fact which you bring him, he changes his position and  says, "well, maybe he was not crazy. maybe some foreigner brought him the information. so he lied and told people that he was a prophet." at this point then you have to ask him, "if muhammad was a liar, then where did he get his confidence? why did he behave as though he

really thought he was a prophet?" finally backed into a

corner, like a cat he quickly lashes out with the first response that comes to his mind. forgetting that he has already exhausted that possibility, he claims, "well, maybe he wasn't a liar. he was probably crazy and really thought that he was a prophet." and thus he begins the

futile cycle again.

as has already been mentioned, there is much information

contained in the quran whose source cannot be attributed to anyone other than allah. for example, who told

muhammad (saw)about the wall of dhul-qarnayn - a place hundreds of miles to the north? who told him about embryology? when people assemble facts such as these, if they are not willing to attribute their existence to a divine source, they automatically resort to the assumption someone brought muhammad (saw)the information and that he used it to fool the people.

however, this theory can easily be disproved with one

simple question: "if muhammad (saw)was a liar, where did he get his confidence? why did he tell some people out

right to their face what others could never say?" such confidence depends completely upon being convinced that

one has a true divine revelation