Christian polemicists measured Muhammad against Hebrew prophecy criteria he was not claiming to meet

Evidence

The Christian monk then explains “the signs of prophecy which oblige one to recognize the title of prophet and of apostle to him who shows them.” The Muslim notion of rasûl differs from Christian and Jewish notions of “prophet.” The Christian author does not acknowledge this, again suggesting that his real audience is fellow Christians and not his fictitious Muslim correspondent. The two signs of prophecy are revelation of things unknown (past and future) and performance of miracles. Muhammad foretold nothing, whereas the Hebrew prophets, Christ, and the apostles did. Muhammad produced no miracles, as the Koran expressly states; the miracles attributed to him are false. — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 394 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

The author thought it important to be able to cite the very ‘books of Muhammad’. In this, and in other ways, the reprobatio, though more concise in scope and method, has qualities in common with that of San Pedro. Part is certainly devoted to proving the humanity of the Prophet; the author will have known that Muslims claimed not otherwise, but he may have felt it useful to insist, against popular Muslim devotion, on Muhammad’s very ordinary humanity. Of the death in the arms of ‘A’ishah he remarked: ‘from this it is clear that the death or end of Muhammad was vile, unclean and abominable, and such a death by no means suits a Prophet or Messenger of God’. The weakness of humanity, even when no sin was involved, was a major offence in a recipient of a divine mission. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1326 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: The fourfold prophecy tests were deliberately tailored to condemn Muhammad; Ancient criteria of prophecy were applied selectively to predetermine Muhammad’s failure; Christian polemicists explained Muhammad’s prophethood as a fraudulent bid for kingship (+20 more)

Broader Connections