Why We Cannot Trust Muhammad According to Islam’s Most Trusted Sources 

(Part 3: Historical, Theological, and Ethical Analysis)

Introduction: Examining Muhammad in Light of History, Scripture, and Ethics

In the previous installments of this series, we explored why Muhammad’s reliability as a prophet is deeply questionable. Part 1 focused on the sinister nature of his revelations, suggesting a potential demonic origin, while Part 2 subjected the Qur’an to its own falsifiability test, exposing internal contradictions that undermine claims of divine authorship. In this final installment, we examine Muhammad’s claims against the backdrop of the Torah, the Gospels, and the epistles, alongside historical evidence and ethical scrutiny.

1. Historical Continuity: Muhammad Versus Judaism and Christianity

Islam purports to continue the Abrahamic tradition, yet its fundamental teachings diverge sharply from both Judaism and Christianity. Christianity, for instance, hinges on the fulfillment of messianic prophecy through the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus Himself explicitly framed His mission within the prophetic corpus:

“Then He said to them, ‘O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?’” (Luke 24:25–26)

“Then He said to them, ‘These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.’ Then He said to them, ‘Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day.’” (Luke 24:44–46)

The Old Testament reinforces this expectation. Psalm 22 details the crucifixion with remarkable specificity:

“For dogs have surrounded Me; the congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me. They pierced My hands and My feet; I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me. They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.” (Psalm 22:16–18)

Isaiah 53 articulates the theological significance of the suffering Messiah:

“Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” (Isaiah 53:4–6)

Zechariah 12:10 further anticipates the messianic crucifixion:

“And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.”

Muhammad’s central claim, that Jesus did not die on the cross (Q 4:157–158), stands in stark contrast to these scriptures, severing the continuity Islam claims with its religious predecessors.

2. The Problem of Late Testimony

Muhammad emerged over 600 years after the events surrounding Jesus. This temporal gap raises a critical historical issue: why should a 7th-century Arabian claim about 1st-century events override the testimony of eyewitnesses, early creeds, and first-century sources? Consider the evidence:

• Pre-Pauline creed (1 Cor 15:3–7, ~AD 50): asserts Christ died for sins and was raised.

• Pauline epistles (Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Romans): written within decades, affirm crucifixion.

• Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke): preserve oral traditions dating close to the events.

• John’s Gospel (~AD 90): independent theological perspective confirming crucifixion.

• Josephus, Antiquities 18.3.3 (~AD 93): references Jesus’ execution, though some interpolations are disputed.

Later Roman sources like Tacitus (Annals 15.44) corroborate the execution, even if slightly later (early 2nd century). In contrast, Muhammad’s statements are not first-hand observations but a 7th-century testimony lacking contemporary evidence.

3. Qur’anic Misrepresentations of Jewish Beliefs

The Qur’an claims:

“The Jews say, ‘Ezra is the son of Allah…’” (Surah 9:30)

Historically, no Jewish sect has ever held Ezra as divine or the son of God. Some Muslim scholars posit a lost Arabian sect or misinterpretation; however, there is no surviving evidence for this. The claim thus appears to be a fabrication, further undermining Muhammad’s reliability in conveying accurate information about Judaism.

4. Christian Theological Assessment: Antichrist Claims

From the Christian perspective, Muhammad’s teachings meet the biblical criteria for an antichrist. John explicitly states:

“Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22)

“Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.” (2 John 1:9–11)

Muhammad explicitly denies the Father–Son relationship (Q 6:101; 19:92–94) and claims Jesus did not die on the cross. By these theological standards, Muhammad is both a false prophet and antichrist, and his teachings should not be received by Christian households.

5. Audience Skepticism and Accusations of Plagiarism

Even Muhammad’s contemporaries expressed skepticism. The Qur’an records:

“And when Our verses are recited to them, they say, ‘We have heard. If we willed, we could say [something] like this. This is not but legends of the former peoples.’” (Surah 8:31)

“And among them are those who abuse the Prophet and say, ‘He is an ear.’” (Surah 9:61)

The term “an ear” implies Muhammad merely repeated what he heard without originality. Unlike Jesus, who performed verifiable miracles, Muhammad’s claims were primarily verbal, leaving his audience unconvinced. Moreover, the Qur’an contains narratives paralleling apocryphal gospels (e.g., creating a living bird from clay, Q 3:49; 5:110) and rabbinic sources (e.g., Q 5:32 vs. Sanhedrin 37a). This pattern suggests dependence on post-biblical Jewish and Christian lore, not authentic Torah or Gospel revelation.

6. Ethical Divergence from Previous Prophets

Muhammad’s ethical framework sharply departs from Judaism and Christianity. He sanctioned violence, polygamy, concubinage, and child marriage:

• Aisha marriage reports: Muhammad married a six-year-old and consummated at nine (Sahih Bukhari 67:61; 67:9).

• Concubines: He permitted sexual relations with captured women (Sunan An-Nasai 26:128).

• Apostasy and violence: Hadith prescribe death for those leaving Islam; the Qur’an commands fighting until submission (Q 9:29).

This is incompatible with the Jewish and Christian sanctity-of-life ethic and contrasts with Jesus, whose ministry was nonviolent and centered on love and service.

7. Muhammad-Centric Obedience versus Christ-Centric Faith

Christianity places Jesus at the center of divine obedience, but worship remains directed to God:

“Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me.” (John 14:1)

In contrast, Islam fuses divine obedience with complete submission to Muhammad:

“He who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah…” (Surah 4:80)

“It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allāh and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair.” (Surah 33:36)

Practical faith in Islam requires unwavering adherence to Muhammad’s authority, paralleling Christ’s centrality in Christianity but without divine status, creating a unique Muhammad-centric system.

8. The Enduring Consequences

Muhammad’s claims are undermined on multiple fronts: historical (crucifixion, Ezra), theological (antichrist, denial of Father–Son), ethical (violence, concubinage, child marriage), and source reliability (apocryphal and Talmudic borrowings). While Islam persists today, its survival is rooted in sociopolitical enforcement, communal adherence, and cultural transmission, rather than evidence-based legitimacy.

Knowledge, not force alone, is the primary tool for challenging Islam’s ideological grip. By critically exposing these historical, theological, and ethical failures, one can confront the ideology itself, independent of individual adherents.

Conclusion: A Multi-Dimensional Refutation

This three-part series has methodically examined Muhammad’s trustworthiness. Part 1 analyzed the nature of his revelations. Part 2 dissected the Qur’an’s internal consistency. Part 3 contextualizes his claims against historical, biblical, and ethical standards. The evidence converges: Muhammad’s testimony contradicts well-attested historical events, misrepresents Jewish and Christian theology, and endorses ethical practices inconsistent with prior prophets. Any evaluation of Muhammad as a reliable prophet must grapple with these facts.

The implications are clear: belief in Muhammad as a trustworthy prophet is not supported by history, reason, ethics, or scripture. Islam’s endurance is therefore sociopolitical and cultural, not evidential. Challenging its ideological claims requires a thorough understanding of its contradictions, historical inaccuracies, and ethical divergences. Only with knowledge as a tool can the truth about Muhammad’s claims be brought to light.