Muhammad's BEST support is the WRONG MAN! (#14)

It looks like the 'Doctrina Iacobi' has the wrong man, at the wrong time, and in the wrong place!

In their desperation, Muslims claim that the 'Doctrina Iacobi', a Greek Christian polemical tract from Carthage (Tunis), but written in Palestine, by a Christian apologist, proves Muhammad's existence.
Why? Because it refers to a ‘Saracen’ prophet, with a sword, who has the ‘Keys of Paradise, so who else would fit these categories?

But it is clear that it has numerous problems:

1) If he was a Saracen prophet, then he wouldn't be able to say "the Christ (which is ‘Christos’ in Greek, or ‘Mashiah’ in Hebrew), who was to come". Certainly Muhammad couldn't, since in Surah 33:40 it is very clear that he was the final prophet.

2) It assumes ‘Muhammad’ was alive in 634 AD, but the Traditions say he died in 632 AD!

3) This prophet ‘has the keys of paradise’ which confronts the Islamic Traditions.

4) This prophet ironically fits a Judeo-Christian Monotheist background.

5) This prophet has the ‘Keys of Paradise’ (which is from Matthew 16:19), and refers to Peter’s papal authority in the Catholic Church.

6) This prophet spoke Aramaic, and not Arabic. Yet, Jews wouldn’t know Arabic, and Muhammad wouldn’t have known Aramaic.

My conclusions:

There is no reference to the name Muhammad in this document, as well as no reference to this prophet being a Muslim, or belonging to the religion of Islam, nor any reference to the city of Mecca, nor of his book the Qur’an; yet these are the areas Muhammad would have claimed for himself.

It seems that he could be almsot anybody!

In fact, he sounds more like an Arab/Christian brigand, employing the status of a prophet to gain himself more credibility and authority.

There’s just nothing Muslim about him!

So, the ‘Doctrina’ cannot support Muhammad in the 7th century either!

© Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, 2021
(50,050!) Music: Reaching the Sky, by Alexander Nakarada, from filmmusic-io