Muhammad and Joseph Smith: Two Peas in a Pod (Isa Insight Response)

The dawagandists are unhappy with me again. In a recent video, I laid out why Muhammad is a false prophet. Here’s a quick recap:

1. Quran 61:6 claims that Muhammad’s coming was foretold by Jesus by name (Ahmad and Muhammad are essentially the same name in Arabic).
2. This prophecy appears nowhere in any historical record we have about the words of Jesus. It is not written down, remembered or referred to by anyone in the six centuries between Jesus and Muhammad. The people of Muhammad’s day could not have gone to any independent historical source for these words.
3. The only source we have for these words spoken by Jesus is the re-revealed words given to Muhammad. God, having allowed Jesus’s words to be lost, has re-revealed them through the prophet that they are about. Rather than allowing Muhammad the basic dignity of letting his listeners independently check this foretelling, God forces Muhammad to self-certify. It’s humiliating.

The funny thing? Joseph Smith did the same self-certifying thing—he inserted himself into Genesis (Genesis 50:33, Smith’s own “translation”) and had Joseph, the son of Jacob, prophesy about him. Christians and Muslims agree Smith was a false prophet, but Muslims should reject Muhammad for the same common sense reason we’d reject Smith. 

Why? Because this claim makes God look like a total klutz. Here’s the supposed sequence:

1. God drops a prophecy about Joseph Smith.
2. Over time, the prophecy vanishes, and everyone forgets—nice work, God.
3. Realizing the slip, God decides to resend it. Who does He choose? The very person the prophecy is about. Classic fail—God doesn’t see how absurdly pointless and hilariously inept this is.

This is clearly dumb, we all know what happened. Smith wrote himself into the Bible. And Muhammad basically did the same thing. So consistency demands that something has got to give. Ok, so you get the idea. Sorry for the long-winded introduction. Here’s my original video. 

And here’s a recent response I’ve received.

The words in bold are from my original video.

Italics is Isa Insight, the guy in the response video.

Plain text is my written response.

I hope this isn’t confusing but I just don’t care enough to put the energy into a response video, so you’re stuck with this format. I definitely recommend that you watch both videos for context. And if Isa Insight wants to have a public discussion on this topic, I’d certainly be open to that.

OK, so here we go…

In this video, I’ll prove that Muhammad is a fraud, a false prophet. The proof is very simple: Muhammad does something that no true prophet would ever do. 

The very criteria for what a true prophet would and would not do is based on the Bible and the Church, which is the very thing Muslims put into question. But let’s continue. 

We’re off to a bad start here. Remember when I said, “None of this assumes anything about the New Testament, the gospels, Jesus, the Bible, or the church. It’s an internal check, a test that no genuine prophet should fail”? The whole self-certifying strategy is a fail for any prophet—regardless of whether you’re already committed to the Bible or not. It’s a common-sense test.

Let’s start with something that Christians and Muslims agree on: Joseph Smith was a false prophet.

“Now, I won’t go into too much detail, but Joseph Smith was the founder of a religion called Mormonism in 1830. We can be sure he’s a false prophet due to his clearly false prophecies, such as when he claimed that Jesus would return in 56 years, which failed to come true. This, obviously, doesn’t apply to the prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), who had no false prophecies”

He’s spot on about Smith being a false prophet because, well, he made false prophecies. That’s one legit way to tell if someone’s a false prophet—assuming we’re not talking about conditional prophecies. But this whole argument is dodging the real issue. It would be downright ridiculous for God to “fix” a supposedly lost prophecy by having the prophet re-reveal their own prediction. God’s not bumbling idiot. 

But since he brought it up, Muhammad made false prophecies, too. For example, Muhammad’s prophecy about the Antichrist (Dajjal) was supposed to pop up right after the Muslim conquest of Constantinople. Let’s break down these Sunan Abu Dawud traditions:

• Book 37, Number 4281: Muhammad claimed Jerusalem would flourish as Yathrib crumbled, followed by the great war, the conquest of Constantinople, and then the Dajjal’s grand entrance. He even smacked his thigh to emphasize the certainty.
• Book 37, Number 4282: He said the great war, Constantinople’s capture, and the Dajjal’s arrival would all unfold within seven months. 
• Book 37, Number 4283: Muhammad specified a six-year gap between the great war and Constantinople’s fall, with the Dajjal making his appearance in the seventh year.

Muslims took Jerusalem in 636 AD and Constantinople in May 1453 AD. By Muhammad’s own timeline, the Dajjal should have shown up by November 1453. Guess what? He didn’t.

Some might try to argue that these events are just future conquests, like maybe Constantinople is a stand-in for the Roman Christian Empire. So, they claim it’s predicting that Muslims will take over Rome before the Antichrist shows up.

But here’s the problem: if Muhammad meant Rome, he could’ve just said “Romans” (Arabic: Ar-Rum). It’s literally the title of chapter 30 of the Quran. Calling Rome “Constantinople” or “Byzantium” would be like using a time machine—it’s wildly anachronistic. Let’s just be real. Muhammad’s prophecy about the Antichrist flopped hard, throwing serious doubt on his claim to prophethood. Well, shoot. Anyway, moving on.

Now, just imagine this hypothetical dialogue between Smith and the Christians of his time:

Christian: “Why should we think you’re a true prophet of God?”

Smith: “Uh, because the Bible prophesies my coming by name.”

Christian: “Where in the Bible is that, exactly?”

Smith: “In Genesis 50:33.”

Christian: “Bro, there is no Genesis 50:33. Genesis 50 stops at verse 26.”

Smith: “Well, that’s because the original ending of Genesis was lost. But don’t worry, God has sent these verses down again. They’ve been re-revealed.”

Christian: I think I see where this is going, but I’ll play along anyway. Who were they re-revealed to?

Smith: “Well, me, of course! Isn’t that wonderful?”

“Although it’s true that Joseph Smith made up verses in the Bible that simply weren’t there, like making up verses in Genesis, this isn’t analogous to the prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) at all. The prophet Muhammad did not go up to Jews and say, “I’m in Deuteronomy 65,” when there was no Deuteronomy 65. Joseph Smith’s whole life was based on claiming he was in the Bible, and he was known by people as an immoral man. We can see this isn’t the case for the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) at all. In fact, he was seen as an honest, truthful, and fair man in many hadiths, and the Quran attests to this as well in the verse, “It’s not you they deny, but it’s the signs of Allah that the wrongdoers deny.”

Looks like Isa Insight missed the memo—I was using a hypothetical to show how ridiculous this is. Yes, Joseph Smith slipped his own prophecy into Genesis 50:33, claiming it was about him—a “seer” from Joseph’s lineage. But here’s the kicker: Smith didn’t even lean all that hard on this prophecy to convince people during his life. His big selling points were his visions, the Book of Mormon, and direct revelations. It’s only later that Mormon apologists started milking this verse as “proof” of Smith’s divine calling.

But let’s face it—whether Smith or later Mormons used it, the strategy is laughable. God supposedly drops a prophecy about Smith, lets it completely vanish from the Bible, and then goes, “Oops, my bad,” and sends it again… to the very guy it’s about? Come on! That’s like throwing yourself a surprise party. Hilarious, awkward, and absolutely pointless. Oh, and Muhammad did the same thing: Jesus supposedly predicts him by name, but funny enough, the only source for this is Muhammad himself.

So let’s keep it simple: If you’re rejecting Smith’s claim, you gotta reject Muhammad’s too. Same flawed logic, same outcome—no cherry-picking allowed!

And what’s all this hype about Muhammad being such an upstanding guy? Seriously? I could rattle off a list of sketchy things about Muhammad that Isa Insight is probably already well aware of—and somehow still cool with.

For instance, your prophet said that his followers could have sex with girls who hadn’t even reached puberty. The opening verses of Chapter 65 of the Qur’an present Islamic rules for divorce. According to 65:4, if a Muslim divorces a girl who hasn’t yet reached puberty, he must wait three months to make sure she isn’t pregnant. Are you okay with that Isa Insight, and if so, why? What am I missing here?  

And of course, Muhammad himself had sex with a prepubescent girl. He married Aisha began when she was only six years old. Muhammad had a dream about her, which led him to believe that God wanted him to marry her. Yes, Muhammad waited three years before having sex with her, but still, Muslim sources report that Aisha still hadn’t reached puberty.

This is in al-Bukhari:

Narrated by Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for `Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.)

My friend, Muhammad is Joseph Smith on STEROIDS. Of Smith’s many wives, the youngest ones we know about were 14 years old and not pre-pubescent. Smith and Muhammad are two peas in the same pod, but Muhammad is nastier. Moving on…

It’s hopelessly circular: to believe in Joseph Smith, I need to believe in the prophecy of Genesis 50:33, but to believe in Genesis 50:33, I need to believe in Joseph Smith. But it’s worse than a bad argument—it’s proof of fraud. 

“I’ve already dismantled the claim that the prophet used the SCS as the sole reason why he’s a true prophet. In fact, he can be verified using past scriptures. Not only have I mentioned the video I made with Deen Responds on Deuteronomy 33, but there’s this amazing video by many prophets on the message of the Prophet like Moses, going over Deuteronomy 18. For more intertextuality, check out Proving Islam’s channel.”

Wow, where do I even start? First off, these aren’t lost words of Jesus; they’re from Moses. You claim the Torah has been corrupted, yet you’re trying to cherry pick a “clear” prophecy about Muhammad in a supposedly corrupt book? I get that there’s a belief Moses prophesied about Muhammad, but there’s nothing in Christian Scripture or any historical record that remotely matches what’s claimed in Surah 61:6. So what are we even doing here? 

But let’s play along. In Deuteronomy 33:2, Moses declares, “The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.” This passage clearly refers to Yahweh, the God of Israel, not some human figure—definitely not Muhammad. The Hebrew word YHWH is used, making it crystal clear that the text is describing God Himself. To claim this is about Muhammad isn’t just a bad interpretation—it’s borderline blasphemy. Imagine if someone said that “Allah” in the Qur’an was actually referring to Joseph Smith instead of God. You’d lose your mind, right? Well, congrats—you just committed shirk and became an apostate. Nice move!

Or perhaps God didn’t foretell your coming, in which case God would find other ways to authenticate you—miracles or your own prophecies about the future.

“There are countless miracles of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), witnessed and written down, such as the splitting of the moon and the miracle of water flowing from the prophet. But he also had miracles in terms of predicting the future, which wouldn’t be known to an Arabian in the 7th century. For example, his prediction of barefooted Arab Bedouins competing in making tall buildings and many others, which I can’t mention in this video due to time constraints.”

There’s zero reason to take these miracle claims seriously, and the Apostate Prophet already demolished that tall buildings prophecy you’re pushing. I covered this ‘Muhammad did miracles thing’ already in a previous video and in my response to Farhan.

Here’s a quick recap, though. When it comes to miracle claims, we can’t afford to be gullible. Tales about miracles that surface centuries after the supposed events or from dubious sources are red flags. Why? Because they come from times and places where verifying facts was next to impossible and, conveniently, fit the dominant religious narrative with no pushback.

Take Muhammad’s miracles. They pop up in hadiths compiled around 200 years after his death. Even if they were based on earlier oral traditions, they’re still pretty weak for serious examination. These accounts are drenched in bias, perfectly aligning with preexisting beliefs, with no real consequences for spreading them. And don’t get me started on the absurdities—like Moses supposedly running around naked, beating a rock for stealing his clothes. Wild stories like these appear thousands of years later. So, when you dig into these so-called miracles, it’s clear they don’t stand up to serious scrutiny. And let’s not forget the bizarre tales—like Jews turning into rats and a companion of Muhammad stoning a she-monkey for adultery with another monkey. Seriously, bro? (See the original posts for the hadith references.)

Furthermore, The Quran outright denies the idea of Muhammad performing physical feats like raising the dead or healing the sick. Let’s look at the text:

• “And they that know not say, ‘Why does God not speak to us? Why does a sign not come to us?’ So spoke those before them as these men say; their hearts are much alike. Yet We have made clear the signs unto a people who are sure.” (S. 2:118)
• “They say, ‘Why has a sign  not been sent down upon him from his Lord?’ Say: ‘The Unseen belongs only to God. Then watch and wait; I shall be with you watching and waiting.’” (S. 10:20)
• “The unbelievers say, ‘Why has a sign not been sent down upon him from his Lord?’ Thou art ONLY a warner, and a guide to every people.” (S. 13:7)
• “Naught prevented Us from sending the signs but that the ancients cried lies to them; and We brought Thamood the She-camel visible, but they did her wrong. And We do not send the signs, except to frighten.” (S. 17:59)

These verses make it clear: Muhammad’s role was to warn, not to perform miracles. The phrase “You are ONLY a warner” would be utterly pointless if a warner could perform wonders.

Even if God allowed a prophetic foretelling to be lost to future generations, which seems ridiculous enough.…

“The funny thing here is that Testify is extremely ignorant of the early Church. He says a prophetic foretelling being lost to time is ridiculous, but little does he know that the early Church believed prophetic foretellings were actually lost to time or changed from the scriptures. For example, Justin Martyr, in the *Dialogue with Trypho* (chapter 72), discusses passages and prophecies being removed by the Jews from Jeremiah to cover up Jesus being prophesied. So, would Testify call Justin Martyr ignorant for believing the Old Testament was actually corrupted, changed, and lost to time due to Jews?”

Justin Martyr’s idea that prophecies about Jesus were erased from Esdras and Jeremiah to hide their messianic meaning? Yeah, that theory falls apart when you consider all the textual evidence we have—especially with the Dead Sea Scrolls, which predate Jesus by 200 years. Sure, it fits nicely into your “corruption” narrative, but let’s face it, Justin’s likely mistaken here. Where’s Justin even getting this info? We don’t really know. And I know you guys love watching Christians throw church fathers under the bus, but newsflash: they’re not infallible. They offer valuable historical insight, but they don’t always get it right.

But c’mon, bringing up Justin here is comparing apples to oranges. Jesus and the apostles never said, “Oh, by the way, there’s this prophecy that’s been lost, but I’m bringing it back to you now because I’m the prophet it’s talking about.” The real dilemma here? Either Muhammad is a fraud for the same reasons Joseph Smith is a fraud, or Allah’s a bumbling fool who couldn’t preserve a key prophecy where Jesus supposedly predicted Muhammad’s arrival. So now I’m supposed to take Muhammad’s word that Jesus foretold him—with zero independent verification? Come on.

Even if we did lose some prophecies about Jesus and Justin was somehow right (spoiler: he’s not, given the overwhelming textual evidence), Jesus didn’t show up quoting lost prophecies from Esdras or Jeremiah that nobody could verify. He didn’t say, “Jeremiah called me by name.” Jesus pointed to verifiable prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures that we still have today, prophecies, that when examined, do lead many Jews to believe in Jesus. (Luke 4:18-21, quoting Isaiah 61:1-2; Matthew 26:64 and Mark 14:62 referencing Daniel 7:13-14; Matthew 11:4-5, Luke 7:22 tied to Isaiah 35; Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34 referring to Psalm 22, Luke 22:35-37, cf Isaiah 53:12, and more).

Try to stick to the point.

Here’s the point: Muhammad attempted the self-certifying strategy. He claimed that his coming as a prophet was foretold by name by a previous prophet. This prophecy was lost from all memory and all historical records, and then God sent the prophecy about Muhammad again, and God sent it through Muhammad. 

I’ve already discussed in this video how that’s not the case and how we can verify him through independent reasoning.

So at this point, he’s just yapping and repeating the same nonsense, which I’ve dismissed.

Oh, really? I don’t think I’m the one spouting nonsense here. If Muhammad used the SCS, then either he’s a fraud or Allah’s just a bumbling mess-up artist. Either way, it’s a big dent in his prophetic credentials. False prophecies and a lack of miracles? Yeah, those don’t help either.

This is Surah 61:6: “And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said, ‘O Children of Israel, I am the Messenger of Allah sent to you, confirming the law which came before me and giving glad tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.'” There it is—three steps in one verse.

Muhammad attempted the self-certifying strategy.

The reason why this isn’t analogous to what Joseph Smith did is because Joseph Smith’s entire basis was him solely being in the lost Bible verses, but this isn’t the case for the Prophet (peace be upon him). 

My guy, it sounds like you need a history lesson on Mormonism. Smith said he saw the angel Moroni and could translate Reformed Egyptian (a language that we have no external evidence for) from the Golden Plates. That’s his so-called prophetic credential. There are loads of issues with that claim, but the self-certifying tactic is a major red flag for fraud. The bottom line is, Mormons can make similar claims, and at least they have witnesses who supposedly saw the plates, even if they couldn’t really vouch for its content since only Smith could “translate” it.

This verse that he quoted is not saying, “Because Jesus prophesied me, you have to believe me.” It’s merely an account of what Jesus said, revealed by the All-Knowing One. The independent reasoning I have laid out in this video would lead you to believe that Muhammad is a true prophet, and thus, believing he is truthful in receiving revelation, and then finally accepting that Jesus did actually say these words because it’s from God.

This is still completely circular. How do we know Jesus said this? Because Allah supposedly revealed it in the Quran. And how do we know Allah revealed it in the Quran? Because the Quran says so. If you have independent reasons to believe Muhammad is a prophet, fine, but the SCS should be a massive red flag, and again weak prophecies and late legends about talking rocks and water coming from Muhammad’s fingers aren’t very persuasive.

This prophecy appears nowhere in any historical record we have about the words of Jesus. It’s not written down, remembered, or referred to by anyone in the six centuries between Jesus and Muhammad.

“This is simply an argument from silence. Just because it isn’t written down in documentation doesn’t mean it never happened. In fact, even according to the New Testament itself, in John 21:25, there were many things that Jesus did that weren’t written down, or else the whole world wouldn’t be big enough for the amount of books that would have been written. In fact, this argument from silence would be contradicting the early Church. For example, John Chrysostom, in Homily 9, when asked about Matthew 2:23 and where it is in the Old Testament, replied, “In what manner of a prophet said this? Be not curious nor over-busy, for many of the prophetic writings have been lost.” 

John says a similar thing in 20:31. Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

So absolutely, Jesus did plenty of things we don’t have records of, but John’s whole point is that he’s shared enough about Jesus’ deeds and teachings for us to believe in him. Muhammad on the other hand left us with nothing to verify here. Just a “Jesus foretold my coming, trust me, bro,” with zero independent verification. That’s just absurd and screams fraud. Muhammad basically said, “You guys don’t have this prophecy, but I’m re-revealing it,” that’s a huge red flag. 

And if you argue that early Christians had it but later lost it, then you’ve got an even bigger problem. If Muhammad was truly the final prophet meant to restore the one true faith, wouldn’t you expect God to preserve a clear record of that so we could trust in the words of his final prophet? And wouldn’t Muslims think to preserve that Scripture, considering it would be their ace in the hole for proof?

Instead, we’re told Muhammad split the moon based on a murky verse that even Muslim scholars can’t agree on, plus some later hadiths about talking rocks and water spraying from his fingers. Wow, that’s impressive—if you’re into later legends and folklore and not genuine testimony.

And let’s be clear: Matthew 2:23 is not the same thing. Chrysostom was a brilliant theologian, but if he taught what’s being claimed here, he missed the boat. Matthew, who knew his Hebrew Bible inside out, wasn’t just cherry-picking verses. His references to Isaiah 7:14 and 9:1-2 tie into a broader Messianic theme in Isaiah. The link between the word “Branch” (netzer in Hebrew) in Isaiah 11:1 and “Nazareth” is a deliberate theological connection. Matthew was weaving Messianic prophecies into his narrative to underscore Jesus’ humble beginnings in a way that resonated with his audience—something scholars have noted. I discuss the prophecy in Matthew 2:23 here in my response to Bart Ehrman.

And once more, this isn’t Jesus saying, “I’m the foretold Messiah from passages that either God didn’t bother preserving or no one can verify”—or, “Trust me, I fulfill a lost prophecy about me.” This is Matthew’s creative interpretation of Isaiah to say Jesus lived in Nazareth, which no one doubts. Seriously, how can you not see the problem with this? Can you not spot the difference?

And again, not to beat a dead horse here, but  if Jesus actually predicted the final prophet, the “seal of the prophets,” and even named him, don’t you think that would be pretty crucial to preserve and pass down? But what do we have in the historical record? Zero. Nothing. Bupkis. Crickets. No quotes from the Church Fathers, no manuscripts, and nothing in any of the gospels, whether canonical or apocryphal. Just Muhammad’s word for it. 

There’s a big difference between a weak argument from silence and a strong one. Imagine you’re searching for a treasure chest that everyone claims is hidden in a well-known spot. A weak argument from silence is like saying, “We haven’t found the chest yet, so it must not be there,” which is pretty flimsy. But a strong argument from silence is like searching that spot thoroughly and finding nothing when you should have stumbled upon the chest if it was really there. It’s not just about not finding something; it’s about the total absence of what should be obvious if the claim were true. And again, this is exactly the kind of thing we’d expect to be preserved by a God who claims that no one can alter His words. (Surah 10:94) God should absolutely be in the business of justifying the claims of his own final messenger.

In this case, the absence of any historical record about such a significant prophecy is a strong argument against its existence. (To understand the difference between the two different kinds of arguments from silence, check out this video from philosopher Lydia McGrew)

This response feels like desperate mental gymnastics, if you ask me. Imagine if one of Paul’s letters claimed that he was prophesied by name to be the Apostle to the Gentiles, and this prophecy was supposedly recorded by Moses in Leviticus 28, only to be lost and later re-revealed by Paul himself. I could totally whine, “But bro, early Christians had it, it just got lost,” and point to church fathers’ records of Paul’s miracles from 200 years later all day long. But let’s be real—we’d get laughed off the stage, and rightfully so. Yet, somehow, this doesn’t raise any red flags for Muhammad. Strange, don’t you think?