These criteria will guide the subsequent examination.

I. Biblical prophecies often adduced for Muḥammad — close reading and theological assessment

Scholars and exegetes (from both Muslim and some Christian apologetic circles) commonly appeal to a small set of biblical passages as prefiguring or predicting Muḥammad. I examine the major ones and evaluate the plausibility of those identifications.

1. Deuteronomy 18:15–18 (“a prophet like Moses”)

Muslim apologetics often claim that Deut. 18:18 — “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren” — points to Muḥammad. The Christian exegesis traditionally understands the passage within Israelite context (a prophet from among Israel or from “their brethren” — commonly read as a reference to a prophet from within Israel’s own covenantal milieu or, in Christian reading, as anticipation of Christ and the prophetic office culminating in Him). Two interpretive difficulties arise for identifying Muḥammad with this text:

Contextual and canonical trajectory. The Deuteronomic promise is embedded within Israel’s covenantal framework and functions as a successor pattern within Israel (cf. Josh. 1; the Moses–Joshua pattern). The broader canonical reading (cf. Acts 3:22–26; 7:37) in the New Testament explicitly applies the promise to Jesus, not to an external non-Israelite figure.
Semantic and typological expectations. The figure “like Moses” implies covenantal, mediatorial, and law-giving functions. Muḥammad’s ministry, while legislative in the Islamic corpus, diverges substantially from the typological expectations Christians derive from Moses culminating in Christ.

From a canonical Christian hermeneutic, therefore, Deut. 18:15–18 cannot plausibly be read as referring to Muḥammad.

2. The “Paraclete” passages in the Gospel of John (John 14–16)

Some Muslim interpreters claim that Jesus’ promise of another “Paraclete” (Greek: Paraklētos) is a prophecy of Muḥammad. The Christian theological tradition reads the Paraclete as the Holy Spirit (see John 14:16–17; 15:26; 16:7–15). Arguments against identifying the Paraclete as Muḥammad include:

Lexical and contextual exegesis. John's immediate context describes the Paraclete as “the Spirit of truth” who will dwell with and in the disciples (14:17), teach, and guide into all truth (16:13). These are spiritual functions incompatible with a human messenger.
Chronological and narrative horizon. The Johannine account situates the Paraclete’s coming as a consequence of Jesus’ ascension (cf. Acts 1–2 and Pentecost), not as an out-of-context arrival centuries later in Arabia.

Therefore the Christian exegesis holds that John’s Paraclete is not a prediction of Muḥammad; reading it thus stretches both grammar and narrative logic.

3. Old Testament “nations” and ambiguous oracles (e.g., Isaiah, Psalms, Daniel)

Apologists sometimes appeal to prognostications about a future “light to the nations” or ambiguous oracles as vaguer anticipations of Muḥammad. Two methodological cautions apply:

Vagueness invites retrojection. Highly general texts can be read after the fact to fit many figures; this is not a secure method for establishing fulfilled prophecy according to Deuteronomy’s empirical test.
Canonical interpretive tradition. The Jewish and Christian interpretive histories do not point to Muḥammad for these texts; post-biblical identification requires extraordinary hermeneutical justification which is not supplied in the canonical record.

II. Internal Islamic prophetic claims: predictive prophecy and empirical verification

Islamic primary sources (Qur’an and Hadith) contain reports of Muḥammad making predictions (e.g., predictions of battles, the conquest of Mecca, the expansion of Islam). From a purely historical perspective some of those purported predictions appear to have been fulfilled. This raises the question: if Muḥammad made verifiable predictions that came to pass, does this satisfy Deuteronomy’s test?

Three caveats temper that conclusion:

Selective reporting and retrospective narration. Many hadith and sira traditions were compiled decades after Muḥammad’s death and sometimes shaped by occurrences they narrate; therefore retrospective narrator bias and hagiographic shaping must be considered.
Vagueness and probability. Some reported predictions are either sufficiently vague or concern events with significant probability (e.g., regional conflicts, shifting alliances), allowing post-hoc fitting.
Canonical primacy and theological content. Even if Muḥammad predicted particular events, the biblical test also demands conformity with prior revelation (Deut. 13). Predictions that conflict with prior revelation or that produce theological dissonance with earlier revelation are disqualifying for someone claiming prophetic authority in the Judeo-Christian schema.

Thus, the presence of some fulfilled predictions in the Islamic record is not dispositive in favor of genuine prophecy as judged by the biblical canonical standard.

III. The central Christian test: Christological fulfillment and soteriological claims

For the Christian theological posture, the decisive standard is Christological. Biblical prophecy points forward to the work and person of the Messiah and culminates in Christ (cf. Luke 24:25–27; John 5:39). Two central failures appear when evaluating Muḥammad against this standard:

Denial of the Incarnation and Atonement. Muḥammad’s message (as recorded in the Qur’an and hadith traditions) rejects the Christian claims regarding the divine Sonship and the atoning, substitutionary work of Christ (cf. Qur’an 4:157–158; 5:72; see also Islamic theological sources). For Christians these doctrines are non-negotiable axis points of redemptive history. By denying them, Muḥammad’s message is theologically incompatible with the trajectory of biblical revelation.
Absence of fulfillment of messianic criteria. Messianic expectations traditionally include an everlasting covenant, universal knowledge of God, and the consummation of divine rule (Isaiah 2, 9, 11; Daniel 7). Muḥammad’s career, while establishing a powerful religious and political order, did not fulfill the particular, specific Jewish and Christian eschatological and messianic expectations as those are read in the biblical canon (e.g., unending Davidic reign in the form expected by Israel; universal eschatological reconciliation as interpreted by Christian exegesis).

From a Christian theological vantage, therefore, Muḥammad’s message disconfirms rather than confirms the messianic expectations Christians read into Scripture.

IV. Ethical and theological fruit: fruit-testing the prophetic ministry (Matt. 7:15–20)

Jesus taught discernment by fruit: good trees bear good fruit and bad trees bad fruit. Evaluating fruit must be careful and nuanced; it cannot be reduced to political success or to moral reform alone. Key observations:

Mixed ethical outcomes. The expansion of Islam under Muḥammad and the early caliphate involved both socio-religious reforms and practices that Christian ethics critique (e.g., treatment of certain non-Muslim communities, the normative formulations in Islamic law that conflict with Christian moral theology).
Doctrinal fruit. Theologically, the replacement of Christology with a radically different soteriology and christology is decisive. For Christians the replacement of the gospel by an alternative soteriology is theological evidence against prophetic authenticity.

The fruit test, therefore, when applied within the Christian theological hermeneutic, points away from acceptance of Muḥammad as a true prophet.

V. Counterarguments and their assessment

Muslim exegetes and many modern scholars advance several defenses:

Muhammad fulfilled prophecies in the Qur’an and hadith and thus is authenticated. Response: internal claims within a religious corpus cannot, by themselves, settle disputes between competing religious canons; external corroboration and conformity with prior revelation remain necessary for a Judeo-Christian assessment.
Biblical texts were corrupted or mistranslated; hence Deuteronomy’s promise could refer to Muḥammad. Response: this claim requires proof of wholesale corruption that is historically and textually demonstrable. While textual history is complex, the burden of proof rests with those asserting corruption—or else a claim that invalidates one tradition’s hermeneutical authority cannot be used to validate another.
The Paraclete and other texts were mistranslated from Greek/Aramaic and actually refer to Muḥammad. Response: the Greek term paraklētos has a clear semantic range in the New Testament context; merely proposing a different referent undermines the literary and theological coherence of John’s Gospel and of early Christian interpretive history.

Where counterarguments raise serious academic questions, they deserve scholarly engagement; however, none meets the canonical and hermeneutical standards articulated above.

Conclusion

Assessing Muḥammad from the perspective of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, and applying those traditions’ own internal standards for prophetic authenticity, leads to the conclusion advanced in this paper: Muḥammad does not satisfy the canonical criteria for a true prophet as understood within the Judeo-Christian theological tradition. He fails the tests of canonical continuity, Christological fulfillment, and (in relevant ways) the empirical and ethical tests laid down in Scripture. Accordingly, within that theological frame, Muḥammad must be judged a false prophet.

This conclusion is theological and confessional in nature. It does not assert the illegitimacy of Muslim piety or the sincerity of Muslim faith; rather it applies a particular theological standard (the biblical canon and the Christian reading of it) and finds that Muḥammad does not meet that standard. Honest interfaith dialogue requires clarity about such doctrinal judgments even while upholding charity and scholarly rigor.

Selected references and bibliography

Primary sources

The Holy Bible (useful modern translations: New International Version; English Standard Version).
The Qur’an. Recommended translations: M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, The Qur'an: A New Translation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an (1930).
Ibn Ishāq (as edited and translated by Alfred Guillaume), The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955).
al-Bukhārī, Sahīh al-Bukhārī (select hadith collections for reported predictions and practice).
Muslim primary legal and historical texts: al-Ṭabarī, Taʾrīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk (selected material), and the major Hadith collections (al-Bukhārī, Muslim).

Secondary historical and scholarly works

W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mecca (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953).
W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956).
Fred M. Donner, Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010).
Robert G. Hoyland, In God's Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).
Patricia Crone & Michael Cook, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977) — controversial but useful for methodological discussion.
William Muir, The Life of Mahomet (various editions; 19th century, historically influential in Christian polemics).
N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (London: SPCK, 1992) — for Christian hermeneutical context on prophecy and fulfillment.
John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press) — for prophetic literature and interpretive methods.

Works on prophecy, hermeneutics, and the test of prophecy

James D. G. Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans) — for methodological parallels on fulfillment.
Tremper Longman III, How to Read the Psalms (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press) — hermeneutical considerations for prophetic and poetic texts.
D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic) — helpful for evaluating interpretive errors (e.g., proof-texting).

Author’s note and invitation to dialogue

This paper represents a confessional theological critique written to explore how the biblical prophetic standards bear upon the claim that Muḥammad was a genuine prophet within the Judeo-Christian theological framework. Scholars and interlocutors of different convictions are invited to reply with careful exegesis, historical evidence, and hermeneutical argumentation. Robust discussion that honours both truth-seeking and neighborly respect furthers mutual understanding even where serious doctrinal disagreement remains.

Tuesday, December 2, 2025