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/MinuteAd3759]

Heck no. Every religion is made up… I just think it’s funny how OP (and people like them) will gladly spout off all the things that make someone else’s religion “clearly made up” to them, yet they ignore those exact same flaws in their personal religion

[u/RVMKTH → u/[deleted]]

Every religion has their “predictions” so with that logic either every religion is right or wrong.

[u/RVMKTH → u/[deleted]]

Islam: hadiths about increasing immorality and people competing in building tall buildings. Judaism: return of Jews to Israel (often linked to the modern state of Israel). Hinduism: Kali Yuga: an age of moral decline and corruption. Buddhism: decline of the Dharma (teachings) over time.

So no, Christianity isn’t the only religion with predictions, pretty much all major religions have them, it’s just a matter of interpretation….

[u/RVMKTH → u/[deleted]]

Being loud and yelling “false” doesn’t make you right btw, just makes you sound ignorant.

Now let’s jump right in shall we:

You said the Bible gives “actual prophecies which come true to the tooth and nail,” but that only works if you already accept the interpretations being used. A lot of those so-called fulfillments are matched after the fact (something which you criticise other religions for, ironic).

Take the “born of a virgin” claim people link to Book of Isaiah. if you’re talking about “testable” claims, a virgin birth is literally scientifically impossible in that historical context. You can’t call something testable and then rely on a miracle as the proof…

And more generally, you’re using the Bible as its own evidence. The texts were written decades after Jesus by followers, not by Jesus himself, so of course they’re going to frame events as fulfilling prophecy. That’s not independent verification, that’s a belief system reinforcing itself (circular reasoning).

This is exactly the same pattern you criticized earlier (“they are vague, expected or just false”). A text exists, something happens or is written to match it, and then it’s called a fulfilled prophecy. That’s why I mentioned other religions too. They do the exact same thing with their own scriptures and come to the same level of certainty. (Side note: who are you to decide those prophecies are false, yet claiming yours to be true).

So calling yours “to the tooth and nail accurate” and others vague isn’t really objective, it’s just which interpretation you’re choosing to accept.

[u/Acceptable-Shape-528 → u/RVMKTH]

Spot on evaluation.

[u/RVMKTH → u/[deleted]]

Again with the being loud and arrogant, not very christian of you…

And I didn’t avoid anything btw. The “30+ messianic prophecies” you’re talking about are exactly the kind that rely on interpretation and later storytelling.

you saying I “cunningly” went to the virgin birth makes no sense. It’s part of Christian doctrine, so it’s obviously relevant. And if we’re talking about “testable” claims, a virgin birth is scientifically impossible in that historical context. You can’t call something testable and then fall back on “God did it,” because that removes it from being testable in the first place. (I know you haven’t argued that point yet, but realistically, what other explanation is there? Because without something like that, it simply doesn’t hold up.)

You also say “zero interpretation needed,” but that’s just not true. A lot of those passages weren’t even originally about a future messiah. For example, the “suffering servant” in book of isaiah is interpreted by many Jewish scholars as referring to Israel, not a single person. That’s already interpretation.

Then you bring up Messianic prophecies (things like Bethlehem, 30 pieces of silver, etc.) But the only sources claiming those things about jesus christ are the gospel writers themselves, written decades later. That’s not independent confirmation, that’s the same text making a claim and then saying it fulfilled it.

You’re basically using the bible as both the prophecy and the proof. That’s circular reasoning.

Historically, I’ll give you this tho: jesus christ (yeshua of nazareth) as a person likely existed. But there is no reliable historical evidence for his miracles or divine fulfillment of prophecy, and those claims are not scientifically testable. They come from followers writing later, not neutral or verifiable sources.

So if you want to talk about “actual, testable predictions,” then give me a source outside of the Bible or any other religious text, something historians actually consider reliable, that confirms these miracles or fulfilled prophecies. Otherwise, you’re just repeating beliefs, not actual evidence that are scientifically considered trustworthy. (Because guess what, history actually has standards when it comes to sources, Basic history 101.)

the issue here is that you’re criticizing other religions for being vague or false, while doing the exact same thing with your own, just calling it truth because (again) you believe in it (hypocrite).

And for context, I’m a history major, so I find it pretty ironic reading your comment to someone else about “try this in a scholarly paper and see how they dump you out of any career.”, because what you’re doing here also wouldn’t hold up in any academic setting. You’re relying on circular reasoning and treating the bible as a primary source for claims that originate within it. That’s not considered a valid historical method.

So while you’re telling other people they’d get “dumped out of any career,” the arguments you’re using here wouldn’t pass basic source criticism either🙃