Over the past several weeks, we have conducted a rigorous examination of Ahmed Deedat’s claims that Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible. We have analyzed five primary arguments drawn from his lectures and publications, subjecting each to the standards of Hebrew and Greek grammar, manuscript evidence, literary context, and historical accuracy.
The investigation is now complete. It is time to render a verdict.
The Claims We Examined
Our series addressed the following arguments:
Part 2: The claim that Song of Solomon 5:16 contains Muhammad’s name in the Hebrew word Machmaddim.
Part 3: The claim that the “Comforter” (Parakletos) promised in John 14-16 refers to Muhammad, not the Holy Spirit.
Part 3b: The “Litmus Test” of 1 John 4:1-3—Deedat’s proposed criterion for testing prophets, and how it applies to his own claims.
Part 4: The claim that Muhammad is the “Spirit of Truth” who “guided into all truth” by providing practical legislation (prohibition of alcohol, permission of polygamy) where the Holy Spirit allegedly failed.
Part 5: The claim that Deuteronomy 18:18’s “Prophet like Moses” refers to Muhammad based on genealogical descent from Ishmael and biographical parallels.
Part 6: The claim that Isaiah 29:12’s “unlearned” man prophesies Muhammad’s illiteracy and his reception of the Qur’an.
Each claim has been examined individually. But viewing them collectively reveals something more significant: a pattern of methodology that explains why all five arguments fail in the same fundamental ways.
The Linguistic Verdict: Illusion Over Etymology
Deedat’s most confident appeals were linguistic, trading on the fact that his audiences largely could not read Hebrew or Greek. When examined by those who can, these arguments dissolve into linguistic illusions.
The “Muhammadim” Fallacy
The claim that Machmaddim in Song of Solomon 5:16 is Muhammad’s name fails on multiple grounds:
The Hebrew root ḥ-m-d (meaning “desirable” or “precious”) appears twelve other times in the Hebrew Bible as a common noun describing treasures, valuable objects, and even Ezekiel’s wife. To translate it as a proper name “Muhammad” would require rendering other biblical passages nonsensical—such as Hosea 9:6, where weeds would be said to possess “Muhammad.”
The grammatical argument that the -im suffix indicates a “plural of respect” for human names is an invention. No Hebrew grammar supports this construction for proper names. The suffix functions as an intensive or abstract plural, emphasizing the quality of desirableness—not encoding a seventh-century Arabian name.
The genre of the Song of Solomon—love poetry describing physical attraction between a bride and bridegroom—makes the “Muhammad” reading contextually absurd. The woman is describing her beloved’s body; she is not prophesying about a future religious figure.
The “Periklytos” Fabrication
The claim that John originally wrote Periklytos (“praised one” = Ahmad) rather than Parakletos (“Comforter/Advocate”) requires a conspiracy theory of staggering proportions.
We possess over 5,700 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, copied across multiple continents by scribes who often disagreed on theological matters. Not a single manuscript—not one—reads Periklytos. For Deedat’s claim to be true, every manuscript would have to have been altered, with the original reading erased without leaving any trace in any surviving copy, quotation, or translation.
This is not textual criticism; it is fiction. The manuscript evidence unanimously supports Parakletos, and the theological context of John 14-16 describes an invisible, indwelling Spirit who glorifies Christ—not a human prophet who would appear six centuries later.
The Contextual Verdict: Judgment Is Not Prophecy
Deedat’s method consistently involved isolating verses from their immediate surroundings, transforming warnings of divine judgment into predictions of prophetic inauguration.
The “Unlettered” Error
Isaiah 29:12’s “unlearned” man appears in a passage describing divine judgment, not divine blessing. Two verses earlier, God declares He has “poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes” (Isaiah 29:10). One verse later, the inability to read is explained as punishment for hypocrisy: “this people draw near me with their mouth… but have removed their heart far from me” (Isaiah 29:13).
To identify Muhammad with the “unlearned” man is to place him under a divine curse for hypocrisy. The passage describes a tragedy—a book that remains sealed and unread—not a triumph of new revelation. Deedat’s interpretation survives only by refusing to read the surrounding verses.
The “Brethren” Limitation
Deedat’s claim that “brethren” in Deuteronomy 18:18 refers to Ishmaelites (Arabs) contradicts the legal usage of that term throughout Deuteronomy itself.
Just one chapter earlier, Deuteronomy 17:15 commands Israel regarding kings: “One from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.” The text creates a legal binary: brethren versus strangers/foreigners. If Ishmaelites counted as “brethren,” Israel could have appointed an Ishmaelite king—a conclusion no serious reader of Israelite history can accept.
The parallel phrase “from the midst of thee” (Deuteronomy 18:15) provides a geographical constraint that excludes a prophet arising from distant Arabia. The prophet would be an Israelite, from within Israel’s own community.
The Theological Verdict: Redefinition Is Not Proof
To make biblical texts accommodate Islamic theology, Deedat systematically redefined established biblical terms, collapsing distinct categories into convenient synonyms.
The “Spirit = Prophet” Equivocation
Deedat argued that “Spirit” in biblical usage simply means “prophet,” allowing him to identify the “Spirit of Truth” with Muhammad. But this equation collapses under examination.
If “Spirit” means “prophet,” then “God is Spirit” (John 4:24) would mean “God is a prophet”—a theological absurdity that contradicts both Christian and Islamic teaching. The biblical distinction between the Spirit of God and human prophets is not a minor detail; it is foundational to the text’s meaning.
The attributes ascribed to the “Spirit of Truth” in John 14-16—invisibility, indwelling, eternal presence—cannot apply to any human being, including Muhammad. The Spirit is explicitly contrasted with the world that “seeth him not, neither knoweth him” (John 14:17). Muhammad was a visible, public figure. The Spirit would “abide with you forever” (John 14:16). Muhammad died in 632 AD.
The “Truth” Redefinition
Deedat redefined “truth” in John 16:13 as societal legislation—prohibition of alcohol, permission of polygamy, regulation of social mixing. But John’s Gospel defines “truth” Christologically: “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).
The Spirit’s role is explicitly stated: “He shall glorify Me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you” (John 16:14). The “truth” into which the Spirit guides is the full revelation of Christ’s person and work—not a civil code for managing drinking and marriage.
To accept Deedat’s reading, one must believe that Jesus promised a guide who would “glorify” Him by denying His deity, rejecting His crucifixion, and superseding His teaching. This is incoherent.
The Sociological Verdict: Data Versus Rhetoric
Deedat’s most creative argument—that Muhammad must be the “Spirit of Truth” because he solved practical problems the Holy Spirit allegedly failed to address—rests on empirical claims that do not survive fact-checking.
The “Surplus Women” Myth
Deedat claimed that women naturally outnumber men, creating a demographic crisis that necessitates polygamy as a compassionate solution. The biological reality contradicts him.
Human sex ratios at birth favor males: approximately 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. This male surplus persists through the reproductive years in most stable societies. The “surplus women” Deedat cited in Western census data are predominantly elderly widows—the result of women’s longer life expectancy, not a marriageable population requiring polygyny.
Moreover, sociological research indicates that institutionalized polygyny does not solve demographic imbalances; it creates them. When wealthy men accumulate multiple wives, they produce a class of disenfranchised “surplus men” who cannot afford to marry—a demographic pattern correlated with increased civil conflict and social instability.
Deedat’s “practical solution” is built on a false premise and produces the opposite of its claimed effect.
The Ultimate Irony: The Litmus Test
Perhaps the most revealing moment in our investigation came when examining the “Litmus Test” that Deedat himself proposed.
Deedat cited 1 John 4:1-3 as the definitive criterion for testing prophets: “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.” He argued that Islam passes this test because Muslims affirm Jesus was a flesh-and-blood human being.
But the test was designed against Docetism—a heresy that denied Jesus had a real physical body. The confession required is not merely that Jesus was human, but that “Jesus Christ”—the pre-existent divine Messiah—“is come in the flesh.” The verb tense and theological context presuppose the Incarnation: the eternal Son taking on human nature.
Islamic theology explicitly denies Christ’s pre-existence and divine Sonship. By the comprehensive standard of 1 John, this denial is not a pass but a failure. Indeed, 1 John 2:22 defines the “antichrist” as one who “denieth the Father and the Son”—a denial that Islamic theology requires.
Deedat invoked a test that, when applied consistently, excludes his own position.
The Methodology Exposed
Viewing these five claims together reveals a consistent methodology that explains their collective failure.
Selective Literalism: Deedat demanded strict literalism for terms like “brethren” and “words in his mouth” when it served his argument, but abandoned literalism for “Son of God,” “Spirit,” and the attributes of the Paraclete when literalism would undermine his case.
Phonetic Coincidence: The “Muhammadim” and “Periklytos” arguments rely on superficial sound similarities across different languages, ignoring grammar, context, manuscript evidence, and semantic range.
Contextual Amputation: Every argument required isolating phrases from their surrounding verses. The “unlearned” man was extracted from a judgment oracle. The “brethren” were extracted from a legal context that defines them as Israelites. The “Comforter” was extracted from a discourse about an invisible, indwelling Spirit.
Categorical Confusion: Deedat consistently collapsed biblical distinctions—Spirit and prophet, truth and legislation, covenant mediation and legal promulgation—to force texts into Islamic categories.
Audience Exploitation: The arguments were crafted for audiences who could not verify the Hebrew, Greek, or contextual claims. They persuade by assertion, not evidence.
This is not exegesis—reading meaning out of the text. It is eisegesis—reading meaning into the text. The Bible does not predict Muhammad; Deedat’s arguments exist only by silencing the manuscript evidence, ignoring the grammar, and removing verses from their context.
What the Bible Does Foretell
The Hebrew Scriptures do contain extensive prophecy about a coming figure—but He is described as the Messiah, the Son of David, the Suffering Servant, the Son of Man, the Prophet, Priest, and King who would establish an everlasting kingdom.
The New Testament writers—Jews who knew their Scriptures intimately—unanimously identified Jesus of Nazareth as the fulfillment of these prophecies. Their testimony was written within decades of His earthly ministry, by eyewitnesses and their close associates, often at the cost of their lives.
The prophetic portrait includes:
- Born of a virgin in Bethlehem (Isaiah 7:14; Micah 5:2)
- A prophet like Moses who speaks God’s words (Deuteronomy 18:18)
- A priest forever after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4)
- A king on David’s throne whose kingdom has no end (2 Samuel 7:12-13; Isaiah 9:6-7)
- A suffering servant who bears the sins of many (Isaiah 53)
- One who would be pierced, mourned, and become a fountain for sin (Zechariah 12:10; 13:1)
- The Son of Man who receives an everlasting dominion (Daniel 7:13-14)
Jesus claimed to fulfill these prophecies, and the early church—composed initially of Jews who had every reason to reject a false Messiah—embraced that claim even unto death.
The question is not whether the Bible contains prophecy. The question is whether we will read that prophecy in context or manipulate it to serve predetermined conclusions.
A Final Word
We have spent six articles examining claims that the Bible foretells Muhammad. We have found those claims wanting—not because we approached them with hostility, but because we approached them with the tools of honest inquiry: attention to language, respect for context, and willingness to follow evidence wherever it leads.
Our purpose has not been to mock or to score points. Our purpose has been to demonstrate that the Bible, read on its own terms, points in a consistent direction—toward Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah, the Lamb of God, the Savior of the world.
If you have been persuaded by Ahmed Deedat’s arguments, we invite you to test them for yourself. Read the passages in their full context. Examine the manuscript evidence. Consider whether the methodology would be acceptable if applied to the Qur’an. Ask whether phonetic coincidence constitutes prophetic fulfillment.
And as you examine these questions, consider the One to whom these Scriptures actually point. Jesus did not merely claim to fulfill prophecy; He offered Himself as the answer to humanity’s deepest need. His invitation remains:
“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls” (Matthew 11:28-29).
The Bible does not foretell Muhammad. But it does reveal Christ. And that revelation awaits all who will read with honest hearts and open minds.
This concludes our series examining Ahmed Deedat’s claims regarding Muhammad in the Bible. For the full investigation, see Part 1 (Introduction), Part 2 (Song of Solomon), Part 3 (The Paraclete), Part 3b (The Litmus Test), Part 4 (Guiding Into All Truth), Part 5 (Prophet Like Moses), and Part 6 (The Unlettered Prophet).