Introduction: Beyond the Shouting Match The internet is littered with the digital wreckage of religious debates. What often starts as a discussion (Muhammad in the Bible) about faith quickly devolves into a shouting match of disconnected proof-texts and personal attacks. Genuine, intellectually honest conversations—where listening is valued as much as speaking—are exceptionally rare.
This is what made a recent dialogue between a Christian and a Muslim man named Abdar so refreshing. In a respectful conversation about the persistent claim of Muhammad in the Bible—specifically a prophecy in Isaiah 42—they moved beyond surface-level claims. The discussion wasn’t about winning, but about understanding. This post breaks down the three pivotal biblical arguments that methodically unraveled the case for Muhammad in Isaiah and led to a surprising and candid conclusion.
1. The Context Problem: Addressing Claims of Muhammad in the Bible
Abdar’s opening argument rested on a linguistic link, pointing to Isaiah 42:1, which begins, “Here is my servant whom I uphold.” He argued that the Hebrew word for servant, ʿeved, is a direct cognate to Muhammad’s title in the Quran, ʿabd (servant), as used in Surah 17, verse 1. This connection, he proposed, identified Muhammad as the servant of the prophecy.
This was a masterful tactical shift by the Christian debater. Instead of contesting the linguistics, he challenged the premise by turning to the Quran itself, forcing a discussion on a more fundamental level: interpretive methodology. He pointed out that to identify the unnamed “servant” of Surah 17:1 as Muhammad, Abdar had to import information from outside the Quran, such as the traditional locations of the “sacred mosque” and the “furthest mosque.” This reliance on external sources became the argument’s vulnerability.
The Christian debater then presented a more text-centric approach. If one were to simply read the Quranic chapter in its own immediate context, the very next verse, Surah 17:2, explicitly mentions a different figure: Moses. Why, he asked, would one assume the unnamed servant is Muhammad when Moses is the servant named immediately after? This framed his own argument as more faithful to the Quran’s internal structure. Abdar’s rebuttal—that verses in the Quran can sometimes be “a separate thought” disconnected from each other—failed to counter the strength of an interpretation derived directly from the surrounding text. The impact of this context-driven argument regarding Muhammad in the Bible was clear in Abdar’s honest reaction.
“That’s a good point that you’re making. One thing that I’ve noticed in the Quran, and remember, with my responses, because this is something that no one really brought up before…”
2. The Critical Distinction: Making a Covenant vs. Being the Covenant
The conversation then pivoted to a crucial detail within the Isaiah prophecy itself. The Christian debater drew attention to Isaiah 42:6, which states God’s purpose for the servant: “I have formed you and set you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations.” The text doesn’t say the servant will bring a covenant; it says the servant is the covenant.
In an attempt to connect this function to Muhammad, Abdar cited Surah 48:10, which describes believers pledging allegiance to Muhammad. He argued that since pledging allegiance to Muhammad is described as pledging allegiance to Allah, this made Muhammad the covenant.
Here, the Christian debater made a critical distinction that elevated the entire discussion of whether we find Muhammad in the Bible. He clarified that in Abdar’s example, Muhammad is “one of the participants of the covenant”—the one with whom the pledge is made. The prophecy in Isaiah, however, describes something far more profound: the servant himself is the covenant that God gives to the people. This moved the debate from a simple name-matching exercise to a deep theological concept, perfectly framed by the Christian debater’s powerful follow-up question: “What would a person look like to be a covenant?”
3. The Decisive Answer: How Blood Fulfills the Biblical Covenant
Answering his own question, the Christian debater provided a complete theological framework. He cited Matthew 26:27-28, where Jesus, during the Last Supper, takes the cup and says, “…for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.” In the person of Jesus, his own blood is the covenant.
Abdar attempted two counter-arguments. First, he cited Surah 9:111, where believers who fight and are killed have made a bargain with God. The Christian debater quickly dismantled this by pointing out the verse is about the believers making the covenant with their lives, not about the prophet being the covenant for them.
Abdar’s second, more significant objection concerned justice, referencing Ezekiel 18’s principle that a person pays for their own crime. How, he asked, could someone dying for another’s sin be just? This question brought the debate to its intellectual climax. By grounding the entire concept of covenant fulfillment in the Old Testament’s own legal framework, the Christian debater constructed a biblically airtight case. He showed that Leviticus 17:11 establishes the law: “…for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.” Blood sacrifice is the statute God requires for atonement. He then addressed the Old Testament passages where God rejects sacrifices, explaining that the context (in Isaiah and Jeremiah) shows God rejecting vain offerings from hypocritical hearts, not the principle of atonement itself.
This chain of logic provided a comprehensive answer to the search for Muhammad in the Bible: Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice is not an affront to justice; it is the ultimate fulfillment of it, satisfying God’s legal requirement for sin so that mercy can be extended. The argument was so complete and biblically integrated that it left no room for rebuttal. Abdar, in a moment of remarkable intellectual honesty, conceded the point entirely.
“Hey, man, you’re good. I am not going to lie, bro… I have nothing to say… you out-versed me. I don’t have another verse to retort, basically.”
Conclusion: The Power of an Honest Question The discussion concerning Muhammad in the Bible turned on three key moments: a challenge based on the Quran’s own internal context, a critical distinction between participating in a covenant and being one, and a final, biblically-grounded answer showing how a person could fulfill that role through atoning sacrifice.
But beyond the theological points, the true takeaway is the nature of the dialogue. Abdar’s humility in acknowledging a superior argument is a model for productive interfaith discussion. He didn’t double down; he listened. In a moment of candor, he admitted his “mind is hurting” from trying to think of verses and even shared that his Christian friend, watching live, had texted him: “he can see the loss.”
In an age of endless online arguments, what is the value of a conversation where someone is humble enough to simply say, “You’re good… I have nothing to say”?
Source: Towards Jesus: Sincere Muslim SPEECHLESS After REALIZING Muhammad is a FALSE Prophet,
Godlogic Apologetics