The Silence of the Divine Name: A Theological Indictment of Muhammad’s Prophetic Claim

This article serves as one contribution within a wider series that will systematically expose additional reasons for rejecting Muhammad’s claim to prophethood, the Qur’an’s claim to divine authority, and the assertion that Allah is the same Aluhym who revealed Himself in the Hebrew Scriptures.

One of the most striking, and most consequential, features of the Qur’an is not what it affirms, but what it never once acknowledges. Across its entire corpus, the Qur’an is entirely silent regarding the covenant Name of the God of the Hebrew Scriptures—יהוה. It does not mention it, invoke it, explain it, preserve it, or even demonstrate awareness of it. This silence is total.

For a text that repeatedly claims to stand in continuity with the prophets of Israel, such an omission is not merely notable; by the standards of the Hebrew Scriptures themselves, it is fatal to that claim. The Aluhym (God) of the Hebrew Scriptures reveals Himself by Name, declares that Name eternal, and embeds it into the worship, covenant, and very identities of His people. A revelation that erases the Name while appropriating the prophets who proclaimed it does not represent continuity, but replacement, signalling a rupture so severe that it calls into question both the source and authenticity of the prophetic claim itself.

The Name as Revelation, Not Ornament

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the Divine Name יהוה is not decorative, symbolic, or secondary. It is the primary means by which Aluhym reveals Himself, binds His authority, and establishes covenantal accountability. When Moses asks the most basic prophetic question—Who is sending me?—Aluhym does not respond with a title, role, or philosophical abstraction. He reveals His Name:

“And Aluhym said to Mosheh, “I am that which I am.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Yisra’ĕl, ‘I am has sent me to you.’ ” And Aluhym said further to Mosheh, “Thus you are to say to the children of Yisra’ĕl, ‘יהוה Aluhym of your fathers, the Aluhym of Aḇraham, the Aluhym of Yitsḥaq, and the Aluhym of Ya‛aqoḇ, has sent me to you. This is My Name forever, and this is My remembrance to all generations.’ “Go, and you shall gather the elders of Yisra’ĕl together, and say to them, ‘יהוה Aluhym of your fathers, the Aluhym of Aḇraham, of Yitsḥaq, and of Ya‛aqoḇ, appeared to me, saying …” — Exodus 3:14-16

This passage is decisive because it reveals the Divine Name and establishes how it functions within revelation. יהוה is not disclosed as an abstract theological concept, nor as a private identifier for Moses alone, but as the enduring marker by which the Aluhym of Israel is to be known, identified, and remembered within covenant history. Aluhym explicitly declares His Name eternal—“My Name forever”—and designates it as His memorial, “My remembrance to all generations,” thereby anchoring His self-disclosure to ongoing historical continuity rather than momentary encounter. This is immediately reinforced by the command that Moses speak the Name to the elders of Israel as the authenticating sign of divine commission, linking the present revelation to the Aluhym who bound Himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Continuity with the Aluhym of the Hebrew Scriptures is therefore inseparable from continuity with His revealed Name; any later message that claims to proceed from this same Aluhym while omitting that Name does not merely adopt a different expression, but departs from the very framework Aluhym established for His self-identification and remembrance across generations.

The Prophet Like unto Moses (Deuteronomy 18)

The revelation of the Divine Name in Exodus 3 is not an isolated event; it establishes a prophetic pattern that Scripture itself declares will continue. Moses is not merely a lawgiver, but the paradigmatic prophet, and the manner in which he is commissioned, including the invocation of the Name יהוה, is presented as normative for all subsequent prophetic authority.

This is made explicit in Deuteronomy 18:

“YHWH (יהוה) your Aluhym shall raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brothers. Listen to Him, according to all you asked of יהוה your Aluhym in Ḥorĕḇ in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of יהוה my Aluhym, nor let me see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ “And יהוה said to me, ‘What they have spoken is good. ‘I shall raise up for them a Prophet like you out of the midst of their brothers. And I shall put My Words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. ‘And it shall be, the man who does not listen to My Words which He speaks in My Name, I require it of him.” — Deuteronomy 18:15–19

Several features of this passage are decisive. First, the promised prophet is described as “like” Moses, not merely in social role, but in mode of revelation and authority. Moses was commissioned by explicit divine self-disclosure, sent to identify Aluhym to the people by Name, and commanded to speak on behalf of יהוה, not independently of Him.

Second, the criterion for accountability is unambiguous: the prophet is to speak “My Words … in My Name.” The authority of the prophet’s speech is inseparable from the Name in which it is spoken. The passage does not envision a prophet who speaks about Aluhym in general terms, nor one who substitutes divine titles for divine identification, but one who speaks as Moses did, by the authority of the revealed Name.

For this reason, Deuteronomy 18 cannot be detached from Exodus 3. The same Aluhym who revealed His Name as eternal and memorialised now declares that future prophetic speech must be delivered in that Name. The Name therefore functions as the defining marker of prophetic legitimacy throughout Scripture.

Some Muslims have claimed that this passage refers to Muhammad. Yet this claim collapses under the weight of the text itself. Muhammad never spoke in the Name יהוה, never invoked it, never transmitted it, and never identified his message as proceeding from it. The Qur’an itself does not place its proclamations “in My Name” as Deuteronomy requires. By the very standard Moses sets, Muhammad does not fulfil the criteria of the prophet “like unto Moses.”

Prophets Speak in the Name

This pattern is consistently observed throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. The prophets do not merely speak about Aluhym; they speak in His Name. This is not presented as a stylistic flourish, but as the standard mode of prophetic proclamation. The recurring formula is unmistakable:

“Thus says יהוה…” 

As demonstrated throughout the prophetic writings, for example:

• Isaiah 7:7 — “Thus says יהוה Aluhym: ‘It shall not stand…’”

• Jeremiah 2:2 — “Go and cry in the hearing of Yerushalayim, saying, Thus says יהוה…”

• Jeremiah 7:1–2 — “The word that came to Jeremiah from יהוה, saying… Thus says יהוה…”

• Ezekiel 2:4 — “You shall say to them, Thus says the Master יהוה.”

• Ezekiel 6:3 — “And say, Thus says the Master יהוה to the mountains…”

• Amos 1:3 — “Thus says יהוה: ‘For three transgressions of Damascus…’”

• Zechariah 1:3 — “You shall say to them, Thus says יהוה of hosts…”

This formula recurs across centuries and prophetic voices, establishing a consistent mode of authorisation in which prophetic speech is introduced, framed, and authenticated by explicit reference to the Name of יהוה. From the former prophets to the latter prophets, the prophets understand themselves as commissioned messengers, and the Name functions as the identifying marker of the authority under which they speak.

What matters here is not frequency for its own sake, but continuity of practice. The prophetic tradition established with Moses and anticipated in Deuteronomy 18 is carried forward without interruption. Prophets across centuries, contexts, and circumstances consistently speak as representatives of the Aluhym who revealed Himself by Name.

Against this backdrop, the silence of Muhammad’s message is conspicuous. Neither Muhammad nor the Qur'an adopts this prophetic mode. There are no proclamations introduced as “Thus says יהוה,” no speech framed as delivered in that Name, and no continuity with the established prophetic practice of identifying the speaker by the revealed Name of the Aluhym of Israel.

This absence is especially significant because the Qur’an itself explicitly claims that Allah is the God who gave the Torah to Moses and Israel. For example, the Qur’an states that God “sent down the Torah and the Gospel before as guidance for mankind” (Qur’an 3:3–4), that “We did reveal the Torah, in which was guidance and light” (Qur’an 5:44), and that Moses was given the Scripture as a foundation for Israel (Qur’an 6:154; 28:43). In making this claim, the Qur’an identifies Allah not as a new or unrelated deity, but as the very Aluhym who revealed Himself to Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Yet having made that identification, the Qur’an does not follow the prophetic pattern established by that Aluhym. Allah never identifies himself by the Name יהוה, despite the fact that יהוה repeatedly identifies Himself by Name throughout the Torah and Prophets, often sealing His words with “I am יהוה.” Nor does Muhammad, as Allah’s purported messenger, speak in that Name, even though the prophets sent by the Aluhym of Israel consistently did.

The implication follows directly from the texts. If Allah truly is the Aluhym who revealed the Torah to Israel, then both divine self-identification and prophetic speech would be expected to align with the revelatory pattern established there. That pattern includes not only continuity of message, but continuity of Name-based authorisation. A prophet sent by the Aluhym of Israel would speak as the prophets of Israel spoke—in the Name by which that Aluhym made Himself known. The fact that neither Allah nor Muhammad does so marks a clear departure from the prophetic tradition the Qur’an itself claims to affirm.

The point is straightforward. In the Hebrew Scriptures, prophetic continuity is defined not only by message, but by manner of authorisation: speech delivered in the revealed Name. Where that Name is absent, the prophetic tradition Scripture itself establishes is no longer present.

“I Am יהוה”: The Name as Covenant Signature

Throughout the Torah, and with particular frequency in Leviticus, divine commandments are repeatedly sealed with the declaration: “I am יהוה.” This formula appears with striking regularity and functions as a covenantal signature, binding each command to the revealed identity of the One who gives it.

The pattern is consistent and unmistakable:

“You shall keep My statutes and My judgments… I am יהוה.” — Leviticus 18:5

“You shall not profane My holy Name… I am יהוה.” — Leviticus 22:32

“You shall observe all My statutes and all My judgments and do them… I am יהוה.” — Leviticus 19:37

The structure is deliberate: command → Name. Obedience is grounded not in anonymous authority, abstract principle, or raw power, but in the known and revealed identity of the Lawgiver. The Name is the warrant for obedience. Israel is not merely instructed what to do; it is reminded who commands it.

Importantly, Scripture does not require that every individual command be sealed with this declaration for the Name to function authoritatively. The Torah first establishes the covenantal identity of the Lawgiver through the explicit revelation of His Name and then repeatedly reaffirms that identity at key legal and ethical junctures. Individual commandments therefore operate within an already disclosed and memorialised Name-based covenantal framework. The issue is not repetition, but revelation.

Significantly, the Name is attached not only to ritual observance, but to laws governing ethics, justice, sexual conduct, social responsibility, honesty, and holiness. In this way, יהוה binds His Name to moral accountability itself. To obey the command is to respond to the Aluhym who has made Himself known; to reject it is to reject the authority of the Aluhym who identified Himself by Name.

This makes the contrast with the Qur'an especially clear. In the Qur’an, commands are frequently presented as direct divine speech, often introduced by formulas such as “O you who believe…,”and they govern prayer, ritual purity, and moral conduct (e.g. Qur’an 2:43; 5:6; 24:30–31; 4:103). These are unmistakable imperatives, attributed to Allah as the source of authority. Yet they are never grounded in a revealed covenant Name. They are not sealed with “I am יהוה,” introduced as “Thus says יהוה,” or otherwise linked to the divine self-identification that undergirds command and accountability in the Torah.

This absence is not trivial, particularly since the Qur’an itself claims that Allah is the Aluhym who gave the Torah to Moses and Israel (e.g. Qur’an 3:3–4; 5:44). In the Hebrew Scriptures, that Aluhym repeatedly identifies Himself by Name and binds His authority to that revelation. In the Qur’an, by contrast, the Lawgiver never discloses such a covenantal Name at all.

The distinction, therefore, is not one of stylistic formula or frequency, but of foundational disclosure. The Torah issues commands from an Aluhym who has revealed His Name and established covenantal authority through it. The Qur’an issues commands while never revealing that Name in the first place. As a result, despite claims of continuity, its imperatives do not operate within the covenantal framework established in Scripture.

The Name as the Object of Worship and Trust

The Psalms make unmistakably clear that biblical faith is not directed toward an unnamed deity, nor toward a generic concept of “god,” but toward the revealed Name itself. Trust and praise are consistently framed as responses to the Aluhym who has made Himself known by Name:

“Those who know Your Name trust in You.” — Psalm 9:10

“Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the Name of יהוה our Aluhym.” — Psalm 20:7

“From the rising of the sun to its setting, the Name of יהוה is to be praised.” — Psalm 113:3

These statements are not poetic embellishments; they are theological assertions. Knowledge of the Name is presented as the basis of trust and praise of the Name as the proper orientation of worship. The biblical authors do not treat the Name as optional, symbolic, or replaceable; it is the focal point of devotion precisely because it discloses the identity of the One being trusted.

The Qur’an likewise speaks frequently of trust and praise. Believers are commanded to rely upon Allah and to glorify him:

“Then when you have decided, rely upon Allah. Indeed, Allah loves those who rely upon Him.” — Qur’an 3:159

“All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds.” — Qur’an 1:2

“And say, ‘Praise be to Allah…’” — Qur’an 17:111

In this respect, the Qur’an contains genuine devotional exhortations. However, the point of divergence is decisive. While trust and praise are commanded, they are never grounded in the revelation of a covenant Name. The Qur’an never identifies Allah by the Name יהוה, never explains it, and never orients devotion toward it, despite repeatedly claiming continuity with the Aluhym of the Hebrew Scriptures.

It is true that in the Hebrew Scriptures there are instances where trust, praise, or allegiance is expressed using titles such as God or Lord without immediate mention of the Name יהוה. Yet this does not undermine the biblical pattern. Those titles function within a revelatory framework in which the Name has already been disclosed, memorialised, and made foundational. Trust and praise directed toward titles presuppose prior knowledge of the Name; they do not replace it.

The conclusion therefore follows directly from the biblical texts themselves. If trust, praise, and allegiance in Scripture are explicitly grounded in knowledge of the Name of יהוה, then a religious system that neither knows nor uses that Name is not merely expressing biblical faith in another form, it is operating by a different standard of knowledge altogether. The Aluhym of the Psalms is known, trusted, and worshiped by Name. Where that Name is absent, the faith Scripture describes is absent as well.

This framework does not belong to the Psalms alone. It is part of a broader biblical standard by which claims to knowledge of Aluhym are assessed. Wisdom literature presses the issue even further. Proverbs 30:4 does not ask whether Aluhym exists, nor whether He has power, but whether He is known:

“What is His Name, and what is His Son’s Name—if you know?”

The question is deliberately confrontational. It assumes that genuine knowledge of Aluhym is inseparable from knowledge of His Name, and it treats ignorance of the Name not as a harmless gap, but as evidence that true understanding is lacking. Scripture thus binds worship, trust, and even theological knowledge itself to the revealed Name.

This has direct implications for Muhammad and the message he proclaimed. Neither Muhammad, nor the author of the Qur'an, nor the Qur’an itself ever demonstrates knowledge of the Name יהוה. It is never mentioned, explained, invoked, or praised. The omission is not partial or accidental; it is absolute.

Furthermore, this stands in marked contrast to the witness of יהושוע (Jesus). In his prayer recorded in the Gospel, he explicitly states:

“And I have made Your Name known to them, and shall make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me might be in them, and I in them.” — John 17:26

Here, making the Name known is not incidental; it is presented as integral to revelation, relationship, and covenantal love. Knowledge of the Name is the means by which the character and faithfulness of Aluhym are disclosed to His people.

This contrast is especially significant given that the Qur’an itself claims that Allah also gave the Injīl (Gospel) (e.g. Qur’an 5:46). If Allah is indeed the Aluhym who revealed both the Torah and the Gospel, then continuity of self-disclosure would be expected. Yet where יהושוע explicitly knows and reveals the Name of Aluhym, Muhammad neither knows it nor makes it known. The disparity is not minor; it concerns the very criterion Scripture uses to define true knowledge of Aluhym.

The Name as Aluhym’s Self-Disclosure to the Nations

The Hebrew Scriptures go further still. The Divine Name is not only the basis of covenant faith within Israel; it is the means by which Aluhym makes Himself known to the nations. The prophets consistently present the revelation of the Name as the outcome of Aluhym’s redemptive and judicial acts in history.

Ezekiel records Aluhym’s declaration concerning the restoration of Israel:

“And I shall set My set-apart Name among My people Yisra’ĕl, and no longer let My set-apart Name be profaned. And the nations shall know that I am יהוה, the Set-Apart One in Yisra’ĕl.” — Ezekiel 39:7

Similarly, Isaiah records Aluhym’s own insistence:

“I am יהוה, that is My Name; My glory I give to no other, nor My praise to graven images.” — Isaiah 42:8

Here, Aluhym explicitly binds His glory, identity, and uniqueness to His revealed Name. The nations are not said merely to recognise divine power or abstract sovereignty, but to know who has acted—and that recognition is inseparable from the Name יהוה. Divine self-disclosure, in prophetic theology, is therefore incomplete apart from the revelation of the Name.

This point is pressed even further by Book of Joel, where the knowledge and invocation of the Name is explicitly tied to salvation itself:

“And it shall come to be that everyone who calls on the Name of יהוה shall be saved.” — Joel 2:32

This statement is decisive. Salvation is not presented as the result of generic theism, moral effort, or allegiance to an unnamed deity, but as the outcome of calling upon the revealed Name. The Name is not peripheral to redemption; it is the means by which deliverance is accessed and recognised.

Taken together, the prophetic witness is clear. The nations come to know Aluhym by knowing His Name; His glory is bound to that Name; and salvation itself is associated with calling upon it. The Name יהוה functions as the point of recognition, distinction, and appeal by which Aluhym makes Himself known beyond Israel.

This has unavoidable implications for any later revelation claiming universal scope. A message intended for all nations, and claiming continuity with the Aluhym of the prophets, would be expected to participate in this same pattern of self-disclosure—making known the Name by which Aluhym declared He would be known, trusted, and called upon for salvation. To obscure, replace, or omit that Name is therefore not an act of reverence, but a departure from the prophetic framework itself.

In this light, the silence of the Qur'an is again decisive. Although it presents itself as a universal revelation and repeatedly claims continuity with the Aluhym of Israel, it never reveals, invokes, or explains the Name יהוה. The very means by which the prophets declare that Aluhym will make Himself known among the nations, and by which people are called to be saved, is absent.

Theophoric Names: Theology Written into Identity

A common Muslim objection to the biblical emphasis on the Divine Name is the claim that the Torah has been corrupted. Yet this claim immediately encounters a serious internal problem. The Qur’an itself repeatedly affirms that Allah revealed the Torah (e.g., Qur’an 3:3–4; 5:44), while also asserting that the words of Allah cannot be corrupted. If the Divine Name יהוה appears approximately 1,419 times throughout the Torah, then one of two conclusions must follow: either the Torah is not corrupted in this respect, or the Name itself would have to be regarded as a corruption, an implication that undermines the Qur’an’s own theological claims.

This difficulty becomes even more pronounced when we turn to theophoric names—personal names that explicitly contain the Divine Name and function as confessions of faith. These names appear not only in the Torah and the wider Hebrew Scriptures, but also in the Qur'an itself. Their presence makes the question of divine identity unavoidable.

Consider the following examples:

• Elijah (Eliyahu) means “My God is יהוה.”

• John the Baptist (Yahuwchanan/Yochanan) means “יהוה is gracious.”

• Jesus (Yeshua/Yehoshua / Yahuwshuwa) means “יהוה saves.” 

These are not incidental linguistic features or cultural curiosities. They are theological declarations embedded in personal identity. Every time Elijah’s name was spoken, it proclaimed allegiance to יהוה. Every time Joshua or Yeshua was named, it testified that salvation belongs to יהוה alone. In Scripture, identity itself becomes a vehicle of revelation.

This presents a serious challenge for the Qur’an’s claim to continuity. The Qur’an refers to Elijah, John, and Jesus, yet empties their names of the very meaning that defines them. The names are transliterated into Arabic forms, but the Divine Name they contain is neither explained, preserved, nor acknowledged. This cannot be dismissed as a simple matter of translation. Arabic is fully capable of conveying meaning, and Islam itself is not foreign to theophoric naming—many Qur’anic figures bear names constructed around devotion to Allah. 

The issue, therefore, is not language, but knowledge and recognition. If the Qur’an’s author truly stood in continuity with Israel’s prophets, he would have understood that Elijah’s entire prophetic mission was bound to the proclamation of יהוה’s Name (1 Kings 18), that John’s very identity declared יהוה’s grace, that Joshua’s name proclaimed יהוה as Saviour, and that the Messiah’s name itself testified to the saving action of יהוה. Yet none of this is acknowledged. The Name is never explained, preserved, or honoured.

The force of the theophoric argument is not that the Qur’an mentions biblical figures, but that it does so while emptying their names of the testimony they bear. Elijah, John, and Jesus are not merely individuals; their names confess the identity of the Aluhym they served. By affirming these figures while never acknowledging the Divine Name embedded in their identities, the Qur’an appropriates the prophets while severing them from the Aluhym they proclaim. The names themselves testify to יהוה, even where the Qur’an remains silent.

This raises an unavoidable question of identity. Can Elijah be both the prophet whose very name confesses “My God is יהוה” and simultaneously a prophet of a deity who is never identified as יהוה? If Allah and יהוה are truly the same Aluhym, then one would expect continuity not only of message, but of self-identification, especially when that identification is embedded in the names of Aluhym’s own prophets. Instead, the Qur’an affirms the figures while severing them from the Name that defines their faith.

Theophoric names thus function as a kind of textual witness that cannot be easily dismissed. They confirm the identity of the Aluhym who spoke in the Torah and through the prophets, even in places where the Qur’an attempts to appropriate those figures. Far from being evidence of corruption, these names preserve the Divine Name across texts, generations, and languages. Their presence exposes a fundamental discontinuity: the Aluhym proclaimed in the Hebrew Scriptures is known by Name, and that Name is woven into the very identities of His servants. The Qur’an borrows the servants—but not the Name of the Aluhym they served.

Either the theophoric names preserved throughout the Scriptures bear true witness to the Aluhym יהוה, while the Qur'an bears no such witness at all—never naming Him, never explaining His identity, and never orienting worship, trust, or salvation toward that Name. If this is the case, then the Qur’an does not merely differ in expression; it demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the Name and identity of the Aluhym revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures and is therefore presenting a different deity altogether.

Or else, it must be claimed that the Qur’an truly originates from the same Aluuhym, יהוה, yet deliberately withholds the very Name by which He revealed Himself, entered covenant, authorised prophets, and even attached salvation itself. This would require the conclusion that יהוה has fundamentally altered His mode of self-disclosure, ceasing to emphasise, invoke, or even mention His Name, despite having declared that Name eternal, memorialised for all generations, and central to trust, worship, and deliverance. Such a claim would imply not merely development or contextual adaptation, but a contradiction of Aluhym’s own stated purposes regarding His Name, which would also constitute a deviation from Aluhym’s unchanging standard as spoken of in Malachi 3:6 - “For I am יהוה, I shall not change, and you, O sons of Ya‛aqoḇ, shall not come to an end.”

Neither alternative coheres with the biblical witness. The first severs continuity of identity; the second undermines the consistency of divine self-revelation. In either case, the silence of the Qur’an regarding the Name יהוה cannot be reconciled with the testimony of the Torah, the Prophets, the Psalms, or the Gospel. The theophoric names embedded in Scripture stand as a persistent and unambiguous witness: the Aluhym who spoke to Israel, who sent His prophets, and who promised salvation made Himself known by Name—and that Name is absent from the Qur’an.

Allah: A Title Without a Covenant Name

Instead of the covenant Name, the Qur’an consistently uses “Allah”—a title meaning “the god.” Titles describe function or rank; names reveal identity and character. Scripture does not treat these as interchangeable. The Aluhym of the Bible uses titles, yes, but He does not hide behind a title. He binds Himself to a Name, stakes His reputation upon it, and explicitly declares that He will not give His glory, or His Name, to another (Isaiah 42:8).

If “Allah” truly were the same Aluhym, then the complete silence regarding His own revealed Name becomes inexplicable. Why would the Aluhym who declared His Name “forever” suddenly abandon it? Why would He allow the names of His prophets, names that proclaim His identity, to be preserved and used, while the meaning they bear is never acknowledged?

That “Allah” functions linguistically as a generic term for “god” in Arabic does not address the issue at hand, which is not vocabulary but covenantal self-disclosure; the question is not whether God may be called “god,” but whether He reveals Himself by the Name He declared eternal. The issue, therefore, is not reverence or linguistic difference, but covenantal identity. A title can be shared; a revealed Name cannot. The more coherent explanation is that the god of the Qur’an is not the Aluhym of the Hebrew Scriptures, despite claims to the contrary.

Conclusion: The Divine Name as the Measure of True Prophecy and Truth

Scripture establishes a consistent and demanding standard for prophetic legitimacy: a true prophet speaks with knowledge of the Aluhym who sends him. This argument does not claim to exhaust all possible criteria of prophecy, but applies one criterion Scripture itself repeatedly and explicitly emphasises. The prophets of Israel do not merely transmit divine messages in abstraction; they demonstrate intimate familiarity with Aluhym’s revealed Name, His character, His covenant history, and His prior self-disclosure. They speak in the Name, invoke the Name, and understand their authority as deriving from the Aluhym who made Himself known by that Name.

When measured against this standard, the contrast with Muhammad is unmistakable. Muhammad never invokes the Name יהוה, never explains its significance, never connects it to the prophets he references, and never claims to speak in that Name. This absence cannot be dismissed as a matter of preference, emphasis, or linguistic difference. According to the Torah itself, prophetic authority is inseparable from fidelity to the Aluhym as He has revealed Himself. A prophet who presents a different conception of Aluhym, or who speaks without reference to the Aluhym known and named in prior revelation, fails the prophetic test articulated in Deuteronomy 13 and 18.

Taken together, the biblical witness establishes an unavoidable reality: the Aluhym of Scripture does not remain nameless. He reveals Himself by Name, binds His commands to that Name, authorises His prophets by that Name, embeds that Name into the identities of His servants, and declares that Name eternal. Knowledge of the Name is bound to trust, worship, covenant faithfulness, prophetic speech, and even salvation itself. Therefore, a text that claims continuity with Israel’s prophets, reuses their narratives, and invokes their authority, yet entirely omits the Name by which they knew and proclaimed their Aluhym, does not merely present a different emphasis. It presents a different conception of God altogether. A god without a revealed Name is not the Aluhym of Scripture, and a prophetic claim that silences the Name stands outside the framework of biblical revelation.

The silence of the Qur'an concerning the Name יהוה is thus not neutral. It is diagnostic. Even Allah, as presented in the Qur’an, never identifies himself by a revealed name and never mentions יהוה at all, despite the Aluhym of the Bible repeatedly identifying Himself by Name throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. It reveals a rupture in revelation so severe that it undermines any claim to prophetic continuity. Either the god presented in the Qur’an is not the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, or the Qur’an’s author did not know the God he claimed to represent. In either case, the conclusion follows naturally: Muhammad does not meet the biblical criteria of a true prophet.

This conclusion rests on Scriptural, linguistic, and theological grounds rather than emotional polemic. It is not the only line of evidence, but it is a weighty one. It demonstrates that Muhammad’s message does not arise from the Aluhym who revealed Himself by Name, entered covenant by Name, and placed that Name at the heart of His people’s identity.

May יהוה be with you and bless you.