INTRODUCTION:

            All of us have had discussions with Muslims concerning our different beliefs.  If your experience has been like mine, in order to dialogue convincingly with a Muslim, you have had to bring up the thorny question concerning the foundation for his or her beliefs.  And in order to speak to those foundations, you have had to speak to the issue concerning the founder (as far as the Muslim-world is concerned) for those beliefs.

            According to Muslim Tradition (as opposed to historical and scientific evidence) Islam was created by Allah, but the final and truest revelations of Islam were "passed down" (Nazil) to humanity via the angel Jibril (Gabriel), to Muhammad.  Muhammad, therefore is the final authority for Allah's revelation here on earth.

            Consequently, if we are to dialogue with a Muslim it is imperative that we begin with the expounder for their beliefs, Muhammad.  It is he who takes on the mantle of the "seal of the prophets," the final and greatest spokesman for God.

            But where is the proof for such a title?  How is he any different from any other man or thinker or statesman who came before; or after, for that matter?  In Isaiah 41:21-23 we find a challenge to those who claim to come in the name of the Lord.  Isaiah writes:

"Present your case," says the Lord.  "Set forth your arguments," says Jacob's King.  "Bring in your [proofs] to tell us what is going to happen.  Tell us what the former things were, so that we may consider them, and know their final outcome.  Or declare to us the things to come, tell us what the future holds, so that we may know you are gods."

            Like Isaiah in his day, we make the same challenge today, asking Muslims to provide us with proof for Muhammad's prophethood.  Let us then see the case for their argument.

 

            [I]  IS MUHAMMAD A PROPHET?

 

            Muslims point to not just one proof but to a number of areas, which they feel, substantiate their claim to Muhammad's prophethood.  It would be helpful to look at these areas, and come to some conclusion as to whether they are legitimate claims for his prophethood.

 

[A]  THE MUSLIM POSITION:

 

            The name Muhammad, like Ahmed, means "the Praised One."  It is more than likely that this was not his initial name, but was the name attributed to him later on in life once he became the recognized prophet to the Arabs.  Scholars believe that his childhood name was "Amin," named after his mother "Amina" who died when he was 6 years old.

            His father was called "Abdullah," but Muhammad never knew him as he died before he was born.  After the death of his mother Muhammad was brought up by his grandfather, and following his death by his uncle, Abu Talib.  In his youth Muhammad travelled widely with camel trading caravans.  It is at this point, according to Muslim Tradition, that certain things happened to him which were indicators of his special status among men.

 

            [1] A Supernatural Witness points to Muhammad's Prophethood

            When he was three years old, two angels came and took out his heart from his chest, cleaned it with ice water, put it back and left.  In doing so they supposedly prepared him for his mission on earth.

            Another story which comes via Muslim Tradition mentions that after the death of his grandfather Abdu-Mutalib, Muhammad went to visit a Catholic monk with his uncle Abu-Talib.  It is reported that the monk saw a cloud specifically protect Muhammad from the sun.  It was then that he knew that he would be someone special.

            At the age of twenty-five he married Khadijah, a widow fifteen years his senior, who was also his employer.  The marriage was a happy one, and two boys and four girls were born to them, though the two boys did not live to a mature age.  Khadija died after twenty-five years of marriage to Muhammad.  During that time Muhammad never took another wife.

            In 612 C.E. Muhammad became withdrawn and frequently went for meditation to Mt. Hira, which is situated close to Mecca.  Here, according to tradition he had his first revelation.

            In the Mishkat-ul-Massabih, vol.IV, pp.356-357 we read about this first revelation as reported by Aisha, Muhammad's favorite wife:

The first revelation which began to be revealed to the Apostle of Allah was a correct dream in sleep.  He did not see a dream but it came like the morning dawn.  Thereafter loneliness became dear to him and he used to seclude himself to the cave of Hira and engaged therein in deep devotion (and it is divine service) for many nights before he went to his house and provided himself with food therefor.  Then he would return to Khadija and take provision for the like of them (nights) until the truth came unto him while he was in the cave of Hira.  The angel appeared before him and said, "Read."  He said, "I cannot read."  He narrated: Then he took me and pressed me hard till there came great exhaustion on me; thereafter he let me off and said, "Read."  I replied, "I cannot read."  Then he took me and pressed me hard for the second time until there appeared a great exhaustion on me; thereafter he let me off.  He said, "Read."  I said, "I cannot read."  Then he took me and pressed me a third time till there appeared a great exhaustion on me; thereafter he let me off.  He said, "Read in the name of your Lord who created, created man from a clot.  Read and your Lord is the Most Generous, who taught with the pen, taught man what he knew not."  Then the prophet returned therewith, his heart was trembling and he went to Khadijah and said, "Wrap me up, wrap me up."  Then they wrapped him until the dread went away from him.

            Like anyone who had been grabbed by an angel (some traditions say he was grabbed by the throat), he became frightened and ran home to his wife, who had her own rather interesting means of delineating whether he was telling the truth or not.  She put him on each of her hips and asked him if he still saw the angel, to which he said yes.  Then she disrobed in front of him and asked him again, and when he said no, she then believed he was receiving authentic revelations.

            Khadija then took him to a Nestorian monk in Mecca, named Waraqa ibn Nofal, who was translating the book of Matthew into Arabic at the time.  He, upon questioning him, confirmed that Muhammad was indeed a prophet.  Unfortunately this monk must not have translated Matthew 24:24 by this time.  Had he done so, Muhammad may never have taken the route of prophethood.

            These above accounts, according to Muslim Tradition, are how Muhammad obtained his authority to begin his ministry, and how he received credibility as a prophet of God, and more than that, as the penultimate prophet of God, the "seal of all the prophets" (according to Sura 33:40).

            There are other alleged "proofs" which Muslims point to which substantiate his claim to prophethood:

 

            [2] The Illiterate Creator of the Qur'an points to his Prophethood

            Muslims claim that Muhammad was illiterate.  They reason: "How can an illiterate man compose a book like the Qur'an?"  By this they imply that the authorship for the Qur'an could not have been done by one who could not read, so consequently its composition is a miracle, since it must have come from Allah.  They conclude, therefore, that the miracle of the Qur'an affords Muhammad the right to claim prophethood.

            To better understand this argument, we need to refer to the passage which speaks of his illiteracy.  In Sura 7:157 we read:

Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures); in the Law and the Gospel; for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil: he allows them as lawful what is good.

            In order to understand what the words `unlettered prophet' really mean, we have to take a look at the Arabic text.  In the Arabic it says, an-nabiyyal-ummi.  Nabi is easy to translate.  It means prophet.  That is pretty clear.  The word `ummi,' however, is not so clear.  To discern its meaning we need to refer to another verse in the Qur'an which uses it.  We find it used in Sura 62:2, which says:

It is He who has sent amongst the Unlettered an apostle from among themselves, to rehearse to them His signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom.

            Who are the `unlettered' in this text?  Yusuf Ali's commentary makes it quite clear who these unlettered are.  He says in footnote no.5451, "The Unlettered; as applied to a people, it refers to the Arabs, in comparison with the People of the Book, who had a longer tradition of learning, but whose failure is referred to in verse 5 below.  As applied to individuals, it means that Allah's Revelation is for the benefit of all men, whether they have worldly learning or not."  The word ummiyyun used in Sura 62:2 is the plural form of ummi found in Sura 7:157.  Therefore what we find is that the word ummi was used for people who did not have the scriptures, in contrast to the Jews and Christians.  To put it simply, they were "unscriptured."  Muhammad considered himself to be the prophet to the unscriptured, a prophet to those who had no Book, no revelation; in other words, to the Arabs.  Therefore Sura 7:157 cannot be used as proof that Muhammad was illiterate.

            What we can say is that more than likely Muhammad was literate.  He was responsible for Khadija's caravans, had travelled widely, and must have kept records of his transactions.

            The Hadith of Ibn Sa'd alludes to the fact that he wrote.  Ibn Sa'd states,

The prophet, may Allah bless him, fell ill on Thursday. Thereupon he, i.e., Ibn `Abbas began to weep and say: `Woe be to this Thursday!  What a Thursday.'  The illness of the prophet, may Allah bless him, became severe: he said: `Bring an ink-pot and something [paper or papyrus or any material used for writing] to write on.  I shall [write for you] a document and you will never be misguided. (Ibn Sa'd, p.302)

            This entire argument, however, is rather moot if one considers that the Qur'an which is in our possession today is not the original revelation which was revealed via Muhammad to his followers.  In fact, according to tradition, it is the work of Muhammad's secretary Zaid ibn Thabit, who finally compiled it 14 years after Muhammad's death, during the reign of Uthman.  Where, then, is the miracle in that?

            From an historical perspective the argument falls even further into disrepute, as many historians believe that very little of the Qur'an was actually written by Muhammad, but was rather the result of an evolving set of polemical writings which became canonized in the 9th-10th century, 200-300 years after the life of Muhammad.  Can we claim this a miracle?

            The further one uncovers the facts, the further it becomes clear that the Qur'an is not the miracle which Muslims like to point to as proof for Muhammad's credibility as a prophet.

 

            [3] Prophesying points to his Prophethood

            Another proof of his prophethood, according to Muslims, stems from the fact that Muhammad prophesied events in the future, which then came to pass later on.  Only a prophet of God could know what was going to happen in the future, and therefore Muhammad must be a prophet.  Yet, the only `real' prophecy recorded, which Muslims attribute to Muhammad is that found in Sura 30:1-4, where it is written:

A.L.M.  The Roman Empire has been defeated.  In a land close by; but they (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious.  Within a few years.  With Allah is the decision, in the past and in the future: on that day shall the Believers rejoice.

            This passage refers to the defeat of the Byzantines in Syria by the Persians under Khusran Parvis (in A.D. 615), six years before the Hijra.

            The defeat of the Persians should take place soon- "in a small number of years."  In light of this prediction, Abu-Bakr undertook a bet with Ubai-ibn-Khalaf that this prediction would be fulfilled within three years.  But he was corrected by Muhammad, who stated that the "small number" is between three and nine years (Al-Baizawi).

            Muslims tell us that the Byzantines overcame their enemies within seven years.  However, the fact is that the Byzantines defeated Persia in AD 628 (Al-Baizawi's commentary).  That was twelve years after the prediction of Muhammad.  Consequently, this passage does not qualify as a prophecy, particularly as the time between the prophecy and fulfillment was far too short, and in addition the event was easily predictable.  The odds were only 50/50.

            The other `prophecies' which Muslims point to refer to Muhammad's victories and those relating to the Qur'an itself.  It is nearly impossible to establish whether these prophecies were said before their fulfillment.  Besides, like the previous example, they were either easily predictable, or just war-propaganda.  In this event George Bush might be called a prophet too, for he predicted that the Gulf-coalition would win the war with Iraq.

 

            [4] Miracles point to his Prophethood

            Muslims also claim that Muhammad performed miracles, and this is further proof that he was a prophet.  Interestingly, despite this claim by Muslims, the Qur'an, whose authority they refer to, denies that Muhammad performed any miracles.

            Take for instance Sura 17:90-93.  Here Muhammad is challenged to perform miracles to prove his credibility, and he responds by admitting that he is only a man, an apostle.  There are other similar Suras which speak about the challenge for a sign by unbelievers, followed by Muhammad's angry retort that he was merely a "warner," a "guide," and a "bearer of glad tidings."  (refer to Suras 2:118-119; 6:37 and 124; 13:7; and 17:59).

            The Hadith, on the other hand, reports a number of miracles which Muslims are quick to point to as further proof for Muhammad's authority.  In Mishkat IV page 411 we read:

The prophet was looking while riding upon his mule like one eagerly longing to kill them.  He said: `This was when the blood boiled in veins.'  Thereafter he took some pebbles and threw them at the faces of the infidels and then said: `Be routed, by the Lord Muhammad.'

And in Mishkat IV pages 419-420 we read:

Anas reported: A man wrote to the prophet that he turned an apostate from Islam and joined the infidels.  The prophet said: `Verily the earth will not accept him.'  Abu Talhah informed me that he had come to the land wherein he died.  He found him thrown outside.  He said: `What is the matter with him?'  They said: `They buried him several times but the earth did not accept him.'

            But probably the most popular miracle which has been passed down by the hadith and fomented by Muslims even today, is the splitting of the moon by Muhammad.  It is recorded in Sahih Muslim IV, pg.1467:

This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of `Abdullah b. Mas'ud (who said): We were along with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) at Mina that moon was split up into two.  One of its parts was behind the mountain and the other one was on this side of the mountain.  Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to us: `Bear witness to this.'

            The splitting up of the moon is not simply a fable from the Hadith, but is alluded to in the Qur'an as well.  Sura 54, which is titled "The Moon," begins by saying, "The hour (of judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder..."  From the context it is obvious that this was meant to be a sign, but people rejected it as such and in their desire to create some supernatural proof for their faith interpreted it word-for-word.  Even today you will hear Muslims claim that the American astronauts, upon landing on the moon took pictures of a large crack, or fissure on the moon's surface, which is what remains from Muhammad's split.

            These reports, for Christians, sound very much like the legendary stories of the New Testament Apocrypha.  Though they are well-meaning reports, they are often very fanciful in character.  However, they lack one simple ingredient: authenticity.

            The Apocrypha primarily dates from the 2nd century C.E. (i.e. 70-170 years after the death of Jesus).  The Hadith, on the other hand, was compiled approximately 250-300 years after the Hijra.  Before that time all material and stories were passed down from generation to generation by oral tradition.  Is it no wonder, then, that with each passing generation more was added to the story in order to enhance the image and character of the prophet?

----------

            Can we, therefore, say that these four proofs put forward by the Muslims give validity to Muhammad's claim as a true prophet?  I think not.  Yet, according to Muslim Tradition these stories are all that are needed to give Muhammad the title "Rasu-ul-Allah."

            I dare to differ.  From our discussion above it is clear that the early supernatural witnesses are probably apocryphal additions from later Muslim Traditions, while the claim for Muhammad's illiteracy, though debatable, considering his background and vocation, misses the point entirely, since (according to the new research coming out of SOAS) the Qur'an was never written by him anyway.  His claim of prophesying, furthermore, is as valid a claim as either you or I could give, considering he never went beyond a 50/50 odds.  And the miracles attributed to him are so incredulous that they speak more to the times of the later tenth century polemical traditions then those of the seventh century Arabic isolation.

            Obviously the Muslims will need to come up with better defenses then these for substantiating Muhammad's prophethood.  Yet that is not all, for we as Christians are also interested in the question of prophethood.  It is and always has been in our best interest to delineate who exactly is a true prophet, for we have been warned to be watchful for false prophets who will come our way (Matthew 24:24).  Let's then look at some of the criteria which our scriptures give us for describing a true prophet.

 

[B]  THE CHRISTIAN POSITION:

 

            Let me begin by asking you a question.  How would you define a prophet?  Better yet, how would you know one if you saw him, or her?  Would he or she be someone who is learned, perhaps wearing a beard (if a male), perhaps dressed in a white robe, and carrying a staff, with fiery eyes and booming voice, speaking with "thees" and "thous"?  That is how Hollywood has portrayed a prophet.  But is this the criteria God has given for a prophet?  Is this the type of man God has chosen to represent Him on earth, to carry His message to the world?

            What I would like to do now is try to answer the question of who, according to the scriptures, exactly qualifies to be called a prophet?  Surely, if God had sent individuals to be His representatives on earth, He would have given us criteria by which we could recognize them, a means by which we could know who truly was His and who truly was not.  Let's then go to the scriptures, His revelation to us, to find who God delineates as a true prophet.

 

            [1] Who Qualifies as a true Prophet of God?

(Amos 3:7) Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing His plan to His servants the prophets.

            Both Muslims and Christians would agree with this verse from Amos.  God uses prophets to fulfill His purposes on earth.  At times individuals are used to prophecy specific events (such as Miriam, Balaam, and Saul in the Old Testament, and Anna in the New Testament-Luke 2:36).  The office of a prophet, however, is a specific task given to only certain chosen men.  Many of us know the names of the more famous prophets, such as: Moses, Abraham, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Yahya (John the Baptist) and so on...  Muslims would add to our list of prophets another name, that of Muhammad, whom they believe is the final and greatest of all prophets.  According to the Qur'an, we read,

(Sura Al Ahzab 33:40) Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets.

            Today we need to ask how it is that these men have come to have the office of prophet?  What gives them the authority for calling themselves prophet?  When we go to the scriptures we find that God delineated as qualifications for the office of prophet four categories:

            1) a prophet must be born in the prophetic race,

            2) he must speak in the name of God,

            3) his message must conform to the message which has gone before, and

            4) there must be verifiable accomplishments to the prophet's predictions.        Let's go through each of these four categories one-at-a-time.

 

            (a)  A PROPHET MUST BE BORN IN THE PROPHETIC RACE

            To begin with, a prophet must be born within the line or race of the prophets.  The Bible speaks specifically what this line is.  In Genesis 12:1-3, we see that this refers to the family of Abraham (see also Galatians 3:8), and then carries on through his son Isaac (Genesis 17:2,7-8,15-21; 21:10-12; 22:2).  The Qur'an, in Sura Al `Ankabut 29:27, also speaks specifically of this prophetic line, saying: "and we bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and We establish the Prophethood and the Scripture among his seed" (also Sura Al Jathiyah 45:16).

            As we continue on in Genesis 25:23,31-33; 26:1-2 we find that the alliance passes to Jacob, who is subsequently named Israel (also Genesis 28:13-15; 32:28).  Further on, in Genesis 49:1-4,8-10, this alliance passes on to Judah.  In fact, as we continue throughout the Old Testament we find that God's work on earth runs uniquely through the line of Isaac and Jacob.  It is their lineage alone that God uses for His work on earth.  Even in the Deuteronomy 18 where Moses promises a prophet like unto him, it says specifically that the prophet would come "from among your own brothers," an Israelite of the line of Jacob.

            Continuing this theme further we read in 2 Samuel 7:4-16 and Psalms 89:35-38 that God's alliance with humanity passes to David, and is finally fulfilled in Jesus Christ 1,000 years later (see Matthew 22:42).

            Nowhere in any of those passages do we find any other line mentioned or acknowledged as being chosen for the office of prophethood.

 

            (b) A PROPHET MUST SPEAK IN THE NAME OF GOD

                        (=YAHWEH or JEHOVAH)

            Secondly, a prophet of God must speak in the name of God, the unique name which He gave His creation to use.  What exactly is that name?  Traditionally it was known as the "Tetragrammaton" (YHWH).  Today we spell it Yahweh or Jehovah depending on which vowels are used.  This is the Hebrew name for God revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai (in Exodus 3), consisting of the four consonants YHWH.  We don't know what vowels were used as it was never spoken audibly, due to the fact that it was regarded by the Jews as too sacred a name to be pronounced.

            In Exodus 3:1-6, 13-15, where God talks to Moses at the burning bush, we find God referring to Himself as "I am" which in Hebrew means "YAHWEH," or in English The One Who Is.  This is very significant.  What God is saying here is that this name signifies His complete self-existence, that He has no dependence upon any other.  Being self-existent, He cannot but be self-sufficient, and therefore, all-sufficient.  No-one can claim to be self-existent but God, and thus no-one can claim this name.  It is uniquely His.

            God continues by saying that "this is my name for ever," signifying that it is His eternal name, the name which only God can take for Himself, and the name by which the Jews in Egypt would recognize Him (see also Ps.72:17-19 and Rev. 1:8,17).

            One can now see why the Jews in Palestine were so angry when Jesus made the same claim, calling Himself the "I am" in John 8:24,58.  They naturally picked up stones to kill Him, as He had dared to take this name of God for Himself, and this was blasphemous, a sin which deserved the punishment of death by stoning.

            Muslims are not familiar with the historical context of this name, nor the significance of its meaning, therefore they laugh when they hear Jesus referring to Himself as "I am" in John 8.  It would be helpful to take them back to the Exodus 3 passage of the burning bush, since it is a story which exists in the Qur'an as well.

            If we were to take a survey of the names for God found in the Bible and the Qur'an, we would find a rather interesting contrast.  The General name for God in Hebrew is Elohim, which is mentioned 2,550 times.  In Arabic it is Allah.  The Descriptive name for God in Hebrew is Adonai, meaning Lord, and is mentioned only 340 times.  In Arabic the equivalent is Rabb.  But the Specific and Personal name for God in Hebrew, the name which God Himself asked Moses to use when referring to Him, is Yahweh, which means "the One who Is."  This name is repeated 6,823 times in the Old Testament alone!  Look it up for yourself.

            (note: in our English translation, Yahweh can be identified easily.  Every time the word "LORD" is capitalized, that signifies Yahweh).  Thus all of the ancient Biblical prophets speak of God using this name.  However, this name for God is not used even once in the Qur'an, and has no equivalent in the Arabic language, the language Muslims claim God speaks.

 

            (c) A PROPHET'S MESSAGE MUST CONFORM TO PREVIOUS REVELATION

            A third qualification of a prophet concerns his message.  A prophet's message, in order to be credible must conform to the revelation which God had revealed before.  God's word must remain consistent, in other words unchanging, otherwise it becomes useless, a tool in the hands of corrupt rulers and would-be prophets, bending and swaying with the whim of succeeding generations.

            The unchangeability of God's word is often repeated in the scriptures.  In Deuteronomy 4:1-2; Isaiah 8:20; Matthew 5:17-18; 24:35; and Revelation 22:18-20 we find warnings not to change or delete God's Word.  God's Word must remain constant.  In Psalms 89:35 we read that God cannot contradict His word. 

            The Qur'an, as well, agrees with this directive in Suras Al An'am 6:34 and Yunus 10:64.  In Sura Qaf 50:28-29 Allah is quoted as saying: "I had already in advance sent you warning; the Word changes not."  In fact, the Qur'an claims that it was sent to guard the former revelations (Al Ma'idah 5:47-51).  Thus, that which the prophets revealed cannot be contradictory.  If it is, it must not be trusted.

            There are, however, many Qur'anic stories which contradict the Biblical account (the revelation which came before).  We don't have time to go into all of them here, but perhaps it would be helpful to just relate a few of the more relevant ones:

  1) Many contradictions are found concerning Abraham:

   a) Abraham's father is wrongly called Azar, instead of Terah (Al An'am 6:74 vs. Genesis 11:26).

   b) He did not raise his descendants in the valley of Mecca, but in Hebron (Genesis 13:14-18).

   c) His hometown was not called Mecca but Ur in Chaldea.  Even the secular-Ebla tablets found in Syria recently give proof for this (see Genesis 11:31).

   d) He wandered through Haran, not Arabia, and he went to Canaan, not to Mecca's valley.  The Ebla tablets prove this as well (Genesis 11:31 & 12:5)

   e) He was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac, and not Ishmael, as the Lord was to make His covenant with the Son brought about by His making, and not the son of the Egyptian slave, Hagar (see Genesis 17:18-21 & 22:2).

   f) There is no record that he and Ishmael went to Arabia and built the Ka'ba in Mecca, though he did spend some time in Egypt (Genesis 12:10).

  2) Muslims assume that the Arabs are Ishmael's descendants.

   a) Yet, according to the best historical records, the first father of the Arabs was Qahtan or Joktan.  Some of his sons names are still found in geographical locations in Arabia today, names such as Sheba, Hazarmaveth, Ophir, and Havilah.

   b) Furthermore, Abraham's nephew Lot is another ancestor of the Arabs; as is Jacob's twin brother Esau, the father of the Edomites and the Moabites.

   c) Finally, Keturah, Abraham's third wife, had six sons who all became forefathers of Arabs (i.e. Sheba and Dedan, located in Yemen)(Genesis 25).

  3) Other errors are found in the Qur'an which contradict the Biblical account:

   a) In the Qur'an Mary is recorded as the sister of Aaron and the daughter of Imran, as well as the mother of Jesus (Sura Maryam 19:28). Yet, the Mary of the Qur'an depicted as the mother of Jesus is 1,570 years removed from the Mary, the sister of Aaron (also referred to Miriam in the Bible).

   b) Haman, which is not an Egyptian name but Babylonian, is mentioned as the Wazir of the Pharaoh in Suras 28:5; 29:38: 40:25,38, yet the book of Esther correctly lists him as an official of king Xerxes, in Babylon.

   c) The Qur'an presents a confused and often contradictory view of the Holy Spirit.  It is called God's own breath (15:29), the angel Gabriel (19:17), and the divine inspiration (16:2).

            These are only some of the examples we could give, but they do point out that there are very real problems concerning the conformity of God's revelation relating to these two scriptures.

 

            (d)  A PROPHET'S PREDICTIONS MUST BE VERIFIABLE

            The final qualification of a prophet deals with the veracity of the prophet's message, whether what he says can be verified.  A prophet shows his authenticity by predicting events which can be verified by witnesses.  Those predictions which cover the longest duration are the most relevant and valuable for us, and therefore we tend to focus on them.  Yet, according to the principle which is announced in Deuteronomy 18:21-22; Isaiah 43:9; and John 13:18-21, it is important that there are other predictions which are short-term, which can be verified by contemporary's of the prophet.  These predictions serve to identify him immediately as a prophet, and so give credibility to the longer, future predictions.

            When we take the example of Moses, we find that his prediction of the death and defeat of the Egyptian army was immediately fulfilled (Exodus 14:13-14,27-28).  The same can be said of the prophet Isaiah, who prophesied that God would hold back the sun for ten steps (or hours) to permit Hezekiah to defeat his Assyrian enemy.  It was fulfilled the same day (Isaiah 38:5-8).  Another prophecy by Isaiah, concerning the rout of 185,000 of Sennacherib's soldiers came to pass the next morning (in Isaiah 37:21-38).

            Imagine if you had been with Moses or Isaiah at the time these prophecies were fulfilled.  How would you have felt?  I'm sure your estimation for these two men would have increased dramatically.  That was one of the reasons for these prophecies.  It gave immediate credibility to him who was making the prophecy.

            Someone could say that it is simple to predict a victory or defeat of an enemy; as one has a 50% chance of being correct.  Therefore other predictions were required to substantiate the claim of the prophet, especially for later generations who did not have the ability to know the prophet first-hand.  In Deuteronomy 28:1,15,64-66, and 30:1,4-5, Moses offers a prophecy concerning God's blessings and curses for the Children of Israel, depending on whether they obeyed or not.  These curses were fulfilled far into the future, centuries later and consequently did not benefit those who initially heard the prophecy.

            A prophecy by Isaiah to Hezekiah, concerning the captivity and enslavement of his descendants by the rulers of Babylon was fulfilled 150 years later, in 606 B.C. (Isaiah 39:6-7).

            Even the prophecy concerning the fall of Babylon was fulfilled 200 years later.  In fact some believe its fulfillment continues on until today (read Isaiah 13:1,19-20).

            Babylon was destroyed in 539 B.C., 200 years after the prophecy was made by Isaiah.  Interestingly, however, up until now, 2,500 years later, no-one has ever tried to live there.  The Arabs even refuse to stay overnight, yet they know nothing of this prediction since it does not exist in the Qur'an.

            Finally we come to another prophecy which some believe is being fulfilled in our lifetime (see Isaiah 11:11-12).  This prediction was given by Isaiah in 750 B.C., over 140 years before the first dispersion which occurred in 606 B.C.  We know from historical records, and the scriptures that the first return was in 536 B.C.  History also tells us that the second dispersion was in 70 C.E., while, according to some, the second return began towards the beginning of this century, in 1900, and continues till today.

            These prophecies are especially helpful for us today, thousands of years later, as we, in hindsight can see the authenticity of Moses's and Isaiah's calling.  Due to the fact that what they said so long ago has been fulfilled and are even now being fulfilled, what they say on other matters then takes on added credibility, because we know that they are truly men of God, who are being used by Him.

            Since God's fingerprint can be evidenced in those fulfilled prophecies, His fingerprint can then be ascribed to the other claims which these men of God assert.

            An interesting point needs to be interjected here; why were there so many verifications given by God for Isaiah?  The reason must be that he has a unique place among all the prophets, because it is he who predicts, more than any other prophet:

            1) the coming of Jesus (prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 & 9:6, and fulfilled in Matthew 1:22).

            2) It is Isaiah who predicts Jesus's death (prophesied in Isaiah 35:4-5 & 53:1-12, and fulfilled in Luke 7:18-22, 24-27).

            3) And finally, it is Isaiah who predicts Jesus's resurrection (prophesied in Isaiah 53:11, and fulfilled in Luke 18:33; 24:6-7).

            There was no doubt that these were truly prophets of God, as they spoke of things which only God could have known, both immediately so that the people of their time could identify them as prophets, and in the long term so that we today can acknowledge the hand of God in their lives and ministry.

 

  [2]  Which of these Biblical Qualifications does Muhammad Demonstrate?

            The question then must be asked: which of these four Biblical qualifications does Muhammad demonstrate?  Was he born in the prophetic race, did he speak in the name of God, did his message conform to the message which had gone before, and was there any verifiable accomplishments to the prophet's predictions?

 

            (a) Was he born in the line of the Prophets?

            To begin with, we must ask the question whether he was born in the line of the prophets?  Sura 29:27 mentions that prophethood and the scriptures came uniquely through the seed of Isaac and Jacob (Sura 45:16 concurs with Sura 29).

            There are no Muslims, that I am aware of, who believe Muhammad was a descendant of Isaac.  While there is an ongoing discussion concerning the veracity of the claim for Muhammad's descendence through Ishmael, this view is, nonetheless, widely held by Muslims today.  Yet, this is a moot point, since according to both the Bible and the Qur'an, all the prophets came in the line of Isaac, fulfilling the promise to Abraham in Genesis 17:20-21, that only through Isaac, and not Ishmael would the alliance with the Lord be fulfilled.

 

            (b) Did he speak in the name of "the eternal," YAHWEH?

            Secondly, did Muhammad speak in the name of God, using that name which God gave as a signature for His authority, the name Yahweh?  Though the term YHWH was used 6,823 times in the Bible, it is not used once in the Qur'an, and perhaps was not even known by Muhammad, since if he was supposedly illiterate in his own language, Arabic, it is hardly likely that he would have been able to read Hebrew.

            Yet, is it not curious that Muhammad, the "seal of the prophets," he who was commissioned to bring the `final revelation' did not even know the name of the God by whom he was commissioned?  Is it not also curious that the God of Abraham, Isaac, Moses and David would go to the trouble of revealing His unique name in the Hebrew language, which was then passed down from generation to generation, up to the present day, yet somehow this name was forgotten or never revealed in the language which Muhammad claimed was God's special language, Arabic?

            Moses could speak to the Israelites in Egypt with credibility because he spoke in the name of God.  Why then did Muhammad presume that the descendants of those Israelites living in Medina would accept him as their prophet if he didn't even know the true name of God?

            Would you accept my authority as a teacher of Christian apologetic, if I never once mentioned the name of God, nor even knew that the name existed?  Of course not!

            A prophet, by definition is one who comes with a message which is not his own (the Arabic word for prophet, Rasul means "the sent one").  Consequently, in order to give meaning to the message, there needs to be a sender, a person who created the message, whose signature goes along with the message to identify it as coming from Him.  If I did not know who it was who sent me, my message would certainly lose its credibility.  If I spoke as a Christian yet did not know the name of Jesus Christ, I would be a pretty miserable creature, and not worthy of my vocation.

            In much the same way Muhammad's message completely loses its credibility since he was never even aware of the name of the sender, Yahweh, the One Who Is.

            Consequently, if Muhammad did not even know the name of God, nor was God's true name even used in the language of Muhammad, then how could he claim to be truly from God?

 

            (c) Did Muhammad's revelation conform to the message which had preceded him?

            Thirdly, did Muhammad's revelation conform to the message which had preceded him via the former prophets?  We have seen that there are many contradictions between the Qur'an and the Bible, the most damaging of which concern who Jesus is, and the reason for His mission on earth.

            Both the Bible and the Qur'an agree that God's word cannot change, and certainly must not contradict that which has gone before.  Why then do we find all these contradictions?

            If Muhammad is responsible for receiving these contradictory revelations from God, does it not put suspicion on his veracity as a true prophet?  Certainly it does.  If God had got the story right through the thousands of generations from Abraham to Jesus, with each successive prophet agreeing with and verifying that which had preceded him, then why all of a sudden did God get it so wrong less then 700 years later with the prophet Muhammad?

            Neither Muslims nor Christians would blame God for the contradictions.  The blame must be placed on the messenger.  Either all the previous prophets got it wrong, or the one who came at the end did.  It beggars belief to think that for thousands of years the Jewish prophets were consistently revealing corrupted stories which all agreed in content, with not even once trying to correct the seeming errors; yet, finally, the last prophet got it right, and brought the message back to what God had intended all along.  It reminds me of the mother, who watching her son in a parade whispers over to her friend, "Oh look, everyone's out of step but my Johnny boy!"

            If a prophet's message goes against previous predictions, he then can no longer qualify as a true prophet.

 

            (d) Were any of Muhammad's predictions verifiable within his lifetime?

            And finally, were any of Muhammad's predictions verifiable within his own lifetime?  Although Muhammad, on occasion, predicted the victory of Islam in the battles which were fought in Arabia, there are no other precise predictions which we know of which demonstrate that his authority came from God (the victory of a battle has a 50-50 chance of being correct, or not).  In fact, this was a cause for concern even for Muhammad, who, numerous times in the Qur'an mentions the distrust by others of his inability to produce a miraculous sign which would substantiate his authority (see Suras 10:21, 13:7 & 13:27).

            There is little evidence from our scriptures which show that Muhammad had authority to claim prophethood.  He was not born into the line of Jacob, nor did he speak in the name of Yahweh, nor did his revelations conform to the message which preceded him, and his predictions were not verifiable.

            What, then, must be our conclusion?  In Matthew 24:24-25 we read "...false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect...See I have told you ahead of time."  In Deuteronomy 18:19-22 we find an even stronger warning:

If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.  But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.  You may say to yourselves, `How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?'  If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.  That prophet has spoken presumptuously.  Do not be afraid of him.

 

            [II]  QUESTIONS CONCERNING MUHAMMAD'S PROPHETHOOD

 

            In this paper we have been asking the question of whether Muhammad could qualify as a true prophet of God.  We posed the Muslim positions that he could: because of the supernatural witness to his prophethood during his early childhood, because of the fact that he delivered the Qur'an though he was illiterate, and because both his prophesies and miracles pointed to his prophethood.

            After presenting rebuttals to all four of these positions we followed up with four criteria of our own, taken from scripture, to ascertain what God considers the qualities of the office of a prophet are.  These were that he must be born in the prophetic race, that he must speak in the name of Yahweh, that his message must conform to previous revelations, and that his predictions must be verifiable.  We concluded that Muhammad could not qualify in any four of these categories.

            Now we take that same argument further, and ask some disturbing questions as to whether Muhammad could qualify to be a true prophet of God, not just for the Arabs, but for the world as a whole.  We begin, then, with that very point.  Was Muhammad called to be a prophet for the whole world, or was his calling only limited to that of Arabia?

 

[A]  WAS MUHAMMAD A SPECIFIC OR UNIVERSAL PROPHET?

 

            When we read the Qur'an we find that Muhammad understood himself at first to be a warner to Arabia in the succession of the Biblical prophets.  It is evident from these passages in the Qur'an that he considered his duty was that of bringing the same message which can be found in the Bible, but now within the Arabic language.  The Taurat was a book for the Jews, the Injil a book for the Christians, and now the Qur'an was a book for the Arabs.  This was his initial understanding.

            Let us look at some of the earlier suras which seem to point out that Muhammad's specific task was simply to warn, and at the same time reveal Allah's word in not just any language, but specifically the Arabic language:

Sura 2:119= "Verily, We have sent thee in truth as a bearer of glad tidings and a warner: but of thee no question shall be asked of Companions of the Blazing Fire."

Sura 14:4= "We sent an apostle except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them."

Sura 17:93= "Say: `Glory to my Lord! am I aught but a man, an Apostle?"

Sura 26:195,196= "In the perspicuous Arabic tongue.  Without doubt it is (announced) in the mystic Books of former peoples."

Sura 27:91= "For me, I have been commanded to serve the Lord of this City, Him Who has sanctified it and to Whom (belong) all things: and I am commanded to be of those who bow in Islam to Allah's Will,"

Sura 42:7= "Thus have We sent by inspiration to thee an Arabic Qur'an: that thou mayest warn the Mother of Cities and all around her,"

Sura 43:3= "We have made it a Qur'an in Arabic, that ye may be able to understand (and learn wisdom)."

Sura 46:12= "And before this, was the Book of Moses as a guide and a mercy; and this Book confirms (it) in the Arabic tongue; to admonish the unjust, and as Glad Tidings to those who do right."

            As we continue on through the Qur'an we find that this position changes.  He becomes not just a prophet for the Arabs, with simply an Arabic Qur'an, but enlarges on this idea to now become the universal and the final prophet for all people.

Sura 33:40= "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets, and Allah has full knowledge of all things."

Sura 34:28= "We have not sent thee but as a universal (Messenger) to men, giving them glad tidings, and warning them (against sin), but most men understand not."

            While in Mecca, at least, where the former Suras quoted above were written, Muhammad considered himself as a warner to the Arab peoples.  This position contradicts the claim by Muslims today that Muhammad was always a universal messenger for all peoples in all times.

            The term "Arabic Qur'an" (in Suras 42:7; 43:3 and 46:12-above) seems to presupposes that there was at least one other Qur'an.  This more than likely is referring to the Hebrew and possibly the Greek "Qur'an" (which are the Old and New Testament).  Muslims would not say that they are invalidated by the Arabic Qur'an, but are rather confirmed by it.

            There is a problem, however.  An Arabic Qur'an was not announced in "the mystic books of the former peoples" (Sura 26:196).  To say the least, there is no such book available today which speaks of this "Arabic Qur'an," in contrast to the former "Qur'ans."  Neither was it known at the time of Muhammad, as we have many manuscripts in our possession with which to verify if such an announcement had been made.

            So, initially Muhammad was only a messenger for the Arab people.  He saw the polytheism which were pervasive in Arabia, and sought to eradicate it with the `messages' he was receiving via the angel Gabriel.

            Why then, did he go universal?  There are those who believe this probably came about due to his successes on the battle-field.  As his prominence grew, so did his authority over people who were not necessarily Arab.  In other words, his supernatural monotheistic message, had to keep pace with the natural polytheistic reality on the ground.  Suras 33:40 and 34:28 provided him with the authority to do so.

            A more likely scenario is that the later redactors of the Qur'an imposed this universal application on Muhammad, once the borders of Islam had reached beyond the Hijaz (Arabia).  Without eradicating the Suras which speak of his specific Arabic mission, they simply imposed this new category while applying the law of abrogation to the former Suras.

 

 

[B]  WAS MUHAMMAD A PROPHET OF THE JEWS?

 

            The second question we ask is whether Muhammad was a prophet to the Jews?  In Medina were a number of Jewish groups called the Kahinan.  They were the wealthiest inhabitants of Medina, and lived in fortified forts surrounding the city.  There were three principle tribes living in Medina (according to Muslim Tradition): the Kaynuka, the al-Nadir, and the Kurayza.  They all had good relations with the Jews of the north (especially in Khaybar).

            During his first year in Medina Muhammad devoted considerable attention to the Jewish inhabitants there, describing himself as their prophet, who could be placed in the long line of prophets.

            To appease them, he adopted many of their religious observances.  Some of these were: 1) keeping the 10th of Muharram as a fast day, much like the Yom Kippur fast, 2) performing the 3-daily prayer rituals (versus the two Salats kept by Muhammad before the Hijra, while still in Mecca), 3) the weekly community worship services in the early afternoons on fridays (following the Jewish Sabbath day of preparation).  Note: this also made common-sense since friday was the market day, the day when the largest number of people would have been in Medina.  And finally, 4) Muhammad also adopted the north-facing Qibla, the practice of facing Jerusalem when praying.

            It soon became clear, however, that the Jews in Medina were not going to accept Muhammad's claim to prophethood.  These were for a number of reasons, which we can find in Sura 17:90-93.  The Jews would not accept an Arabic speaking prophet.  They had never accepted Jesus as a prophet, and he was an Aramaic speaking Jew!  So why should they change now?  Their principle requests, as we can derive from Sura 17, was that Muhammad present them with a few "superfluous" miracles.

            In Sura 3:183 and 184 the Jews ask for a sign similar to that of Elijah for proof of his prophethood.  Muhammad retorts that this has always been the way with previous prophets.  In Suras 2:118-119; 6:37,124; 13:7; 17:59 the Jews also ask for a sign, to which Muhammad responds that even if a sign were given, like those of the earlier prophets, they would not believe it.</