I'm going to argue that Muhammad can't even qualify as a False Prophet. Now yes I know the literal definition is any fake prophet, so once you claim to be a Prophet you either are one or you're a false prophet.
But the Pseudophophetes that The Bible is concerned with both contemporary with itself and eschatologically. Were individuals just as capable of performing genuine supernatural miracles, and having genuine supernatural revelations as a legit Prophet. Balaam even had legit revelations from the Biblical God, The Holy Spirit sometimes uses unsaved people, likewise John's Gospel records Caiaphas giving a legit Prophecy.
So Biblically someone has to be proven a Prophet before we can even get into if they're a False Prophet or not. Joseph Smith did prove himself a Prophet by predicting The Civil War, but Muhammad couldn't even do that, yet the modern world takes Joseph Smith's Prophethood less seriously then Muhammad's, I find that funny.
Now there are different kinds of Prophets in The Bible. In a sense a Prophet is anyone who declares the Word of God, which is why Evangelists and Preachers and Pastors are considered New Testament successors to the office of Prophet.
But in order for someone to be able to add to the Canon, to say their Revelations are God's Word and Authoritative just as much if not more so then The Bible. They need to be able to prove the Supernatural origin of their revelations. No amount of discrediting the preservation of The Bible used by Jews and Christians will matter if you can't prove a Supernatural origin for the Koran, you're then only arguing against anything being God's Word.
The Koran itself says Muhammad never performed miracles and gives it's own justification for why.
They say, 'We will not believe thee till thou makest a spring to gush forth from the earth for us, or till thou possessest a garden of plants and vines, and thou makest rivers to gush forth abundantly all amongst it, or till thou makest heaven to fall, as thou assertest, on us in fragments, or thou bringest God and the angels as a surety, or till thou possessest a house of gold ornament, or till thou goest up into heaven; and we will not believe thy going up till thou bringest down on us a book that we may read. Say: 'Glory be to my Lord. Am I aught BUT A MORTAL, a Messenger?' S. 17:90-93
Yet when the truth came to them from Ourselves, they said, 'Why has he not been given the like of that Moses was given?' But they, did they not disbelieve also in what Moses was given aforetime? They said, 'A pair of sorceries mutually supporting each other.' They said, 'We disbelieve both.' S. 28:48
And they that know not say, 'Why does God not speak to us? Why does a sign (ayatun) not come to us?' So spoke those before them as these men say; their hearts are much alike. Yet We have made clear the signs (bayyanna al-ayati) unto a people who are sure. S. 2:118Jesus performed Miracles which The Koran agrees with but gives a different account of what miracles.
Jesus' Disciples/Apostles including Paul performed miracles. The only place the New Testament tells us to expect any new Prophets in the future it tells us what miracles they'll perform, in Revelation 11. John The Baptist performed no miracles but he was only the forerunner, Jesus whom he spoke of appeared and performed miracles overlapping with John's ministry. The Baptist didn't author any Scripture.
Muslims don't consider any of that valid. But Muslim apologists constantly want to claim the "Prophet like unto Moses" of Deuteronomy 18 is Muhammad. The problem is first the context of that Prophecy clearly defines this Prophet as an Israelite, as coming from among the children of Israel to whom Moses was speaking.
Muslims will argue all kinds of superficial parallels between Muhammad and Moses, but Deuteronomy 34 when the book ends tells us what "like unto Moses" means and it includes performing miracles.
There are major differences between the miracles of Jesus and the miracles of Moses. But both turned water into another liquid, Moses blood and Jesus wine. And wine is called the "Blood of The Grape" in The Torah.
Deuteronomy 34 also tells us it requires knowing God face to face like Moses did. Muhammad only claimed to have met Gabriel not Allah himself.
Muhammad gave no testable Prophecies.
Most of his statements about the future were all about the Second Coming and the End Times. And I will concede that he said nothing to prove he meant it would happen in the lifetime of his companions. The same kinds of arguments get used against Jesus which I gave my own take on recently. Since there are Muslims who will use the same tactics Atheists use to attack the Prophet hood of the New Testament version of Jesus, only then would I consider it valid to bring up that issue to show their hypocrisy. But I will not consider it part of my main argument against Muhammad being a Prophet.
Besides the End Times. He said Aisha would be important to passing on his history and teachings. 1. It seems we only know he said this because Aisha said so. 2. It only proves him being perceptive about Aisha's talents, nothing truly supernatural.
The only even possibly testable Prophecy Muhammad gave was when he said exactly how God would kill him if he said anything false. In which case his credibility depends on it not coming true.
I. QUR'AN TRANSLATIONSHe said God would sever his Arota or Life-Artery. Generally it's only a fraud who would even go around making a claim like that, like God would even bother personally striking down everyone who claims to be a Prophet. In fact it's generally people who don't think there is a real God that would make that claim.
Qur’an 69:44-46—And if he (Muhammad) had forged a false saying concerning Us We surely should have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might), and then certainly should have cut off his life artery (Aorta). (Hilali-Khan)
Qur’an 69:44-46—And if he had invented false sayings concerning Us, We assuredly had taken him by the right hand and then severed his life-artery. (Pickthall)
Qur’an 69:44-46—Had he invented lies concerning Us, We would have seized him by the right hand and severed his heart’s vein. (Dawood)
Qur’an 69:44-46—And if he had fabricated against Us some of the sayings, We would certainly have seized him by the right hand, then We would certainly have cut off his aorta. (Shakir)
II. MUSLIM COMMENTARIES
Tafsir Ibn Abbas on Qur’an 69:44-46—(And if he had invented) and had Muhammad invented (false sayings concerning Us) lies against Us and attributed to Us that which We did not say, (We assuredly had taken him) We assuredly had taken revenge against him (by the right hand) by means of truth and proofs; it is also said this means: We assuredly had vehemently taken him. (And then severed his life artery) the life artery of Muhammad (pbuh).
Tafsir Jalalayn on Qur’an 69:44-46—And had he, namely, the Prophet (s), fabricated any lies against Us, by communicating from Us that which We have not said, We would have assuredly seized him, We would have exacted vengeance [against him], as punishment, by the Right Hand, by [Our] strength and power; then We would have assuredly severed his life-artery, the aorta of the heart, a vein that connects with it, and which if severed results in that person’s death.
But still it's worth looking into the most trusted Muslim accounts of Muhammad's life to see if this ever happened.
Sahih al-Bukhari 4428—The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, “O Aishah! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.”What do you know, it did happen, or at least Muhammad the supposed Prophet thought it did.
Sahih Muslim 5430—A Jewess came to Allah’s Messenger with poisoned mutton and he took of what had been brought to him. (When the effects of this poison were felt by him) he called for her and asked her about that, whereupon she said: I had determined to kill you. Thereupon he said: Allah will never give you the power to do it.
Sunan Abu Dawud 4498—A Jewess presented [Muhammad] at Khaibar a roasted sheep which she had poisoned. The Apostle of Allah ate of it and the people also ate. He then said: Lift your hands (from eating), for it has informed me that it is poisoned. Bishr b. al-Bara b. Ma’rur al-Ansari died. So he (the Prophet) sent for the Jewess (and said to her): What motivated you to do the work you have done? She said: If you were a prophet, it would not harm you; but if you were a king, I would rid the people of you. The Apostle of Allah then ordered regarding her and she was killed. He then said about the pain of which he died: I continued to feel pain from the morsel which I had eaten at Khaibar. This is the time when it has cut off my aorta.
Sunan Abu Dawud 4449—Umm Bishr said to the Prophet during the sickness of which he died: What do you think about your illness, Apostle of Allah? I do not think about the illness of my son except the poisoned sheep of which he had eaten with you at Khaibar. The Prophet said: And I do not think about my illness except that. This is the time when it cut off my aorta.
Sunan Ibn Majah 1622—Aishah said: “I never saw anyone suffer more pain than the Messenger of Allah.”
He also declared to his poisoner that Allah would not allow this to kill him. But all the sources agree (except Shiites slandering Aisha) his Death was the inevitable result of this poison. So he did make at least one failed Prophecy failing the test of Deuteronomy 18:22.
He also claimed to have a supernatural revelation that the food was poisoned after he'd already eaten some, not in time to save anyone's life. And his companion said he tasted the poison instantly, he it seems could tell it was poisoned before Allah bothered to warn Muhammad. The logical conclusion is Muhammad tasted it too but couldn't figure out what he tasted as quickly.
I'm not going to include the issue of the Satanic Verses here because it's historical reliability is in doubt. I feel above a strong enough case has been made against his Prophet-hood.
Now among Muslim attempts to find Muhammad in Bible Prophecy. There is Deuteronomy 18 which I've dealt with already.
Some have appealed to Isaiah 29:11 because Muhammad couldn't read. In context this person is clearly being condemned. So that is ill advised.
The Comforter passage has been a go to method of many would be Prophets from Mani to Bahi. In the case of Muslims that they keep trying it is really funny. It's one thing to say our Bible is corrupt but pick and choose passages that you think support your views. But in the case of the Comforter prophecy it's not even a separate passage, the doctrine of Jesus being the Son of God is right in those same verses.
The Koran and early Islamic tradition claims you can even find Muhammad by name in The Bible (The Torah and The Gospel), and in some extra Biblical prophecies of Arabic folklore. But I find it funny that Muhammad or Ahmed is the name they look for because that wasn't Muhammad's birth name. He was born Amim.
Muhammad means "praise worthy" in Arabic so it makes sense as a name that might be used in made up Prophecies, being related in meaning to Yahuda/Judah. And so Al-Amim changing his name to Muhammad proved nothing.
The attempts to find his name in the Hebrew Scriptures involve Strong number 4261 in Song of Solomon 5:16. And Strong number 2532 in Haggai 2:7. Both variations of the same root.
Only the latter example makes sense in context to view as a prophecy of a future individual. It is grammatically feminine, which I'm fine with for viewing it as a title of Christ, but if you want to argue it's someone's personal name then that person better be a woman or man with a woman's name.
Leaving aside that the obvious context of Song of Solomon 5:16 is Shulamith describing her Beloved as "altogether lovely". David Wood likes to point out this same word is used in other contexts where it would outright make Muhammad look bad to interpret it as Muhammad. But one Muslim he debated said here (in SoS, he didn't use the Haggai one) and only here is it used in that precise form.
That form he admits in grammatically plural (Mahamadim), but he defends that by siding with the Rabbinic Jewish view on why Eliohim is grammatically plural. Problem is even if we agree with that interpretation for why a singular individual can be described with a plural title, it's NEVER done that way of a personal name. YHWH never had an -im at the end, and that not Elohim is God's personal name. The two known examples of an individual person being foretold by name in advance likewise don't put an -im at the end, Josiah in 1 Kings 13:2 and Cyrus in Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1.
But the bigger problem with seeing Strong Number 4261 as Muhammad is that these Muslims pronounce it as if it has a Heh but it doesn't, it has a Het, which actually makes more of a ch sound. The pronunciations of Muhammad and Ahmed would both use a Heh in Hebrew, how Ahmadinejad is pronounced would use a Het in Hebrew.
This same Muslim challenged David Wood to find Jesus by name in the Hebrew Bible. By the same standard he's used it's all over the Hebrew Scriptures, far closer then this flawed Muhammad argument. Strong number 3444 is exactly the spelling of Yeshua except with a Heh on the end making it grammatically feminine. So if 2532 can count as close enough to Ahmed then this noun is far closer to Yeshua. It's used in many verses that can work as Messianic Prophecies far better then this Song of Solomon verse can. Just look em over.
The name of Jeshua in the Hebrew is the exact same name, and Joshua is very close. Jeshua's name is used in some Zechariah prophecies that seem pretty epic for being just a High Priest, in fact he's crowned a King which is strictly not allowed of Aaronic Priests, clearly foreshadowing Jesus as the Priest after the Order of Melchizedek.
And I've already done a post on the direct connection I see between the names Yeshua and Yahuah.
I do agree that Ishmael still has his Firstborn Inheritance. Still I do not yet see any evidence of The Hebrew Bible foretelling an Ishmaelite Prophet.
If there is however, I'd consider the possibility of that being fulfilled in Agabus who's name isn't Hebrew but possibly could be Arabic from an Arabic root that means "to Burn". Also Agabus has been theorized to be similar to the name Agbarus/Abgarus/Abgar, but I would not agree with any theory making Agabus and King Abgar the same person. Abgar was of Nabatean descent.
And if you could convince me of a Prophet being foretold to come geographically from Paran/Arabia. Mt Sinai is arguably part of Paran as Muslims define it. Elijah spent time in Sinai, and so did Paul according to Galatians 1:17.
Muslims have tried to make Deuteronomy 33:2 about Muhammad. That is clearly about what just happened, the wandering in the wilderness, and is about Yahuah himself not a Prophet. But if it does have an Eschatological second application, it's to Revelation 19 and Isaiah 63, since I believe at that time Israel will be in the same wilderness they were back then.