Muhammad: a Prophet or an imposter?

[abd77]

Muhammad said he was a prophet, therefore we have two possibilities; either he said the truth, or he was a liar and an imposter. Only one of these 2 can be true.

Let’s 1st look at the hypothesis that he was a liar and an imposter, that he himself invented the Quran, and that even though he was illiterate.
First what was Muhammad’s interest to create a new religion? Until the age of 40, he lived a happy and comfortable life with his rich wife Khadija, he was loved and respected for his honesty and morality by all of his tribe. Why would he have gone through 10 years of persecutions, hardships and reject from most of his tribe, what was his interest in going through so much suffering and persevering in the transmission of his message?

Until the end of his mission, even when he ruled almost the whole of the Arabic peninsula (a territory about 5 times the size of France), he always lived in the most complete destitution, sleeping on a bed of dried leaves, without a castle nor a palace or anything resembling it, without a single bodyguard, wearing clothes repaired by himself, shoes repaired by himself… Why did this “imposter” never used all his power to acquire wealth, palaces and luxurious gardens like other kings and heads of states?
And if he only had created this religion in reaction to Jews and Christians as some have claimed, why would about half of the Prophets mentioned in the Quran would be …Jewish? Why does the Quran praise so much Mary the mother of Jesus, a Jewish woman, but never mentions Muhammad’s mother, nor any member of his family?
In order to convince the Arabs, who were often in conflict with the Jews, wouldn’t it have been easier to denigrate all these Jews instead of praising them? Yes, but that’s neither what the Quran says, nor what Muhammad said.

Moreover, if you wanted to create and spread a new religion, surely you’d make it easy to practice, with as few constraints as possible, just like most idolatrous religions of the time. Would you try to impose the complete banning of alcohol, a whole month of fasting every year, 5 compulsory daily prayers at fixed times?… No, it wouldn’t make sense, because nobody would follow such a religion. But amazingly that’s what the Quran and Muhammad have done, without ever accepting any compromise to this message. And the most extraordinary is that this religion has triumphed over all the others !

If Muhammad was an imposter, what was his personal interest to have his people abide by these countless food restrictions, this entire month of fasting every year, these 5 compulsory prayers every day? Why did he insist so much on these restrictions, which personal interest did he get from it?
Of course none, it even made many tribes hesitate and sometimes abandon him. It really made his mission very much harder to fulfill, but yet he never accepted any compromise to this message.
In a famous episode of Muhammad’s life, a tribe called Thaqif accepted to convert to Islam and to obey Muhammad if he allowed them to keep some of their idols and to be exempted from the 5 daily prayers. Muhammad refused categorically. Rather than to acquire absolute power over this important tribe without any effort, he preferred to remain faithful to the message God had transmitted him.


But let’s still continue this hypothesis “Muhammad was an imposter and invented the Quran”, already shaken by these few facts; if Muhammad wasn’t guided by God, then we also have to admit that he was:

-The greatest Arabic writer in history ; because no one can deny that the Quran is the greatest literary piece ever written in this language. Still 14 Centuries later, if you go to any University to study Arabic literature, you’ll study mainly the Quran for its inimitable style and the beauty of its verses. God himself challenges anyone to produce anything like it (Quran 11:13,14). A challenge that still 14 Centuries later no human has been able to meet.

-A scientific genius; the reproduction of humans, of plants, the aquatic origin of all life, the orbits of the sun and the earth, the expansion of the Universe, these are a few of the scientific truths mentioned in the Quran, some of which discovered more than 1000 years later.

-A genius in medicine; thanks to its very strict hygiene and food restrictions, the Quran and the Sunna (the teachings of Muhammad) have allowed Muslim countries that abode by these laws to be spared from most great epidemics that wreaked havoc in other parts of the world. Still today, look at how the latest great epidemics, the AIDS virus, has strangely largely spared the Middle East, the Maghreb and the Arabic peninsula (all the Muslim countries), whereas it causes havoc in all the neighboring regions (Sub-Saharian Africa and South-Western Asia).
Everyone now recognizes the importance of diet, sexual non promiscuity and regular washing of one’s feet and hands to prevent the transmission of diseases. All these principles were dictated 14 Centuries ago by an illiterate Arab who had never studied medicine in his life.

-A genius in law ; The Quran and Muhammad’s Sunna are the first great legislation in history to elaborate such a comprehensive list of the rights and duties of all human beings (several thousands of pages covering a multitude of fields), about 11 Centuries before the West had any kind of counterpart with the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights, itself much less comprehensive than the vastness of domains broached by the Islamic Law.

-A speaker with amazing eloquence; thanks to his wisdom and eloquence, Muhammad managed to touch the heart of billions of human beings and to convince them that he was the Messenger of God, and that in spite of the horrendous persecutions that hit the first men and women that believed in his Mission. He was so much admired that tens of thousands of pages of his sermons and teachings were memorized by his companions and their descendants and put into writing to constitute what we now call the Sunna.
From which other great Man of History have we preserved so many teachings?

-A military genius; what Muhammad accomplished in this field in so little time, he who until the age of 52 (when God revealed him the verse ordering him to defend himself) had never shown any interest for war nor had had any experience whatsoever neither as a fighter or as a strategist, is really beyond the extraordinary.
He’s often compared to Alexander the Great and Napoleon, but what Muhammad accomplished is even more extraordinary, and that for the 2 following reasons:

-While the vast empires that Alexander and Napoleon established crumbled pretty quickly (a few decades after his death for Alexander and in his own lifetime for Napoleon, which shows how little support they had in the land they had conquered), the conquests of Islam not only didn’t crumble after Muhammad’s death, but continued to expand under his companions and successors. Even during the era of colonization, while the Europeans had managed to impose Christianity in most of their colonies, they never succeeded in Muslim countries, such was the attachment of Muslims to their religion. On the contrary, 14 Centuries later, in the whole of Europe and North America, it is islam and mosques are spreading like flooding waters.

-Another big difference: Greece already was a powerful nation when Alexander took power, and France was along with England the most powerful country in Europe when Napoleon came to power. In other words Alexander and Napoleon had right from the start huge means; a great, experienced and well-equipped army…
Muhammad had nothing, no army, no king or nation to support him, he was at the beginning completely alone. He had to convince his co-tribesmen and contemporaries one by one about the truth of his Mission, endure his tribe’s persecutions, build with his companions makeshift weapons to defend himself, then constitute a modest army with people who for many of them had no experience in fighting whatsoever.
From this modest start, and thanks to miraculous victories over armies largely superior in numbers and in means, he succeeded in spreading Islam over almost the whole of the Arabic Peninsula.
How could a man have achieved such a feat if he had not been protected and guided by God?

-A political genius; thanks to judicious treaties with other Arab tribes, intelligent strategic decisions both in and off the battlefield, Muhammad managed to spread Islam on most of the Arab peninsula, and make of this forgotten and desertic land the heart of a civilization that would later expand from Morocco to India !
And what other great King or Emperor managed to rule over such a large territory without ever owning any palace, any fortress, any bodyguard, relying only on his Lord and Creator to Guide him and Protect him?

History has seen a few literary geniuses, and also a few military geniuses, and a handful of geniuses in each of the fields I have mentioned.
But having a man excel in all these fields at once, surpassing all the geniuses from any period of History in such various and different domains, it is simply out of this world. And this coming from a man who had never followed any education and could hardly even read ! ! !

Is it reasonable to think that this man (who until the age of 40¾the beginning of his Mission¾ had never shown any interest for any of these fields) could have suddenly become such a genius?
Or is it more reasonable to think that something really extraordinary happened in this night of the year 610, that through the Angel Gabriel it is really God that addressed him and Guided him in a Divine Mission.


You can guess of course what my opinion is. An opinion based not only on faith but also on reason.

In conclusion, here’s what the great French poet Lamartine said after studying his life:
“If the greatness of a man is to be measured by comparing the smallness of his means with the greatness of his accomplishments, then what great man in History can seriously be compared to Muhammad."
Lamartine, Histoire de la Turquie.


In truth there are really obvious signs for people who meditate. (Quran 13:3)

[bint_muhammed]

That Si Sooooo Beautiful!!!!!!

[Najiullah]

nice post :)

[afriend]

:'(

MashAllah, I'm keeping this ok?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Iconoclast]

:sl: :brother:

:) very good jazakallah khair may allah give us the needed taqwa to follow his beloved messenger SAW

:w:

[glo]

Muhammad said he was a prophet, therefore we have two possibilities; either he said the truth, or he was a liar and an imposter. Only one of these 2 can be true.

Or he was himself deceived??? :? That would be a third possibility.

Peace.

[Muezzin]

Why do Muslims need confirmation that Muhammad (SAW) was indeed a prophet and not an imposter?

Oh wait, this is in Comparative Religion. Anything goes.

[Umar001]

Or he was himself deceived??? :? That would be a third possibility.

Peace.

Yep that would come under him being truthful thought, because if he was decieved he would be telling the truth, meaning that the source he had told him this and that.

But anyhow, it would be nice to see someone asnwer that

Peaceeeeeee

[muslim_friend]

Or he was himself deceived??? :? That would be a third possibility.

Peace.

If you are implying the possibility of the Prophet(pbuh) being epileptic, then that cannot be so. Below is the extract of a good book i have: "The amazing Qur'an" by Gary Miller.There are good answers here.

Exhausting the Alternatives

The real certainty about the truthfulness of the Qur'an is evident in the confidence which is prevalent throughout it; and this confidence comes from a different approach - "Exhausting the alternatives." In essence, the Qur'an states, "This book is a divine revelation; if you do not believe that, then what is it?" In other words, the reader is challenged to come up with some other explanation. Here is a book made of paper and ink. Where did it come from? It says it is a divine revelation; if it is not, then what is its source? The interesting fact is that no one has yet come up with an explanation that works. In fact, all alternatives have bee exhausted. As has been well established by non-Muslims, these alternatives basically are reduced to two mutually exclusive schools of thought, insisting on one or the other.

On one hand, there exists a large group of people who have researched the Qur'an for hundreds of years and who claim, "One thing we know for sure - that man, Muhammad (s), thought he was a prophet. He was crazy!" They are convinced that Muhammad (s) was fooled somehow. Then on the other hand, there is a group which alleges, "Because of this evidence, one thing we know for sure is that that man, Muhammad (s) was a liar!" Ironically, these two groups never seem to get together without contradicting. In fact, many references to Islam usually claim both theories. They start out by stating that Muhammad (s) was crazy and then end by saying he was a liar. They never seem to realize that he could not have been both! For example, if one is deluded and really thinks that he is a prophet, then he does not sit up late at night planning, "How will I fool the people tomorrow so that they think I am a prophet?" He truly believes that he is a prophet, and he trusts that the answer will be given to him by revelation.

The Critic's Trail

As a matter of fact, a great deal of the Qur'an came in answer to questions.
Someone would ask Muhammad (s) a question, and the revelation would come with the answer to it. Certainly, if one is crazy and believes that an angel put words in his ear, then when someone asks him a question, he thinks that the angel will give him the answer. Because he is crazy, he really thinks that. He does not tell someone to wait a short while and then run to his friends and ask them, "Does anyone know the answer?" This type of behavior is characteristic of one who does not believe that he is a prophet. What the non-Muslims refuse to accept is that you cannot have it both ways. One can be deluded, or he can be a liar. He can br either one or neither one, but he certainly cannot be both! The emphasis is on the fact that they are
unquestionably mutually exclusive personality traits.

The following scenario is a good example of the kind of circle that non-Muslims go around in constantly. If you ask one of them, "What is the origin of the Qur'an?" He tells you that it originated from the mind of a man who was crazy. Then you ask him, "If it came from his head, then where did he get the information contained in it? Certainly the Qur'an mentions many things with which the Arabs were not familiar." So in order to explain the 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 Qur'an whose source cannot be attributed to anyone other than Allah. For example, who told Muhammad (s) 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 (s) the information and that he used it to fool the people. However, this theory can easily be disproved with one simple question: "If Muhammad (s) 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.

A Revelation - Abu Lahab

Prophet Muhammad (s) had an uncle by the name of Abu Lahab. This man hated Islam to such an extent that he used to follow the Prophet around in order to discredit him. If Abu Lahab saw the Prophet (s) speaking to a stranger, he would wait until they parted and the would go to the stranger and ask him, "What did he tell you? Did he say, 'Black'? Well, it's white. Did he say 'morning'? Well, it's night." He faithfully said the exact opposite of whatever he heard Muhammad (s) and the Muslims say. However, about ten years before Abu Lahab died, a little chapter in the Qur'an (Surah al-Lahab, 111) was revealed about him. It distinctly stated that he would go to the fire (i.e., Hell). In other words, it affirmed that he would never become a Muslim and would therefore be condemned forever. For ten years all Abu Lahab had to do was say, "I heard that it has been revealed to Muhammad that I will never change - that I will never become a Muslim and will enter the Hellfire. Well, I want to become Muslim now. How do you like that? What do you think of your divine revelation now?" But he never did that. And yet, that is exactly the kind of behavior one would have expected from him since he always sought to contradict Islam. In essence, Muhammad (s) said, "You hate me and you want to finish me? Here, say these words, and I am finished. Come on, say them!" But Abu Lahab never said them. Ten years! And in all that time he never accepted Islam or even became sympathetic to the Islamic cause. How could Muhammad (s) possibly have known for sure that Abu Lahab would fulfil the Qur'anic revelation if he (i.e., Muhammad) was not truly the messenger of Allah? How could he possibly have been so confident as to give someone 10 years to discredit his claim of prophethood? The only answer is that he was Allah's messenger; for in order to put forth such a risky challenge, one has to be entirely convinced that he has a divine revelation.

The Flight

Another example of the confidence which Muhammad (s) had in his own prophethood and consequently in the divine protection of himself and his message is when he left Makkah and hid in a cave with Abu Bakr (ra) during their emigration to Madeenah. The two clearly saw people coming to kill them, and Abu Bakr was afraid. Certainly, if Muhammad (s) was a liar, a forger and one who was trying to fool the people into believing that he was a prophet, one would have expected him to say in such a circumstance to his friend, "Hey, Abu Bakr, see if you can find a back way out of this cave." Or "Squat down in that corner over there and keep quiet." Yet, in fact, what he said to Abu Bakr clearly illustrated his confidence. He told him, "Relax! Allah is with us, and Allah will save us!" Now, if one knows that he is fooling the people,
where does one get this kind of attitude? In fact, such a frame of mind is not
characteristic of a liar or a forger at all. So, as has been previously mentioned, the non-Muslims go around and around in a circle, searching for a way out - some way to explain the findings in the Qur'an without attributing them to their proper source. On one hand, they tell you on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, "The man was a liar," and on the other hand, on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday they tell you, "He was crazy." What they refuse to accept is that one cannot have it both ways; yet they need both theories, both excuses to explain the information in the Qur'an.

[Umar001]

I think what was implied was that Mohammed thought he was a Prophet of G-d but actually was decieved by Satan, which once one studies the quran finds illogical, but many people say this as a possability.

[bint_muhammed]

I think what was implied was that Mohammed thought he was a Prophet of G-d but actually was decieved by Satan, which once one studies the quran finds illogical, but many people say this as a possability.

how can it be a possibility???? please explain!:?

[Umar001]

Ok, you see it's a subcatagory under the possability of truthfulness

For example.

Two options come from him being truthful.

One is that he was truthfull and was indeed a Prophet from G-d because G-d was his source.

Two is that he was truthful but was not a Prophet from G-d because his source was Satan (G-d forbid)

Do you see what I mean sis?

[muslim_friend]

I think what was implied was that Mohammed thought he was a Prophet of G-d but actually was decieved by Satan, which once one studies the quran finds illogical, but many people say this as a possability.

but anyway, there are verses asserting that the Qur'an cannot be of evil sources(satan).

The Prophet was therefore not a liar, imposter, epileptic or an evil person>> which can only mean that he was a true messenger of Allah! swt. :peace: :peace:

[Umar001]

Lol and that is why I said it was illogical :p

But what some will tell you is, and I used to think this before, that maybe satan put those verses in there to make us think that it was from G-d. tryna play the bluff, and so on.

It goes on and on bro, trust me essays could be written on this.

[HeiGou]

If you are implying the possibility of the Prophet(pbuh) being epileptic, then that cannot be so. Below is the extract of a good book i have: "The amazing Qur'an" by Gary Miller.There are good answers here.

Exhausting the Alternatives

The real certainty about the truthfulness of the Qur'an is evident in the confidence which is prevalent throughout it; and this confidence comes from a different approach - "Exhausting the alternatives." In essence, the Qur'an states, "This book is a divine revelation; if you do not believe that, then what is it?" In other words, the reader is challenged to come up with some other explanation. Here is a book made of paper and ink. Where did it come from? It says it is a divine revelation; if it is not, then what is its source? The interesting fact is that no one has yet come up with an explanation that works. In fact, all alternatives have bee exhausted. As has been well established by non-Muslims, these alternatives basically are reduced to two mutually exclusive schools of thought, insisting on one or the other.

This is simply stating what it tries to prove. How does he know that no one has come up with an explanation? How does he know that all alternatives have been exhausted? What this author has done is reduced the world of possible options to two and then produced a spurious argument to show that in fact Muhammed must have been a prophet. Now theologically there may be reasons to accept Muhammed's claims, but as a logical argument this is utterly flawed and we know this from other cases of other would-be prophets and the like. For instance,

On one hand, there exists a large group of people who have researched the Qur'an for hundreds of years and who claim, "One thing we know for sure - that man, Muhammad (s), thought he was a prophet. He was crazy!" They are convinced that Muhammad (s) was fooled somehow.

Who are these people? As far as I know this is an entirely new school of thought. In the past people thought Muhammed was inspired by the Devil, not that he was crazy. After all traditionally people thought insanity was a gift from God.

Then on the other hand, there is a group which alleges, "Because of this evidence, one thing we know for sure is that that man, Muhammad (s) was a liar!" Ironically, these two groups never seem to get together without contradicting. In fact, many references to Islam usually claim both theories. They start out by stating that Muhammad (s) was crazy and then end by saying he was a liar. They never seem to realize that he could not have been both! For example, if one is deluded and really thinks that he is a prophet, then he does not sit up late at night planning, "How will I fool the people tomorrow so that they think I am a prophet?" He truly believes that he is a prophet, and he trusts that the answer will be given to him by revelation.

Well that underestimates the potential of the insane - who tend to be pretty good liars anyway. I do not see that these two opinions are contradictory. Let us suppose that someone is insane and thinks he is Napoleon. To maintain this illusion the insane person must construct a fantasy world to explain away the fact that he is not Napoleon. It doesn't mean that he is not insane, nor does it mean that he is always telling the truth - even if he comes to believe his own lies. No expects the insane to sit up at night thinking how to convince people that they are what they say they are. But if they really want to convince people of their fantasy they have to be quick to invent reasons why the things they say are really true.

The Critic's Trail

As a matter of fact, a great deal of the Qur'an came in answer to questions.
Someone would ask Muhammad (s) a question, and the revelation would come with the answer to it. Certainly, if one is crazy and believes that an angel put words in his ear, then when someone asks him a question, he thinks that the angel will give him the answer. Because he is crazy, he really thinks that. He does not tell someone to wait a short while and then run to his friends and ask them, "Does anyone know the answer?" This type of behavior is characteristic of one who does not believe that he is a prophet. What the non-Muslims refuse to accept is that you cannot have it both ways. One can be deluded, or he can be a liar. He can br either one or neither one, but he certainly cannot be both! The emphasis is on the fact that they are
unquestionably mutually exclusive personality traits.

You can still have it both ways. Let us suppose that someone hears voices in his head. He may think about the origins of these. He may be terrified of them. He may think he is loosing his mind. But then someone explains to him that it is God speaking direct to him. This gives him an explanation which does not mean he is insane and gives him a great deal of psychic comfort - after all he is speaking to God. Someone asks him a question, he sleeps on it, the voices in his head do their thing, he interprets those voices in a way that gives a sensible answer even though they do not really say what he says they say. There is no contradiction there. This is basically what Hong Xiuquan did when he claimed he was Jesus Christ's younger brother. As you do not believe he was Jesus Christ's younger brother, he must have been something else - insane or a liar?

The following scenario is a good example of the kind of circle that non-Muslims go around in constantly. If you ask one of them, "What is the origin of the Qur'an?" He tells you that it originated from the mind of a man who was crazy. Then you ask him, "If it came from his head, then where did he get the information contained in it? Certainly the Qur'an mentions many things with which the Arabs were not familiar."

Such as?

So in order to explain the 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?"

How is this a contradiction? Good liars never ever behave as if they are not. Look at Confidence tricksters - they are always positive and always stick to their story. But again someone may be crazy and yet inspired by information he got from elsewhere. Hong, again, picked up information on Christianity in the early 1830s but it sat unread on his shelf for 10 years. It was only after he started having fits and visions that he picked it up and realised that it referred to the figures in his vision. Being insane and picking up foreign information is not mutually exclusive as Hong shows.

As has already been mentioned, there is much information contained in the Qur'an whose source cannot be attributed to anyone other than Allah.

Such as?

For example, who told Muhammad (s) about the wall of Dhul-Qarnayn - a place hundreds of miles to the north?

No idea. But what Wall of Dhul-Qarnayn? Do you think that perhaps Muslims have taken a Quranic story and applied it to a wall that has no connection with Dhul-Qarnayn even if he knew who he was? You see the problem of getting the story backwards?

Who told him about embryology?

What makes you think that he would have needed anyone to have told him? Exposure to aborted and miscarried foetuses would have been common for anyone who herded sheep. Did he ever herd sheep?

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 (s) the information and that he used it to fool the people. However, this theory can easily be disproved with one simple question: "If Muhammad (s) 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.

There was a French man who made a good living in Britain claiming he was from Taiwan. He got a job at Oxford University as a Professor in Taiwanese and wrote books on Taiwan's history and even a dictionary of Taiwanese language. He was French. He had never been to Asia in his life. He fooled Oxford University. Where did he get his confidence? Are you saying that only the insane can pull off a stunt like this? Evidence please.

A Revelation - Abu Lahab

Prophet Muhammad (s) had an uncle by the name of Abu Lahab. This man hated Islam to such an extent that he used to follow the Prophet around in order to discredit him. If Abu Lahab saw the Prophet (s) speaking to a stranger, he would wait until they parted and the would go to the stranger and ask him, "What did he tell you? Did he say, 'Black'? Well, it's white. Did he say 'morning'? Well, it's night." He faithfully said the exact opposite of whatever he heard Muhammad (s) and the Muslims say. However, about ten years before Abu Lahab died, a little chapter in the Qur'an (Surah al-Lahab, 111) was revealed about him. It distinctly stated that he would go to the fire (i.e., Hell). In other words, it affirmed that he would never become a Muslim and would therefore be condemned forever. For ten years all Abu Lahab had to do was say, "I heard that it has been revealed to Muhammad that I will never change - that I will never become a Muslim and will enter the Hellfire. Well, I want to become Muslim now. How do you like that? What do you think of your divine revelation now?" But he never did that. And yet, that is exactly the kind of behavior one would have expected from him since he always sought to contradict Islam. In essence, Muhammad (s) said, "You hate me and you want to finish me? Here, say these words, and I am finished. Come on, say them!" But Abu Lahab never said them. Ten years! And in all that time he never accepted Islam or even became sympathetic to the Islamic cause. How could Muhammad (s) possibly have known for sure that Abu Lahab would fulfil the Qur'anic revelation if he (i.e., Muhammad) was not truly the messenger of Allah? How could he possibly have been so confident as to give someone 10 years to discredit his claim of prophethood? The only answer is that he was Allah's messenger; for in order to put forth such a risky challenge, one has to be entirely convinced that he has a divine revelation.

Or alternatively he knew his uncle very well or he knew that his uncle would never mean it - after all hypocrits do not become real Muslims and do not go to Heaven do they? And anyone who converted to Islam to prove it wrong would be a hypocrit wouldn't he? Even if Abu Lahab had "converted" to prove a point, Muhammed could just assert, correctly, he was lying and he would go to Hell and so prove Islam was true. As the Quran is true, anything that happened or happens must be reconcilable with the Quran.

The Flight

Another example of the confidence which Muhammad (s) had in his own prophethood and consequently in the divine protection of himself and his message is when he left Makkah and hid in a cave with Abu Bakr (ra) during their emigration to Madeenah. The two clearly saw people coming to kill them, and Abu Bakr was afraid. Certainly, if Muhammad (s) was a liar, a forger and one who was trying to fool the people into believing that he was a prophet, one would have expected him to say in such a circumstance to his friend, "Hey, Abu Bakr, see if you can find a back way out of this cave." Or "Squat down in that corner over there and keep quiet." Yet, in fact, what he said to Abu Bakr clearly illustrated his confidence. He told him, "Relax! Allah is with us, and Allah will save us!" Now, if one knows that he is fooling the people,
where does one get this kind of attitude?

Again you are asserting a story's truth without looking at the source. Why do you think this story is true? How do you know that in fact Muslims who later believed that Muhammed was the prophet wrote this story in light of how they thought that a prophet would behave? What is the source?

In fact, such a frame of mind is not characteristic of a liar or a forger at all.

Actually it is. Liars are often very good at maintaining their lies. It is also characteristic of someone with some sort of pathology. It may well also be characteristic of the prophet of God, but Hong maintained his calm right up to the moment he died.

What they refuse to accept is that one cannot have it both ways; yet they need both theories, both excuses to explain the information in the Qur'an.

Actually you can have both if you feel like it. More to the point, you have excluded other possibilities and asserted there are merely two. This is not the case as we know of other cases where the leader was clearly not the Son of God or the Brother of Jesus. Islamic history is full of such examples as well. The same argument can be applied to them - did Hong lie or was he insane? He must have been Jesus Christ's little brother by this argument.

[glo]

If you are implying the possibility of the Prophet(pbuh) being epileptic, then that cannot be so.

No, I wasn't implying that at all ...

Peace. :)

[glo]

but anyway, there are verses asserting that the Qur'an cannot be of evil sources(satan).

Hhhhmmmmm ... if we just for one momet allow ourselves to imagine that satan had deceived Muhammed into believing that his message was from God, would he (satan) not make sure to assert that it could never have been from any evil source?

After all, satan is not stupid! :X

Peace.

[Hussein radi]

If Prophet Muhammed(SAW) was Decieved(NOT) BY satan, then why do satan die if verses of the Quran are spoken???!?!??!?

[HeiGou]

If Prophet Muhammed(SAW) was Decieved(NOT) BY satan, then why do satan die if verses of the Quran are spoken???!?!??!?

Have you seen him die when verses of the Quran are spoken?

You see how many things are wrong with that statement before even starting on the question of deception?

[chacha_jalebi]

shaytaan never came near the Prophet (saw)

as we all know, when one human is born, a devil is born with them!!

soooo

it is a well known fact & even recorded in a hadiths by ibn majah, that the Prophet (saw) converted his devil

so the devil didnt come near him!!!

[chacha_jalebi]

also when Audhu Billahi Minash Shaytaan Nir Rajeem is said

the devil runs away!!

so please think before posting :okay:

[HeiGou]

shaytaan never came near the Prophet (saw)

as we all know, when one human is born, a devil is born with them!!

soooo

it is a well known fact & even recorded in a hadiths by ibn majah, that the Prophet (saw) converted his devil

so the devil didnt come near him!!!

Yes but how do you know that? Can we agree that there is nothing outside the Islamic tradition and scriptures that say this?

[HeiGou]

also when Audhu Billahi Minash Shaytaan Nir Rajeem is said

the devil runs away!!

so please think before posting :okay:

Have you seen a devil run away when you said this? Has anyone you know?

[glo]

shaytaan never came near the Prophet (saw)

as we all know, when one human is born, a devil is born with them!!

soooo

it is a well known fact & even recorded in a hadiths by ibn majah, that the Prophet (saw) converted his devil

so the devil didnt come near him!!!

Again, you are using Islamic teachings to 'prove your point', thereby assuming and believing that those teachings are from God.

If, however, as I was imagining, satan had deceived Muhammed into believing his message was from God, then your whole argument would be based on satan's teachings, not God's.

I don't think I will continue in this thread, because I am aware that what I am saying could be perceived to be very controversial and also upsetting. I have made my comments and will leave it at that. :X

Peace. :)

[queen_nadia]

[QUOTE=glo;334309]I don't think I will continue in this thread, because I am aware that what I am saying could be perceived to be very controversial and also upsetting. I have made my comments and will leave it at that. :X

cumon glo dont go!:giggling:
if we dont talk about thing even if they might hit a sour note we should still continue. if we didnt then how would we eva understand each other!!:?

[Hussein radi]

Sorry, what i meant was if satans( any of them) hear the verses of the Quran spoken they would be in torture. For example if some one is possessed by a devil and verses of the Quran are told to the possessed someone then The devil would run away for his life.

[queen_nadia]

[QUOTE=glo;334309]
If, however, as I was imagining, satan had deceived Muhammed into believing his message was from God, then your whole argument would be based on satan's teachings, not God's.

how can something come from santan if it talks so highly of jesus(isa) and mary (mariam). look we find views that try to make Allah be percieved as like a man -this as muslims we beleive, has come from santan! muslims hold Allah higher than any man or mans imaginary god. isn't that what we should all be thinking if we are really god fearing.:?

[starfortress]

:sl:
peace to all

I guess someone try to bring "satanic verses" issue into this threads,maybe because it became popular issue for orientalist in order to critisized about Muhammad(PBUH).But to me its better to wait and see what is their actual meaning by "satan had deceived Muhammed":)

[HeiGou]

Sorry, what i meant was if satans( any of them) hear the verses of the Quran spoken they would be in torture. For example if some one is possessed by a devil and verses of the Quran are told to the possessed someone then The devil would run away for his life.

No don't apologise. The problem from my point of view is that you are all using this same basic invalid argument. It may be the case that Muhammed is the last prophet etc etc. But the fact that the Muslim tradition says he is, is not proof. This is just a folkloric version of that same claim. After all, as Glo pointed out the Devil could fake something similar and presumably you think that he did in a number of case - Hong Xiuquan for instance. These claims all revolve around a circular argument. How do we know that Hong talked to God? Because he said he did. How can we believe him?

[rubiesand]

If, however, as I was imagining, satan had deceived Muhammed into believing his message was from God, then your whole argument would be based on satan's teachings, not God's.

Would it make sense to you for satan to teach humanity to seek refuge in God from satan himself as the Quran tells us to do? Or to teach that he (satan) is the avowed enemy of humanity, again as the Quran says?

What's in it for satan when Muslims pray each time we read the Quran "I seek refuge in God from satan the accursed"?

[Hussein radi]

Becuase islam is toooooooooooooooooo perfect to be made up by anyother but god.

[HeiGou]

Becuase islam is toooooooooooooooooo perfect to be made up by anyother but god.

Now that's a good argument.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:
This is a very strong argument and I've used it myself on the forum before. See the bottom of this post where I provided some links to a previous discussion on it, and also this post where I responded to similar claims.

I'll respond to some of the posts in this thread when I get the opportunity, inshaa'Allah.

:w:

[Umar001]

I really don't get some Muslims sometimes.

In order to prove Qu'ran they use statements stuff like 'Satan could not have wrote it because Satan runs away frmom it when it is recited' and the next question would be, who told you this, and the Muslim says Mohammed's tradition states it, and the questioner would just laugh, because if they claim satan is the author of the quran, then they will also believe that Satan could have said this to confuse people.

Now, to think that satan wrote the Qu'ran may sound like a good stumbling point, but it is the most interesting point ever.

Ok, Muslims remember to see this from a non-Muslims view point for example:

Muslim will think 'Satan could not have wrote this, because the book asks us to seek refuge in G-d from satan'

Non-Muslim on hearing this thinks 'Well Satan wouldn't make it clear thatthis is his book, because this book is here to decieve people' now also if this non muslim is christian he will probably say 'The main aspects of Christianity are denied which shows this book is from Satan in the disguise of G-d, for example, The trinity and the Sonship of Jesus and the death of Jesus, all these point to satan having wrote this, as long as satan can full you in these matters he can tell you to say 'I seek refuge in Almighty G-d from Satan'

So we see the reasoning behind the Non-Muslim/Christian's thinking.

Satan pretends to be G-d to fool people about the bigger things.

I used to think like that, in fact this was a stumbling block for me.

Going Back and forth thinking 'what if this is just satan writing a book tryna keep me away from the death of Jesus'

But you see this is an illogical point to stand on.

In essence people are coming to this conclusion because this book (quran) doesnt agree with theirs so, if it doesnt agree it most be from Satan.
They don't realise that it could be their book that is wrong, so you then look at the background of each book and see which one is pure and so forth, and you see that if anything the other book has been touched by satan.

You could turn this around and assert that anything brought forward could be written by satan. For example, if a Christian says this to you tell him, well the authors of your bible could be mislead by satan, forget mislead they could be satanist themselves since we dont have their history.

You see once we start saying this can be from satan or that can be then anything can be from satan.

But if it is a Christian then they should know better.
Some of the arguements Christians use against Mohammed, are the same arguements Jews used against Jesus according to the Bible.
It is a classic case of history repeating itself, where nowdays if you go to Churches people swear that they would have accepted Jesus and not been like those Jews, we find those same people rejecting Jesus' brother Mohammed, because of prejudice just like the jews did.

Jesus when faced with the accusation of being of the devil stated (ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE) 26And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

So if Satan is casting out Satan his kingdon cannot stand.

Similarly, if Satan wrote in his book stuff like say I seek refuge from Almighty G-d from Satan the accursed. then how could his kingdom stand?

Or think about it as in, on Judgement Day, when you are questioned as to why you chose your path.

How can G-d punish you, if you explain 'I chose the path because the guidance was clear, there was no error in the book, it had miracles it was pure from contradictions and it was the only perfect path to take' How could G-d send you to hell, if a book like the Qu'ran was from Satan, a book which logically cant be from other than G-d.

Anyhow, I probally have got alot of mistakes in here cos im hungry :p

Peace be upon yall

[bint_muhammed]

Well that underestimates the potential of the insane - who tend to be pretty good liars anyway. I do not see that these two opinions are contradictory. Let us suppose that someone is insane and thinks he is Napoleon. To maintain this illusion the insane person must construct a fantasy world to explain away the fact that he is not Napoleon. It doesn't mean that he is not insane, nor does it mean that he is always telling the truth - even if he comes to believe his own lies. No expects the insane to sit up at night thinking how to convince people that they are what they say they are. But if they really want to convince people of their fantasy they have to be quick to invent reasons why the things they say are really true.


u dont make sense mate! if he was insane and thought he was nepoleon why would he create and illusion for others to believe he is not!
PLEASE TRY AND MAKE SENSE!!!!!!!!!!:rollseyes :rollseyes



Such as?



How is this a contradiction? Good liars never ever behave as if they are not. Look at Confidence tricksters - they are always positive and always stick to their story. But again someone may be crazy and yet inspired by information he got from elsewhere. Hong, again, picked up information on Christianity in the early 1830s but it sat unread on his shelf for 10 years. It was only after he started having fits and visions that he picked it up and realised that it referred to the figures in his vision. Being insane and picking up foreign information is not mutually exclusive as Hong shows.



Such as?



No idea. But what Wall of Dhul-Qarnayn? Do you think that perhaps Muslims have taken a Quranic story and applied it to a wall that has no connection with Dhul-Qarnayn even if he knew who he was? You see the problem of getting the story backwards?



What makes you think that he would have needed anyone to have told him? Exposure to aborted and miscarried foetuses would have been common for anyone who herded sheep. Did he ever herd sheep?



There was a French man who made a good living in Britain claiming he was from Taiwan. He got a job at Oxford University as a Professor in Taiwanese and wrote books on Taiwan's history and even a dictionary of Taiwanese language. He was French. He had never been to Asia in his life. He fooled Oxford University. Where did he get his confidence? Are you saying that only the insane can pull off a stunt like this? Evidence please.



Or alternatively he knew his uncle very well or he knew that his uncle would never mean it - after all hypocrits do not become real Muslims and do not go to Heaven do they? And anyone who converted to Islam to prove it wrong would be a hypocrit wouldn't he? Even if Abu Lahab had "converted" to prove a point, Muhammed could just assert, correctly, he was lying and he would go to Hell and so prove Islam was true. As the Quran is true, anything that happened or happens must be reconcilable with the Quran.



Again you are asserting a story's truth without looking at the source. Why do you think this story is true? How do you know that in fact Muslims who later believed that Muhammed was the prophet wrote this story in light of how they thought that a prophet would behave? What is the source?



Actually it is. Liars are often very good at maintaining their lies. It is also characteristic of someone with some sort of pathology. It may well also be characteristic of the prophet of God, but Hong maintained his calm right up to the moment he died.



Actually you can have both if you feel like it. More to the point, you have excluded other possibilities and asserted there are merely two. This is not the case as we know of other cases where the leader was clearly not the Son of God or the Brother of Jesus. Islamic history is full of such examples as well. The same argument can be applied to them - did Hong lie or was he insane? He must have been Jesus Christ's little brother by this argument.[/QUOTE]

[bint_muhammed]

I really don't get some Muslims sometimes.

In order to prove Qu'ran they use statements stuff like 'Satan could not have wrote it because Satan runs away frmom it when it is recited' and the next question would be, who told you this, and the Muslim says Mohammed's tradition states it, and the questioner would just laugh, because if they claim satan is the author of the quran, then they will also believe that Satan could have said this to confuse people.

Now, to think that satan wrote the Qu'ran may sound like a good stumbling point, but it is the most interesting point ever.

Ok, Muslims remember to see this from a non-Muslims view point for example:

Muslim will think 'Satan could not have wrote this, because the book asks us to seek refuge in G-d from satan'

Non-Muslim on hearing this thinks 'Well Satan wouldn't make it clear thatthis is his book, because this book is here to decieve people' now also if this non muslim is christian he will probably say 'The main aspects of Christianity are denied which shows this book is from Satan in the disguise of G-d, for example, The trinity and the Sonship of Jesus and the death of Jesus, all these point to satan having wrote this, as long as satan can full you in these matters he can tell you to say 'I seek refuge in Almighty G-d from Satan'

So we see the reasoning behind the Non-Muslim/Christian's thinking.

Satan pretends to be G-d to fool people about the bigger things.

I used to think like that, in fact this was a stumbling block for me.

Going Back and forth thinking 'what if this is just satan writing a book tryna keep me away from the death of Jesus'

But you see this is an illogical point to stand on.

In essence people are coming to this conclusion because this book (quran) doesnt agree with theirs so, if it doesnt agree it most be from Satan.
They don't realise that it could be their book that is wrong, so you then look at the background of each book and see which one is pure and so forth, and you see that if anything the other book has been touched by satan.

You could turn this around and assert that anything brought forward could be written by satan. For example, if a Christian says this to you tell him, well the authors of your bible could be mislead by satan, forget mislead they could be satanist themselves since we dont have their history.

You see once we start saying this can be from satan or that can be then anything can be from satan.

But if it is a Christian then they should know better.
Some of the arguements Christians use against Mohammed, are the same arguements Jews used against Jesus according to the Bible.
It is a classic case of history repeating itself, where nowdays if you go to Churches people swear that they would have accepted Jesus and not been like those Jews, we find those same people rejecting Jesus' brother Mohammed, because of prejudice just like the jews did.

Jesus when faced with the accusation of being of the devil stated (ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE) 26And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

So if Satan is casting out Satan his kingdon cannot stand.

Similarly, if Satan wrote in his book stuff like say I seek refuge from Almighty G-d from Satan the accursed. then how could his kingdom stand?

Or think about it as in, on Judgement Day, when you are questioned as to why you chose your path.

How can G-d punish you, if you explain 'I chose the path because the guidance was clear, there was no error in the book, it had miracles it was pure from contradictions and it was the only perfect path to take' How could G-d send you to hell, if a book like the Qu'ran was from Satan, a book which logically cant be from other than G-d.

Anyhow, I probally have got alot of mistakes in here cos im hungry :p

Peace be upon yall

WELL PUT :brother: :okay:

[Umar001]

Lol ALhamdulilah sis, Im glad its understandable.

[bint_muhammed]

Has Any Of (non-muslims) Read Or Studied The Quran? If Not I Suggest U Do And Then I Will Hear Your Accusations!
Peace

[saad52988]

salaam
no one should need toread that and confirm that Prophet Muhammad(SAW) was a true prophet.
Everyone should all ready believe in him.

[Hussein radi]

I have a question to the Christians. If Prophet Muhammed(PBUH) is an imposter(!NOT!) then why is he mentioned in the Bible? And in the Tura?

[NahidSarvy]

I have a question to the Christians. If Prophet Muhammed(PBUH) is an imposter(!NOT!) then why is he mentioned in the Bible? And in the Tura?

Sorry, what? Where does it say this in the Torah and New Testament?

I'm pretty familiar with both over the years and I'd yet to hear that particular claim.

[Hussein radi]

Becuase i know a Jewish friend in high school who told me that the jewish believe in Prophet Muhammed(PBUH). However, they claim that his an arab prophet.:heated:

[Hussein radi]

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his beloved family)in the Bible. Thats were i got my information at.

[Umar001]

Sorry, what? Where does it say this in the Torah and New Testament?

I'm pretty familiar with both over the years and I'd yet to hear that particular claim.

Are you asking him in particular or everyone?


BECAUSE THERES A FAT THREAD NAMES MOHAMMED AND HIS FAMILY IN THE BIBLE :p

[NahidSarvy]

Try again, O my Brothers. This time, provide citations, because I done read them and there is no such thing in the Bible. No Mu7ammad. None. Nope.

Are you saying it's in the Torah about Mu7ammad himself? Impossible, since the Torah is much older. Prophecies? If so, which section? It's a big honkin' book.

I'll go and look for some thread like you say now. Maybe there's a cite there.

[NahidSarvy]

Becuase i know a Jewish friend in high school who told me that the jewish believe in Prophet Muhammed(PBUH). However, they claim that his an arab prophet.:heated:

Interesting. I have an exceedingly large and well-traveled circle of Jewish friends of all persuasions, from Mista'rvim (Baghdadi Arab Jews) to rabbis, and none of them know anything about Muhammad being an Arab prophet (anymore than they respect Jesus as a Prophet).

[HeiGou]

Well that underestimates the potential of the insane - who tend to be pretty good liars anyway. I do not see that these two opinions are contradictory. Let us suppose that someone is insane and thinks he is Napoleon. To maintain this illusion the insane person must construct a fantasy world to explain away the fact that he is not Napoleon. It doesn't mean that he is not insane, nor does it mean that he is always telling the truth - even if he comes to believe his own lies. No expects the insane to sit up at night thinking how to convince people that they are what they say they are. But if they really want to convince people of their fantasy they have to be quick to invent reasons why the things they say are really true.

u dont make sense mate! if he was insane and thought he was nepoleon why would he create and illusion for others to believe he is not!
PLEASE TRY AND MAKE SENSE!!!!!!!!!!:rollseyes :rollseyes

If he wants to believe he is Napoleon, he has to work at it twenty four hours a day. Because he can just look in the mirror and see he is not Napoleon. So on one level an insane person "believes" they are Napoleon. On another level they know they have to work hard to make the illusion work. But they also have to pretend to themselves that they are not working hard to make it work. They have to believe that they believe that they are Napoleon. So an insane person would not stay up all night thinking how to convince people. But if faced with an uncomfortable fact they will attempt to make the fact fit their version of reality, that is, lie, rather than admit the truth.

Now I admit that none of this has any relevance to Muhammed as I don't think there is any evidence of his mental condition. But insane people are not that simple.

[Goku]

[PIE]O_o[/PIE]

[Umar001]

If he wants to believe he is Napoleon

If he wants to believe it then he knows he isnt and so he is lying :p lol

HeiGou bro your gonna confuse me :)

[HeiGou]

If he wants to believe it then he knows he isnt and so he is lying :p lol

HeiGou bro your gonna confuse me :)

Hey insane people are a problem. There is a medical condition which involves people who are convinced they are, in fact, already dead. Now think about that. How long would it take me to convince you that you're alive? These people need a minute by minute "management" of reality and yet on some level they know they are not dead because they don't just walk in front of traffic.

But are they lying? Well managing reality is not the same as lying I suppose.

[Umar001]

Oh isnt that called Metamenia or something? Bro Zakir spoke about it.

[Abu Omar]

Well I would say like others that there are three possibilities:

1. Muhammed (sall'Allaahu aleyhi wa sallam) was the last Prophet of Allaah (swt), as he claimed.

2. Muhammed (sall'Allaahu aleyhi wa sallam) was a liar. He knew that he wasn't a Prophet, yet still told people that he was.

3. Muhammed (sall'Allaahu aleyhi wa sallam) sincerely believed that he was a Prophet, but he was mistaken. How he was mistaken could be in two ways:

a) He was insane.

b) He was fooled by Shaytaan and/or other evil forces.

I think we can work out from here. And I agree with what someone said that because Islamic tradition says Muhammed (sall'Allaahu aleyhi wa sallam) was a Prophet doesn't make it true. I think we Muslims have far better arguments at our disposal. Thus, it is of no need to get into circular reasoning.

Anyone disagree with the above?

[Umar001]

Hmm sounds pretty cool, and i think all have been spoken about a little in here

[HeiGou]

Well I would say like others that there are three possibilities:

>deletion<

3. Muhammed (sall'Allaahu aleyhi wa sallam) sincerely believed that he was a Prophet, but he was mistaken. How he was mistaken could be in two ways:

a) He was insane.

b) He was fooled by Shaytaan and/or other evil forces.

>deletions<

Anyone disagree with the above?

There is a third possibility which is another subset of 3.

c) He had some sort of natural occurring vision which he did not understand fully and so he interpreted that through the culture of the time, which was as a Prophet of God, which he came to believe very strongly indeed.

That does not mean he was insane.

However there must be an explanation for these sort of occurences, regardless of what Muhammed did or did not do. Too many people have had similar experiences. Muslim history is full of short-lived prophets who have raised rebellion and then died. Christian history is too - some of them not so short lived. They can't all be insane or liars. Something is going on. They are often very convincing and many people are convinced. Usually they come to a bad end. This needs to be explained no matter what happened in the Hejaz 1400 years ago.

[bint_muhammed]

no sis (above) its not spacificly mentions the Muhammed (pbuh) but in the old testimot (dnt kno bout the new) it mentions that there would be a man coming very wise etc. however the christians are still waiting for him? when we believe he has cum and gon and is Muhammed! hope makes sense

[muslim_friend]

No, I wasn't implying that at all ...

Peace.

Hhhhmmmmm ... if we just for one momet allow ourselves to imagine that satan had deceived Muhammed into believing that his message was from God, would he (satan) not make sure to assert that it could never have been from any evil source?

After all, satan is not stupid!

Peace.

Lack of comprehension on my part :embarrass .Somehow, i get the feeling that christians think they have more authority to talk about satan because satan was mentioned in their book much before the Qur'an. We have to judge the Prophet(pbuh) of Islam from a neutral perspective, not from a christian perspective. Look closely at the Prophet's life. you will notice traits of the previous prophet's in him. Before Islam came, arabs killed each other over camel races, After the prophet came all that nonsense was stopped.So does it mean satan inspired the prophet to stop killing? it doesn't make sense does it?

One more proof that the prophet wasn't demon inspired was the incident in whcih he was possesed by a satan. now note, if he was truly a demon inspried person.. he wouldn't have supplicated to Allah to rid him of that satan's influence. my bad english gets in the way again. hope you understood my point.

[Umar001]

There is a third possibility which is another subset of 3.

c) He had some sort of natural occurring vision which he did not understand fully and so he interpreted that through the culture of the time, which was as a Prophet of God, which he came to believe very strongly indeed.

That does not mean he was insane.

However there must be an explanation for these sort of occurences, regardless of what Muhammed did or did not do. Too many people have had similar experiences. Muslim history is full of short-lived prophets who have raised rebellion and then died. Christian history is too - some of them not so short lived. They can't all be insane or liars. Something is going on. They are often very convincing and many people are convinced. Usually they come to a bad end. This needs to be explained no matter what happened in the Hejaz 1400 years ago.

Wouldnt that come under being confused by satan.
Whether directly or indirectly

[HeiGou]

Before Islam came, arabs killed each other over camel races, After the prophet came all that nonsense was stopped.

All that stopped? Are you sure? Arab society is quite well known for killings involving honor and I bet I could find one involving camel racing.

One more proof that the prophet wasn't demon inspired was the incident in whcih he was possesed by a satan. now note, if he was truly a demon inspried person.. he wouldn't have supplicated to Allah to rid him of that satan's influence. my bad english gets in the way again. hope you understood my point.

He was possessed by Satan? Do you have any more on that or a reference?

[glo]

no sis (above) its not spacificly mentions the Muhammed (pbuh) but in the old testimot (dnt kno bout the new) it mentions that there would be a man coming very wise etc. however the christians are still waiting for him? when we believe he has cum and gon and is Muhammed! hope makes sense

Hi there

I think you are getting things confused.
In the Old Testament there is indeed the coming of the Messiah prophesied.
Christians believe him to be Jesus. There are parts of the prophecy which (to Christians) clearly point towards Jesus, the time and circumstances he was born in, as well as other details.

Jews don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and they are still waiting for him.

Whether Muslim believe him to be Muhammed, I don't know. I'm sure one of the Muslims here will know.


Peace. :)

[muslim_friend]

All that stopped? Are you sure? Arab society is quite well known for killings involving honor and I bet I could find one involving camel racing.

Which happened during the Prophet's time?

He was possessed by Satan? Do you have any more on that or a reference?

Volumn 008, Book 075, Hadith Number 400.
-----------------------------------------
Narated By 'Aisha : That Allah's Apostle was affected by magic, so much that he used to think that he had done something which in fact, he did not do, and he invoked his Lord (for a remedy). Then (one day) he said, "O 'Aisha!) Do you know that Allah has advised me as to the problem I consulted Him about?" 'Aisha said, "O Allah's Apostle! What's that?" He said, "Two men came to me and one of them sat at my head and the other at my feet, and one of them asked his companion, 'What is wrong with this man?' The latter replied, 'He is under the effect of magic.' The former asked, 'Who has worked magic on him?' The latter replied, 'Labid bin Al-A'sam.' The former asked, 'With what did he work the magic?' The latter replied, 'With a comb and the hair, which are stuck to the comb, and the skin of pollen of a date-palm tree.' The former asked, 'Where is that?' The latter replied, 'It is in Dharwan.' Dharwan was a well in the dwelling place of the (tribe of) Bani Zuraiq. Allah's Apostle went to that well and returned to 'Aisha, saying, 'By Allah, the water (of the well) was as red as the infusion of Hinna, (1) and the date-palm trees look like the heads of devils.' 'Aisha added, Allah's Apostle came to me and informed me about the well. I asked the Prophet, 'O Allah's Apostle, why didn't you take out the skin of pollen?' He said, 'As for me, Allah has cured me and I hated to draw the attention of the people to such evil (which they might learn and harm others with).'"

Narrated Hisham's father: 'Aisha said, "Allah's Apostle was bewitched, so he invoked Allah repeatedly requesting Him to cure him from that magic)." Hisham then narrated the above narration. (See Hadith No. 658, Vol. 7)

[Muslim Knight]

Hi there

I think you are getting things confused.
In the Old Testament there is indeed the coming of the Messiah prophesied.
Christians believe him to be Jesus. There are parts of the prophecy which (to Christians) clearly point towards Jesus, the time and circumstances he was born in, as well as other details.

Jews don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and they are still waiting for him.

Whether Muslim believe him to be Muhammed, I don't know. I'm sure one of the Muslims here will know.


Peace. :)

No Muslim would ever assert that Muhammad s.a.w. is the Messiah. Muhammad salallahu 'alayhi wassalam is the Prophet and Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets.

Quranic account indicates clearly that the Messiah is Jesus pbuh. He will return during the End Times as the Messiah.

"Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him." (Q 5:75)

[Umar001]

Well the old testament doesnt just speak of a coming messiah thats the thing.

[muslim_friend]

Hello,

I was unable to reply to ur initial post as it was too big, and i had no time for a big reply.

This is simply stating what it tries to prove. How does he know that no one has come up with an explanation? How does he know that all alternatives have been exhausted? What this author has done is reduced the world of possible options to two and then produced a spurious argument to show that in fact Muhammed must have been a prophet. Now theologically there may be reasons to accept Muhammed's claims, but as a logical argument this is utterly flawed and we know this from other cases of other would-be prophets and the like.

As I had already indicated in my first post, what was posted was only an extract, not the whole book.However, the Author does address certain other issues such as the possibility of the Prophet being inspired by satan.This discussion would be more open, if you could specify what you think are the possible "alternatives"(apart from the ones already discussed).

On one hand, there exists a large group of people who have researched the Qur'an for hundreds of years and who claim, "One thing we know for sure - that man, Muhammad (s), thought he was a prophet. He was crazy!" They are convinced that Muhammad (s) was fooled somehow.

For instance, Who are these people? As far as I know this is an entirely new school of thought. In the past people thought Muhammed was inspired by the Devil, not that he was crazy.

Yes i know. I guess this was fed into English society after(or before?) the crusades. But then, times have changed. This author is a convert to Islam from Christianity, Surely he must have attended many discussions on the topic. I'll take his word for it.

After all traditionally people thought insanity was a gift from God.

Your'e kidding right? Could you elaborate on that one?

Well that underestimates the potential of the insane - who tend to be pretty good liars anyway. I do not see that these two opinions are contradictory. Let us suppose that someone is insane and thinks he is Napoleon. To maintain this illusion the insane person must construct a fantasy world to explain away the fact that he is not Napoleon. It doesn't mean that he is not insane, nor does it mean that he is always telling the truth - even if he comes to believe his own lies. No expects the insane to sit up at night thinking how to convince people that they are what they say they are. But if they really want to convince people of their fantasy they have to be quick to invent reasons why the things they say are really true.

Like they say: To make up one lie, you have to make up a hundred lies. But the extract further down addresses this question, namely 'the Prophet had confidence'. What would you probably expect, when an insane person meets you? The Prophet was however calm and cool like a cucumber even in the toughest of situations. if there were signs of insanity, they would have been noticed easily in these tight situations.

You can still have it both ways. Let us suppose that someone hears voices in his head. He may think about the origins of these. He may be terrified of them. He may think he is loosing his mind. But then someone explains to him that it is God speaking direct to him. This gives him an explanation which does not mean he is insane and gives him a great deal of psychic comfort - after all he is speaking to God. Someone asks him a question, he sleeps on it, the voices in his head do their thing, he interprets those voices in a way that gives a sensible answer even though they do not really say what he says they say. There is no contradiction there. This is basically what Hong Xiuquan did when he claimed he was Jesus Christ's younger brother. As you do not believe he was Jesus Christ's younger brother, he must have been something else - insane or a liar?

Good point.But again you forget that the Prophet had confidence in his abilities, and all those things he intended for turned out in his favour, for eg:the incident at the cave with Abu Bakr(R). And as for those that didn't turn out in his favour, he responded to those hurdles through the best possible means that you can possibly think of.

[quote][quote]The following scenario is a good example of the kind of circle that non-Muslims go around in constantly. If you ask one of them, "What is the origin of the Qur'an?" He tells you that it originated from the mind of a man who was crazy. Then you ask him, "If it came from his head, then where did he get the information contained in it? Certainly the Qur'an mentions many things with which the Arabs were not familiar.

"Such as?

Miracles in the Qur'an?

So in order to explain the 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?"

How is this a contradiction? Good liars never ever behave as if they are not. Look at Confidence tricksters - they are always positive and always stick to their story. But again someone may be crazy and yet inspired by information he got from elsewhere. Hong, again, picked up information on Christianity in the early 1830s but it sat unread on his shelf for 10 years. It was only after he started having fits and visions that he picked it up and realised that it referred to the figures in his vision. Being insane and picking up foreign information is not mutually exclusive as Hong shows.

I made the big mistake of posting the extract as answers are scattered throughout it.. I cannot post the full book here either as it is too big.The book addresses this question as well. If the Prophet was insane, from where did all that information in the Qur'an come from: the beautiful poetry et al? Come on. Insane people don't come up with briliant inventions do they? was there any scientist who was insane and won the nobel prize?

As has already been mentioned, there is much information contained in the Qur'an whose source cannot be attributed to anyone other than Allah.

Such as?

I thought everyone on the forum would be familiar with the Miracles mentioned in the Qur'an.

No idea. But what Wall of Dhul-Qarnayn? Do you think that perhaps Muslims have taken a Quranic story and applied it to a wall that has no connection with Dhul-Qarnayn even if he knew who he was? You see the problem of getting the story backwards?

There is a possibility from your perspective.Yet, this is only an Assumption.

Who told him about embryology?

What makes you think that he would have needed anyone to have told him? Exposure to aborted and miscarried foetuses would have been common for anyone who herded sheep. Did he ever herd sheep?

Maurice Bacille states in his book that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to come up with the facts mentioned in the Qur'an with the technology and knowledge that was available 1400 years ago. To make it simple: you need a microscope to come up with the facts mentioned in the Qur'an regarding embryology.

There was a French man who made a good living in Britain claiming he was from Taiwan. He got a job at Oxford University as a Professor in Taiwanese and wrote books on Taiwan's history and even a dictionary of Taiwanese language. He was French. He had never been to Asia in his life. He fooled Oxford University. Where did he get his confidence? Are you saying that only the insane can pull off a stunt like this? Evidence please.

Maybe you could enlighten me what your understanding of an insane peson is? A mad man? or epileptic? both? or?..

Or alternatively he knew his uncle very well or he knew that his uncle would never mean it - after all hypocrits do not become real Muslims and do not go to Heaven do they? And anyone who converted to Islam to prove it wrong would be a hypocrit wouldn't he? Even if Abu Lahab had "converted" to prove a point, Muhammed could just assert, correctly, he was lying and he would go to Hell and so prove Islam was true. As the Quran is true, anything that happened or happens must be reconcilable with the Quran.

Good point.Let's exhaust the alternatives.Abu Lahab had ten yrs to convert, he didn't.Let's suppose he DID convert to Islam and prayed 5 times a day and gave charity with no signs of a disbeliever.. If the Prophet had declared him a disbeliever, he would have lost the confidence and trust that his companions had in him. what say you? Let's also suppose that the Prophet declared him a hypocrite? ok, now that would be a point to consider.. but note that all those people whom the Prophet declared hypocrites, showed their true colours at a later stage. If Abulahb was one of them, the Prophet would have known in any case, and Abu Lahab would have consequently been exposed.

Again you are asserting a story's truth without looking at the source. Why do you think this story is true? How do you know that in fact Muslims who later believed that Muhammed was the prophet wrote this story in light of how they thought that a prophet would behave? What is the source?

You might as well reject the Holocaust and WWII, if you doubt this one.I'll see if i can get a narration for you.

Actually it is. Liars are often very good at maintaining their lies. It is also characteristic of someone with some sort of pathology. It may well also be characteristic of the prophet of God, but Hong maintained his calm right up to the moment he died.

Interesting.never heard of the fellow.

[HeiGou]

This is simply stating what it tries to prove. How does he know that no one has come up with an explanation? How does he know that all alternatives have been exhausted? What this author has done is reduced the world of possible options to two and then produced a spurious argument to show that in fact Muhammed must have been a prophet.

As I had already indicated in my first post, what was posted was only an extract, not the whole book.However, the Author does address certain other issues such as the possibility of the Prophet being inspired by satan.This discussion would be more open, if you could specify what you think are the possible "alternatives"(apart from the ones already discussed).

Well this is a Muslim forum so the number of options I could specify would be limited, but presumably there are dozens of them if not more. Let's go with what we have and see how things work out.

For instance, Who are these people? As far as I know this is an entirely new school of thought. In the past people thought Muhammed was inspired by the Devil, not that he was crazy.

Yes i know. I guess this was fed into English society after(or before?) the crusades. But then, times have changed. This author is a convert to Islam from Christianity, Surely he must have attended many discussions on the topic. I'll take his word for it.

These days, perhaps, there are people who argue that Muhammed was crazy but they tend to be ex-Muslims. Western scholars try to be polite about other religions these days and so won't say it even if they believe it. But if you know of any credible scholar who argues that I would be interested to know.

Well that underestimates the potential of the insane - who tend to be pretty good liars anyway. I do not see that these two opinions are contradictory.

Like they say: To make up one lie, you have to make up a hundred lies. But the extract further down addresses this question, namely 'the Prophet had confidence'. What would you probably expect, when an insane person meets you? The Prophet was however calm and cool like a cucumber even in the toughest of situations. if there were signs of insanity, they would have been noticed easily in these tight situations. [/quote]

It is what I would expect of someone who believed in what he was doing or someone who wanted you to believe in what he was doing. The first is compatible with many things (including being a prophet or being insane) while the second is compatible with others (including being a liar). What what else is he going to do in that cave? Caves don't have back doors. In a similar circumstance a liar would have nothing to lose - if they are not discovered he is famous for being calm, if they are it doesn't matter as there is no other option. Hong was very calm as the Chinese army beseiged Nanjing. Why not?

Of course I'd ask how well sourced that claim is - does it come from a later generation of pious Muslims who would expect Muhammed to behave this way and if so what is its isnad? After all the story is odd - I see no evidence that the Quraysh were not happy to see him go and if they wanted to kill him surely they would have done so while he was in Mecca.

Good point.But again you forget that the Prophet had confidence in his abilities, and all those things he intended for turned out in his favour, for eg:the incident at the cave with Abu Bakr(R). And as for those that didn't turn out in his favour, he responded to those hurdles through the best possible means that you can possibly think of.

Of all the possible prophets in the world only a few create large religions. Only a few of them last more than a short while. Things turn out in favour of those few - now that may just be luck or it may be God looking out for them. But some of them have to be luck as they can't all be true. Think of all the would-be prophets you have never heard of because they were discovered in their caves?

How is this a contradiction? Good liars never ever behave as if they are not. .... Being insane and picking up foreign information is not mutually exclusive as Hong shows.

I made the big mistake of posting the extract as answers are scattered throughout it.. I cannot post the full book here either as it is too big.The book addresses this question as well. If the Prophet was insane, from where did all that information in the Qur'an come from: the beautiful poetry et al? Come on. Insane people don't come up with briliant inventions do they? was there any scientist who was insane and won the nobel prize?

Well yes I think there were. Linus Pauling was a little odd. Newton was seriously odd. I do not know about the poetry because I am not placed to judge it. I notice that Western scholars who think it is great tend to be converts and those that think it is awful do not. Which comes first - the conversion or the belief in the poetry?

Egyptians used to worship Gods with Donkeys' heads. Now we find this silly but that is because we do not worship Gods with Donkeys' heads. Egyptians, who grew up thinking that Gods had donkey heads, did not think it was stupid but divine. Has anyone ever told you the poetry of the Quran was anything other than beautiful?

What information? I think that the "miracles of the Quran" are mostly spurious.

No idea. But what Wall of Dhul-Qarnayn? Do you think that perhaps Muslims have taken a Quranic story and applied it to a wall that has no connection with Dhul-Qarnayn even if he knew who he was? You see the problem of getting the story backwards?

There is a possibility from your perspective.Yet, this is only an Assumption.

Well in the north of Persia near the border with Turkmenistan there is a wall that was built by the Persians. Yet the Muslims there, descendents of those Persians, claim it was built by Alexander the Great (or more accurately I expect they think it was built by Dhul-Qarnayn). This is obviously because their religion informs their culture which does not talk about Darius but about Dhul-Qarnayn. It is a possibility. Find me any reference to D-Q at all outside the Muslim tradition.

What makes you think that he would have needed anyone to have told him? Exposure to aborted and miscarried foetuses would have been common for anyone who herded sheep. Did he ever herd sheep?

Maurice Bacille states in his book that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to come up with the facts mentioned in the Qur'an with the technology and knowledge that was available 1400 years ago. To make it simple: you need a microscope to come up with the facts mentioned in the Qur'an regarding embryology.

I disagree. And I am not convinced of anything that MB says as I have read his book. What do you think you would need a microscope to say?

Or alternatively he knew his uncle very well or he knew that his uncle would never mean it - after all hypocrits do not become real Muslims and do not go to Heaven do they? And anyone who converted to Islam to prove it wrong would be a hypocrit wouldn't he? Even if Abu Lahab had "converted" to prove a point, Muhammed could just assert, correctly, he was lying and he would go to Hell and so prove Islam was true. As the Quran is true, anything that happened or happens must be reconcilable with the Quran.

Good point.Let's exhaust the alternatives.Abu Lahab had ten yrs to convert, he didn't.Let's suppose he DID convert to Islam and prayed 5 times a day and gave charity with no signs of a disbeliever.. If the Prophet had declared him a disbeliever, he would have lost the confidence and trust that his companions had in him. what say you? Let's also suppose that the Prophet declared him a hypocrite? ok, now that would be a point to consider.. but note that all those people whom the Prophet declared hypocrites, showed their true colours at a later stage. If Abulahb was one of them, the Prophet would have known in any case, and Abu Lahab would have consequently been exposed.

Showed their true colors at a later stage. The Muslims were used to the idea that Muhammed declared people hypocrits even though they gave every sign over long periods of time of being good Muslims? Ten years is a long time to build an Islamic state. Think of the damage that Muhammed and AL would do to AL's "real" cause - resisting Islam - in that time. Is it really a useful thing for AL to have done? From our perspective perhaps, in retrospect, but not when you're there at the time. Better things could be done.

Again you are asserting a story's truth without looking at the source. Why do you think this story is true? How do you know that in fact Muslims who later believed that Muhammed was the prophet wrote this story in light of how they thought that a prophet would behave? What is the source?

You might as well reject the Holocaust and WWII, if you doubt this one.I'll see if i can get a narration for you.

By all means. But the Holocaust analogy is nuts because no one wants the Holocaust to be true. There is a wealth of documentation and from both sides. There is only Muslim histories for the early Muslim period. And those histories show signs of being written by pious people.

[glo]

No Muslim would ever assert that Muhammad s.a.w. is the Messiah. Muhammad salallahu 'alayhi wassalam is the Prophet and Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets.

Quranic account indicates clearly that the Messiah is Jesus pbuh. He will return during the End Times as the Messiah.

"Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him." (Q 5:75)

Thank you for clarifying that for me. :)

Peace.

[bint_muhammed]

Thank you for clarifying that for me. :)

Peace.

look dats not what i was implying! muslims also belive that Isa a.s (jesus) is going to return. i dont if it was christians or jews as i havnt research enough but i know one of these were expecting that there will be someone of great importans as we believe Muhammed was will be coming. however muslims believ they wouldnt accept the fact that it was our prophet and that he was claiming Islam. if i went wrong please correct me! ta!
salamz

[hafizyunus]

Nice post

[Nicola]

[QUOTE=queen_nadia;334349]

If, however, as I was imagining, satan had deceived Muhammed into believing his message was from God, then your whole argument would be based on satan's teachings, not God's.

how can something come from santan if it talks so highly of jesus(isa) and mary (mariam). look we find views that try to make Allah be percieved as like a man -this as muslims we beleive, has come from santan! muslims hold Allah higher than any man or mans imaginary god. isn't that what we should all be thinking if we are really god fearing.:?

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. (2 Cor 11:14)
This shows that the devil can disguise his appearance to appear as an angel of God. This explains alleged visions in Mormonism, Catholicism and Seven-Day Adventism. The crux of the message found in these visions contradict the other visions found in these other groups! In other words, the visions in Mormonism contradict visions in Catholicism which also contradict the visions in Seven-Day Adventism. Since God does not change (Mal. 3:6; Jam. 1:17), it is impossible for the source of these visions to be God, especially since they have an unscriptural message!

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! (Gal 1:8)

Satan denys who Jesus is...this is how Christians know what is from God and what is not.

[Nicola]

Well the old testament doesnt just speak of a coming messiah thats the thing.

the OT is full of prohecies concerning the coming of the messiah..

[Umar001]

the OT is full of prohecies concerning the coming of the messiah..

I didnt say it wasnt.

[Umar001]

Satan denys who Jesus is...this is how Christians know what is from God and what is not.

Just wondering, is that scripture talk or church talk?


peace:thankyou:

[bint_muhammed]

many people can argue for example Jews that Jesus was also fooled by satan! (i dont believe) you see its the same allegations, its al about believing!

[muslim_friend]

Well this is a Muslim forum so the number of options I could specify would be limited, but presumably there are dozens of them if not more. Let's go with what we have and see how things work out.

As you wish. It would be better not to post it here if it may seem offensive.This discussion cannot proceed constructively without a goal in mind.After all, muslims cannot debate or discuss just for the sake of it.But anyway,we'll see how things turn out.

These days, perhaps, there are people who argue that Muhammed was crazy but they tend to be ex-Muslims.

It's obviously hatred, for their former belief.

Western scholars try to be polite about other religions these days and so won't say it even if they believe it. But if you know of any credible scholar who argues that I would be interested to know.

The only scholars i happen to know of are Muslim scholars or Convert muslim scholars such as the author of this book.

It is what I would expect of someone who believed in what he was doing or someone who wanted you to believe in what he was doing. The first is compatible with many things (including being a prophet or being insane) while the second is compatible with others (including being a liar). What what else is he going to do in that cave? Caves don't have back doors. In a similar circumstance a liar would have nothing to lose - if they are not discovered he is famous for being calm, if they are it doesn't matter as there is no other option. Hong was very calm as the Chinese army beseiged Nanjing. Why not?

Neglecting Allah's role regarding the incident at the cave would prove to be a true example of bravery on the Prophet's part.Acknowledging Allah's role in safeguarding the Prophet from the meccans would only mean the Prophet had faith in Allah. Either way, Bravery and faith are not synonymous with Insanity. There's no room for 'insanity' anywhere in this story or any other story of the Prophet.

Of course I'd ask how well sourced that claim is - does it come from a later generation of pious Muslims who would expect Muhammed to behave this way and if so what is its isnad? After all the story is odd - I see no evidence that the Quraysh were not happy to see him go and if they wanted to kill him surely they would have done so while he was in Mecca.

Just before the Prophet's migration to medina, the Quraish did hatch a plot to kill him, this time with the help of other tribes, so that all of them would be equally blamed for the murder.As you may know, the Prophet came from a respectable family and tribe, killing him without the correct precautionary measures would have started a war.

Of all the possible prophets in the world only a few create large religions. Only a few of them last more than a short while. Things turn out in favour of those few - now that may just be luck or it may be God looking out for them. But some of them have to be luck as they can't all be true. Think of all the would-be prophets you have never heard of because they were discovered in their caves?

Allah doesn't send prophets to caves, so that they may be ignored.there is a verse in the Qur'an which says that Allah has sent a Prophet to every nation(so that they may be guided).

Well yes I think there were. Linus Pauling was a little odd. Newton was seriously odd. I do not know about the poetry because I am not placed to judge it. I notice that Western scholars who think it is great tend to be converts and those that think it is awful do not. Which comes first - the conversion or the belief in the poetry?

Dedicated people are engrossed in their work so badly, that they lose track of reality. Insanity would be the wrong word here. Abnormality would be a better word.

Egyptians used to worship Gods with Donkeys' heads. Now we find this silly but that is because we do not worship Gods with Donkeys' heads. Egyptians, who grew up thinking that Gods had donkey heads, did not think it was stupid but divine. Has anyone ever told you the poetry of the Quran was anything other than beautiful?

Many Arab Christians have themselves admitted to the fact that the Qur'an is unmatchable.It is the Qur'ans' poetry that gives them the thought that the Qur'an cannot be the work of man.Probably why you hear a lot of them say that the Prophet was demon inspired.

What information? I think that the "miracles of the Quran" are mostly spurious.

People can twist verses to suit their needs, especially those who do not know arabic. For eg:there is a verse that says the earth is egg shaped.it would sound ridiculous that the earth is oval, like an egg.But the arabic word for egg mentioned here is "dahaha"(I dont' know arabic, but i do know this one) or an ostrich's egg, which is in fact geospherical like the shape of the earth.One of my favoirite miracles would be the prophecy regarding the Pharoah of moses.have you heard of this one?

Well in the north of Persia near the border with Turkmenistan there is a wall that was built by the Persians. Yet the Muslims there, descendents of those Persians, claim it was built by Alexander the Great (or more accurately I expect they think it was built by Dhul-Qarnayn). This is obviously because their religion informs their culture which does not talk about Darius but about Dhul-Qarnayn. It is a possibility. Find me any reference to D-Q at all outside the Muslim tradition.

It cannot be Alexander the great for a number of reasons.The last material i read on this matter, was hoping to prove that Dul-Qarnayn was Cyrus(but i don't know which cyrus). Not familiar with the topic here.But historical figures could be known by different names throughout the world, can't they?

I disagree. And I am not convinced of anything that MB says as I have read his book. What do you think you would need a microscope to say?

Since i am not familiar with the topic of embryology.I suggest you read a good book by Harun Yahya titled "The Miracle of Human creation". The latter half of the book deals with embryology and its links to the Qur'an.Here is the link to the file. If you happen to read the book, let me know your comments on it.

http://www.harunyahya.com/creation04.php

Showed their true colors at a later stage. The Muslims were used to the idea that Muhammed declared people hypocrits even though they gave every sign over long periods of time of being good Muslims?

The companions trusted the Prophet with their very lives.Why should so many people trust a man with their lives and believe every word he said? it certainly wasn't blind faith in a Prophet.Would you and I follow a man tomorrow who claims to be a Prophet? Why then should these companions follow the Prophet of Islam, when they were so accustomed to their own polytheistic religion? When the companions were living in luxury, why then would they sacrifice so much? Incredible isn't it..

Ten years is a long time to build an Islamic state. Think of the damage that Muhammed and AL would do to AL's "real" cause - resisting Islam - in that time. Is it really a useful thing for AL to have done? From our perspective perhaps, in retrospect, but not when you're there at the time. Better things could be done.

Sorry.I didn't get you. Are you asking the reason why the Prophet was quiet and took no action against the hypocrites?

By all means. But the Holocaust analogy is nuts because no one wants the Holocaust to be true. There is a wealth of documentation and from both sides. There is only Muslim histories for the early Muslim period. And those histories show signs of being written by pious people.

Since you yourself insist that this narration was recorded by pious people, it only reinforces the idea that auch narrations are truly authentic.Allow me to quote another hadith.

Volumn 001, Book 003, Hadith Number 107.
-----------------------------------------
Narated By 'Abdullah bin Az-Zubair : I said to my father, 'I do not hear from you any narration (Hadith) of Allah s Apostle as I hear (his narrations) from so and so?" Az-Zubair replied. l was always with him (the Prophet) and I heard him saying "Whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally) then (surely) let him occupy, his seat in Hell-fire.(Bukhari)

You can see here, any pious muslim would heed his Prophet's advice, and narrate the story as it is.

As for the story itself, i will paste it here:

"Then Allah's Apostle and Abu Bakr reached a cave on the mountain of Thaur and stayed there for three nights. 'Abdullah bin Abi Bakr who was intelligent and a sagacious youth, used to stay (with them) aver night. He used to leave them before day break so that in the morning he would be with Quraish as if he had spent the night in Mecca. He would keep in mind any plot made against them, and when it became dark he would (go and) inform them of it. 'Amir bin Fuhaira, the freed slave of Abu Bakr, used to bring the milch sheep (of his master, Abu Bakr) to them a little while after nightfall in order to rest the sheep there. So they always had fresh milk at night, the milk of their sheep, and the milk which they warmed by throwing heated stones in it. 'Amir bin Fuhaira would then call the herd away when it was still dark (before daybreak). He did the same in each of those three nights. Allah's Apostle and Abu Bakr had hired a man from the tribe of Bani Ad-Dail from the family of Bani Abd bin Adi as an expert guide, and he was in alliance with the family of Al-'As bin Wail As-Sahmi and he was on the religion of the infidels of Quraish. The Prophet and Abu Bakr trusted him and gave him their two she-camels and took his promise to bring their two she camels to the cave of the mountain of Thaur in the morning after three nights later. And (when they set out), 'Amir bin Fuhaira and the guide went along with them and the guide led them along the sea-shore."(This is only a part of the hadith, it was too big to post)(58-255) Bukhari.

And as for the Prophet's faith in Allah at that critical moment:

Volumn 006, Book 060, Hadith Number 185.
-----------------------------------------
Narated By Abu Bakr : I was in the company of the Prophet in the cave, and on seeing the traces of the pagans, I said, "O Allah's Apostle If one of them (pagans) should lift up his foot, he will see us." He said, "What do you think of two, the third of whom is Allah?"

[Hussein radi]

Prophet Muhammed(PBUH) said many hadith that were true. Like the endtimes for an instant.

[bint_muhammed]

i'd bet my life he was an imposter. the whole story is absolutely preposterous. There is only blind faith to support such a myth. If I told you that the angel Gabriel visited me and mumbled "god's" will to me I would be taken to the nearest nut-hut.

the reaon for this is your too ignorant! do you believe in any religion?

[casimir]

the reaon for this is your too ignorant! do you believe in any religion?

nice. I thought name calling wasn't allowed here. And "your..." is wrong. It should read "you're" , a contraction of "you are". And I'm ignorant?

[Abu Omar]

Well I would say like others that there are three possibilities:

1. Muhammed (sall'Allaahu aleyhi wa sallam) was the last Prophet of Allaah (swt), as he claimed.

2. Muhammed (sall'Allaahu aleyhi wa sallam) was a liar. He knew that he wasn't a Prophet, yet still told people that he was.

3. Muhammed (sall'Allaahu aleyhi wa sallam) sincerely believed that he was a Prophet, but he was mistaken. How he was mistaken could be in two ways:

a) He was insane.

b) He was fooled by Shaytaan and/or other evil forces.

I think we can work out from here. And I agree with what someone said that because Islamic tradition says Muhammed (sall'Allaahu aleyhi wa sallam) was a Prophet doesn't make it true. I think we Muslims have far better arguments at our disposal. Thus, it is of no need to get into circular reasoning.

Anyone disagree with the above?

Since no one seems to be willing o elaborate on those options, I'll have to do it myself.

Here is what a magazine named Populär Historia (Popular History) says about Muhammed.

Here is from a (non-Muslim) Islamolog:

"Det är mycket orättvist att kalla Muhammed bedragare. Det är psykologiskt orimligt att tänka sig att han skulle väcka tilltro och uthärda alla svårigheter som han genomled utan att han själv var övertygad om att han hade ett gudomligt budskap. Att han har haft extatiska upplevelser, det står helt klart. Men sedan kan man ju alltid diskutera hur de ska förklaras."

My translation:

"It is very unfair to call Muhammed an imposter. It is psychologically unreasonable to imagine that he would arouse confidence and withstand all hardships that he suffered without that he himself was convinced that he had a divine message. That he had ecstatic experiences is clear. But then one could always discuss how they should be explained."

So we can say that he wasn't an imposter. Other persons who have researched Islam also testify to this. So it is either #1 or #3 that is true.

What you said about vision, HeiGou, is unclear. Either the vision was divine, or either it was not (i.e somewhere from #3).

[Abdullah4ever]

:sl:

If Muhammad (saws) was an imposter than why would such a person devot his whole life at an old age turning people around to a different religion? How can he write the quran, I challenge all of you who think he wrote the quran that you write a book like that ... a normal human being that was an imposter would've stopped but if he was telling the truth he wouldve kept on going.

If muhammad was an imposter were did all these billions of muslims come from? Who turned them around from the old ways? Were did all these hadiths come from , where they all made up?

If muhammad was an imposter why did he leave so much behind.

:w:

[HeiGou]

So we can say that he wasn't an imposter. Other persons who have researched Islam also testify to this. So it is either #1 or #3 that is true.

That is still not true. You have narrowed down the wealth of possibilities to too few.

What you said about vision, HeiGou, is unclear. Either the vision was divine, or either it was not (i.e somewhere from #3).

Well I do not care to increae my demerit point by talking about specific cases. But it is possible that visions might be caused by illnesses and injuries. It is possible that people having these visions, without proper medical knowledge, might think they were divine communications. The Romans called epilepsy the Divine Disease for precisely that reason. You, Glo and me might all have different examples in mind, but given so many people from so many Faith communities have such visions, which they interpret as communications from the Divine, we cannot say that they are the only two possibilities in every single case.

[HeiGou]

If Muhammad (saws) was an imposter than why would such a person devot his whole life at an old age turning people around to a different religion? How can he write the quran, I challenge all of you who think he wrote the quran that you write a book like that ... a normal human being that was an imposter would've stopped but if he was telling the truth he wouldve kept on going.

If muhammad was an imposter were did all these billions of muslims come from? Who turned them around from the old ways? Were did all these hadiths come from , where they all made up?

If muhammad was an imposter why did he leave so much behind.

You can say the same about Christianity and Hinduism or Buddhism - all three being bigger (or at least similar sized) religions as Islam. In fact you do say something like that about Christianity. Why would Paul devote so much of his life to turning people around? An imposter would not have lived all those years in poverty - hell, Paul even got executed for it. Where did all those Christians come from if Paul was an imposter - significantly more Christians than Muslims I might point out. Who turned them around? Where did all those Christian theological text come from? You see my point?

[Muezzin]

Discussions like this all depend on whether one has faith in the source material. If you do, fair enough. If you don't, also fair enough, but don't expect to be able to convert people who do.

[Umar001]

You can say the same about Christianity and Hinduism or Buddhism - all three being bigger (or at least similar sized) religions as Islam. In fact you do say something like that about Christianity. Why would Paul devote so much of his life to turning people around? An imposter would not have lived all those years in poverty - hell, Paul even got executed for it. Where did all those Christians come from if Paul was an imposter - significantly more Christians than Muslims I might point out. Who turned them around? Where did all those Christian theological text come from? You see my point?

Couldnt have taken the text outa my fingers more beautifully.


Anyhow, moving on I still see it illogical.

[HeiGou]

Discussions like this all depend on whether one has faith in the source material. If you do, fair enough. If you don't, also fair enough, but don't expect to be able to convert people who do.

If that was addressed at me, I am not trying to convert anyone. I was asked directly.

[Muezzin]

If that was addressed at me, I am not trying to convert anyone. I was asked directly.

It wasn't addressed to anybody in particular, but rather was a comment on these kinds of discussions as a whole. My apologies if I caused any confusion.

[Abu Omar]

But it is possible that visions might be caused by illnesses and injuries.

Wouldn't that mean that it is hallucination? In either way, don't you think that it falls into #3, i.e the option that he thought he was a Prophet but he was mistaken?

[Umar001]

I think so

[bint_muhammed]

nice. I thought name calling wasn't allowed here. And "your..." is wrong. It should read "you're" , a contraction of "you are". And I'm ignorant?

i didn't mean it in a nasty way, i meant that you aren't as familier (i don't think) with the religion! and i was in a rush ok!

[Syed Nizam]

Hmm, it's surprising. Since when did the burden of proof falls on us? We believe in Muhammad (pbuh) as the rightly guided prophet of God that have been send to all mankind. If someone said that he is inspired by the Devil, let him prove it FIRST! If he cant proove it, then I would very much preferrred him to at least keep his BIG mouth shut.

Peace...

[Hussein radi]

Heigou, pual did made alot of mistakes thru his journy, like when he changed the bible. However, Prophet Muhammed (SAW) never made any mistakes about his message, not the Quran nor his hadith. surely Prophet Muhhamed(PBUH) would of made many mistakes of he was an imposter. And end up executed like our friend Pual.

I fined it funny how one man who is claimed to be (so many things) can make such a holy book and can predict so many hadith with out any mistakes. isnt it essies to believe that Allah(SW) guided him thru his message? Like all the other prophets? what makes him different from all the other prophets?:rollseyes

Could they all be insane? :heated:

[Umar001]

Hmm, it's surprising. Since when did the burden of proof falls on us? We believe in Muhammad (pbuh) as the rightly guided prophet of God that have been send to all mankind. If someone said that he is inspired by the Devil, let him prove it FIRST! If he cant proove it, then I would very much preferrred him to at least keep his BIG mouth shut.

Peace...

If you believe in MOhammed being a messenger of G-d, and a person who believes this tells people about it.

Then it is that person who must prove it, because he is telling people 'Mohammed was a messenger of G-d' and if he is asked 'what makes you think he werent decieved by the Devil' then the person who is tleling people about MOhammed should answer!

[Syed Nizam]

If you believe in MOhammed being a messenger of G-d, and a person who believes this tells people about it.

Then it is that person who must prove it, because he is telling people 'Mohammed was a messenger of G-d' and if he is asked 'what makes you think he werent decieved by the Devil' then the person who is tleling people about MOhammed should answer!

Have anyone ever got a chance to actually see God Himself? Nope! But, people still believes in the existence of God.
Have anyone ever got a chance to actually see the Devil himself? Nope! But, people still believes in the existence of the Devil.
Have anyone ever got a chance to actually see heaven & hell? Nope! But, people still believes in the existence of heaven & hell.
Have anyone knows about life after death? Nobody have ever comes back from the dead and pronounce to us that there is indeed a life after death! Nope, but people still believes in the life after death.

All of these are a matter of preference of faith. Why must the burden of proof have to lie down with the muslims? If someone wants to make a mockery of Muhammad(pbuh) are deceived by the Devil, so let it be! I personally couldn't care less. The fact remains Muhammad (pbuh) is the one and only successfull person both on the religious & secular level. Not only he provide for the well being of the people, he provide them with a social organisation which people feel relatively secured and he provide them with one set of belief. No other person come even closed to him.

The truth can only be seek by the seekers of truth. Our roles is only in conveying the message. The rest is up to them and up to the Grace of God Almighty.

Peace...

[Hussein radi]

Very nice reply.

[HeiGou]

Hmm, it's surprising. Since when did the burden of proof falls on us? We believe in Muhammad (pbuh) as the rightly guided prophet of God that have been send to all mankind. If someone said that he is inspired by the Devil, let him prove it FIRST! If he cant proove it, then I would very much preferrred him to at least keep his BIG mouth shut.

There are several things worth saying to this. Of course the burden of proof does not fall on Muslims to justify what they believe - even to themsevles. If they are content to believe what they believe without thinking about it, no one would say they are not justified in doing so. However if you're going to try to convert people peacefully, you will need to explain to the satisfaction of the people you are trying to convert. That is, if you want me to believe that Muhammed was inspired by God you will have to produce an argument that convinces me - the burden of proof in that case is on you. I expect that proof in a formal sense is not available in either case, in which case the sensible thing in my opinion would be to keep an open mind. Either way it is wrong to be gratuitously offensive about anyone's religious beliefs so I agree with you on the last issue. But having said all of that, the world has changed and Muslims cannot force Christians and Jews and Hindus to be silent as they could when they were Dhimmis. They have access to the internet and often live outside the Muslim world. Robert Spencer, for example, comes from a Dhimmi family. You will have to deal with people who do not agree with you at some point or other, or you will have to close down all the satellite TV dishes, all the long wave radios, all the internet cafes and retreat into an extreme form of isolationism. Which would you prefer?

[Syed Nizam]

There are several things worth saying to this. Of course the burden of proof does not fall on Muslims to justify what they believe - even to themsevles. If they are content to believe what they believe without thinking about it, no one would say they are not justified in doing so. However if you're going to try to convert people peacefully, you will need to explain to the satisfaction of the people you are trying to convert. That is, if you want me to believe that Muhammed was inspired by God you will have to produce an argument that convinces me - the burden of proof in that case is on you. I expect that proof in a formal sense is not available in either case, in which case the sensible thing in my opinion would be to keep an open mind. Either way it is wrong to be gratuitously offensive about anyone's religious beliefs so I agree with you on the last issue. But having said all of that, the world has changed and Muslims cannot force Christians and Jews and Hindus to be silent as they could when they were Dhimmis. They have access to the internet and often live outside the Muslim world. Robert Spencer, for example, comes from a Dhimmi family. You will have to deal with people who do not agree with you at some point or other, or you will have to close down all the satellite TV dishes, all the long wave radios, all the internet cafes and retreat into an extreme form of isolationism. Which would you prefer?

First of all, contrary to the belief, the muslims are not even trying to convert anybody. Their role is just to deliver the message. That's all. God explicitly says in the Quran:

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Taghut (evil) and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trust worthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. " (Qur'an 2:256)

We are here in this forum only to learn from each other. Not to believe in anything. Afterall, God has bestowed reason and intellect on mankind, it is their own duty to use it to seek for the truth. In your case for example, you have heard about Islam and your immediate choice ito engage in this forum. To engage in this forum or not, is entirely up to you. Nobody ever forced you to make such a choice. To some extent, the message of Islam is conveyed in the same manners.

Peace...

[Umar001]

Have anyone ever got a chance to actually see God Himself? Nope! But, people still believes in the existence of God.

Why do you believe in G-d??

Have anyone ever got a chance to actually see the Devil himself? Nope! But, people still believes in the existence of the Devil.

Why do you believe in the Devil??

Have anyone ever got a chance to actually see heaven & hell? Nope! But, people still believes in the existence of heaven & hell.

Why do you believe in heave and hell??

Have anyone knows about life after death? Nobody have ever comes back from the dead and pronounce to us that there is indeed a life after death! Nope, but people still believes in the life after death.

Why Do you believe in life after death??

All of these are a matter of preference of faith. Why must the burden of proof have to lie down with the muslims?

What makes someone prefer a faith over the other?

You see a Muslim should know why they are Muslim over other faiths, why is it that your Muslim and not Christian.

It is illogical to think that G-d would send a religion without providing some distiction in it, so that His true seekers can distinguish it from other faiths.

This is why Mohammed peace be upon him, was given Miracles, so that the people shall believe, it Mohammed was to just say, 'I am a prophet from G-d' and he had no miracles then the people would have no reason to follow him, but it was through the mercy of Almighty G-d that miracles came so that people would know the truth if they wanted to, and it is the same with the other Prophets, peace be upon them.

So if G-d gave prophets miracles in order to support them, then wouldnt it be logical for you to call the people to islam and mention those same miracles??

If someone wants to make a mockery of Muhammad(pbuh) are deceived by the Devil, so let it be! I personally couldn't care less.

If Allah goes out of his way to tell the people in the Quran that Mohammed is not possed by demons and that Mohammed does not speak of his own will. Is it not right for us as Muslims to relate this to the people, instaed of 'not caring'

16:125 YUSUFALI: Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.

The best we can do is this, respond to them the way Almighty G-d responded to the people, He supported Mohammed with Miracles and so on, the least we can do is show the people those miracles.

But I agree, that:

28:56 YUSUFALI: It is true thou wilt not be able to guide every one, whom thou lovest; but Allah guides those whom He will and He knows best those who receive guidance.


Salam Aleykum, I hope you can be patient with me, and forgive me if I have misunderstood your text in any way.

[Syed Nizam]

It is illogical to think that G-d would send a religion without providing some distiction in it, so that His true seekers can distinguish it from other faiths.

Agreed. That's why the Quran was revealed to the whole mankind.

This is why Mohammed peace be upon him, was given Miracles, so that the people shall believe, it Mohammed was to just say, 'I am a prophet from G-d' and he had no miracles then the people would have no reason to follow him, but it was through the mercy of Almighty G-d that miracles came so that people would know the truth if they wanted to, and it is the same with the other Prophets, peace be upon them.

So if G-d gave prophets miracles in order to support them, then wouldnt it be logical for you to call the people to islam and mention those same miracles?

Not Agree. As u can see, people who choose to make a mockery of Islam will go to great length to achieve that. Miracles is not a pre-equisite of someone to have faith. Look what have happened to Jesus (pbuh) who is worshipped by the mass just for performing miracles. So, what's the point of having miracles anyway?

But I agree, that:
28:56 YUSUFALI: It is true thou wilt not be able to guide every one, whom thou lovest; but Allah guides those whom He will and He knows best those who receive guidance.

Agreed. My point exactly! Our tasks is only to deliver the message, to invite them to Islam. That's all. The other is up to them. To believe or not to believe. To seek further for the truth or not to seek. Everything is up to the individual himself, including us, muslims.

Salam Aleykum, I hope you can be patient with me, and forgive me if I have misunderstood your text in any way.

No problem there. We are here only to learn & to know of each other.....:)

Peace...

[Umar001]

Agreed. That's why the Quran was revealed to the whole mankind.

And we should explain what we know of it!

Mohammed, peace be upon him, didnt jus recite it and not explain it, he explained it. So similarly what we know we should explain of it and show people the miracles included in the quran.

Not Agree. As u can see, people who choose to make a mockery of Islam will go to great length to achieve that. Miracles is not a pre-equisite of someone to have faith. Look what have happened to Jesus (pbuh) who is worshipped by the mass just for performing miracles. So, what's the point of having miracles anyway?

Of course there will always be people who will not believe, but why did G-d support the prophets with miracles?? Look at the Miracles of the splitting of the moon, when the arabs asked for a miracle and then one was given, it was a sign from Almighty G-d, whether they believed it or not then was their problem, but we should as Muhammed did, show the miracles as proof.
If people turn it around and start worshipin mohammed because of that then it is only their fault, not the fault of the prophet or us or Allah.

And Jesus isnt worshiped because of his miracles if that were so the people of the OT would be worshipped too.

Agreed. My point exactly! Our tasks is only to deliver the message, to invite them to Islam. That's all. The other is up to them. To believe or not to believe. To seek further for the truth or not to seek. Everything is up to the individual himself, including us, muslims.

Yep deliver it, but as the other quote also says in a way that is best we both agree on that.

Not jus give people quran but explain stuff and show them the proofs.

Peace...

Salam aleykum wa rhametula wa berekatu

[sonz]

i'd bet my life he was an imposter. the whole story is absolutely preposterous. There is only blind faith to support such a myth. If I told you that the angel Gabriel visited me and mumbled "god's" will to me I would be taken to the nearest nut-hut.

salama

if u think our prophet was an "imposter" (astagfirulah) then why DO U SAY THAT UR MUSLIM IN UR SETTINGS???

i hate nonmuslims who pretend to be muslims

[sameer]

salama

if u think our prophet was an "imposter" (astagfirulah) then why DO U SAY THAT UR MUSLIM IN UR SETTINGS???

i hate nonmuslims who pretend to be muslims

i was thinking the same thing

[sameer]

I find it strange that christians may say that the prophet (saw) was an imposter and inspired by a demon or satan, especially when the Quran and his sayings speaks so highly of the earlier prophets that were sent to the same chiristians and Jews. Muslims can claim the same about their prophets, but we dare not do it beacue of the fact that some of them are mentioned in the same Quran.
If the Quran was from a man inspired by satan... why would the Quran re-emphasized the messages that the earlier prophets brought?

[dougmusr]

If the Quran was from a man inspired by satan... why would the Quran re-emphasized the messages that the earlier prophets brought?

The Quran certainly recognizes the existance and divine mission of the earlier prophets. However, I would disagree with the assertion that it re-emphasizes their messages, unless you take re-emphasis to be something like digital filtering and remastering similar to removing noise from an audio reproduction, and maybe even adding sounds in an attempt to improve the original. The prophetic message in the Quran differs significantly from the earlier scriptures. The differences are not minor, but in fact go to the very core of the requirements for salvation, or attaining paradise if you prefer.

I find it strange that christians may say that the prophet (saw) was an imposter and inspired by a demon or satan, especially when the Quran and his sayings speaks so highly of the earlier prophets that were sent to the same chiristians and Jews.

Christians believe the Bible is God's word, and Muslims believe that the Quran is God's word. Both scriptures can not be right where they disagree. Therefore there must be a reason why one of them is wrong. In the Bible, Satan first questioned God's word, then man's understanding of God's word.

Ge 3:1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said, 'You shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?" 2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 "but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.' " 4 Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die.

Jn 5:39 "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 "But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life."

1 Jn 5:10 He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. 11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

1 Jn 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

The Quran, while acknowleging Christ as a prophet, denies that one has to come to Christ to have eternal life. According to the Bible, it is therefore false prophecy. A true prophet does not give false prophecy. So it all boils down to which book one believes to be the inerrant Word of God.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Why would satan want to keep us away from things such as fornication, pork, drinking, when satan is known to lead us astray to bad things? why did Islam spread so well, if it that was the case?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

The prophetic message in the Quran differs significantly from the earlier scriptures. The differences are not minor, but in fact go to the very core of the requirements for salvation, or attaining paradise if you prefer.

Actually the Qur'anic message has a great deal in common with that of the OT. In fact, Jews would argue that it is the Christian New Testament which has radically abrogated the entire Judaic understanding of salvation and replaced it with vicarious atonement.

The Quran, while acknowleging Christ as a prophet, denies that one has to come to Christ to have eternal life.

I think it would be more fair to say that it denies the Christian interpretation of 'coming to Christ'. Muslims fully agree that one must accept the Prophet sent to them to attain 'eternal life'.

And while Muslims would not object to much of the sayings attributed to Christ, they would with those of Paul. Jesus said, "If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." (Matthew 19:17). Muslims would agree with that completely. However, Paul claims, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13). Muslims would not accept the view that the laws of God are a 'curse'.

Regards

[dougmusr]

Why would satan want to keep us away from things such as fornication, pork, drinking, when satan is known to lead us astray to bad things? why did Islam spread so well, if it that was the case?

Satan's primary purpose is to keep people away from God and out of Heaven by substituting good deeds for a personal relationship with God. The verse below describes the ultimate goal pretty well.

Lk 18:9 Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 "The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men--extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 'I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.' 13 "And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' 14 "I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

[dougmusr]

Actually the Qur'anic message has a great deal in common with that of the OT. In fact, Jews would argue that it is the Christian New Testament which has radically abrogated the entire Judaic understanding of salvation and replaced it with vicarious atonement.

I think a more accurate statement would be that the Christian New Testament corrected the Judaic misunderstanding of salvation. If this were not the case, then God would have discontinued sending prophets.

It is my understanding that Islam holds that God has abrogated both by sending Muhammed and revealing the Quran.

I think it would be more fair to say that it denies the Christian interpretation of 'coming to Christ'. Muslims fully agree that one must accept the Prophet sent to them to attain 'eternal life'.

Actually, I believe you said on another post that only those people alive during the earthly ministry of Christ, and this was only a few years had to follow Him to attain paradise. What about from 33AD to 632AD?

I agree. People in the time of Jesus had to follow him to attain paradise.

Which was:

When he began preaching to the people, until when he was taken up by God.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I think a more accurate statement would be that the Christian New Testament corrected the Judaic misunderstanding of salvation. If this were not the case, then God would have discontinued sending prophets.

I can appreciate that to be the Christian perspective, but regardless we are agreed that the Christian doctrines have some radically different ideas from the Jewish scripture.

It is my understanding that Islam holds that God has abrogated both by sending Muhammed and revealing the Quran.

No, the message and beliefs of the Prophets is the same. What is abrogated is the ritual laws and religious legislation of the previous prophets, in the sense that the followers of Prophet Muhammad pbuh are to follow the religious practices and laws he brought in their day to day affairs.

Actually, I believe you said on another post that only those people alive during the earthly ministry of Christ, and this was only a few years had to follow Him to attain paradise. What about from 33AD to 632AD?

Sorry, I should clarify. The people who are to believe in Prophet Jesus are the people who recieved his message, those to whom he was sent. So even after his ministry people were to follow him. This was before the coming of Prophet Muhammad pbuh. So between 33CE and 610CE, a person who recieved the message of Prophet Jesus pbuh properly was to follow it. The others will be judged according to their circumstances and what they knew of the truth, much like today if a person does not recieve the message of Islam properly, they will be judged according to their circumstances.

[therebbe]

You all agree that Jesus was more than a normal man, yet according to the Torah which by the why says that no other book shall ever be sent from G-d to replace it (That is why the Quran, New Testamant are not vaild under Judaism) proves that Jesus was not a prophet because he did not meet the standards to be a prophet set forth by the Torah.

Therefore. Jesus was nothing more than a normal man. But I am sure I will here about how the Torah was 'corrupted' and so on and so forth. :uhwhat

[جوري]

what about the Psalms of doud (David) and the suhouf/ scrolls of Abraham/les feuilles de Abraham .... does the Torah also see them as invalid? since the Torah is the only book? Also if the Torah is the only book, why do you need the Talmud and the Mishna? technically rabbis wrote those? they can be "false" prophets no?

[sameer]

You all agree that Jesus was more than a normal man, yet according to the Torah which by the why says that no other book shall ever be sent from G-d to replace it (That is why the Quran, New Testamant are not vaild under Judaism) proves that Jesus was not a prophet because he did not meet the standards to be a prophet set forth by the Torah.

Therefore. Jesus was nothing more than a normal man. But I am sure I will here about how the Torah was 'corrupted' and so on and so forth. :uhwhat

lol ;D how did u knwo this was coming? :rollseyes :giggling:

So was the torah in the original language preserved from since Moses? i mean the origianl tablets? or maybe something written by ppl hwo live in his times or met/knew him ?

[dougmusr]

why do you need the Talmud and the Mishna? technically rabbis wrote those? they can be "false" prophets no?

Where did the Hadiths come from?

[جوري]

Where did the Hadiths come from?

Hadith literature means the literature which consists of the narrations of the life of the Prophet and the things approved by him supported by the Quran--"And whatever the Messenger gives you, take it, and whatever he forbids you, leave it. And fear Allah: truly Allah is severe in punishment. " [Qur'an 59:7]
Not the interpretation by various groups written during the destruction of the 2nd temple and the revolt against Rome and Years after Moses so as to not meet with his approval... if by the above remark you were wishing to make a point?

[dougmusr]

Not the interpretation by various groups written during the destruction of the 2nd temple and the revolt against Rome and Years after Moses so as to not meet with his approval... if by the above remark you were wishing to make a point?

I just find it amusing that the Hadiths were written by humans about the life of Muhammed, and the Gospels were written by humans about the life of Christ, but only the Gospel writers were motivated to and were capable of bungling, misquoting, misinterpreting, and even intentionally deceiving the target audience.

[جوري]

I just find it amusing that the Hadiths were written by humans about the life of Muhammed, and the Gospels were written by humans about the life of Christ, but only the Gospel writers were motivated to and were capable of bungling, misquoting, misinterpreting, and even intentionally deceiving the target audience.

don't be surprised there are hadiths that can be classfied as "o7ad" or "twator"... you need a consensus and five or more sources, and still some might be considered weak, questionable or untrue.... but the Quran is uncorrupted... even if we did away with all the Hadiths we would still have the one uncorrupted book in which every copy is identical for the last 1400 years preserved in its mother tongue... by the way on a side note... we don't worship Mohammed... the Quran isn't about the life of mohammed in fact if you read it you'll notice Jesus mentioned 20 times where as prophet mohammed mentioned only 5--------peace

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I just find it amusing that the Hadiths were written by humans about the life of Muhammed, and the Gospels were written by humans about the life of Christ, but only the Gospel writers were motivated to and were capable of bungling, misquoting, misinterpreting, and even intentionally deceiving the target audience.

The most obvious difference between the hadiths and the gospels is the isnad system of the former. The hadiths are composed of both isnad (chain of narrators) and matn (the actual text of the hadith). By studying the chain of narrators, the hadith's authenticity can be classified. The gospels are composed of only matn, no isnad. Can you provide an unbroken chain of narrators for an NT verse along with the biographies of each person in the chain?

[dougmusr]

The most obvious difference between the hadiths and the gospels is the isnad system of the former. The hadiths are composed of both isnad (chain of narrators) and matn (the actual text of the hadith). By studying the chain of narrators, the hadith's authenticity can be classified. The gospels are composed of only matn, no isnad. Can you provide an unbroken chain of narrators for an NT verse along with the biographies of each person in the chain?

Even if you can follow the Hadiths back to their original sources, when you get done the most you can say is you have a copy of the original. You can not however say that the documents you have are true. This requires faith.

don't be surprised there are hadiths that can be classfied as "o7ad" or "twator"... you need a consensus and five or more sources, and still some might be considered weak, questionable or untrue....

Apparently Hadiths have to meet a certain criteria to be accepted. I suspect the same was true for the Quran when it was assembled from various recitations 400 or so years after Muhammed's death. The mere act of imposing a scriptural validity test prior to assembly of the final document implies the imposition of a judgement by one or more fallable humans on the final product. You feel the Quran was protected by God, and that tracability is proof of God's protection. I don't agree. So we will just have to differ on which book is God's Word and let Him decide who was right in the end.

[therebbe]

why do you need the Talmud and the Mishna?

Actually the Talmud and Mishna are the oral laws given to us by G-d, with the commentaries and interpretations of our wisest Rabbi's on them.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Even if you can follow the Hadiths back to their original sources, when you get done the most you can say is you have a copy of the original. You can not however say that the documents you have are true. This requires faith.

You asked why the writers of the gospels are charged with failing to transmit accurately the teachings of Jesus while the hadith narrators are not, is that right? The difference of course is the chain of narration. For one particular hadith, we will have numerous chains of narrators stemming back to actual ear and eye-witnesses who transmitted the saying. When it comes to the gospels, they were ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but without a chain of narrators one cannot be sure of how accurately the information was transmitted. Even if we were certain, there are still so many questions about them. The earliest gospel is ascribed to Mark, who never met Jesus.

I suspect the same was true for the Quran when it was assembled from various recitations 400 or so years after Muhammed's death.

I don't know where you got that idea from but it is laughably wrong. The Prophet Muhammad pbuh had over 60 scribes recording the Qur'an for him in his lifetime, it was memorized in its entirety by his companions and it was and is recited out loud in the congregation prayers.To this day, every Ramadan the Imam recites the Qur'an from cover to cover in from of the entire congregation. Keep in mind that the Qur'an is very different from the NT in that the Qur'an is an inextricable part of the ritual practices of the Muslims. It is mandatory to recite it in every single unit of prayer, of which there are no less than five compulsory prayers adding up to a total of 17 units of prayer daily.

In written form it was assembled into one manuscript under the supervision of the first caliph Abu Bakr who ruled for 2 years after the Prophet's death, until he too passed away; a long shot from 400 years!

Even the most ardent opponents of Islam amongst the orientalists do not dispute the preservation of the Qur'an!

'This Text of the Qur'an is the purest of all works of alike antiquity' (Wherry, Commentary on the Koran, I. p. 349).

'Othman's recension has remained the authorised text from the time it was made until the present day' (Palmer, The Qur'an, p. lix).

'The text of this recension substantially corresponds to the actual utterances of Muhammad himself' (Arnold, Islamic Faith, p. 9).

'All sects and parties have the same text of the Qur'an' (Hurgronje, Mohammedanism, p. 18).

'It is an immense merit in the Kuran that there is no doubt as to its genuineness That very word we can now read with full confidence that it has remained unchanged through nearly thirteen hundred years' (LSK., p.3)

'The recension of 'Othman has been handed down unaltered. There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text' (Muir, Life of Mohammed, pp. XXII-XXIII).

'In the Kuran we have, beyond all reasonable doubt, the exact words of Mohammed without subtraction and without addition' (Bosworth Smith, Mohammamed and Mohammedanism, p. 22)

'The Koran was his own creation; and it lies before us practically unchanged from the form which he himself gave it' (Torrey, Jewish Foundations of Islam, p.2).

'Modern critics agree that that the copies current today are almost exact replicas of the original mother-text as compiled by Zayd, and that, on the whole, the text of the Koran todaay is as Muhammad prodcued it. As some Semitic scholar remarked, there are probably more variations in the reading of one chapter of Genesis in Hebrew than there are in the entire Koran' (Hitti, History of the Arabs, p. 123).

Regards

[dougmusr]

'Othman's recension has remained the authorised text from the time it was made until the present day' (Palmer, The Qur'an, p. lix).

re&#183;cen&#183;sion Audio pronunciation of "recension" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-snshn)
n.

1. A critical revision of a text incorporating the most plausible elements found in varying sources.
2. A text so revised.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

re&#183;cen&#183;sion Audio pronunciation of "recension" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-snshn)
n.

1. A critical revision of a text incorporating the most plausible elements found in varying sources.
2. A text so revised.

I expected that you would comment on that. The point of course is that Uthman was one of the Prophet's companions and palmer says that the text has been preserved since then. You'll notice also that many of them say the Qur'an is Muhammad's words which Muslims would reject as false. I'm just quoting their statements which show that even they, as the most hostile of all non-muslim orientalists, realized that the text has been preserved since the time of the Prophet.
And they call it Uthman's recension since it was the edition compiled under his supervision, reviewing it verse-by-verse.

[Ali_slave of Allah]

Muhammad said he was a prophet, therefore we have two possibilities; either he said the truth, or he was a liar and an imposter. Only one of these 2 can be true.

Let’s 1st look at the hypothesis that he was a liar and an imposter, that he himself invented the Quran, and that even though he was illiterate.
First what was Muhammad’s interest to create a new religion? Until the age of 40, he lived a happy and comfortable life with his rich wife Khadija, he was loved and respected for his honesty and morality by all of his tribe. Why would he have gone through 10 years of persecutions, hardships and reject from most of his tribe, what was his interest in going through so much suffering and persevering in the transmission of his message?

Until the end of his mission, even when he ruled almost the whole of the Arabic peninsula (a territory about 5 times the size of France), he always lived in the most complete destitution, sleeping on a bed of dried leaves, without a castle nor a palace or anything resembling it, without a single bodyguard, wearing clothes repaired by himself, shoes repaired by himself… Why did this “imposter” never used all his power to acquire wealth, palaces and luxurious gardens like other kings and heads of states?
And if he only had created this religion in reaction to Jews and Christians as some have claimed, why would about half of the Prophets mentioned in the Quran would be …Jewish? Why does the Quran praise so much Mary the mother of Jesus, a Jewish woman, but never mentions Muhammad’s mother, nor any member of his family?
In order to convince the Arabs, who were often in conflict with the Jews, wouldn’t it have been easier to denigrate all these Jews instead of praising them? Yes, but that’s neither what the Quran says, nor what Muhammad said.

Moreover, if you wanted to create and spread a new religion, surely you’d make it easy to practice, with as few constraints as possible, just like most idolatrous religions of the time. Would you try to impose the complete banning of alcohol, a whole month of fasting every year, 5 compulsory daily prayers at fixed times?… No, it wouldn’t make sense, because nobody would follow such a religion. But amazingly that’s what the Quran and Muhammad have done, without ever accepting any compromise to this message. And the most extraordinary is that this religion has triumphed over all the others !

If Muhammad was an imposter, what was his personal interest to have his people abide by these countless food restrictions, this entire month of fasting every year, these 5 compulsory prayers every day? Why did he insist so much on these restrictions, which personal interest did he get from it?
Of course none, it even made many tribes hesitate and sometimes abandon him. It really made his mission very much harder to fulfill, but yet he never accepted any compromise to this message.
In a famous episode of Muhammad’s life, a tribe called Thaqif accepted to convert to Islam and to obey Muhammad if he allowed them to keep some of their idols and to be exempted from the 5 daily prayers. Muhammad refused categorically. Rather than to acquire absolute power over this important tribe without any effort, he preferred to remain faithful to the message God had transmitted him.


But let’s still continue this hypothesis “Muhammad was an imposter and invented the Quran”, already shaken by these few facts; if Muhammad wasn’t guided by God, then we also have to admit that he was:

-The greatest Arabic writer in history ; because no one can deny that the Quran is the greatest literary piece ever written in this language. Still 14 Centuries later, if you go to any University to study Arabic literature, you’ll study mainly the Quran for its inimitable style and the beauty of its verses. God himself challenges anyone to produce anything like it (Quran 11:13,14). A challenge that still 14 Centuries later no human has been able to meet.

-A scientific genius; the reproduction of humans, of plants, the aquatic origin of all life, the orbits of the sun and the earth, the expansion of the Universe, these are a few of the scientific truths mentioned in the Quran, some of which discovered more than 1000 years later.

-A genius in medicine; thanks to its very strict hygiene and food restrictions, the Quran and the Sunna (the teachings of Muhammad) have allowed Muslim countries that abode by these laws to be spared from most great epidemics that wreaked havoc in other parts of the world. Still today, look at how the latest great epidemics, the AIDS virus, has strangely largely spared the Middle East, the Maghreb and the Arabic peninsula (all the Muslim countries), whereas it causes havoc in all the neighboring regions (Sub-Saharian Africa and South-Western Asia).
Everyone now recognizes the importance of diet, sexual non promiscuity and regular washing of one’s feet and hands to prevent the transmission of diseases. All these principles were dictated 14 Centuries ago by an illiterate Arab who had never studied medicine in his life.

-A genius in law ; The Quran and Muhammad’s Sunna are the first great legislation in history to elaborate such a comprehensive list of the rights and duties of all human beings (several thousands of pages covering a multitude of fields), about 11 Centuries before the West had any kind of counterpart with the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights, itself much less comprehensive than the vastness of domains broached by the Islamic Law.

-A speaker with amazing eloquence; thanks to his wisdom and eloquence, Muhammad managed to touch the heart of billions of human beings and to convince them that he was the Messenger of God, and that in spite of the horrendous persecutions that hit the first men and women that believed in his Mission. He was so much admired that tens of thousands of pages of his sermons and teachings were memorized by his companions and their descendants and put into writing to constitute what we now call the Sunna.
From which other great Man of History have we preserved so many teachings?

-A military genius; what Muhammad accomplished in this field in so little time, he who until the age of 52 (when God revealed him the verse ordering him to defend himself) had never shown any interest for war nor had had any experience whatsoever neither as a fighter or as a strategist, is really beyond the extraordinary.
He’s often compared to Alexander the Great and Napoleon, but what Muhammad accomplished is even more extraordinary, and that for the 2 following reasons:

-While the vast empires that Alexander and Napoleon established crumbled pretty quickly (a few decades after his death for Alexander and in his own lifetime for Napoleon, which shows how little support they had in the land they had conquered), the conquests of Islam not only didn’t crumble after Muhammad’s death, but continued to expand under his companions and successors. Even during the era of colonization, while the Europeans had managed to impose Christianity in most of their colonies, they never succeeded in Muslim countries, such was the attachment of Muslims to their religion. On the contrary, 14 Centuries later, in the whole of Europe and North America, it is islam and mosques are spreading like flooding waters.

-Another big difference: Greece already was a powerful nation when Alexander took power, and France was along with England the most powerful country in Europe when Napoleon came to power. In other words Alexander and Napoleon had right from the start huge means; a great, experienced and well-equipped army…
Muhammad had nothing, no army, no king or nation to support him, he was at the beginning completely alone. He had to convince his co-tribesmen and contemporaries one by one about the truth of his Mission, endure his tribe’s persecutions, build with his companions makeshift weapons to defend himself, then constitute a modest army with people who for many of them had no experience in fighting whatsoever.
From this modest start, and thanks to miraculous victories over armies largely superior in numbers and in means, he succeeded in spreading Islam over almost the whole of the Arabic Peninsula.
How could a man have achieved such a feat if he had not been protected and guided by God?

-A political genius; thanks to judicious treaties with other Arab tribes, intelligent strategic decisions both in and off the battlefield, Muhammad managed to spread Islam on most of the Arab peninsula, and make of this forgotten and desertic land the heart of a civilization that would later expand from Morocco to India !
And what other great King or Emperor managed to rule over such a large territory without ever owning any palace, any fortress, any bodyguard, relying only on his Lord and Creator to Guide him and Protect him?

History has seen a few literary geniuses, and also a few military geniuses, and a handful of geniuses in each of the fields I have mentioned.
But having a man excel in all these fields at once, surpassing all the geniuses from any period of History in such various and different domains, it is simply out of this world. And this coming from a man who had never followed any education and could hardly even read ! ! !

Is it reasonable to think that this man (who until the age of 40¾the beginning of his Mission¾ had never shown any interest for any of these fields) could have suddenly become such a genius?
Or is it more reasonable to think that something really extraordinary happened in this night of the year 610, that through the Angel Gabriel it is really God that addressed him and Guided him in a Divine Mission.


You can guess of course what my opinion is. An opinion based not only on faith but also on reason.

In conclusion, here’s what the great French poet Lamartine said after studying his life:
“If the greatness of a man is to be measured by comparing the smallness of his means with the greatness of his accomplishments, then what great man in History can seriously be compared to Muhammad."
Lamartine, Histoire de la Turquie.


In truth there are really obvious signs for people who meditate. (Quran 13:3)

read carefully so if he was deceived by satan then Muhmmad must be the greatest scientist in the world which mean you are saying Muhammad is the author of Quran, the Quran has scientific facts that is discovered recently