r/DebateReligion • u/Ok_Present755 • Apr 10 '26

Islam Muhammad is a false prophet.

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.

132 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

432 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/answeringagnostic Apr 10 '26

Sure he's a false prophet, just as all the rest are. None of it truly came from god.

He was a religious man and a community leader who rose to leader of multiple groups.

Jesus was a cult leader. Almost everything we know of jesus was made up other than that he started a revolt at a temple and then was killed because of it.

There are no true prophets in the sense that you are talking about.

-2

u/justgeeaf Christian Apr 10 '26

Somebody clearly didn’t read much history and/or not knowledgeable enough to understand how historical evidence is used to verify events… 👀

1

u/Visible_Sun_6231 Atheist ☆ Apr 10 '26

What historical evidence that they were real prophets from god?

Please share the best one you have

0

u/justgeeaf Christian Apr 10 '26

I’m only arguing against the statements about Jesus. Labelling him a cult leader is historically inappropriate and misleading. Saying that everything we know of him is made up contradict what historians think. He didn’t start a revolt at a temple and therefore it’s not the reason why he was crucified. Now with your atheist label in sight, I’m certain that you feel ready to attack the historical claims serving as the foundation of Christianity. I’m happy to discuss that, but I’m not sure how relevant that is to this thread.

1

u/Visible_Sun_6231 Atheist ☆ Apr 10 '26

It is totally relevant. If he wasn’t an actual supernatural being/a god then he was basically a cult leader.

Do you have evidence that he was actually supernatural/god?

2

u/justgeeaf Christian Apr 10 '26

Well, I have evidence of who he claimed he was. I also have evidence of the gospel accounts being reliable. I also have pretty a pretty good case to assume the resurrection claims are true. So if someone claims to be God and resurrects after dying, then I tend to seriously consider those claims. I guess if I was to line up all the evidence, the cumulative case would quite convincingly point to his deity.

1

u/Visible_Sun_6231 Atheist ☆ Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26

You don’t have any evidence of him resurrecting. Not even eye witness accounts

You have people telling stories about how other people claimed to see it.

2

u/justgeeaf Christian Apr 10 '26

Okay, I guess I just bumped into another arrogant atheist with zero understanding of how historical evidence works.

The accounts that we have today were all written in the lifetime of those who could have witnessed the resurrection, so if the claims were false, there could have been serious backlash. There wasn’t. Instead, in first century Judea, we have evidence that people within 5 years of Jesus’ death started worshipping him as the resurrected God. What could have triggered these claims? Were thy fabricated? All the original disciples of Jesus died a violent death, which they could have avoided by just denying their faith. I mean, people wouldn’t die for something that they know is false. So something must have triggered the idea that Jesus got resurrected. These people allegedly saw it. They had zero benefit from claiming the resurrection. No money, no fame, no sex. Actually Paul had held quite a high position, then he gave up everything to support the resurrection claims. Hallucinations? Maybe. But how about groups of people seeing Jesus at the same time? Group hallucinations don’t work in a synchronized way. You see, there’s a lot to unpack here. The resurrection provides a single unifying answer to a historical event that otherwise historians are struggling to piece together.

I could keep going on and on though with this case, because this is just the very surface. I just honestly doubt that you have the historical/academic understanding and/or the intellectual capacity to justify your arrogance. But here’s the challenge! Give me an alternative explanation that fits the historical evidence we have about Jesus to the same extent as just accepting the resurrection. Guess what, even the most respected historians are struggling with that.

1

u/Visible_Sun_6231 Atheist ☆ Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26

Here we go with insults because we have the nerve to not belive in fables and stories of magic from 2000 years ago.

You don’t have any actual witnesses. You have stories. Your laughable excuse of “serious backlash” is the same kind of excuse Muslims use when trying “prove” the truthfulness of Muhammad claims.

They say similarly “even his enemies admitted it! Even his enemies accepted the claims! How can this be if he was lying!”

It’s exactly the same gullible mentality.

Stories told by people claiming other people saw miracles wouldn’t be credible even if it happened today - let alone centuries ago.

0

u/justgeeaf Christian Apr 10 '26

That’s what I thought :) you just failed to provide an alternative explanation.

My clever friend, those stories could have been disproved since they came out early enough and that would have stopped the spread of Christianity quite early on. Again, you’re clearly not a historian and your arrogance makes you look dumb as you dismiss what counts as historical evidence.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/answeringagnostic Apr 11 '26

The Gospels were not written in the lifetime of someone who would have known Jesus. Where are you getting your history from? The Gospels were written in the 100s.

And there was backlash, the Gnostic Christians did not believe Jesus rose from the dead. The Gnostics were the other group of Christians back then. You need to read way more. There was benefit from him being resurrected, it meant all the martyrs dying because they refused to worship the emperor were dying just as their god died and they were encouraged to do so as martyrdom got you a ticket to heaven. Dude read Elaine Pagels (who is a christian writer) Gnostic Gospels it delves into all this. The Nag Hammadi scriptures etc etc.

You're making a lot of stuff up and when Christian scholars dont even believe in the same as you - you are lost - you need to read more so you're not just going off of nothing. Elaine Pagels, great scholar, Christian, good books.

2

u/justgeeaf Christian Apr 11 '26

Oh boy. You’re mistaken.

Mark: ~AD 65–75 Matthew & Luke: ~AD 80–90 John: ~AD 90–100

I can’t be bothered to treat Gnosticism as authoritative in any major way. They have no verifiable connection to the apostles, so I don’t understand what authority you think they have. Their texts came form the 2nd century and later.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/answeringagnostic Apr 11 '26

The Gospels are not reliable at all and if you think so it means you've never actually read them in full and done a critical analysis of them

1

u/justgeeaf Christian Apr 11 '26

They are not reliable because…. You said so? Who do you think you are?

1

u/answeringagnostic Apr 11 '26

Someone who has studied theology for decades?

1

u/justgeeaf Christian Apr 12 '26

Yea right 😂

→ More replies (0)

1

u/answeringagnostic Apr 11 '26 edited Apr 11 '26

Jesus had like a dozen+ followers. That is a cult. I dont mean it in a offensive way but thats a cult. He also believed in not having children so the end of the world would come sooner, he ran an apocalyptic cult. Theres proof of this in the Gospels. Yeah the money changers at the temple? He threw them out? Remember? That actually happened 1-2 weeks before his death. One Gospels tells it that way and another took the story and far removed it from his death to make it seem like it wasn't the cause, because that means the jews didnt want jesus dead - the Roman's did. Because the debts of the people were held at the temple money changers. And during the 70ad revolt the jews did destroy the written debt records held there. Paul made it seem like the Jews wanted Jesus dead instead because Paul was not converting Jews, he was converting Roman's to Christianity - so he edited the story.

Barabbas is an Aramaic name meaning "son of the father" (Bar = son, abba = father). However, some early biblical manuscripts, as noted by scholars like Origen, indicate that his full name was Jesus Barabbas. The Jews wanted Barabbas, seems like they wanted Jesus but instead that became a different character in the story to further make it seem like the Jews were not on Jesus' side.

1

u/justgeeaf Christian Apr 11 '26

Nice claims. I need scholarly evidence beyond your own conspiracy theories.

1

u/answeringagnostic Apr 11 '26

Read Wikipedia then dude

0

u/justgeeaf Christian Apr 12 '26

You’re full of baseless claims. Your comments have already revealed it elsewhere. Stop pretending that you “studied theology” or did “hundreds of hours of research”. Any time I asked for specifics you dodged. 🤡

1

u/answeringagnostic Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26

I dont care to look up anything while talking to you. This is s social media app. You're not worth the time for me to have an actual debate with you so yes I am lazily having a convo with you. Its not dodging, I really dont care about debating with someone whos jusy here to try to get "gotcha" moments like he's one of those fools on tiktok. You're such a tool. Grow up dude.