The Founder of Islam (Muhammed) was not a real Prophet.

"And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hands possess [i.e., slaves]. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice]."

"She jumped up in haste and excited the admiration of the messenger of God so that he turned away murmuring something that could scarcely be understood however he did say overtly glory be to God the almighty glory be to God who causes hearts to turn!"

"And [remember, O Muhammad], when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor, "Keep your wife and fear Allah ," while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him. So when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you in order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they no longer have need of them. And ever is the command of Allah accomplished."

1. Jewish Monotheism  

Jewish Monotheism (during the time of Muhammed) had already spread to Arabia. 

As well as this, Jews during this time had written story's that appear in the Talmud, such as Abraham being delivered from a fire, and a bird teaching Cane how to bury his brother. 

But now these stories appear in the Qur'an as "revelations from God"........... 

Christian Sources:

No historian on the planet believes that these late apocryphal stories are authentic, but we know that some Christians in Arabia were teaching these stories which ended up in the Qur'an.

The Sabian's who are mentioned in the Qur'an prayed before dawn, before noon, before afternoon, and before sunset. After sunset they prayed at two additional times but five of their prayer times are now part of Islam.

Some of the Persians believed that after death a paradise of sensual delights awaited them complete with Houri (virgins in paradise). 

The virgins of the garden became the Muslim view of paradise.

The pagans of Arabia (the polytheists) performed ablutions (ceremonial washings). They took the pilgrimage to Mecca and circled the Kaaba, and they kissed the black stone. These were all Pagan practices that were very dear to the polytheistic, idol worshipping, Arabs. Now they're part of Islam.

Now, if you take Jewish Monotheism and some fictitious tales from Jewish sources. The false (and sometimes heretical) stories of certain Christian groups. The Persian view of the afterlife. Some of the prayer times of the Sabian's, and the practices of the pagans and you mix it all together........you get Islam.

This doesn't look like something that came down from heaven. This is actually exactly the sort of religion we would expect to arise in 7th century Mecca. 

Well Muhammed justifies this in Surah 33:50 in which he received another revelation from Allah that gave him and him only special moral privileges. I think it is fair to say that it looks awfully suspicious when a prophet receives revelations that give him more sexual partners than anyone else.

Because, later in the Qur'an, we learn that Allah forbids adoption. So why would Allah give Muhammed a revelation to show people its ok to marry your adopted sons' wives, when in fact that situation will never come about again? Seems pretty self-serving to me. 

I can't help but think that these so called "revelations" are all too human.

So therefore, we have more than enough evidence to prove that Muhammed's message/"revelations" was of his own 7th Century Meccan mind, not the words of God. Therefore, we can assume Muhammed is definitely not a Prophet of any religion. 

Yes surprise. Ideas are spread across the globe. The same argument can be used to show that Judaism is not unique and borrowed from Zoroastrianism like the ideas of angels, heaven/hell, free will, etc. So what can we deduce about Judaism based on this argument? Is it the copy past of Zoroastrianism? 

Yes we also know that there were Persians, Jews, pagans trading in Arabia influencing their ideas. Can we also then conclude that Christianity is copy past of all these ideas. Well it certainly seems so since Christianity also has pagan roots in its holidays. 

Prayer predates Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. So I guess they all copied Sabians too. 

Persians also believed in Zoroastrianism which was the first prophet to introduce the concept of heaven/hell. This is similar to the Christian view of having afterlife. 

Yes the Kaaba had idols. Pagans circled the Kaaba. Now Muslims do it. What changed? The intention. Every religion has pagan undertones because pagans were present (a majority) and their customs were the norm. It's not specific to Islam. 

Now if you take Zoroastrian Monotheism and some fictatious tales about angels and demons. The false (and sometimes heretical) stories of certain pagan groups. The Persian view of after. Some of the prayers of zoroastrianism, and the practices of pagans and you mix it all together....you get religion (Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Chrisanity, and Islam) 

This is actually exactly the sort of religion we would except to arise in 1st century Bethelem. 

Your arguments can easily be used to argue the opposite, hence they are weak. 

His marriages were for political gain i.e to gain favor with other tribes.  Is there something immoral about that?

Should Muhammad have been a monk? 

Your assumptions are wrong hence conclusion doesn't follow. Adoption is allowed in Islam but not legal status of adoption (changing ones original name).

The story (him being shocked by her beauty or wearing little clothing) you mentioned is rejected by many Muslim scholars because of lack of chain of narrations and its not an authentic hadith. Take historical sources seriously in debate. 

In the start you say how Muhammad was trying to fulfill his desires. Now lets see some of these impermissble manly desires. He banned alcohol. Pagans of Arabia loved alchohol and that's the one thing they took from Christian arabs. He banned usury. Not all men love this especially powerful men (Muhammad was a powerful man). He banned masturbation. Another desire. He banned gambling. Another desire loved by men in power. He told all women (slave and nonslave) to observe Hijab. People of that time and this time do not like this ruling. They love the lack of hijab and ability to see women not married to them how they please. There are many more things. So your arguments don't hold. 

Fair point, however, I am not obliged to defend Judaism, or Christianity in this debate. My only job is to point out Islams flaws, and it's "prophets claims." 

So, to be fair, you could say the same for Judaism, and Christianity, but it doesn't negate my point. 

We are discussing Islam's roots. And I am making the point that Islams roots are highly rooted in Christain, Judeo, Pagan, and Sabian traditions. 

I am pointing out the fact that the specific prayer times used by the Sabian in Arabia, around the time of Muhammed, is now used in the religion that Muhammed founded. 

And Muhammed clearly in the Qur'an is claiming these specific prayer times were given to Muhammed by origin of Allah (God), but we see very compelling evidence otherwise. 

Ok. I am not arguing that only the Islamic "prophet" is not a real prophet. I am only talking about Muhammed, simply because of the context of the debate's description and title. 

But it is not my BOP to defend the opposite religions, nor is it yours to accuse the opposite religions. 

So, while you may be making a fair point, it serves no purpose to your argument. 

I am simply laying out the fact that Muhammed's "revelations from Allah (God)" are clearly shown as self-serving, so why should we conclude that Muhammed is a "Prophet of God" if his "revelations" clearly serve obvious human desires.

Again, like I said in my introduction: 

"A lot of people throughout history claim to be getting revelations from God (Allah), when the messages are actually coming from their own minds."

Well, Muhammed is (according to Islam) supposed to be the pattern of conduct for all Muslims, so if he were to do something immoral, that would contradict his teachings. 

But don't you think it is strange that Allah "gives Muhammed" a "revelation" in order to show any other Muslims that marrying your adopted sons, wives is permissible, when that situation is not a likely scenario? 

Muhammed also:

Made violence permissible (human sinful desire).

Made pedophilia permissible (human sinful desire).

Made sex slavery permissible (human sinful desire).

Made polygamy permissible (human sinful desire).

Made violence against women permissible (not necessarily a human desire, but a sin).

If we are to believe that someone gets special incite, rules, regulations, and traditions from God and God commands this person to lead others, it should follow logically that God gives this anointed person special divine original revelations. 

He has tried to use my faith and others faith as a defense tool against these attacks, but I will remind him that we are not talking about Islam v.s. other Religions. I am only critiquing Islam. It is CONS job to defend against these claims.

It shows that your argument lies on false assumptions.

This is your argument,

- A true religion doesn't borrow ideas from others

- Muhammad, the founder of the religion borrowed ideas

- Therefore, Muhammad did not have a true religion

Your assumption is wrong. Borrowing ideas doesn't negate of truth.

Quran affirms all past religions come from one source i.e God which is why were are the same.

When Quran refers to Islam it doesn't mean the Islam followed today so the Jews, Christians, Sabians, Zoroastrians were all followers of Islam (submission to One God). If that was not the case it would contradict God being all-good and just meaning all people before Islam would have been with a lost message or in hell. 

Islam has no problem with such claims. Neither do those claims contradict Islam. Above. 

What is the problem with the evidence? The Sabians are accepted in Islam. There is no contradiction here. Quran says God sent 124,000 prophets for all communities and nations so not a single person would leave the earth without hearing the belief of one God. God favored all people not just Muslims. He favored the Jews first, then the Christians, then the Muslims to preserve his message. 

It doesn't negate prophethood. We don't use the arguments you are posing to show anyone is a valid prophet or not. Plus, it is not 100% copy paste. Islam added its own ideas like showing how all prophets are infallible. Unlike the Bible where prophets are shown to make mistakes. So event that point doesn't hold. 

Sure but  "coming from desires" is not a good argument because you can be disproven by counter-example. If Muhammad was a regular man and he did everything based on desires then your point would hold more. Desires are common among all men so why did he go against desires that were not common (like banning alcohol) which all other religions were ok with it. So this is not a good argument.

Why did he show in the Quran that all prophets have to be infallible. Muhammad should have went the route of the Bible and Torah and say "no actually they can make a few sins here and there". That would have made his life easier. Why set such high standards for himself when he clearly would not have been objected too if he did otherwise? 

Right he set the standard way too high for himself if he was a false prophet. 

You say you are not here to defend Christianity yet you put "sinful" as criteria. I don't care what religion you are defending whether it be one made up now or Christianity but you are holding Christian apologetics i.e western/liberal moral framework here. 

- What human desires to be violent? Violence is allowed when necessary. It's inhuman to be a pacifist. 

- I already made my argument for this in another debate showing how child marriage is beneficial. Making children wait until an arbitary age of consent (perhaps up to 7 years) is against basic desires. Allowing children to marry (both boys and girls) is better than engaging in sex outside marriage (sinful) 

- Slavery was common for all times. Islam wasn't there to abolish it. It did recommend freeing slaves. It came there to regulate slavery.

- Polygamy is not a "sinful" desire it is beneficial for both parties not just men. The Quran recommends to marry one wife and if they want to marry more, men have to provide each wife a roof over their head. This is only the case for a few men. Also, polygamy was the norm because life expectancy was low and many men died in wars. On top of that, women in Islam can put in their marriage contract whether they will allow another wife. This goes against your idea that polygamy only gives favor to men or average Arab in pagan Arabia. 

- Violence against men is also permissible. Women can hit men too. This is not a sin.Idk understand your argument here. 

Original ideas are all from God. God is the source of all "true" religions. So this is not a point of contention.

Islams originality is that its consistent and contains no contradictions unlike other past religions.