In our ongoing examination of Ahmed Deedat’s claims regarding Muhammad in the Bible, we now encounter what may be his most creative—and most revealing—argument. Having addressed the linguistic acrobatics of the “Muhammadim” claim and the contextual problems with identifying Muhammad as the Paraclete, we now turn to Deedat’s sociological case: the argument that Muhammad must be the “Spirit of Truth” because he brought practical solutions to human problems that the Holy Spirit allegedly failed to provide.
This argument deserves careful attention—not because it is exegetically sound, but because it reveals a fundamental difference between Islamic and Christian conceptions of revelation, truth, and salvation.
The Central Question
Can the identity of the “Spirit of Truth” promised in John 16:13 be determined by measuring the practical societal outcomes of a figure’s teachings?
Deedat frames this as a straightforward test: Jesus promised that the Spirit of Truth would “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). If the Holy Spirit were truly this guide, Deedat argues, He would have provided solutions to humanity’s persistent problems—alcoholism, racism, and the demographic crisis of “surplus women.” Since Christianity allegedly failed to solve these problems while Islam succeeded, Muhammad must be the promised guide.
The argument is rhetorically powerful. It appeals to our pragmatic sensibilities: surely divine guidance should work. But beneath this surface plausibility lies a category error so fundamental that addressing it exposes the core difference between the Gospel and its alternatives.
Our Theological Commitments
Before proceeding, transparency demands we declare our interpretive framework:
We approach Scripture as the final authority on matters of faith and practice. We affirm the historic Christian understanding of the Trinity, including the full deity and personhood of the Holy Spirit. We hold that human reason, while a genuine gift, operates under the noetic effects of sin and must be corrected and governed by divine revelation. These commitments are not arbitrary preferences but the necessary conditions for coherent interpretation of any biblical text.
The Argument in Its Strongest Form
Deedat’s case deserves a fair hearing. At its strongest, it runs as follows:
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 the “many things” the disciples could not yet “bear” as practical guidance for human society—laws and regulations that would solve persistent social problems.
He then argues that in 2,000 years of Christianity, the Holy Spirit has failed to provide “new” solutions to three major human problems:
First, alcohol. Deedat notes that Christianity has struggled to address alcoholism, pointing to the failure of Prohibition in America as evidence. By contrast, he claims, a single Qur’anic verse achieved what legislation could not—the immediate and total abstinence of the early Muslim community.
Second, racism. Deedat argues that Christianity failed to prevent racial segregation and apartheid. Islam, through the physical mixing of races in the Hajj pilgrimage and the equality of the prayer lines, solved what Christianity could not.
Third, “surplus women.” Deedat claims that women naturally outnumber men, creating a demographic crisis that forces women into prostitution or perpetual spinsterhood. Islamic polygyny, he argues, is the compassionate and practical solution that the Spirit of Truth would have provided—if the Spirit were truly guiding humanity into “all truth.”
The argument concludes: since Muhammad brought a comprehensive legal code (Sharia) that addressed these issues, and since the Holy Spirit allegedly did not, Muhammad must be the promised “Spirit of Truth.”
Why This Argument Persuades
We should not dismiss the appeal of this reasoning too quickly. Deedat’s argument resonates because it touches on genuine human longings and real failures.
The desire for practical solutions to human suffering is not wicked—it is human. When we see addiction destroying families, racism tearing apart communities, and loneliness afflicting the unmarried, we naturally ask: “What is God going to do about this?” An answer that promises concrete, measurable results carries intuitive appeal.
Moreover, the argument gains traction from the genuine failures of professing Christians. The church has struggled with alcohol abuse, racism, and sexual immorality. Deedat is not inventing these problems; he is pointing to real historical failures and asking why divine guidance did not prevent them.
Finally, the argument appeals to a pragmatic epistemology that pervades modern thinking: truth is what works. If Christianity produces bad outcomes and Islam produces good ones, does that not settle the question? This pragmatic instinct, while understandable, is precisely where the argument goes most fundamentally wrong.
Clarifying the Biblical Categories
To evaluate Deedat’s claim, we must first understand what Jesus actually promised when He spoke of the “Spirit of Truth” guiding His disciples into “all truth.”
What Is “Truth” in John’s Gospel?
In the Gospel of John, “truth” (aletheia) is not a category of societal legislation. It is Christological—centered entirely on the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Jesus declares, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). The truth into which the Spirit guides is not a legal code but the full revelation of who Christ is and what He accomplished. This is confirmed in the very next verse of the passage Deedat cites: “He shall glorify Me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you” (John 16:14).
The Spirit’s function is not to bring new civil legislation but to illuminate the significance of Christ’s person, His atoning death, His resurrection, and the implications of these realities for the people of God. The “truth” is the Gospel.
What Were the “Many Things”?
When Jesus said the disciples could not yet “bear” many things (John 16:12), what was He referring to?
Deedat assumes these were laws about drinking and marriage. But the context makes clear that Jesus was speaking of the theological realities of His own death and resurrection—events that had not yet occurred and whose significance the disciples could not comprehend prior to the crucifixion.
The disciples repeatedly demonstrated their inability to grasp what Jesus had been teaching them. When He spoke of His death, Peter rebuked Him (Matthew 16:22). When He appeared resurrected, they were slow to believe (Luke 24:25). The “many things” they could not bear were the full implications of the Cross, the Atonement, the inclusion of Gentiles, the nature of the Church, and the inaugurated Kingdom—what we now call New Testament theology.
The Spirit’s coming at Pentecost did exactly what Jesus promised: He illuminated these realities, enabling the apostles to write the New Testament and proclaim the Gospel with clarity and power.
The Textual Constraints on Identity
Even if we granted Deedat’s redefinition of “truth” as societal legislation, the text of John 14-16 contains specific descriptions of the promised one that make any human identification impossible:
Invisibility: Jesus says the world “seeth him not, neither knoweth him” (John 14:17). Muhammad was a visible, public figure known throughout Arabia and eventually the world. The Spirit is explicitly described as invisible to the world.
Indwelling: Jesus promises, “He shall be in you” (John 14:17). Muhammad was a human being who could not physically dwell inside the disciples or any believer. The Spirit’s defining characteristic is His indwelling presence within believers—something no human can replicate.
Permanence: The Spirit will “abide with you forever” (John 14:16). Muhammad died in 632 AD. If he were the promised one, he did not abide forever. The Holy Spirit remains eternally with the Church.
These are not minor details to be explained away. They are the defining attributes of the promised one, and they conclusively identify Him as a divine person, not a human prophet.
The Reformed Response
Having clarified what Jesus actually promised, we can now address Deedat’s specific claims about the Holy Spirit’s alleged “failures.”
On Alcohol: Internal Transformation vs. External Prohibition
Deedat claims the Bible does not forbid drunkenness. This is simply false. Scripture explicitly commands, “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess” (Ephesians 5:18). Drunkenness is listed among the sins that exclude one from the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:10; Galatians 5:21).
But the deeper issue is this: the Christian approach to sin is fundamentally different from the Islamic approach. Christianity addresses sin through internal transformation, not external prohibition. The “fruit of the Spirit” includes “self-control” (Galatians 5:23). The goal is not merely behavioral compliance but a changed heart that no longer desires the sin.
Deedat praises the “miracle” of Muhammad’s prohibition emptying the wine barrels of Medina. But external compliance achieved through social pressure and legal penalty is not the same as internal righteousness. The success of a prohibition tells us nothing about the hearts of those who comply. A man who does not drink because he fears punishment is not righteous—he is merely constrained.
The Gospel offers something better: genuine transformation that addresses the root of sinful desire, not merely its external manifestation. That this transformation is not instantaneous or universal in its effects does not disprove its reality—it demonstrates that salvation is not coerced but freely received.
On Racism: The Truth Revealed vs. the Truth Obeyed
Deedat’s argument regarding racism contains a subtle equivocation. He conflates the revelation of truth with the obedience to truth.
The “truth” of racial equality was established by the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul centuries before Islam: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). This truth was revealed; the Spirit did His work.
That professing Christians subsequently failed to obey this truth—through slavery, segregation, and apartheid—does not mean the Spirit failed to reveal it. The failure was human, not divine. And notably, the eventual abolition of slavery and the Civil Rights movement were explicitly driven by Christian theology—by the conviction that all humans bear the Imago Dei, the image of God.
Furthermore, Deedat’s presentation of Islamic history is selective. The Arab slave trade transported millions of Black Africans over more than a millennium. The historical stratification of Arab versus non-Arab (Ajam) Muslims challenges the claim that Islamic law eradicated racism. Ritual equality in the Hajj did not prevent societal inequality in Islamic civilizations.
The Gospel does not promise that all who claim Christ’s name will obey His teachings. It promises that the truth has been revealed and that the Spirit is at work transforming hearts—a work that will be completed at Christ’s return.
On “Surplus Women”: The Fallacy at the Foundation
Deedat’s defense of polygyny as the “truth” solving the problem of “surplus women” rests on a demographic claim that is simply false.
The biological reality: The human sex ratio at birth favors males, with approximately 105 boys born for every 100 girls. This male surplus persists through the reproductive and marriageable years (ages 15-40) in most stable societies.
The misinterpreted data: When Deedat cites Western census data showing more women than men, he fails to note that this surplus is almost exclusively found in the geriatric population (over age 65), due to women’s longer life expectancy. Promoting polygyny for young men does not address a “surplus” of elderly widows—unless Deedat is suggesting something rather different than compassionate care for women.
The actual demographic effect: Sociological research indicates that polygyny does not solve demographic imbalances; it creates them. When wealthy men can accumulate multiple wives, they create a class of disenfranchised “surplus men” who cannot afford to marry. This demographic imbalance correlates with higher rates of civil conflict, violence, and social instability—the opposite of Deedat’s claim that polygamy brings peace and order.
The “truth” Deedat proposes as evidence of divine guidance is built on a false premise. There is no natural “surplus” of marriageable women requiring polygyny as a solution.
The Worldview Beneath the Argument
Deedat’s argument reveals more than he intends. By measuring the “Spirit of Truth” according to societal outcomes, he exposes a fundamentally different understanding of revelation, salvation, and the human problem.
In Deedat’s framework, humanity’s core problem is behavioral—we drink too much, discriminate, and mismanage demographics. The solution is legislative—better laws producing better behavior. Truth is measured by societal outcomes, and divine guidance is validated by practical results.
The Christian Gospel operates in an entirely different framework. Humanity’s core problem is not behavioral but relational—we are alienated from God through sin. Our behaviors are symptoms of this deeper condition, not the condition itself. The solution is not legislation but reconciliation—the atoning work of Christ that restores us to right relationship with God. And from this restored relationship flows genuine transformation of heart and behavior.
This is why the Gospel does not offer a legal code. It offers something better: a new heart. “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:26).
To demand that the Spirit of Truth produce legislation is to misunderstand what truth is, what the human problem is, and what salvation means. It is to ask for stone tablets when God offers heart surgery.
Addressing Anticipated Objections
“But shouldn’t divine guidance produce measurable results?”
It does—but not necessarily the results Deedat is measuring. The Spirit’s work is visible in transformed lives, in the growth of the Church, in the fruits of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). That these results are not universal or coerced does not make them less real.
“Isn’t pragmatism a valid test of truth?”
Only if we first establish what outcomes we should expect. If truth is defined as “what produces optimal societal metrics,” then the argument has force. But that definition begs the question. The Christian claim is that truth is defined by correspondence to reality as God reveals it—and the ultimate truth is Christ Himself, not a legal code.
“Didn’t Christians also try prohibition and legislation?”
Yes, and their failures demonstrate the point. External legislation cannot change hearts. The American Prohibition experiment failed precisely because it attempted to achieve by law what only the Spirit can achieve by transformation. This failure does not discredit Christianity; it confirms its diagnosis of the human condition.
The Gospel Reframed
What Deedat’s argument ultimately demands is a savior who manages human behavior through superior legislation. What the Gospel offers is a Savior who transforms human nature through sacrificial love.
The Spirit of Truth has come. He convicts of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8). He glorifies Christ by taking what belongs to Christ and declaring it to believers (John 16:14). He regenerates dead hearts, indwells believers, and produces fruit that no law can mandate.
This is better than legislation. This is salvation.
Conclusion
Ahmed Deedat’s sociological argument fails on multiple levels. It redefines biblical “truth” from divine revelation to civil legislation. It rests on demographic claims that are empirically false. It ignores the textual constraints that make any human identification of the “Spirit of Truth” impossible. And it reveals a fundamentally different understanding of humanity’s problem and God’s solution.
The “Spirit of Truth” promised in John 16 is not a lawgiver who regulates drinking, marriage, and social mixing. He is the Third Person of the Trinity who glorifies Christ, illuminates Scripture, regenerates sinners, and indwells believers. He has been doing exactly this work for two thousand years, and He continues today.
The question is not whether the Spirit has provided new legislation. The question is whether we have received the new heart that only He can give.
An Invitation
Perhaps you find Deedat’s argument compelling because you are looking for practical solutions to real problems. That desire is not wrong—it is deeply human. But we invite you to consider whether the deepest human problem is really behavioral, or whether it goes deeper.
If the human heart is the issue, no legislation can fix it. Only transformation can. And transformation is precisely what the Gospel offers.
We welcome your questions, your objections, and your honest engagement with these texts. For further study, we recommend examining the Gospel of John in its entirety, paying careful attention to how Jesus defines “truth,” and asking whether the promised one matches any human figure—or whether He matches the Spirit who even now may be at work in your own heart.