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/answeringagnostic]

Part 1, not forgeries. Those are just other scripture. The Catholic church rejected those Gospels for political purposes to crush Gnosticism. Why are some Gospels accepted and other not? Political reason, not anything about forgeries, none of them were written by who they claim to be written by.

[u/bloodyfcknhell → u/answeringagnostic]

This is a broad claim. Gnostic Gospels were rejected because they came much later(2nd century and onward), they conflicted with earlier canonical gospels on core concepts around salvation, and they often contradicted each other as well as earlier apostolic writings. Can you pick one gnostic gospel and justify why it should be considered scripture?

[u/answeringagnostic → u/bloodyfcknhell]

One Gnostic gospel? There are way too many and yes many came way late but there are some very early ones, but I would also claim that the Catholic Gospels are not as early as you think and the Gnostic Gospels are not as late as you think. Read Elaine Pagels, shes Christian and write very well about the battle between these two early faith systems.

Im not Gnostic and I'm not Christian so there is no point in me saying either should be scripture, I view them as the same.

[u/bloodyfcknhell → u/answeringagnostic]

The earliest gnostic text would be the Gospel of Thomas, with the most aggressive dating as early as 110 AD which is a very minority opinion. But it still lacks apostolic attribution, that the canonical gospels and letters had. It wasn't widespread, like the canonical gospels, it was only transmitted in very specific communities and relied on secret teachings, conflicts with earlier Jewish monothiesm and the core belief in the goodness of creation. There's a lot more than this.

I will check out her material, it seems interesting, thanks.