The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Is Muhammad a True Prophet?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 947 times Debate No: 114032
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (0)




I deny that Muhammad was a true prophet and that his revelation was NOT inspired by God.


The Koran declare Mohammed "the prophet" umpteen times. If the Koran says "the prophet" over and over and over and over and over etc etc etc it must be true - correct?! The prophet would not lie. If the prophet lied, that would make him a false prophet, and the Koran never once refers to the prophet as being a false prophet. Therefore Mohammed can not be a false prophet because the Koran repeatedly refers to him as being the prophet.

One question, which i require assistence upon ... I have never seen how the Koran distinguishes between an Angel and a Prophet. What defines the word prophet?
Debate Round No. 1


First off, I'd like to say Hello! Thank you for accepting this challenge....Secondly, one of the proofs that supports my position is that we have many muslim records (hadith) that when Muhummad first began recieving revelation, his first impression was that he was demon-possessed. Also, we know after his experience in the cave, he became suicidal and tried to hurl himself off a cliff. According to the earliest muslim sources, Muhummad was tricked into delivering a revelation from the devil, the so-called "satanic verses" where Allah gave muslims permission to pray to 3 pagan goddesses. Muhammad revealed these verses as part of the Quran, but he later came back and said that satan had decieved him. Muhammad claimed he was a victim of black magic, of a spell that gave him delusional thoughts and false beliefs. So Muhammad's first impression of his revelations were that he was demon-possessed, his revelations made him suicidal, and even muslim sources claim he delivered a revelation from the devil, and he was a victim of black magic. Seem's that Muhammad's revelations don't just have a human origin, but we see he also had spiritual problems. Deuteronomy 18:22 tells us that if someone prophecies on behalf of God, and that prophecy does not come to pass, then that person is a false prophet. Hmmm?? Did Muhammad ever do such a thing?

Muhammad predicted the end of the world would happen shortly after his life, quote "Anas reported Allah's mesenger as saying: I and The Last Hour have been sent like this and (while doing it) joined the forefinger and the middle finger." (Sahih Muslim. 7049. Abdul Hamid Siddiqi translation.[Kitab Bhawan. 2012] vol. 4 p.1840.

Muhammad said this about 1400 years ago, which is clearly incorrect....Also, Muhammad predicted "The Last Hour would come (when) the Romans would form a majority amongst people." (Sahih muslim, 6925, Abdul Hamid Siddiqi translation. Vol 4 [Kitab Bhawan. 2012] p. 1810.
However, the largest people group in the world is the Chinese, whohave a 1.2 billion person population. Thus, Muhammad was clearly wrong , since the chinese far supersede any ethnic group, including Romans in terms of population number and growth.

Not only did Muhammad make false prophecies, but his so-called divine revelations are full of contradictions. Here are some examples:

1. HOW LONG DID IT TAKE ALLAH TO CREATE THE UNIVERSE? According to surah 7:54, it took 6 days. But according to surah 4:9-12, it took 8 days.

2. WHAT DID ALLAH CREATE FIRST, THE HEAVENS OR THE EARTH? According to surah 2:29, the earth was created first, then the heavens. But according to surah 79:27-30, the heavens were created first, then the earth.

3. According to surah 4:48, commiting shirk is UNFORGIVEABLE. Later, in the same surah, 4:153, Allah FORGIVES people for commiting shirk.

These are but a few examples of the Reliability of the prophet who you believe is "true" and recieved "from God".

I have demonstrated that because Muhammad made false prophecies, he is now a false prophet. Not only that, but I also demonstrated from the Quran that the revelation he recieved contradicts other revelations. It does not seem like the thing one would expect from a "true" prophet of God.

With that being said, I will now respond to your statement. 1. A prophet is a person who speaks God's truth to others. The English word 'prophet' comes from the Greek word 'prophetes', which can mean "one who speaks forth" or " advocate". Prophets had both a teaching and revelatory role, declaring God's truth, while revealing details about the future......Angels (Arabic: malak), are celestial beings according to Islam. They were created by Allah to perform certain task he has given them.

2. You stated that because the words "the prophet" is repeated many times- therefore it MUST be true. But upon what bases are you making this assumption? What you are doing is ASSUMING your conclusion WITHOUT supporting your claim from any type of evidence.

3. You stated "the prophet would not lie". Again, you are ASSUMING something and calling it "true" instead proving it.

What we do have so far in this debate is historical and scriptural evidence from the Quran and the Hadith that Muhammad was not recieving true, divine revelation from God, but instead proclaimed things that did not come to pass, he say's one thing in one place, then another thing in another place that contradicts what he said, and he had major spiritual problems. Therefore I conclude that Muhammad was NOT a true prophet at all!


The Koran has errors, but then so too does the new testament. Neither define the term prophet. Without a Torah definition of the term both the new testament and the koran fall flat. How does the Torah define the term prophet? The new testament jabbers about fulfilling prophesy. You can not define a term by employing that same term. If a blind man asks: "What does the color white look like?" You can not answer the blind man: "White is white".

"Seem's that Muhammad's revelations don't just have a human origin, but we see he also had spiritual problems."

The Koran its a book of religious poety. That poetry does not have any superiority over Shakespeare. The Koran never defined its key terms just as the new testament never defined its key terms. For example: the nt never defines the meaning of love. Hence the statement "for god so loved the world etc" what does love mean? Since the nt never defines the term love any more than the koran defines the word prophet, both terms constitute as propaganda terms of rhetoric. Rhetoric - defined as the employment of a key term, that term having no clear definition. For example: Obama in 2008 proclaimed "CHANGE". He never defined the term of his political discourse. Hence he employed political rhetoric to get himself elected! Rhetoric has a powerful sway upon the ignorant masses. None the less, rhetoric its pie in the sky none sense.

""Muhammad predicted the end of the world would happen shortly after his life,""
The nt predicts the second coming. Both constitute as total absolute none sense - rubbish.

""Not only did Muhammad make false prophecies""

Oooooooooooops you have yet to define how the Torah defines prophesy. Therefore till you define your terms you cannot employ them ... that's religious rhetoric.

History has no connection with a spiritual book other than as to serve as a medium to teach spirituality. The Creation of the world, that's a spiritual teaching not a historical idea.

""""A prophet is a person who speaks God's truth to others. """

The Torah does not define truth and prophesy together. Truth its the 8th attribute of the revelation of Oral Torah at Horev, 40 days after the sin of the golden calf.

""English word 'prophet' comes from the Greek word 'prophetes', which can mean "one who speaks forth" or " advocate". ""

Sorry the Torah does not come from Greek words. Greek definitions do not quaify.

""Prophets had both a teaching and revelatory role"". The Hebrew Bible does not define prophet in this manner.

The Hebrew Bible employs the term Angels. Prior to the 1st Babylonian exile, Angels had no private names. After the first Babylonian exile, the Books of the Hebrew Bible written there after, for example the Book of Daniel - written in Aramaic - gives personal names to Angels.

""You stated that because the words "the prophet" is repeated many times- therefore it MUST be true. ""

I employed satire! LOL Propaganda repeats unsupported statements.

""You stated "the prophet would not lie"."""

Again i employed satire. False prophets - lies define their words.

Whether Mohammed was a prophet true/false or otherwise. Your argumet proves nothing till you can define from the Hebrew Biblical source the term prophet. This your attempt with Greek sources totally fails and falls flat. How Daniel Webster defines a Biblical term proves nothing. To define a Biblical term you must go to Biblical sources which defines the terms which the Bible thereafter employs. You stand at a distinct disadvantage on this score b/c i doubt you can read the Bible from the originial Hebrew. בראשית the first word of the Torah contains within its 6 letters ברית אש, ראש בית, ב' ראשית the translation: brit fire, head of house, and 2 beginnings. The Creation story has 2 creation stories.
Debate Round No. 2


Repeatedly stating your own personal opinions in light of contrary evidence, without providing any real, or meaningful argumentation is the CLEAREST sign that you are losing a debate!..Sorry, but your tactic of "evading the question" does not work with me. Second, by attempting to force me to define a term by your standards is the definition of "moving the goal posts", and it is quite comical that you appeal to Shakespeare, President Obama, creation, angels, propaganda,
the book of Daniel - great attempt of trying to divert my attention away from the heart of the matter, but again, I refuse to fall for all your "red-herrings"...You got to do much better than that! Last, but not least..What does the second-coming of Jesus have to do with a failed prophesy of Muhammad??? That one must of went wayyy over your head, and it tells me quite clear that you failed to understand the text and what Muhammad was saying...Some honest advice need to spend more time reading your Quran and the Hadith!...Im honestly not sure if you even remembered the topic of the debate after your 1st round rebuttal (it sounds like you don't), and I mean it with all due respect. You have gobe left, and right, underneath, and outside the park, but never responded straight ahead to the thesis of the debate. You knew your duty when the debate started: to refute me and provide evidence why Muhammad IS a True Prophet. I do hope you provide some type of meaningful argumentation that actually supports Muhammad this last round so there is atleast some type of honest interaction. I see no need for you to go off the road and spend your last round talking President Trump, dinosaur fossils, or a Mid Summer Night's Dream. Sadly, I am almost certain all the viewers of this debate can see the transparencies of the "Ad-Homenen", "Red Herrings", and tactic of "Evading the question" that you are guilty of in this debate. Unfortunately for you my brother in humanity, I will put the last nails in the coffin of this debate with the last few blows that follow below to reaffirm and support my position that Muhammad was NOT a true prophet.

Additional support and reasons are as follows:


1.When the angel of the Lord came to Musa (Moses), he punched the angel and popped his eyeball out and left it dangling from its socket. Sahih al-Bukhari vol 5, book 59, number 719

2. Adam was 90 feet tall (60 cubits). Sahih al-Bukhari 3326, vol 4, book 55, hadith 543.
If Adam was 90 ft tall, was Eve 90 ft tall? How tall were their kids?? And why did we become midgets in comparison to them??(plus this is a scientific error)

3. Muhammad was a Cross-dresser. He usually recieved his "divine inspiration" while wearing girls clothing! Al-Bukhari, Number 2442, chapter 54.

4. Muhammad's food would praise him before he would consume it.( I thought talking food was only in cartoons). Bukhari vol.4, 56, 779.

5. One morning, Muhammad overslept and didn't hear that mornings "prayer call" because satan went up to him while he was sleeping and urinated in both his ears.( I didn't know satan could urinate). Bukhari vol.2, book 21.

Is this what your calling us to follow? Seriously?? These teachings from Muhammad...NO RATIONAL PERSON CAN ACCEPT!

According to the standard of the Bible (the book in which Muhammad said I am to judge by), and of which I automatically appeal to as a Christian, ANYONE who rejects the Father AND the Son is an Anti-Christ! (1st John chapter 2 and chapter 4)...Muhammad in no uncertain way rejected BOTH!! (Surah 5:17&18, and Surah 1:12).

Thus, if Muhammad is not a true prophet (which I have proven from the above evidence), then we challenge and conclude that what he taught may NOT have been true neither. Well, we have seen from the very beginning of this debate inaccurate and illogical claims and teachings. But the heart of the matter for Christiany comes down to Muhammad's understanding and teaching of the Nature of God, the Person of Jesus Christ, and Salvation by the Cross. Did his teachings regarding these subjects line up with the word of God that had already been revealed in the Bible 600 years before Muhammad? ...No! Textually, historically, and scientifically we can conclude that "the man from Arabia" was way left-field. But the dagger for Islam is Muhammad's view of Jesus. The Jesus that Muhammad taught was merely a man and prophet - no more than that. This contradicts the true Jesus of the Bible. Thus, this is a gospel issue and misunderstanding that can result in an eternal consequence. The Jesus of the Bible is fully God AND fuly man. He is the eternal Word, second Person of the one triune God. He is the Son, God-incarnate who entered His creation by taking on flesh, becoming that perfect sacrifice to die for our sins. You and I are sinners..we couldn't do it. He did it - it is done! It was done nearly 2000 years ago on Calvary, on the Cross. After 3 days, He rose from the grave and took back the keys of death and now offers eternal life to all who recieve Him. It is a FREE gift - the only requirement is to repent of our sins and recieve Him. He is the very hinge my salvation rests' on..that's why having a correct and true understanding of the Savior Jesus Christ is tantamount in scripture as is deals with our eternal life....Recieve the Lord Jesus Christ - the true Jesus of the Bible....for it is written in Holy Scriprure that NO ONE goes to the Father except through Jesus!

Thank you for your time and for participating in this debate. May the Lord guide your way. God Bless!


"Repeatedly stating your own personal opinions in light of contrary evidence, without providing any real, or meaningful argumentation is the CLEAREST sign that you are losing a debate!."Thank You for instructing me in how i am - according to your opinion - losing the debate. Your opening Thesis fails to give any details as to just what you write about. Have posted something approachng 16,000 words and you fail to challenge anything that i wrote specifically and "refute" everything presented as hearsay evidence. Bunk. Spiritualiy does not function like a murder crime scene. Even though Xtians murdered and tortured Jews for over 2000 years as Christ killers. Slanders like the PassOver blood libel and host desecrations resulted in near annual Easter pogroms. The Crusades murdered virtually all the Jews living in Germany! The Xtian burning of all the hand written Talmudic manuscripts within France - about 24 cartloads - on the orders of the king of France and the Pope, this crime recalls the Xtian burning the library of Alexandria, then banished the study of the ancient Greek writings which resulted in a horrific plague which compares to the black death - because Europeans had no medical skills due to the dogmatic dictatorship of the church. The crime of forcing all the Jews of Europe into ghetto prisons for hundreds of years, only matched by the terrible cruelty of Church supported witch hunts, oppression and injustice. []The church always practiced equality in murder. Murder of this heretical group after that heretical group resulting in the violent murder of 10,000s of thousands. You can Google these known crimes, for which the church stands guilty. These cases have clear historical precedence. Confusing history with spirituality - that's a fundamentally unsound opinion, at least so it seems to me.
"Sorry, but your tactic of "evading the question" does not work with me."Let's return to square one, sense you do not provide a clear refutation I will do it for you. Your opening statement in this debate:"I deny that Muhammad was a true prophet and that his revelation was NOT inspired by God." I challenged you to define a) prophet according to the Hebrew Bible/T'NaCH - this you failed to do. Rather you brought a Webster's dictionary definition. Its clear to me that you do not know how to discern between Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary sources. Webster's dictionary constitutes as a teriary source - a very weak source. Mohammed claims to be a prophet but neither the koran or the n.t. books of idolatry ever define the term. "NOT inspired by God"- Which God do you refer to? Jesus son of Zeus or Allah God of noise? And b) How does the Hebrew Bible define the term "truth". I reject your rhetoric fuzzy logic totally and completely.
"Secondly, one of the proofs that supports my position is that we have many muslim records (hadith) that when Muhummad first began recieving revelation, his first impression was that he was demon-possessed."
You make a totally unsubstantiated claim, and violate your own thesis statement in this third and last round. Perhaps you can amend your error by bringing such evidence in the comments section."Also, we know after his experience in the cave, he became suicidal and tried to hurl himself off a cliff." I did not know this, again you fail to substantiate your reading of history. It seems to me making a historical argument does not support your thesis which attacks the spirituality by which the Koran teaches. I have attempted to amend the error of your arguments by asking you "how does the Koran or New Testament define the term "prophet"?
"According to the earliest muslim sources, Muhummad was tricked into delivering a revelation from the devil, the so-called "satanic verses" where Allah gave muslims permission to pray to 3 pagan goddesses." Again more hear say evidence. The Court of this debate only weighs the evidence presented to the Court. You claim this as an historical fact, yet glaringly fail to bring any evidence from any confirmable sources [contermporary sources of that time obviously being the best]. Furthermore your arguments focus upon this totally unsubstantiated history of Mohammed; this error of ignoring the spirituality of the teaching of the Koran directly compares with the identical flaws of Xtianity. Look who's calling the kettle black comparison which both my first and second arguments sought to prove.
Xtainity as a spirituality ... NOT, repeatedly employs the rhetoric of love [rhetoric the employment of key terms, which have no definative definition forcing the listeners to define the undefined term using their fuzzy logic - I believe love means A, B, or C etc. Your opening argument 'true prophet' fits this logical error.] The catholic dogma declares its monopoly upon the bible and all who do not believe as their fuzzy logic declares - the church brutally murdered. Corrupt justice defines the entire history of the church when it had power - prior to the French Revolution when the people of Europe ejected the priests from their incestuous domination of the secular governments. At its height, the Henry IV of Germany walked bare foot through snow to request that the Pope forgive him. []. Here's an example of supplying historical evidence. Yes its not a primary source, but i communicate upon history not spirituality.
You by contrast deny that Mohammed was a 'true' 'prophet', this statement challenges the spirituality of the koran. How does the Hebrew Bible define truth? You do not know. Your assumption that your rhetoric and that the readers would just define your key term using their fuzzy logic - bunk. Truth from the Torah does not mean "being correct". Person A can not tell the "truth" to person B as if "truth" existed as an I am right and you are wrong egotism. Papal dogmatism does not define 'truth'. Proof: the dogma of Pope infallibility during the days of Pope Pius the 12th, who made open alliance with Hitler and turned over all the Jews of Rome to the Nazi death camps and encouraged assisting Nazis to escape to South America. []. The Torah of the Jewish People defines truth as a person dedicating the way wherein he dedicates his life to do and obey the commandments of Moshe the prophet. Prophet having a Torah definition: Mussar commandment instructor.
Mussar, meaning ethical rebukes which grows within the hearts of the person who accepts this mussar, to the point that the mussar become like it originated from the person who accepted it - an internal idea as opposed to a foreign external idea which passes from one ear and departs from the other ear. Teaching mussar requires great skill and wisdom. Mussar applies to all humanity irregardless of the generation wherein Man currently lives. Hence a prophet does not foretell the future - that's a form of witchcraft by Torah definition; nor can a man "fulful" the words of the prophet. This error defines the proof of Jesus son of Zeus found in the new testament books of idolatry. Why? Because no one generation makes a nation. And the Brit [This word universally mistranslated as covenant in the Xtian bibles; brit means alliance, an alliance requires swearing a Torah oath. The classic brit alliance being Sinai. Israel received the first 2 commandments directly from Heaven, the people in terror of their lives approached Moshe the prophet and swore an oath 'we shall do and here'; that Israel made an oath to obey all the commandments of mussar which Moshe the prophet there after instructed. At the crisis of the 10 spies Israel profaned their oath brit, that generation all died in the wilderness. The generation of Noah too profaned an oath brit and the floods killed 10 generations of Adam in one day, killing his soul for the crime of swearing false oaths].
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yassine 3 years ago
- I will debate this resolution is you're still willing.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
The Torah defines the term truth, as the path by which a man dedicates his walk before the God of Israel. That Israel, for example: chooses the path destiny walk of the Oral Tora and not avoda zara/strange worship which our fathers rejected. Accepting the Oral Torah logic system over the Greek logic, specifically taught by Aristotle and Plato, defines Jewish tradition. Another example of the destiny path walk of Torah truth: that Jews when we restore Jewish government within Judea (Jews endured exile from our homelands for some 2000 years. Stateless Jewish refugees scattered across Asia and Europe had no power to impose law in Capital Crimes cases. For example: no Jewish Court tried and convicted Catholics and Protestants for their blood libel slanders and resulting pogroms which killed 10s of thousands), that Jews would not oppress our people. An example of oppression: a married woman having a secret affair with another man. Another example: Jews having a spiritual affair by worshipping other Gods.
Posted by JeffreyJ.YoungTim 3 years ago
Ok , im reading this is interesting . But quick question before I forget, are you seeking tradition or truth?
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
Both the new testament and the koran - they translate the Name of God, that Named God brought Israel out of Egyptian slavery - neither of these alien religions ever once bring the Name of the God of Israel in their Bibles and Korans. This blatant transgression flagrantly violates the 1st and 2nd commandments of Sinai. The other 8 commandments depend upon the first 2 commandments. The first 2 commandments of Sinai compares to a man and wife. The other 8 commandment compares to the children of this married couple.

The Sinai revelation commands: honor your father and mother. Neither the Church or the Mosque honors the first two opening commandments of Sinai. All the other 8 commandments have value if and only if people who accept the Torah revelation at Sinai accept the first 2 commandments. Both church and mosque reject the Torah commandments of Sinai, yet both proclaim that their god or prophet comes to fullfil the words of the prophets!

Israel swore "we shall do and hear". To whom does this oath apply? To the prophet Moses. Recall, that following the first 2 commandments that Israel approached Moses and said: you receive the Torah, if we hear more directly from this God who delivered us from Egyptian slavery - we shall surely die. Therefore, the 8 commandments that followed the opening two commandments at Sinai, Israel received those 8 commandments from the mouth of Moses the prophet. Xtianity and Israel despise the commandments which Moses commanded! Therefore such a vile vessel can not serve to fulfill commandment which that very vessel hates and despises.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
Now Mr. Young Tim, the question stands, does translating the Name of the God who brought the children of Israel out of Egypt, does this violate the 2nd commandment of Sinai? Upon what basis does this question stand? The sin of the Golden Calf.

What differentiates making a golden box from making a golden calf? After king Solomon worshipped other Gods, other men started challenging king Solomon's wisdom, and Solomon took these challenges to his wisdom as a personal affront and threat to his kingdom. In point of fact, his kingdom fundamentally lacked stability; shortly after his demise the kingdom of David split into Civil War. 10 Tribes revolted and established a new kingdom called Israel. The first king of Israel - his name - Yerov'am - had challenged the wisdom of Solomon. Solomon attempted to stifle Yerov'am, forcing him to become a political exile for the remainder of king Solomon's life.

The man Yerov'am his knowledge of the Torah, the Constitution of king Solomon's Republic, stunningly profound. Yerov'am could challenge the wisdom of Solomon and prevail over the king's knowledge. Thus the king sought to repress this challenge to his authority forcing Yerov'am to take refuge in Egypt.

The people of the 10 Tribes which rejected the Solomon dynasty, appointed Yerov'am as their king. What action did Yerov'am first do after becoming king? He built 2 golden calves! If the golden calf defined idolatry [as simple folk assume], how could Moses dedicate by anointing the Head of Aaron as the leader/messiah of the Israelite kingdom?

Therefore making a golden calf did not transgress the 2nd commandment. Rather translating the 4 letter Name into other words violated the 2nd commandment of Sinai. King Yerov'am understood this subtle distinction. Jews never pronounce the Name in the First Commandment by its 4 letters!! Never.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
Sure. What does the 1st commandment of Sinai mean. Its located in the translation you call Exodus. The contradiction found in the 1st commandment of Sinai - the Xtian Bible does not bring the Name of that God but rather a translation of that Name.
Posted by JeffreyJ.YoungTim 3 years ago
Im just want to know about contradictions in the bible mosc, can you show me?
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
Protestant ... Catholic two sides of the same coin of idolatry. Allah God of noise ewwwwww. A debate its serious but this conversation makes me laugh.
Posted by BrotherGino 3 years ago
Brother, this is a debate forum. You have NOT even engaged me in any meaningful debate and I apologize to the viewers..If this is your first debate, then I can understand..but if not, maybe you one should consider that continously talking "L's" is a sign that one is NOT a debater. That's just some honest food for thought brother...God Bless!
Posted by BrotherGino 3 years ago
I am Christian...NOT a Catholic (I made that pretty clear), so you spent a great deal if your time attacking strawman instead of addressing the main issue (the Thesis). ....An honest question. .ARE YOU A MUSLIM??? I want to be sure who I am talking to because it doesn't sound like you are familiar with Islam..
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.