Muslims present this argument: that Muhammad should be accepted as a prophet because even the disbelievers of Mecca (polytheists) used to call him "Sadiq" (truthful) and "Ameen" (trustworthy). This claim appears persuasive at first glance, but when we analyse it seriously, it turns out to be very weak on multiple levels and contrary to the Quranic narrative itself.
1. This claim is found only in Muslim sources
The first and most fundamental point is that the claim of Muhammad being “Sadiq and Ameen” exists solely in sources written by Muslims themselves. This cannot be proven from any neutral or hostile nation’s writings or reports. When all sources belong to the same group who already believe in Muhammad, then naturally their reliability becomes questionable, especially when those very sources are full of exaggerations and unhistorical content.
2. The Quran itself contradicts this claim
If it were really true that the polytheists used to call Muhammad "Sadiq" or "Ameen", then the Quran, which responds to every major objection, would have had no reason to conceal such a thing.
On the contrary, the Quran repeatedly mentions the accusations made by the disbelievers against Muhammad:
-
"Poet" – Ash-Shu‘ara: 224
-
"Soothsayer" – At-Tur: 29
-
"Magician" – Adh-Dhariyat: 52
-
"Madman" – Al-Hijr: 6
-
"Liar" –
وَقَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِنْ هَٰذَا إِلَّا إِفْكٌ افْتَرَاهُ
"And the disbelievers said: This (Quran) is nothing but a lie that he has fabricated." (Al-Furqan: 4)
From these verses, it is clear that the disbelievers did not consider Muhammad truthful; rather, they called him a deceiver, fabricator of lies, and a madman. This is the Quran’s own narrative, and it refutes all such claims that the polytheists used to call Muhammad “Sadiq and Ameen”.
3. The hadith and sīrah reports are Unreliable
Muslims also claim that the titles "Ameen" for Muhammad are found in Sīrah Ibn Hisham, Ibn Ishaq, and some obscure hadiths, especially in the story of the Black Stone (Hajar al-Aswad). But the following objections arise:
-
These reports are neither in Sahih Bukhari nor in Sahih Muslim, but rather in biographies or books with weak chains of transmission.
-
The chains (isnad) of these reports are either weak (da‘eef) or broken (munqati‘).
-
Even the scholars of Ahl-e-Hadith accept these as historical reports, not legal (shar‘i) evidence.
In such a case, accepting the titles "Sadiq and Ameen" based on an unreliable historical tale cannot be considered a strong argument, neither logically nor legally.
Conclusion
In summary, the Muslim claim that even the polytheists used to call Muhammad “Sadiq” and “Ameen”:
-
Is proven false in the light of the Quran.
-
Is based on inferior narrations by hadith standards; not even one "mutawatir" (mass-transmitted) or "sahih" (authentic) hadith exists to support it.
-
And from a rational perspective, it is nothing more than an assumption.
A claim that is supported neither by the Quran, nor by mutawatir or even sahih hadith, nor by any neutral historical source, but is instead contradicted by the Quran itself. It is not just weak, but falls under propagandistic deception.
A Muslim Objection:
A Muslim person objected upon it, and he wrote:
You claim that the Qur’an refutes the idea that the disbelievers of Mecca regarded Muhammad as sadiq (truthful) and amin (trustworthy). In support of this, you cited verses where terms like poet, soothsayer, magician, and madman are used. But what is your response, then, to the following verse?
"Those to whom We gave the Scripture recognize him as they recognize their own sons. But a group among them conceals the truth while they know it." (Qur’an 2:146)
According to this verse, just as one cannot have any doubt about the identity of one’s own son, likewise, there can be no doubt about the Prophethood of Muhammad. And these people (i.e. the People of the Book) are fully aware of this truth, yet they deliberately conceal it.
At best, your response could be that this verse contradicts other verses in the Qur’an — that is, you might argue that the Qur’an contains internal inconsistencies. Even if we were to grant that point for the sake of argument, that would be an entirely different matter. But at the very least, this verse shows that the Qur’an itself confirms that Muhammad bin Abdullah was indeed recognised as truthful and trustworthy — at least by the People of the Book. So what do you say to that?
Our Response:
Respected sir, in reality, you are not even able to establish the "scales/standards" (mīzān) of the discussion properly. Justice only occurs when the "scale" is straight. But if your scale is already crooked, then from where will justice come?
In simple words, the standard you are establishing to differentiate between truth and falsehood is completely flawed.
The verse you quoted:
"Those to whom We gave the Book recognize him (the Prophet) as they recognize their own sons..." (al-Baqarah: 146)
This statement of the Quran is a claim, not evidence. The Quran is presenting this only as a declaration from Allah (or Muhammad, hidden behind the identity of Allah).
You must distinguish between a "claim" and "proof".
This statement of the Quran falls under the category of claim, not proof.
This claim of the Quran would become "proof" only if:
-
The Quran presented a reference from the Book of the People of the Book (e.g., the Bible). But the Quran provides zero evidence from the Bible or any other scripture of the People of the Book.
-
Or the People of the Book themselves testified, and their own witness could be presented against them.
Whereas our case is entirely different.
Our claim qualifies as evidence because we presented the Quran’s own testimony against itself, which cannot be rejected.
Moreover, you asked us: what if the same statement (about being Sādiq and Amīn) were found in Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim, would we accept it?
Our answer: even then, we would not accept it, because those Hadiths were also written by Muslims themselves, and they were fully capable of fabricating falsehood in their own interest and there was no one to hold them accountable.
Now, let us ask you a question:
If the Hindu scriptures narrate that Hanuman flew to Sri Lanka or swallowed the sun, would you accept such claims without external evidence or corroboration?
If not, then why are you showing double standards in your own case, and demanding from us that we accept the narrations of Bukhari and Muslim which are in favour of Islam?
However, if any narration from Bukhari and Muslim or verse from the Quran, that you accept as authentic, ends up exposing Islam’s falsehood, then such testimony automatically becomes a valid proof against you, and we are fully entitled to use it in our argument.
And now our second question remains unanswered:
When the Quran itself, despite the importance of the matter, does not testify that Muhammad was Sādiq (truthful) or Amīn (trustworthy); when no Mutawātir or even Sahih Hadith gives this testimony, and only a few weak or broken reports mention it, then why are you, against your own standard, believing in these claims and using them as an argument against us?
Hassan Radwan