Could Muhammad of been a prophet?

Is it possible that Muhammad was a prophet of God? Can the belief in Jesus as our savoir and Muhammad as a prophet coincide? I don’t know much about Islam, but I’m quite curious about it.

No, Muhammad was not a prophet of God but he did borrow much from Judaism and Christianity.

Consider the following quotes to help you answer the question:

Verily they are disbelievers and infidels who say, ‘The Messiah, son of Mary, is God.’

They are surely infidels who blaspheme and say: ‘God is Christ, the Messiah, the son of Mary.’

From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We made a covenant, but they forgot and abandoned a good part of the message that was sent them.

They are surely disbelievers who blaspheme and say: ‘God is one of three in the Trinity’

The Messiah, Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a messenger;

You may want to read this article by Hilaire Belloc, from the book “The Great Heresies”.

The following is taken from the Wikipedia article on Muhammad:

“He is believed by Muslims and Bahá’ís to be a messenger and prophet of God. Muhammad is almost universally considered by Muslims as the last prophet sent by God for mankind”

Who is correct?

No, because he taught that Jesus Christ was not God.

“and every spirit which confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist,” 1 John 4:3

He was a man deceived by the Devil into blaspheming the one true God and denying the incarnation of Christ.

It seems that Mohammed started out as a heretic against Christianity influenced by Arianism. No, he was not a prophet. God does not send prophets to teach against the truth of Jesus’ nature.

Not possible…God’s plan for Divine Revelation was fulfilled in Word made Flesh…and closed with the death of the last of The Twelve…apostles…John The Evangelest who died @ 100 A.D.


God has said everything in his Word

65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.27

There will be no further Revelation

66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and **no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.”**28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

Many people think because Mohammed came after Jesus, and because Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam that somehow the natural thought is that the truths of Islam supersede the truths of Christianity. If that kind of chronology is what inspires the notion, then Joseph Smith’s truths would wipe out Islamic truths, and Mary Baker Eddy would wipe out Joseph Smith, and then Jim Jones would wipe out Mary Baker Eddy, and Sun Myung Moon would wipe out Jim Jones, and David Koresh and the Rajneesh and L. Ron Hubbard…

Well, I hope you get the picture. And the chaos of that kind of thinking! There is no logical chronology here. And let’s just add some logic here: If Jesus was the "prophet for Islam, then His words would have prepared us for Mohammed and Jesus would have diminished and never stated that He was the Son of God, the Messiah, and He would never have died on that cross for those allegations that He was claiming to be the Messiah. Further Mohammed’s words would have been truer to the Scriptures, not just mouthing them in convenient sections and ignoring the Scriptures elsewhere, and there would have been more unity rather than opposition to the words of their “prophets”.

I think of Mohammed’s “prophecies” and “revelations” in the same way I think of Joseph Smith’s: these were semi-educated young men with mystical, erroneous visions; they could have been psychotic, demonic, epileptic, or outright consciously deceptive. The two men were able to rally a large group around their ideas and visions, and they both enjoyed the “perks”: honor, multiple wives, earthly power. They were shiny rhinestones, not the true diamond that Jesus was. The story of their lives simply does not stand up to His story, the greatest story ever told.

Maybe the question, if accurately worded, would say, “In the views of Christianity, could Muhammad have been a prophet?” Some non-Christian believers in God regard Muhammad as a prophet, so the answer is “Yes”.

Islam emphasizes that there is only one God, and it is impossible for God to have been incarnated.

The statement, “God does not sent prophets to teach against the truth of Jesus’ nature.” may not hold water for faiths that do not believe in the Trinity, and that includes many Christian faiths.

Non-Trinitarian religions are not Christian, because Jesus Christ is the incarnate Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity.

A Christian cannot accept him as a prophet and still consider himself a Christian, simply because a prophet is a messenger of God, a channel through which God speaks (though in our Profession of Faith we say that God has spoken through the prophets) and prophets cannot and do not contradict themselves inasmuch as God does not contradict himself. If we however do accept him as a prophet, then it means God teaches that Christ is just a man and a messenger, rather than God and the Son - the basic tenets of Christianity, built on the faith of the divinity of Christ.

Furthermore, Christ affirmed that the Forerunner John the Baptist was the last of the prophets, though he also warned us about many things that would happen in the future.

This affirms that, in your view, the Trinitarian approach is the only valid view of God, and that all non-Trinitarian views are false. This includes a huge percentage of the world’s population, including Muslims, Mormons, Unitarians, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists.

The nature of God varies from faith to faith, and can even vary from person to person. Who is to say which view is the only true view? This is an exclusionary attitude and has led to wars. The prophet Muhammad respected Jews and Christians and even incorporated their faiths within the Islamic Empire. Why can’t Catholics take the same tolerant attitude?

I shall quote Bishop Fulton Sheen, who knew more and expressed himself better than I ever will.

“The Catholic Church intolerant.” That simple thought, like a yellow-fever sign, is supposed to be the one solid reason which should frighten away any one who might be contemplating knocking at the portals of the Church for entrance, or for a crumb of the Bread of Life. When proof for this statement is asked, it is retorted that the Church is intolerant because of its self-complacency and smug satisfaction as the unique interpreter of the thoughts of Christ.

The charge of intolerance is not new. It was once directed against Our Blessed Lord Himself.

In so many words Jesus said to Annas: “You imply by your questioning that I am not Divine; that I am just the same as the other rabbis going up and down the country-side; that I am another one of Israel’s prophets, and at the most, only a man. I know that you would welcome Me to your heart if I would say that I am only human. But no! I have spoken openly to the world. I have declared My Divinity; I say unto you, I have exercised the right of Divinity, for I have forgiven sins; I have left my Body and Blood for posterity, and rather than deny its reality I have lost those who followed Me, who were scandalized at My words. It was only last night that I told Philip that the Father and I are One, and that I will ask My Father to send the Spirit of Truth to the Church I have founded on Peter, which will endure to the end of time. Ask those who have heard Me; they will tell you what things I have said. I have no other doctrine than that which I declared when I drove your dove-hucksters out of the Temple, and declared it to be My Father’s House; that which I have preached; that which angels declared at My birth; that which I revealed on Thabor; that which I now declare before you, namely, My Divinity. And if your first principle is that I am not Divine, but am just human like yourself, then there is nothing in common between us. So, why asketh thou Me to discuss doctrine and ministry with you?”

All that happened in the life of Christ happens in the life of the Church. In so many words the Church says …]: “Why askest thou me about my doctrine and my ministry? Ask them that have heard me. I have spoken openly through the centuries, declaring myself the Spouse of Christ, founded on the Rock of Peter. Centuries before prophets of modern religions arose, I spoke my Divinity at Nicea and Constantinople; I spoke it in the cathedrals of the Middle Ages; I speak it today in every pulpit and church throughout the world. I know that you will welcome me to your conferences if I say I am not Divine; … ‘Why do you ask me?’ if your first principle is that I am not Divine, but just a human organization like your own, that I am a human institution like all other human institutions founded by erring men and erring women. If your first principle is that I am human, but not divine, then there is no common ground …”

Call this intolerance, yes! That is just what it is-the intolerance of Divinity. It is the claim to uniqueness that brought the blow of the soldier against Christ, and it is the claim to uniqueness that brings the blow of the world’s disapproval against the Church.

Intolerance is always supposed to be undesirable, because it is taken to be synonymous with narrow-mindedness. This is not true, for tolerance and intolerance apply to two totally different things. Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons. We must be tolerant to persons because they are human; we must be intolerant about principles because they are divine. We must be tolerant to the erring, because ignorance may have led them astray; but we must be intolerant to the error, because Truth is not our making, but God’s.

The Church, like Our Blessed Lord, advocates charity to all persons who disagree with her by word or by violence.

The world may charge the Church with intolerance, and the world is right. The Church is intolerant-intolerant about Truth, intolerant about principles, intolerant about Divinity, just as Our Blessed Lord was intolerant about His Divinity. The other religions may change their principles, and they do change them, because their principles are man-made. The Church cannot change, because her principles are God-made. Religion is not a sure of beliefs that we would like, but the sum of beliefs God has given. The world may disagree with the Church, but the world knows very definitely with what it is disagreeing.

There are only two positions to take concerning truth, and both of them had their hearing centuries ago in the court-room of Solomon where two women claimed a babe. A babe is like truth; it is one; it is whole; it is organic and it cannot be divided. The real mother of 'the babe would accept no compromise. She was intolerant about her claim. She must have the whole babe, or nothing-the intolerance of Motherhood. But the false mother was tolerant. She was willing to compromise. She was willing to divide the babe-and the babe would have met its death through broadmindedness.


Yes, the Catholic Church also emphasizes that there is only one God, and that God is pure Spirit.

The teaching is not that God–in his nature–was incarnated. God has only one nature–a divine nature. The teaching is rather that the Person of the Son, who possesses the one divine nature, was incarnated. Persons, not natures, can be incarnated. But I’m not going to restate Trinitarian theology here. For that, I recommend Frank Sheed’s “Theology for Beginners,” and “Theology and Sanity.”

I think that Islam might never had gotten started on such a heretical track had it not first been influenced by Arian heretics at the outset.

God doesn’t send prophets to contradict one another.

True, some people might mistake someone for a prophet when he is not.

Some thought that Jim Jones was a prophet, but they were wrong.

This affirms that, in your view, the Trinitarian approach is the only valid view of God, and that all non-Trinitarian views are false. It is not “his view”. It is the truth revealed by God Himself. This includes a huge percentage of the world’s population, including Muslims, Mormons, Unitarians, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists. There is only one God and only one true religion. False religions are going to have false conceptions of God.

The nature of God varies from faith to faith, and can even vary from person to person. Who is to say which view is the only true view? God. This is an exclusionary attitude and has led to wars. To hold that God’s nature can be different things to different creatures is non-sensical. The prophet Muhammad respected Jews and Christians and even incorporated their faiths within the Islamic Empire. Indeed - somebody had to play the role of the infidel and the blasphemer if Muhammad was going to be successful in establishing an Islamic empire. Why can’t Catholics take the same tolerant attitude? I… I just… I have no idea how to respond to this question.

According to Karen Armstrong, humans created God. Yahweh was a lot different than God of the New Testament. A harsh judgmental fearful god handed down the Ten Commandments and the Jews have lived in fear of God ever since. God in the NT is supposed to be merciful and not fearful. It is human’s interpretation of the nature of God that varies. Armstrong points this out vividly in her book, “A History of God”. If you are not familiar with her background, she became a nun as a young person. When she became disillusioned with Catholicism, she left her order and pursued scholarly research into the nature of religion. She wanted to become a professor, but her dissertation was not accepted by Cambridge. So she started scholarly writing. She is probably the foremost authority on religion in the world today.

John 14:16 “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever”

John 15:26 “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me”

John 14:26 “But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

Just my belief, you are welcome to disagree but I believe the comforter to be Muhammed(PBUH) and he did confirm the teachings of Jesus(PBUH)

Muslim women dress like Mary(PBUH) ie head covering, Muslim men look more like Jesus(PBUH) as we are supposed to replicate the Prophets in every manner and worship as they are the closest to God.

Some of the predictions in this link,

Thank you for your kind words. Please do note that I personally know devout Muslims and admire their reverence and devotion towards God. However, we both know that many fundamental teachings of Jesus are contradicted by him, which is why Islam is not considered by the Catholic Church a Christian community but a different religion altogether (though one that honors the true God).

Actually, their population from around the world is rather small.

The first highlighted part is a liberalism view point. This came up around the 1900s during the progressive age in America. This basically says that no one can be right and no one can be wrong so lets all just be equal and let anyone do what they want and hold hands and frolick in the lilies.

The second basically is what explained above

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit