A while ago, I hosted a forum for people to openly ask questions about Christianity. My co-host was a friend with a degree in theology, and the invitation was open to anyone curious about the faith. As it turned out, only one person attended—a devout Muslim.
This made for a fascinating evening.
After working through some initial hurdles of communication and mutual understanding, we found ourselves in genuinely interesting territory. Then my Muslim friend made a claim that stopped me cold: the references to the Holy Spirit and the “Comforter” in the Bible, he said, were actually prophecies of Muhammad.
I had never encountered this argument before. We discussed it at length without reaching agreement, and as we parted ways, he encouraged me to look up a video by Ahmed Deedat—a deceased Muslim apologist who had covered these claims in considerable detail.
I did. And what I found was a sophisticated, articulate presentation that clearly persuades many people. Whether or not the arguments hold up under scrutiny, they deserve to be understood on their own terms before being evaluated.
This article is the first in a six-part series. Here, I will present Deedat’s arguments as fairly and thoroughly as I can—not to affirm them, but because honest engagement requires understanding what is actually being claimed. The subsequent five articles will examine each of his major propositions in turn.
Who Was Ahmed Deedat?
Ahmed Deedat (1918–2005) was a South African Muslim apologist of Indian descent who became one of the most influential Islamic debaters of the twentieth century. His public debates with Christian evangelists drew massive audiences, and his pamphlets and videos have been distributed in the millions.
Deedat was known for his charismatic speaking style, his command of biblical texts, and his willingness to engage Christian scholars directly. Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, his influence on Muslim-Christian dialogue is undeniable. Many of the arguments Muslims today use regarding biblical prophecies of Muhammad trace directly back to Deedat’s work.
The video my Muslim friend referenced—and the source material for this series—is available on YouTube. I encourage readers to watch it themselves.
The Five Primary Claims
Deedat’s case rests on five interconnected propositions. Each claims that specific biblical passages, properly understood, point to Muhammad rather than to figures Christians have traditionally identified. Let me present each as Deedat himself frames it.
Claim 1: Muhammad Is Named in Song of Solomon
Deedat’s most striking claim is that Muhammad appears by name in the Hebrew Old Testament—specifically in Song of Solomon 5:16.
The argument runs as follows:
The Hebrew text of this verse contains the word Muhammadim. The suffix “-im” in Hebrew, Deedat explains, functions as a “plural of respect” rather than indicating numerical plurality—similar to how Elohim (God) uses the plural form to convey majesty while referring to the one God. The root word, he argues, is “Muhammad.”
English translations render this word as “altogether lovely,” which Deedat claims is a translation of the meaning rather than a transliteration of the name. He considers this a fundamental error. Proper names, he insists, should never be translated. If a man named “Mr. Black” visits a foreign country, you do not call him “Mr. Swart” in Afrikaans or “Mr. Negro” in Spanish—you preserve his name. By translating the meaning rather than retaining the name, Deedat argues, translators have hidden Muhammad’s presence in Scripture.
Claim 2: The “Comforter” Is Muhammad, Not the Holy Spirit
A substantial portion of Deedat’s argument centers on Jesus’s words in John 16 regarding the coming “Comforter” or “Spirit of Truth.” Christians have universally understood this to refer to the Holy Spirit. Deedat disagrees.
His reasoning proceeds on several fronts:
The condition of arrival. Jesus states, “If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you” (John 16:7). Deedat argues this condition excludes the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit was already present throughout biblical history—with Elizabeth, Zechariah, John the Baptist, and Jesus himself. If the Spirit was already active, why would Jesus’s departure be necessary for the Spirit’s coming? The Comforter, Deedat concludes, must be someone whose arrival genuinely depended on Jesus leaving.
The masculine pronouns. John 16:13 uses eight masculine pronouns in a single verse to describe the Spirit of Truth: “he,” “him,” “himself.” Deedat argues this concentration of masculine language indicates a male human person, not an incorporeal spirit.
“Spirit” means “prophet.” Anticipating the objection that the text explicitly says “Spirit,” Deedat cites 1 John 4:1: “Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits… for many false prophets are gone out into the world.” He argues this verse demonstrates that biblical language uses “spirit” synonymously with “prophet”—a true spirit is a true prophet; a false spirit is a false prophet.
The criterion fulfilled. The test for a true prophet, according to 1 John 4, is one who confesses that Jesus is the Christ. Deedat claims Muhammad meets this criterion because the Quran explicitly identifies Jesus as the Messiah.
Claim 3: Muhammad “Guided Into All Truth”
Jesus told his disciples: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:12–13).
Deedat interprets this as follows:
Jesus had solutions to humanity’s problems but could not deliver them because his disciples lacked the capacity to receive them. The Gospels repeatedly describe the disciples as having “little faith” or failing to understand. The coming one would complete what Jesus could not accomplish with this particular audience.
Deedat then poses a direct challenge: What new truths has the Holy Spirit given Christendom in two thousand years? What concrete guidance has the Spirit provided that Jesus did not already teach?
By contrast, Deedat claims Muhammad guided mankind into “all truth” by providing practical solutions to persistent social problems:
- Alcohol: Islam commands total abstinence, which Deedat presents as a successful solution to drunkenness—contrasting it with the failure of Prohibition in America.
- Racism: The Islamic practices of Salaat (prayer) and Hajj physically integrate people of all races, standing shoulder to shoulder. Deedat contrasts this with historical racial segregation in Christian societies.
- Surplus women: In societies where women outnumber men (due to war or other factors), Islam permits limited polygamy, providing marriage and protection. Deedat contrasts this with Western societies that leave “surplus women” unmarried or involved in illicit relationships.
Claim 4: The Prophet “Like Unto Moses”
Deuteronomy 18:18 records God’s words to Moses: “I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee.”
Deedat argues this prophecy fits Muhammad better than Jesus:
“From among their brethren.” This phrase, Deedat suggests, refers to the Ishmaelites (Arabs), who are the “brethren” of the Israelites through Abraham. A prophet from Israel would be described as from among “you” or “your own people”—“brethren” implies a related but distinct lineage.
“Like unto thee.” The prophet would resemble Moses in significant ways. Deedat argues Muhammad shares key characteristics with Moses that Jesus does not: both brought comprehensive legal codes, both led their communities as prophets and political/military leaders, both had normal births, marriages, and deaths. Jesus, whom Christians affirm as divine, differs categorically from Moses in nature and mission.
Claim 5: The Prophetic Method of Revelation
Deedat’s final argument concerns the manner of prophetic revelation. Citing Isaiah’s declaration that prophets serve as God’s “mouthpiece”—repeating exactly what they are commanded—Deedat parallels this with the Quranic model of revelation.
When Muhammad was asked a question, Deedat notes, he did not answer from his own knowledge. He waited for revelation. The Quran records numerous instances where the response begins “Say:” (Qul)—indicating that Muhammad spoke only what God commanded, not his own opinions.
Deedat presents this as fulfilling the biblical pattern of true prophecy: the prophet does not speak from himself but delivers precisely what God has given him to say.
The Analogy of Mr. Black
To crystallize his linguistic argument about Song of Solomon, Deedat offers an analogy worth reproducing:
Imagine a man named “Mr. Black” travels to a foreign country. If translators render his name by its meaning—calling him “Mr. Swart” in Afrikaans, “Mr. Kala” in Urdu, or “Mr. Negro” in Spanish—they effectively conceal his identity. Locals would assume “Mr. Swart” is a native rather than the Englishman “Mr. Black.”
Deedat claims this is precisely what happened to Muhammad in the Bible. Translators encountered the name Muhammadim, recognized its meaning (“the praised one” or “altogether lovely”), and translated the definition rather than preserving the proper noun. The result? Muhammad’s presence in Scripture became invisible to English readers.
Looking Ahead
These are the claims. Presented straightforwardly, they have a certain internal logic that explains why they persuade many Muslims—and why Christians who encounter them for the first time may feel momentarily disoriented.
But claims are not conclusions. Each of these arguments depends on specific assumptions about Hebrew grammar, prophetic interpretation, historical context, and theological categories. Some of these assumptions are questionable; others are demonstrably mistaken.
Over the next five articles, we will examine each claim in detail:
- Part 2: Is Muhammadim Really a Name? (Song of Solomon 5:16)
- Part 3: Who Is the Comforter? (John 16)
- Part 4: What Does “Guiding Into All Truth” Mean?
- Part 5: The Prophet Like Moses (Deuteronomy 18)
- Part 6: Prophecy, Revelation, and the Nature of Scripture
The goal is not rhetorical victory but clarity. If Deedat’s arguments are correct, Christians need to reckon with them. If they are flawed, Muslims deserve to know why—not through dismissive mockery, but through patient, respectful examination of the actual evidence.
The conversation continues.