Who Actually Did Miracles—Paul or Muhammad?

Paul’s followers believed he worked miracles. His own letters say it. Acts records them in detail. Even skeptics admit the early church believed it. Muhammad? The Quran flat-out says he did no miracles. The only place you’ll find them is in Hadith—written over a century later.

So if miracles are a sign of a true prophet, and we’re going by actual historical evidence, let’s be real—Paul has way more proof than Muhammad. Let’s break this down.

Paul didn’t just claim to work miracles—he actually used them as proof that he was a real apostle. In 2 Corinthians 12:12, he tells the Corinthians:

“The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.”

Now, why does this matter? Because the Corinthians were skeptical. They were obsessed with these so-called “super-apostles”—charismatic, smooth-talking teachers who were trying to undermine Paul. Paul doesn’t rely on rhetoric—he points to miracles and the relentless persecution he’s endured. And this wasn’t a one-time flex. In Romans 15:19, he says he preached “by the power of signs and wonders.”

So he’s either legit, lying, or delusional—no middle ground. But we have historical evidence to back him up. He wasn’t lying or crazy, and we’ll get into why shortly. Now let’s imagine for a second that Paul had said:

“The proof that I’m an apostle? My letters! Just go pull out my first letter to the Corinthians—there’s your miracle!”

That would be laughable. And yet, that’s exactly what Muhammad did. The Quran makes it crystal clear—Muhammad didn’t perform any supernatural signs. The people around him expected him to—just like Moses did (Quran 6:37, 28:48). But Muhammad’s response?

“I am only a warner.” (Quran 29:50)

That’s it. That’s all you get.

• In Quran 13:7, the skeptics ask for a miracle.
• In Quran 11:12, same challenge.
• And then in Quran 17:59, Allah himself gives the final excuse:

“Nothing has prevented Us from sending miracles, except that the previous generations rejected them.” Translation? Allah refused miracles because people rejected them before—which isn’t even true. Jesus’ disciples believed because of his miracles, just as he intended. So instead of even healing someone’s migraine or fever, Muhammad tells his critics:

“Is it not enough of a miracle that We sent down to you this book?” (Quran 29:51)

So there you have it. The Quran itself says Muhammad’s only miracle… is the Quran. But here’s where things get weird. A century or two later, as Islam spread into Christian and Jewish lands, suddenly Muhammad did apparently work miracles after all.

• Now he’s multiplying food (Sahih al-Bukhari 3578, 3579, 3381; Sahih Muslim 2047a).
• Now he’s healing the sick (Sunan Abu Dawood 4175; Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2063).
• Now he’s controlling nature—in stories that look suspiciously similar to Jesus’ miracles in the Gospels (Sahih al-Bukhari 3580; Sunan an-Nasa’i 1083, 1085).

These stories come from the Hadith—compiled 100-200 years later by Muslims trying to prove Muhammad was just as miraculous as Moses and Jesus. Now let’s compare the historical records for Paul and Muhammad.

Acts—which records Paul’s miracles—was written by Luke, a guy who actually traveled with him. The “we” passages in Acts (like Acts 16:10) show Luke was physically there, not just making stuff up later. Even by more liberal dating, Acts was written within 50 years of the events—well within living memory.

Now, let’s talk about Muhammad’s biography.

• The first full biography of Muhammad wasn’t written until Ibn Ishaq—about 150 years after Muhammad died.
• And even that was edited and rewritten by Ibn Hisham, meaning the first real story we get of Muhammad is nearly two centuries later.

That’s like trying to write a definitive biography of Abraham Lincoln today, relying only on word-of-mouth stories, with no way to separate fact from folklore. Meanwhile, Acts is loaded with historical confirmations—and we’ll look at a few right now.

Take Philippi—Acts 16:12 calls it “a leading city of the district of Macedonia and a Roman colony.” That’s historically verified. Coins and inscriptions confirm Philippi’s Roman colony status, just as Acts describes.

Then there’s Acts 16:13—Paul and his companions pray by a riverside outside the gate. That’s the Gangites River, a real but obscure location, casually mentioned—exactly what we’d expect from firsthand knowledge.

And Lydia, a purple dye merchant from Thyatira (Acts 16:14)? Again, historically accurate—Thyatira was a center for the purple dye trade.

The magistrates are correctly identified as strategoi (Acts 16:22), a specific Roman title for colony officials, following the more general archontes in 16:19, meaning “rulers”—a level of accuracy suggesting the author was likely there.

But the real crazy part? Paul’s exorcism, imprisonment, and miraculous release—indirectly supported by his own letter.

In Acts 16:16-40, Paul casts a demon out of a slave girl. Her owners get furious, have Paul and Silas beaten and jailed, and lock them in stocks. That night—an earthquake shakes the prison, chains fall off, doors swing open. But instead of running, Paul and Silas stay, leading to the jailer’s conversion. The city officials realize they’ve just illegally beaten Roman citizens and are in serious trouble. They try to quietly let Paul and Silas go, but Paul refuses—he demands a public apology first. Only after that does he leave for Thessalonica.

Now, in 1 Thessalonians 2:2, Paul later writes: “We had previously suffered and been treated outrageously in Philippi, as you know.” He doesn’t explain—he assumes the Thessalonians already knew. But Acts fills in the gaps.  

This undesigned coincidence is even stronger when you realize Acts isn’t copying 1 Thessalonians.1 Thessalonians 1:9 highlights pagans converting, while Acts 17:4 focuses on Jews and God-fearers. If Acts copied 1 Thessalonians, it would match the emphasis—but it doesn’t. Two independent sources, same story—just what we’d expect from real history, not a scripted narrative. More on this in my full video on Acts’ reliability.

Meanwhile, Islam’s earliest sources don’t even get Muhammad’s hometown straight.

Islamic tradition says Mecca was a major trade hub. But history tells a different story.

• Mecca is missing from major world maps in the 6th and 7th centuries.
• The Byzantines and Persians knew all about Arabian trade—but they never mentioned Mecca.
• Not one inscription from early Arabia refers to Mecca.

These are glaring omissions in sources that detail far less significant Arabian cities, making this far more than just a weak argument from silence.. But worse is the geography problem. If Mecca was on a major trade route, why would camel caravans detour hundreds of miles inland instead of following the logical route along the Red Sea? They wouldn’t.

Historian Patricia Crone argues that the whole idea of Mecca as an ancient trade hub is a later fabrication, designed to fit Islamic theology, not history.

So let’s sum this up.

• Paul openly claimed miracles—and staked his credibility on them.
• Muhammad denied doing miracles—until later Muslims rewrote his story.
• Acts is packed with dozens of historical confirmations—covering trade routes, local customs, political boundaries, city layouts, sea routes, religious practices, official titles, regional beliefs, languages, dialects, and even slang, whereas scholars are in doubt about Mecca. 
• The Sira is a late, rewritten, politically motivated narrative.

If we’re looking at historical evidence, there’s no competition. There’s far more proof for Paul’s miracles than Muhammad’s.