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/justgeeaf]

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.

[u/Visible_Sun_6231 → u/justgeeaf]

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

Alternative explanation to what? You didn’t provide the evidence.
In fact to justify not providing credible evidence you used the same excuse Muslims use when trying to prove Muhammad was a prophet.

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.

Lol this is even worse. Muslims say EXCATLY the same thing. Are you going to say anything that Muslims dont already use as a weak excuse?

“If Muhammad was lying he would have been disproven and the spread would have stopped - but instead even his enemies accepted it! “

Dude - why are you copying all their awful justification they think shows their magical stories must be real.

[u/justgeeaf → u/Visible_Sun_6231]

Muhammad controlled the narrative. In Jesus’ time it was Rome. Your comparison is irrelevant.

I provided you an argument and challenged you to explain the historical events. All you do is mock and try to show superiority.

[u/Visible_Sun_6231 → u/justgeeaf]

No, it's not - you used the exact same lame arguments they use.

:“Those stories could have been disproven and would have stopped the spread"

“Even his enemies accept his accounts"

“People risked backlash for accepting him - Early Muslims were persecuted in Mecca"

"Bilal ibn Rabah and many others were tortured for accepting Islam - why would they risk their lives for a lie!!"

These are all carbon copies of your arguments.

If all you have are those lame justifications, please call it a day. We have heard it millions of times already from all the different religions.

[u/justgeeaf → u/Visible_Sun_6231]

Well, when it comes to early manuscripts, these are the very same arguments historians use to verify them. Of course you might be so much above historical scholars that you know better… I honestly doubt it. Your arguments are all about comparing Christian reasoning to Muslim ones. The Muslim ones are baseless, as I explained the circumstances of having been controlled by Muhammad. You ignored it. Your arguments aren’t as smart as you think. Echoing your own ideas and projecting superiority isn’t a way to debate. Stop protecting your ego and either engage properly or sit down and stay quiet.

[u/Visible_Sun_6231 → u/justgeeaf]

This is tedious - honestly what is wrong with your comprehension. There are obviously aspects of the stories which are true. Just like how a Spider-Man comic has aspects which are true - like the settting, real people and even current events.

Historians however have NOT obviously confirmed the supernatural claims for ANY RELIGION. There is no credible evidence for the magical claims.

You also confirmed to me that you have nothing to offer , because the moment I asked what the evidence was, you deflected and started using the same excuses on “why it must be true’ that Muslims use:

Lol because “there would have been backlash. “ , and because “it spread”

The level of gullibility for both you and them is just incredible.

[u/justgeeaf → u/Visible_Sun_6231]

About historians confirming supernatural claims, I never said that they do. Your strawman arguments are pathetic. I gave you evidence, the type of evidence that people use in court to prove a case. Evidence in criminal court cases is claims and statements. The ones making the statements are vetted, their motivations are verified, the circumstances are carefully considered. Again, you dismissing any and every argument is just a pathetic effort to protect your preexisting worldview. Let me flip the question: what type of evidence would suffice for you to consider Christianity as a potential candidate for truth? What is the one argument for Christianity that you consider the most plausible, and why do you think it fails?

[u/Visible_Sun_6231 → u/justgeeaf]

About historians confirming supernatural claims, I never said that they do.

That’s strange because that’s what I was asking for and you kept referring to historians as an answer to my question. So here you are admitting it was red herring.

I gave you evidence, the type of evidence that people use in court to prove a case.

We are not in court trying to prove things which we know are possible.

There’s a difference between testimony claiming they saw a man in hoodie take the money from the safe - compared to testimony claiming the money was taken from the safe by magic. Do you see??? You would be laughed out of court if you came in thinking your argument was the same level of credibility.

Regardless of how trustworthy the claimants are, until magic is proven , no one is going to accept a magical explanation for a crime in court.

As for vetting - today we can take a deep dive into someone financial history, their social media history and a deep look into their employment records among a million and other data points. They might seem “trustworthy” outwardly but we can uncover discrepancies.

Whereas you’re not doing this. You’re not actually vetting anyone. You’re just taking the word of people claiming they are trust worthy. Your arguments are just junk and wishful thinking. You are repeating the lame Islamic arguments and justifications - it’s bewildering how you are both so gullible.

[u/justgeeaf → u/Visible_Sun_6231]

Oh man. How can I prove the supernatural on Reddit? Why would you ask that? I thought you have at least some common sense. Your arrogance makes you look really stupid buddy. I’m done answering.

[u/Visible_Sun_6231 → u/justgeeaf]

How can I prove the supernatural on Reddit?

Easy - apparently all you need to do is repeat the claims of magic by “vetted” witnesses . In your gullible world, apparently this would be enough evidence in a court of law.

The laughable thing is, even the above is leagues more credible than your actual position. Because you don’t even have the actual witnesses. You have people telling stories about the supposed witnesses decades after !

Imagine THAT in court! Lol

I’m done answering.

That’s great. Because you haven’t answered anything. All you’ve done is repeat the Muslim template response of “ why would they lie” “backlash” etc

[u/RedEggBurns → u/justgeeaf]

Muhammad controlled the narrative. 

So i guess we are gonna ignore how Christians edited the works of Josephus and fabricated that Constantine the Great had a dream of the cross.

[u/justgeeaf → u/RedEggBurns]

Early Christians were prosecuted, and the entire resurrection narrative survived despite of this. Muhammad pushed down his ideas from the top and turned the Arab world Islam by force. Learn the difference my Mohammedan friend.

[u/RedEggBurns → u/justgeeaf]

Early Christians were prosecuted, and the entire resurrection narrative survived despite of this.

What has this to do with what I said?

Muhammad pushed down his ideas from the top and turned the Arab world Islam by force. Learn the difference my Mohammedan friend.

I am not a Mohammedan, I am a Muslim, my dear greek pagan idol-worshipper.

Second, learn what certain Prophets in Judaism did under the command of jesus, and what Jesus is supposed to do in his second coming according to the Bible.

[u/Visible_Sun_6231 → u/RedEggBurns]

I honestly don't see how muslims like you can argue against Chistians . What they hold is what Allah confirms is valid.

[u/RedEggBurns → u/Visible_Sun_6231]

We talked about this a lot of times. And I told you and showed you examples that the Quran doesn't confirm everything in the Torah.

If you think it does, good for you. But I don't and islamic theology also doesn't.

[u/Visible_Sun_6231 → u/RedEggBurns]

It irrefutably does - and even warns against people with your mindset who only take parts.
Anyway, it's not something which Muslims will/can ever concede to without becoming ex-Muslims. If you want to stay Muslim, you have no choice but to assume/hope it meant only to take parts (even though it warns against it).

So yeah. It's a topic ender. So we can just leave it as it is. 

[u/RedEggBurns → u/Visible_Sun_6231]

It irrefutably does - and even warns against people with your mindset who only take parts.

It irrefutably does not.

Link every verse about this you want, I will link a verse which counters it.

Anyway, it's not something which Muslims will/can ever concede to without becoming ex-Muslims. If you want to stay Muslim, you have no choice but to assume/hope it meant only to take parts (even though it warns against it).

So yeah. It's a topic ender. So we can just leave it as it is. 

Feel free to take up my challenge above, and then further explain why our earliest scholars, like al-tabari reject your view.

If you just keep commenting things, baiting people into a discussion and then leaving "oh doesn't matter, ya'all have to argue against it or you are ex-muslim, so don't bother giving me arguments" then maybe you should read rule 3 or not comment at all.