Medieval Christian polemicists read military defeats as disproof of prophets

Evidence

The Christian next launches a concerted attack against Muhammad, in order to prove that he was no prophet. He recounts Muhammad’s biography in as acerbic and derogatory a fashion as possible, showing all the while a good knowledge of the Koran and early Muslim historiography. He notes that Muhammad had first been an idolater and had enriched himself through trade and through his marriage with Khadîja. Wishing to rule over his tribe, he decided to pretend to be a prophet; his companions, gullible nomads who knew nothing of the signs of prophecy, believed him. He and his followers enriched themselves through war and pillaging. These acts, for the Christian writer, are enough to prove that Muhammad was not a prophet; the failures of some of the expeditions (especially the battle of Uhud) even more so: a true prophet would have foreseen (and avoided) defeat. — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 389

Categorization

• QUESTION: What does this expectation that a true prophet never loses a battle say about Mediterranean assumptions linking prophecy to victory?