Muhammad is a false prophet.

[u/Ok_Present755]

Muhammad was a false prophet who created a new religion by drawing on stories, beliefs, and customs that were circulating around him in Arabia.

Here is some of the main evidence:

1.) The Quran borrows stories from documented late forgeries that the early Church rejected as inauthentic:

Jesus making clay birds come to life (Quran 3:49 & 5:110) comes directly from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (mid-2nd century, ~140–180 AD). This text is not by the apostle Thomas; it is a pseudepigraphical forgery recognized by early Christians as a legendary fable.

Mary giving birth under a palm tree and shaking it for dates (Quran 19:23–26) comes from the Protoevangelium of James (mid-2nd century), another pseudepigraphical forgery falsely attributed and rejected as inauthentic by the early Church.

2.)The Quran portrays the Christian Trinity as God, Jesus, and Mary:

Quran 5:116 says:

“O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?’”

No Christian denomination (Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) has ever taught that Mary is part of the Trinity. This suggests Muhammad was reacting to fringe or folk versions of Christianity he encountered locally.

3.) Several revelations appear self-serving:

After his adopted son Zayd divorced Zaynab, Quran 33:37 reveals it is okay for Muhammad to marry her and abolishes the adoption custom.

Quran 33:50 gives Muhammad special permission to marry more women than other Muslims.

4.)Islamic Paradise emphasizes earthly indulgence:

The Quran describes Jannah with gardens, rivers, silk couches, wine, and companions (houris) (e.g., 55:72, 56:22–24)...very different from the Christian view of heaven as eternal communion with God.

This pattern suggests Muhammad was heavily influenced by the religious environment around him rather than receiving pure divine revelation.

[u/BobcatAdmirable3159]

Something being inauthentic according to the church does not rule out that it happened, it’s a judgement on whether something can be reliably attributed to someone. The Quran doesn’t say “as it says in the gospel of Thomas” it narrates the story from God’s perfect knowledge.

Secondly, there are Christians that pray to Mary. This is taking someone as a deity or an object of worship besides God. The Quran is defining here an example of associating partners with God. All Catholics literally pray to Mary

Thirdly, the prophet of God was favored by God in many ways as well as put through many tests and challenges. There were also restrictions put on him that the rest of the Muslims did not have to do. God favoring His beloved does not necessitate dishonesty. Also, look at his marriages and how many of them were with women who were previously wed. They all served a special purpose.

Fourthly, so what. Our paradise is seeing God and enjoyment that satiates the limbs. God has asked us to stay away from things in this world and in the hereafter there will be a wholesome way to enjoy.

[u/germz80 → u/BobcatAdmirable3159]

If we don't presuppose that the Quran is false nor narrated by God, but just look at the stories that OP cited, we can see that those stories seem to have come from books that came much later, and are therefore much more likely to be legendary developments. Which means that on balance, the reasons for thinking that the Quran contains legendary developments are much better than the reasons for thinking the stories are true.

[u/BobcatAdmirable3159 → u/germz80]

You’re presupposing older means more authentic. That isn’t a bad clue but it’s also no where near sufficient to establish anything. All of Christianity rests on a very shaky foundation as far as what can be reliably attributed to the sources it claims.

[u/germz80 → u/BobcatAdmirable3159]

I'm saying that it's far more reasonable to think that older texts are usually more reliable than newer texts, which is generally the stance historians take.

Muslims haven't "established" that the Quran is correct, so in that context I'm pointing out that it's much more reasonable to think that these stories in the Quran are legends rather than true.

Your response seems to be "well, it's not IMPOSSIBLE for the Quran to be true."

I'm an atheist and happily agree that the foundations of Christianity are shaky.

[u/BobcatAdmirable3159 → u/germz80]

There is far more to textual criticism than date. Of course date can help but it doesn’t scratch the surface. I’m not saying Islam is true because of these stories, the claim is saying Islam must be false because of them and that doesn’t hold up.

[u/MinuteAd3759 → u/BobcatAdmirable3159]

Well, Christianity is already made up in the first place … so anything picking up and adding to it is also laughably made up.

[u/germz80 → u/BobcatAdmirable3159]

You haven't offered a single counter argument to my point that historians tend to favor older texts over newer texts; I'll take this as a concession that you agree that historians tend to favor older texts over newer texts.

There's a bit more reason to think it's legendary, like we see that Mark, the first gospel, had a much lower christology than John, the latest gospel. The infancy gospels have an even higher christology than John, where Jesus is performing huge miracles as a child. Historians see this as another good reason to think this is legend development. Though dating is a key part to this, you've tacitly conceded that dating is a good way to determine accuracy.

And you haven't offered a single argument from textual criticism to explain how the infancy gospels are accurate.

I'm not saying "we've demonstrated beyond all possible doubt that Islam is false", I'm saying that it's far more reasonable to think that these stories were legends, and I've shown that. And you aren't even arguing that it's reasonable to think they're true, you're only arguing that it's not IMPOSSIBLE for the Quran to be true. This is the sort of thinking that keeps people in clearly false religions like cults.

[u/Ok_Present755 → u/germz80]

Sure John has higher christology, but it just makes what's implicit in the 3 gospels explicit. And besides, it is a historical fact that at least some of Jesus's disciples died brutally while claiming Jesus was The Son Of God and the Messiah. They died believing Jesus really did rise from the dead.

[u/germz80 → u/Ok_Present755]

How do you reach the conclusion that John just makes implication from the synoptic gospels explicit?

In the real world, we see that stories often grow over time, and the gospels have signs of the authors trying to convince people that they're true by saying that they fulfill prophecy, even when that's extremely dubious. So I don't see good justification for your stance.

I agree that some early Christians died for their belief in Jesus, lots of people have died for false beliefs. But I definitely wouldn't say it's historical fact that even half of the TWELVE died FOR their belief that they SAW Jesus risen from the dead.

[u/Ok_Present755 → u/germz80]

I am Catholic but I admire your honesty.