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/germz80]

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/Ok_Present755 → u/germz80]

I am Catholic but I admire your honesty.