Chapter 28


A person unable to make prophesies, teaching a book so full of errors that the texts prove the book is not from any god, unable to give even the smallest evidence for his god or for his own connection to a god, and on top of this a man of a very doubtful and self centered moral - is such a man really a prophet?

#01 30/2-4: “The (East*) Roman Empire (Bezants/Constantinople*) has been defeated (by Persia*) in a land close by (Damascus 613 AD, Jerusalem 614 AD, Egypt 615-616 AD – may be a battle in Syria in 615 AD – just pick your choice (the surah is from 615 or 616 AD)); but they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs will soon be victorious – Within a few (“bid” - an Arab word meaning between 3 and 9) years.” Bezants defeated Persia in 628 AD after they first had had a number of defeats at the start of the war - 12 or 13 years after this verse.

1. The Arab word “bid” means “a few” with the additional meaning “means a number of no less than 3, no more than 9” according to comment 2 to this surah in “The Message of the Quran” (A20/2). It took at least 12 years.

2. This was a pep-talk to his followers. No-one – not even Muhammad himself – said that it was a prophesy - - - except that many Muslims say so afterwards.

3. It is very clear from the Quran that Muhammad did not have the gift of being able to make prophesies (a kind of miracles), and it is as clear that he never even pretended to or claimed to have that gift. This was just one of the (few) cases where a little of all that he said through his life happened to come partly true (actually: So much that he said and spoke it is a miracle that not more happened to come true – and more true than in this case. And NB: This is the only heavy claim Islam has about him being able to make prophesies (though there are other claims). The sheer laws of probability should have made him right a lot more often, but then he had little of creative fantasy. Once - nearly - in a lifetime = a prophet? As much as he talked and said, he from pure statistical probability should have had a number - not to say quite a number - of "hits", but he had few.

This is one of Muslims' strongest - if not the strongest - claims for that Muhammad made foretelling. Not a very convincing case (but then Islam as such admits that Muhammad was unable of foretelling: "The only miracle of Muhammad, was the Quran", is a sentence you often meet - foretelling is a kind of miracle; "to see the unseen".)

#02 33/1a: “O Prophet (Muhammad*)!“. But Muhammad was no real prophet. The definition of a prophet is a person who:

Have the gift of and close enough connection to a god for making prophesies.

Makes prophesies that always or at least mostly come true.

Makes so frequent and/or essential prophesies, that it is a clear part of his mission.

A few things Muhammad said, came true – like it has to do for a person saying many things through many years – and most of what he said which did not come true, was forgotten (also this is what normally happens if it is nothing spectacular). But he did not see the future correctly often - actually he statistically and according to the laws of probability should have "hit the mark" far more often by sheer chance than he did - there just are a few cases where Muslims will claim he foretold something correctly, and few if any of them are "perfect hits". But then the Quran makes it pretty clear that even though he was intelligent, he had little fantasy and that he also was nearly unable to make innovative thinking (nearly all his tales and his ideas in reality were "borrowed" ones - though often twisted to fit his new religion).

The main things here are that Muhammad never indicated that anything of what he said was meant as prophesies, that he never indicated, not to mention claimed, that he had the gift of prophesying - of "seeing the unseen" - that it nowhere is documented that all/most of what he said about the future came true (point 2 above), and finally that both he and Islam said and says that Muhammad was unable to see the unseen (extra revealing here is that the old Biblical title for a prophet, was "a seer" - one who saw the unseen (f.x. 1. Sam. 9/9)) and also that Islam even today admits there were no miracles connected to Muhammad “except the delivery of the Quran” (prophesying is a kind of miracle - seeing what has not yet happened). (This fact that Islam admits there were no miracles connected to Muhammad "except the revelation of the Quran" also is a solid proof for that all the miracles connected to Muhammad mentioned in the Hadiths, are made up stories - but all the same many a mullah and imam and scholar use these stories, which Islam admits are made up ones, as "proofs" for that Muhammad had supernatural powers and was a prophet. Honesty is not the strong side of Muslim religious leaders.) Also see 30/40a and 30/46a, and we also should add that his favorite wife (and infamous child wife) Aisha according to Hadiths (f.x. Al-Bukhari) stated that anyone saying Muhammad could foresee things, were wrong.

Verse 7/188b also is very relevant here: "If I (Muhammad*) had knowledge of the Unseen (= what is hidden or what has not happened yet*), I should have - - -". IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT MUHAMMAD DID NOT HAVE THE PROPHETS' ABILITY TO SEE "THE UNSEEN" - he was no real prophet. Similar in 3/144, 6/50a, 7/188b, 10/20c+d, 27/65, 46/9, 72/26, and 81/24. 

As mentioned: Also relevant here is that the original title of the Jewish prophets as mentioned was not "prophet" but "seer" - one who saw at least parts of the unseen. (F.x. 1. Sam. 9/9#, 1. Sam. 9/11, 1. Sam. 9/18, 1. Sam. 9/19, 2. Kings. 17/13, 1. Chr. 9/22, 1. Chr. 26/28, 1. Chr. 29/29, 2. Chr. 9/29, 2. Chr. 16/7, 2. Chr.16/10, 2. Chr. 19/2, 2. Chr. 29/25, Amos 7/12, Mic. 3/7 - some places the two titles even are used side by side). Muhammad thus so definitely was no seer - prophet - even according to his own words; he directly said he had no "knowledge of the unseen" and "no knowledge of the unknown". One more proof for that he was not in the same line - not to say league - as Jesus, if the Bible and/or the Quran tell the truth about Jesus on this point.

Many liked - and like - the title prophet, and there have been made other definitions for this title - the most common of these are "one who brings messages from a god", or "one who represents a god", or "one who acts/talks on behalf of a god". But the fact remains: Without being able to prophesy, he or she is no real prophet. A messenger for someone or something - ok. An apostle - ok. But not a real prophet.

###This is a fact no Muslim will admit: Muhammad in reality simply was no real prophet or seer. Perhaps a messenger for someone or something or for himself – or perhaps an apostle – but not a real prophet. He only “borrowed” that impressive and imposing title. It is up to anyone to guess why.

It also is remarkable that Muhammad relatively seldom used the title "prophet" about himself in the Quran. He mostly used the title "Messenger", even though messenger in reality means an errand-boy (Muslims try to make this title something big and imposing, but this is the meaning of it). "Prophet" on the other hand is a heavy and impressive title telling a lot about the person. May the reason for why he did not use it so often, be that he knew he did not have what it took to merit that title, and was a little careful using it, so as not to provoke questions or comments? (And is this also the reason why Muslims try to pretend that "messenger" is something more impressive and heavy than "prophet"?)

If the Quran simply belongs among the apocryphal books, many things are easy to understand, and it at least belongs in that line and tradition, even if it is further "out" than most of the others. Muhammad also fits the picture of the leader of an apocryphal sect, admittedly more immoral and bloody than most of the others.

Also see 30/40h and 30/47b above.

###03 46/8c: “Say: ’Had I (Muhammad*) forged it (the Quran*), then can ye obtain no single (blessing) for me from Allah.” What an unbeatable proof!!!

Actually Muhammad is said to have "proved" that he was a prophet, by answering 3 cryptic questions brought by Uqbab Abu Mu’ayt from Jewish rabbis in Medina - he got the answers from Allah via Gabriel. The first concerned the “seven sleepers”. Any god had known the story is made up - a Christian legend (some Muslims say it is copied from an older Jewish legend, but it is as wrong anyhow) - but Muhammad did not know this. The second concerned Alexander the Great (Dhu’l Quarnayn - an Arab name for him) - and Muhammad answered fairy tales any god had known were wrong. The third concerned the Holy Spirit - and Muhammad had no real answer. But the conclusion after the fiasco (it was not documented then that it was a big fiasco, but it has been documented later) was clear: The story was taken to be an unmistakable proof for that Muhammad was a prophet. Worse: EVEN TODAY WHEN WE EASILY SEE WHAT IS WRONG, MUSLIMS REFUSES TO ADMIT THE OBVIOUS AND TRY TO EXPLAIN THE ERRORS AWAY - AND RECKON THE WRONG INFORMATION AS SURE PROOF OF HIS BEING A REAL PROPHET, IN SPITE OF THAT NO GOD HAD GIVEN HIM ANSWERS SO FAR FROM THE REALITY. It should be a matter of doubt for any thinking person - but then Muslims are not taught how to think, at least not critical thinking, but only to accept and obey. This really is an interesting “proof”.

**04 61/9a: “It is He (Allah*) Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad*) - - -”. With all those mistakes in the claimed message, it is obvious that also this claim needs proofs – especially since an illness like temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) easily can explain both his fits, his sights (?) and his other experiences (?) – TLE often gives religious illusions like this (source among others BBC). Add some personal “inspiration” or cunning to solve personal and domestic problems, and add the contemporary wrong knowledge and science, and you have the Quran exactly – with all its mistakes and other weaknesses. No omniscient god sent a messenger bringing such messages.

###05 63/1e: “- - - thou (Muhammad*) art indeed His (Allah’s*) Messenger - - -.” Well, the Quran says so – but very much of what is said in the Quran obviously is wrong. And can a man claiming to be bringing rather ok and moral messages for 12 years, and then highly immoral and inhuman messages for 10 years (Islam changed much in and after 622 AD and the flight to Medina) to man – and using the messages as his platform of power – really be the messenger of a timeless and benevolent god? Does an eternal and omniscient god change his mind and his religion that much in some months? If not, Muhammad was no real messenger.


This content was posted with assistance from M. A. Khan, the editor of and the author of "Islam Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery" (available online)