What was Muhammad (pbuh) if not a prophet?

[Malaikah]

Hello... this thread is dedicated to the non-Muslim members particularly...

So, obviously, as non-Muslims you do not believe that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was the Messenger of God... If Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was not a Prophet, then what was he, and where did the Quran come from?

Please vote... and here are some pre-prepared responses to the options.

Oh, and I know some people will probably be hesitant to share their opinion, but I assure you as long as you are POLITE and respectful... there should no be a problem inshaallah.

(The following are based on a lecture by Yasir Qadhi)

All these following attacks are attackes against the prophet by modern orientalists… none of these accusations are original, they are all exactly the same as the accusations made by the pagan Arabs of his time. They can’t come up with something new.

Number one: they claim he is a poet.

The claim: He was an extraordinary poet, anyone who has knowledge of Jewish history and has poetic fire can write it.

The response: When the mushrikoon (the pagan Arabs of his time) claimed the Quran was poetry, Allah responded and said that Muhammad pbuh was not a poet. “Let them bring forth a miracle like the people before them”. The challenge: if you think he was a poet, so then bring forth something similar to it.

Furthermore, the Quran is nothing like the poetry known to the Arabs, at all, and poetry is something the Arabs specialized in. How then could an illiterate man have produced this work (i.e. the Quran)? Also, he had no knowledge of Jewish history!

Number two: He was a mad man (God forbid!)/had epilepsy.

The respone: But can a madman live such a sane life, where he founds an empire, where all the people love and respect him, where he is a father, a husband, a friend, a companion, a military leader and a statesman, where he is one who is giving out laws by the name of Allah, and yet his madness is not shown? His life shows the height of intelligence, passion, of controlling ones passion and desires.

The mushrikoon also claimed this, and Allah replied to this in the Quran, and said he came with the truth. Can a mad man preach the truth? How can he live a normal life?

Number three: the prophet was power hungry.

The response: Look at how he lived, his house, nothing but his bed and water. His family would sometimes go to sleep hungry, with no food, they sometimes went a month or two eating only dates and water. What kind of power is he after then?

Furthermore, he was known to his people as“The one who is trustworthy” how can someone who was known as the most trustworthy his whole life come forth with the biggest lie (i.e. a lie against God Himself)?

Number four: he imagined that he was a prophet

There are those who realize that his life was a life of honesty and integrity, so the only logical explanation they have is that he assumed he was a prophet, and ‘worked himself up’ into thinking he was. But this does not make sense because his life was an example of the height of sanity (see point 2).

Number five: the Quran was thought to him by other people.

Some claim that the prophet learned the Quran from others, because they recognize that Muhammad pbuh never studied history and nor was he, as an illiterate man, a poet. Is this even possible?

The Quran was not written in one go, it was revealed over a period of 20 years, therefore the candidates must have been present with the prophet through out his whole prophethood, read right besides him to reveal verses as soon as a situation arose... but there is no supporting evidence for this at all.

Furthermore, all the people suggested to have been the one who taught him the Quran, along with its knowledge Jewish and Christian traditions are extremely unlikely candidates.

For example:
- Bahira: bahira only meet him for an hour or so, when he was a teenager. It isn’t even sure that he was meet him.
- Salman al-farasi- meet him 15 years after he started teaching/preaching islam. Where then, did Muhammad learn the Quran from before he meet Salman al-farasi?

Also none of the people they point to are Arabs, they couldn’t speak it fluently, yet the Quran is the height of eloquence. This is also meantioned in that Quran, that the person who they accuse you of learning from is not Arab and this Quran is in Arabic.

[snakelegs]

i didn't vote. i have no problem with the concept of muhammad being a prophet.

[Malaikah]

wow snakelegs, thats awesome...

er.. so if you have no problem with him being a prophet, then why aren't you a Muslim?:?

[Trumble]

but I assure you as long as you are POLITE and respectful...

I voted "some other combination of points 1-5". My comments are given in the spirit you suggest above. One starting point, though..

All these following attacks are attackes against the prophet by modern orientalists… none of these accusations are original, they are all exactly the same as the accusations made by the pagan Arabs of his time. They can’t come up with something new.

I don't understand the need for originality on this point; indeed the fact that those same criticisms were contemporary with Mohammed rather strengthens them.

Number one: they claim he is a poet

The response: When the mushrikoon (the pagan Arabs of his time) claimed the Quran was poetry, Allah responded and said that Muhammad pbuh was not a poet. “Let them bring forth a miracle like the people before them”. The challenge: if you think he was a poet, so then bring forth something similar to it.

Furthermore, the Quran is nothing like the poetry known to the Arabs, at all, and poetry is something the Arabs specialized in. How then could an illiterate man have produced this work (i.e. the Quran)? Also, he had no knowledge of Jewish history!

The strongest of the points raised by some distance, although the final point is not (we have no idea what he had knowledge of, and of who passed through where he lived, and what they knew). However, there are possibilities. Mohammed was undoubtably a political genius; there is no reason he could not have been a poetry one as well (literacy certainly helps, but there are plenty of oral poetic traditions across world cultures. We have no idea how much collaberation Mohammed may have had from those who were literate, and who shared his political objectives.

Number two: He was a mad man (God forbid!)/had epilepsy.

The response: But can a madman live such a sane life, where he founds an empire, where all the people love and respect him, where he is a father, a husband, a friend, a companion, a military leader and a statesman, where he is one who is giving out laws by the name of Allah, and yet his madness is not shown? His life shows the height of intelligence, passion, of controlling ones passion and desires.

Define 'madness'... virtually every founder of an empire was 'mad' in some way or another; you probably have to be. It didn't stop the likes of Alexander fulfilling all of the above. Julius Caesar is perhaps history's most famous epileptic, although it is an essential point that that fact was deduced by historians (with Plutarch probably being the first), and although it would have been known to Caesar's close associates there was no contemporary record of his epilepsy.

The mushrikoon also claimed this, and Allah replied to this in the Quran, and said he came with the truth. Can a mad man preach the truth? How can he live a normal life?

See above. Insofar as an empire-founders life is 'normal', the answer is pretty much 'yes'.

Number three: the prophet was power hungry.

The response: Look at how he lived, his house, nothing but his bed and water. His family would sometimes go to sleep hungry, with no food, they sometimes went a month or two eating only dates and water. What kind of power is he after then?

'Power hungry' is a very emotive phrase, suggestive of Hitler, Napoleon etc as well as those I mentioned already. There is no reason to believe Mohammed sought personal power rather than a better life for his people and indeed humanity in general, although, granted, such people are rare indeed. Even apart from that, the argument is unconvincing. Many conquerors were actually very austere in their personal habits... they were simply too focused on what they were doing to worry about accumulating or enjoying the trappings of wealth.

Furthermore, he was known to his people as“The one who is trustworthy” how can someone who was known as the most trustworthy his whole life come forth with the biggest lie (i.e. a lie against God Himself)?

This is where I have to be very careful on 'offence', so be please be assured none is intended. Surely being known as "most trustworthy" does no more than indicate a perception of character.. the expected one as there is no doubt that Mohammed 'delivered' for his people in general and those close to him in particular. I should maybe refer you to Machievelli's The Prince on that point. As to the "biggest lie", lets stick with the philosophers and turn to Plato. In the 'Republic' (and its fascinating to speculate whether Mohammed was familiar with that work, although its unlikely) Plato describes the "noble lie". The idea is that the vast majority of people are incapable of actually understanding what is best for themselves, and how best to get along with others. It is therefore necessary to impose a certain system of ethics for the benefit of all (whether they appreciate it or not), and what better way to deliver it than packaged as an easily understandable religious package, geared to the intelligence of the people and that they will believe. Deception is therefore a requisite for instilling virtue, "the lie in words is in certain cases useful and not hateful". Personally, I believe the Qur'an to be the definitive example of the application of that principle.

Number four: he imagined that he was a prophet

There are those who realize that his life was a life of honesty and integrity, so the only logical explanation they have is that he assumed he was a prophet, and ‘worked himself up’ into thinking he was. But this does not make sense because his life was an example of the height of sanity (see point 2).

Likewise my reply to point 2.

Number five: the Quran was thought to him by other people.

Some claim that the prophet learned the Quran from others, because they recognize that Muhammad pbuh never studied history and nor was he, as an illiterate man, a poet. Is this even possible?

The Quran was not written in one go, it was revealed over a period of 20 years, therefore the candidates must have been present with the prophet through out his whole prophethood, read right besides him to reveal verses as soon as a situation arose... but there is no supporting evidence for this at all.

There is none it didn't happen either, some people were certainly around him for the whole of that period. The Qur'an has several distinct styles, as would certainly be expected if compilation was over a 20 year period, but is also supportive of variations in co-authorship. So, yes, it is perfectly possible.

Furthermore, all the people suggested to have been the one who taught him the Quran, along with its knowledge Jewish and Christian traditions are extremely unlikely candidates.

What about the ones we don't know about? 'Airbrushing' from history is far from unknown, particularly when there is an obvious reason to do so, and even an obvious reason for those involved to actively collaborate in doing so.


So where does that leave us? With some weak objections by Yasir Qadhi (although not original ones, of course ;) )and a couple of rather stronger ones. I fully understand that muslims will reject my responses to one and five as weak. The certainly suggest things that may be improbable (even very improbable, but NOT impossible, as is frequently suggested here). BUT, the point is that in history the improbable does happen, and among billions of humans a few are truly extraordinary. Cyrus, Alexander, Caesar, Ghengis Khan, Tamerlane, Mohammed, Napoleon. Conquest is not required, consider other great religious and cultural figures, Jesus, the Buddha, Lao Tsu, Confucius, Leonardo. It is why the few are remembered across thousands of years while the rest are forgotten. The existence of such people, and events, is far less improbable than the existence (unsupported by any real evidence) of a God as muslims and Christians perceive Him.

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

[snakelegs]

wow snakelegs, thats awesome...

er.. so if you have no problem with him being a prophet, then why aren't you a Muslim?:?

i have no problem with muhammad being a prophet mainly because i see no reason why he couldn't have been. there have probably been many prophets sent to many people in many forms.
i'm not a muslim because i believe god is too big to be contained in any one religion.

[Malaikah]

i'm not a muslim because i believe god is too big to be contained in any one religion.

That doesn't make sense. How can you say that it is possible that Prophet Muhammad pbuh was sent by God Himself- meaning that everything he said was true, and yet you still think that God it too great to be contained by one religion, even though it was God Himself who revealed that religion.

In other word- God was wrong to have sent the Prophet??:confused:

[sevgi]

i'm not a muslim because i believe god is too big to be contained in any one religion.

jst like to add to what sis malaikah jst said...

ur mentality is so corect in one way...God IS too big to be contained in any one religion...

the religion doesnt contain him...he contains the religion...ie, Islam.

[Malaikah]

I don't understand the need for originality on this point; indeed the fact that those same criticisms were contemporary with Mohammed rather strengthens them.

Not really. It just means that all the points have already been refuted, and that the sources of Islam provide a strong tool for those wishing to address these claims, because they are all old. Also, note that none of the points were successful... as admitted by the very people who made up these attacks... there is actually a very good hadith about this... I might try to find it later.

The strongest of the points raised by some distance, although the final point is not (we have no idea what he had knowledge of, and of who passed through where he lived, and what they knew).

That is what biographies are good for.

We have no idea how much collaberation Mohammed may have had from those who were literate, and who shared his political objectives.

That is just pure speculation, bring forth your evidence! What political objects? Such a person must have stayed with the prophet through out his whole life as a prophet, and must have been a close associate... and therefore it is almost impossible that such a person would have escaped being recorded in history. We know who his close associates were. That has been recorded in numerous hadiths. Now all you need to do is find someone who fits your description (you will find no one).

Define 'madness'... virtually every founder of an empire was 'mad' in some way or another; you probably have to be. It didn't stop the likes of Alexander fulfilling all of the above. Julius Caesar is perhaps history's most famous epileptic, although it is an essential point that that fact was deduced by historians (with Plutarch probably being the first), and although it would have been known to Caesar's close associates there was no contemporary record of his epilepsy.

Well, I'm not the one making the claim that he was mad, so perhaps you could do that for us? We have his biography, down to the most (seemingly) irrelevant details... such as which hand he ate with, one which side of his body he slept etc. If he was so mad, point out to us the actions that show his madness? Given that we have so much of his life documented, if you can't find any solid evidence of his madness, then this whole point is baseless.

The epilepsy idea came about from the fact that when the Prophet Muhammad pbuh received revelation, he would sweat deeply even on a cold day and be silent... as well as other symptoms... some have likened this to epilepsy, while ignoring all the ways in which it is different to epilepsy... Also how many people go into an epileptic fit and then come out of it, producing a verse from the book of the greatest eloquence? I've seen epileptics, they come out of it confused and dazed, and yet this man comes out of it with a verse/verses of the highest literary standard... is that really madness?

Also, one companion reported that ones the prophet was lying down with his head (or part of his body) on his leg, and the prophet received revelation... the companion said that while the prophet pbuh was receiving revelation, his body exerted such a strong force on this leg that he thought his leg was going to snap from the pressure... again, does this sound like an epileptic? Not at all...

Oh yeh, and he can't have faked it because I don't know of many people how can sweat like and develop those kind of symptoms by choice (And, incidently, at exactly the right time when revelation was needed!).

See above. Insofar as an empire-founders life is 'normal', the answer is pretty much 'yes'.

So no body, not even his closest friends, or wives, or children would have known that he was mad?? And yet, we can know by studying his life 1400 years later??

Even apart from that, the argument is unconvincing. Many conquerors were actually very austere in their personal habits... they were simply too focused on what they were doing to worry about accumulating or enjoying the trappings of wealth.

A desire for power is exactly what the argument is... if it was power, richest and glory that he wanted, he could have had it, but he never did... he lived a life of poverty even though he had sooo many chances of gaining wealth for himself, instead he gave in charity and dealt with the treasury justly...

In what way is the argument unconvincing? There is no evidence at all in his life that he used his power for personal gain, at all.. in fact for the first ten years it was nothing but hardship and torture for him and his followers. What did he have to gain in those 10 years? Nothing. If it was power that he wanted, he was offered it by his tribe, as a bribe to get him to give up his religion, they offered him so much, but he refused it all and just told them he will never give up on Islam. The offer was made at the time when he was weak. If he wanted power, it was staring him in the face, keeping in mind, of course, that if he was not divinely guided then he would have had no way of knowing that he would have amazing success in the future, and therefore taking a risk by neglecting the offer for power and other things.

This is where I have to be very careful on 'offence', so be please be assured none is intended. Surely being known as "most trustworthy" does no more than indicate a perception of character.. the expected one as there is no doubt that Mohammed 'delivered' for his people in general and those close to him in particular.

What are you trying to say? That the whole 'town'/tribe was wrong in referring to him as their most trustworthy, honest and decent man? Even though he was the height of morality in a time when immorality was 'normal'? When you compare what he was like (even before he became a Prophet) to what the rest of the people were like, it is easy to see why he was given such a noble title. And he was like that for his whole life... isn't not like he matured into a good person, even in his teens he was nothing like the other teenagers.

As to the "biggest lie", lets stick with the philosophers and turn to Plato. In the 'Republic' (and its fascinating to speculate whether Mohammed was familiar with that work, although its unlikely) Plato describes the "noble lie". The idea is that the vast majority of people are incapable of actually understanding what is best for themselves, and how best to get along with others. It is therefore necessary to impose a certain system of ethics for the benefit of all (whether they appreciate it or not), and what better way to deliver it than packaged as an easily understandable religious package, geared to the intelligence of the people and that they will believe. Deception is therefore a requisite for instilling virtue, "the lie in words is in certain cases useful and not hateful". Personally, I believe the Qur'an to be the definitive example of the application of that principle.

So you are saying that Prophet Muhammad, the one who was known for his honest, lied about Islam, for 'the greater good'. Keeping in mind that he was always a religious man and would no doubt have considered this a horrible blasphemy? His whole tribe were idol worshipers, but he never ever fell in to that, he was completely against it. Why? Because he believe in one God worthy of worship. And yet you would have us believe that he did something that was probably just as bad as worshiping idols- he lied to thousands of people and lied about God Himself?? That makes no sense at all... not mention you have no proof for your theory.

There is none it didn't happen either, some people were certainly around him for the whole of that period. The Qur'an has several distinct styles, as would certainly be expected if compilation was over a 20 year period, but is also supportive of variations in co-authorship. So, yes, it is perfectly possible.

Like I said earlier, we know who those people were, none of them are likely candidates.

Co-authorship? Don't get too excited there- it is hard enough finding even one person who could have been the candidate for writing the Quran, and now you suggest it could have been multiple people?

I have no idea how the styles of Quran can support your theory? Especially considering they are only variants of the original??

What about the ones we don't know about? 'Airbrushing' from history is far from unknown, particularly when there is an obvious reason to do so, and even an obvious reason for those involved to actively collaborate in doing so.

What do you mean by aribrushing? As i said, his life was well documented and any one who could have been a possible author of the Quran would have had to spend immense amount of time with the prophet pbuh. Any candidates??

So where does that leave us? With some weak objections by Yasir Qadhi (although not original ones, of course ;) )and a couple of rather stronger ones.

No one ever claimed they were original, and any weakness was my own weakness in transcribing the lecture and leaving out details so it doesn't get too long.

I fully understand that muslims will reject my responses to one and five as weak. The certainly suggest things that may be improbable (even very improbable, but NOT impossible, as is frequently suggested here).

Exactly. Your asking for too much, with out proper knowledge of the prophets biography, with absolutely no evidence at all.

[Trumble]

Not really. It just means that all the points have already been refuted

No. It means attempts have been made to do so. Like 'proof', 'refuted' is a word used far too casually at times.

That is just pure speculation, bring forth your evidence! What political objects?

I would have thought the political objectives were completely obvious, considering the history and that, to a large degree, they are detailed in the Qur'an itself! Politics is about how people should live, who has 'power' is only a sub-subject within it. As to 'evidence', I am merely speculating, suggesting plausible alternatives to the Prophet/God scenario in response to your first post, not attempting to prove any of them correct. Bring forth your 'evidence' as to the actual revelation of the Qur'an by God.

We know who his close associates were. That has been recorded in numerous hadiths. Now all you need to do is find someone who fits your description (you will find no one).

No, all we can know is what was recorded in Hadiths. We have no idea how complete, or accurate, they are. Exactly the same is true of any historical document.

Well, I'm not the one making the claim that he was mad, so perhaps you could do that for us?

Why? I'm not claiming he was mad, either. Quite the contrary, in fact. You raised the issue, if only to argue against it.

We have his biography, down to the most (seemingly) irrelevant details... such as which hand he ate with, one which side of his body he slept etc. If he was so mad, point out to us the actions that show his madness? Given that we have so much of his life document, if you can't find any solid evidence of his madness, then this whole point is baseless.

To be honest, that just shows a complete lack of understanding of mental health issues and an understanding of 'mad' that belongs in the seventh century. Nevertheless, as I said I am not claiming it. I am not actually claiming anything, just answering your question. If you re-read my previous answer you will see that point fully 'refuted'.

I've seen epileptics, they come out of it confused and dazed, and yet this man comes out of it with a verse/verses of the highest literary standard... is that really madness?

Epilepsy is not 'madness' at all, and symptoms vary. Regardless, though, I am not arguing Mohammed was epileptic. I know of no evidence for same. I am under no obligation to argue for/against other people's views on the subject.

So no body, not even his closest friends, or wives, would have known that he was mad?? And yet, we can know by studying his life 1400 years later??

Again, see everything I've written previously. Define 'madness'. How close is it to 'genius'? Neither necessitates either prophethood or divine inspiration. I have mentioned several historical figures, all have been argued 'mad' in some way or another. Of course we don't know any more than we know about Alexander, the point is about possibilities, no more.

A desire for power is exactly what the argument is... if it was power, richest and glory that he wanted, he could have had it, but he never did... he lived a life of poverty even though he had sooo many chances of gaining wealth for himself, instead he gave in charity and dealt with the treasury justly...

In what way is the argument unconvincing? There is no evidence at all in his life that he used his power for personal gain, at all.. in fact for the first ten years it was nothing but hardship and torture for him and his followers. What did he have to gain in those 10 years? Nothing. What are you trying to say? That the whole 'town'/tribe was wrong in referring to him as their most trustworthy, honest and decent man? Even though he was the height of morality in a time when immorality was 'normal'? When you compare what he was like (even before he became a Prophet) to what the rest of the people were like, it is easy to see why he was given such a noble title.

Again, I can't really add to what I've said already. I am stating my view, not defending other peoples'. I do not believe Mohammed had a "lust for power" with a view to personal gain. I believe he sought power for benevolent, political, but not divinely given, motives.

So you are saying that Prophet Muhammad, the one who was knowing for his honest, lied about Islam, for 'the greater good'. Keeping in mind that he was always a religious man and would no doubt have considered this a horrible blasphemy? His whole tribe were idol worshipers, but he never ever fell in to that, he was completely against it. Why? Because he believe in one God worthy of worship. And yet you would have us believe that he did something that was probably just as bad as worshipping idols- he lied to thousands of people and lied about God Himself?? That makes no sense at all... not mention you have no proof for your theory.

I am suggesting a possibility, not trying to 'prove' one. So long after the event it can no more be proved than disproved. You say he "would no doubt have considered this a horrible blasphemy", that is clearly only true if you make the starting assumption that the possibility is in fact impossible.

I have no idea who the styles of Quran can support your theory? Especially considering they are only variants of the original??

Of course they are only variants. Assuming the primary author was Mohammed throughout, that is what you would expect.

What do you mean by aribrushing? As i said, his life was well documented...

It was well documented by people who both knew Mohammed's motives and had their own. Far less biased historical recording has made far far greater omissions and errors than we are talking about here, both deliberate and intentional.

Exactly. Your asking for too much, with out proper knowledge of the prophets biography, with absolutely no evidence at all.

I am not asking anything, I am answering your question. I would not have posted on this subject unless invited to do so. I have a passable knowledge of Mohammed's life; but that does not mean I accept every word of what is 'known' about it as true. In the context of any other historical figure, even those rather better documented, such a belief would be considered by extremely foolish by historians, and for me the "religious figure get-out clause" doesn't apply. If it's any consolation, I consider the 'biographies' of Jesus and the Buddha in exactly the same way - rather more so in both cases, actually. To save you asking, in the case of the Buddha it simply doesn't matter, as the authorship of Buddhist teachings doesn't matter. They stand by themselves to be taken or left as you choose, something clearly not the case for something claimed to be the Will of God. Rest assured that if I found that idea in relation to the Qur'an even remotely convincing I would become a muslim overnight. But I don't.

Speculations or not, I consider them far less speculative, not to mention plausible, than the existence of a God who's existence must be a pre-requisite for true prophethood. That's all it comes down to, reallly. As I said I certainly wouldn't expect any muslim to agree with me.. they would not be muslims if they did.

[Malaikah]

Okay, so in other words you are talking about nothing but mere speculation... well I'd rather talk facts.

No, all we can know is what was recorded in Hadiths. We have no idea how complete, or accurate, they are. Exactly the same is true of any historical document.

Okay, that is pretty baseless, the hadith have to undergo very strict testing before they are considered to be authoritative... but I think that is best discussed in a different thread.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

i'm not a muslim because i believe god is too big to be contained in any one religion.

your saying that a religion is not necessary, and that God doesnt need to be worshipped? But thats your own thinking, what if you knew that God himself commanded that you worship him. That makes things a lot different then?

[Trumble]

Okay, that is pretty baseless, the hadith have to undergo very strict testing before they are considered to be authoritative... but I think that is best discussed in a different thread.

Possibly, but I'll answer it here. Baseless? Far from it. 'Strict testing' by who? Somebody who was there? Somebody who saw the event described? Or by a suitable quorum of such people? One is never reliable. Somebody totally neutral in the matter? Can there be such a person Hadith are no different from any other historical documents, if the "religious get-out" is ignored. Quite apart from which such testing could never, even theoretically, acknowledge what was omitted or just not recorded, for whatever reason.

Well I'd rather talk facts

Good, I have provided plenty of facts. What I have not done is claim they represent any sort of 'proof' or 'refutation' of the points you raised. You also have provided facts to support your position but which, as is invariably the case on such topics, 'prove' or 'refute' nothing, either. It is a matter of faith and belief, not 'facts'.. and any view as to what constitutes 'truth' is determined by those pre-existing beliefs. I have merely attempted to answer your original question.

[Keltoi]

I chose the "I don't know..I don't have a problem with it" choice. I do not believe he was a prophet, but like Trumble stated, it is a matter of faith.

[Malaikah]

Possibly, but I'll answer it here. Baseless? Far from it. 'Strict testing' by who? Somebody who was there? Somebody who saw the event described? Or by a suitable quorum of such people? One is never reliable. Somebody totally neutral in the matter? Can there be such a person Hadith are no different from any other historical documents, if the "religious get-out" is ignored. Quite apart from which such testing could never, even theoretically, acknowledge what was omitted or just not recorded, for whatever reason.

Do you know anything at all about the hadith sciences? This really isn't the place for it. Lets just leave that for another thread.

Good, I have provided plenty of facts.

What facts? I must have missed something. It was all speculation, you said that yourself.

I have merely attempted to answer your original question.

That fine.

Keltoi, would you consider ignorance/lack of knowledge to be the reason you voted for that last option?

You say it is a matter of faith- I don't think it is 100% faith. There is a lot of logic and reasoning involved in the matter was well. I really dislike when people just fall back on faith, it just destroys discussion (although it is an interesting thing itself to discussion... which gives me an idea for a new thread... hmm..)

[Jayda]

hola Malaikah,

given what happened with the "why not islam" thread dont you think this thread may not be a good idea... i do not think certain members can handle this kind of discussion without becomming overly agitative or agitated...

Dios te bendiga

[Malaikah]

Hi Jayda,

That is why I said that members should be respectful of Islamic beliefs when they state their opinions... so far so good.

As long as someone doesn't say something utterly stupid, such as accusing Prophet Muhammad pbuh of being a terrorist, then I think this *might* work... as long as people are respectful and careful with their wording.

[Jayda]

Hi Jayda,

That is why I said that members should be respectful of Islamic beliefs when they state their opinions... so far so good.

As long as someone doesn't say something utterly stupid, such as accusing Prophet Muhammad pbuh of being a terrorist, then I think this *might* work... as long as people are respectful and careful with their wording.

hola Malaikah,

gracias... i will be interested to see where this goes...

Dios te bendiga

[Trumble]

What facts? I must have missed something.

You did. I'll go back to my first post and point out the facts I was using to support my views (and indeed, speculations) if I must, although that really shouldn't be necessary.

You say it is a matter of faith- I don't think it is 100% faith. There is a lot of logic and reasoning involved in the matter was well. I really dislike when people just fall back on faith, it just destroys discussion (although it is an interesting thing itself to discussion...

If I may take the liberty of commenting on that also, no, it is not 100% faith. But always, in the end, such arguments are on foundations of faith.. they depend ultimately on faith based assumptions. Much the same logic and reasoning has been used for the better part of two millennia, and it 'proves' or 'refutes' no more now than it did at any previous time. People still reach their own views and beliefs, but ultimately they are based on faith not reason. That does not mean attempts at reason cannot direct people towards a particular faith; it is the major reason I hold my own. Where there is dispute, people will generally favour one position over another even when there is no logical proof to justify it. There may well be evidence to support (as oppose to 'prove') a particular view, but peoples' assessments of the weight of that evidence vary, too. Most things in life are like that, there are very few things in real-life that can be logically proven. The world is just too complicated.

[Idris]

'Power hungry' is a very emotive phrase, suggestive of Hitler, Napoleon etc as well as those I mentioned already. There is no reason to believe Mohammed sought personal power rather than a better life for his people and indeed humanity in general, although, granted, such people are rare indeed. Even apart from that, the argument is unconvincing. Many conquerors were actually very austere in their personal habits... they were simply too focused on what they were doing to worry about accumulating or enjoying the trappings of wealth.

I think all the conquerors looked for power and wealth.But Muhammad lived this hard life till he died although the Muslim treasury was at his disposal, the greater part of the Arabian Peninsula was Muslim before he died.

[Trumble]

I think all the conquerors looked for power and wealth.

Actually, the usual obsession was eternal fame and glory rather than power and wealth, although I suppose you could say in most cases the ability to achieve the former depended largely on possessing the latter. Power and wealth was the means, not the end.

[lavikor201]

But can a madman live such a sane life, where he founds an empire,

Hitler did, to make a brutal and unfair comparison.

[DAWUD_adnan]

Sister malaikah, i dont know why you bother , just keep thining to yourself '' Well see on The Day of Judgement'' yu know its gonna come right? so keep it in mind there is no point, most people will never understand.. leave it, this is what you should have said ( and the Quran says)..''[20:135] Say, "All of us are waiting, so wait; you will surely find out who are on the correct path, and who are truly guided." Peace

[Abu Zakariya]

I haven't read all of the posts, but the point about Plato's philosophicial argument about "the noble lie" is particularly interesting.
I learned (from a lecture by Yasir Qadhi actually) that a sect in Muslim history (called "the Mu'tazilah") actually adopted this philosophical argument and said that the Prophets only said these things to the masses because this was the only way they could be better people, and that there in fact was no Hereafter. And they said that because of this, the philosophers are on a higher level than the Prophets, since they - the "Elite" - know the real truth while the Prophets only preached to the masses. So you're not the only one coming up with this argument.

However, there's one thing you have to know. The main conflict between the Muslims and the Pagans wasn't about a system of ethics. The reason why the Pagans couldn't accept the religion of Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was because he demanded from them that they cease in their worship of the idols. They were even ready to make him their king, as long as he stopped calling to monotheism. This is crucial. Because, if his real intention was to come up with a system of ethics (in a religious package), why didn't he accept their offer? He would've become their king and he could come up with a system of ethics and his mission would've been accomplished. So obviously it wasn't about that. Instead, he was tortured and had to leave his own country because he continued to preach about monotheism, and they couldn't stand it. He only needed to say that the idols can be intercessors to God, and he would've become their leader. The Quraysh even believed in one God. But they also believed that these idols were intermediares between themselves and God. And they even believed that God controlled these idols. They basically believed in them as saints. So the only thing Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) had to do for him to become the ruler of Makkah and change the system of ethics to the better, was to say that these saints could be turned to as intercessors to God. He didn't even have to compromise his belief in one God. Why pass up such an opportunity?

Also, Islam's main teching is monotheism, it isn't about ethics (even though that's important and has to do with the Islamic concept of monotheism). If his real intention was to have a new system of ethics, why the emphasis on prayer, fasting etcetera? This is all related to God.

Hitler did, to make a brutal and unfair comparison.

I think that there's a difference between someone thinking that he recieves inspiration from God, and thinks that meets the angel Gabriel etc. and someone who's a madman in the sense that Hitler was. Hitler was more of a madman in the sense that he was evil, not in the sense that he thought that received revelation from God (which is what they claim about Muhammad sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam). It's really not the same thing.

[snakelegs]

That doesn't make sense. How can you say that it is possible that Prophet Muhammad pbuh was sent by God Himself- meaning that everything he said was true, and yet you still think that God it too great to be contained by one religion, even though it was God Himself who revealed that religion.

In other word- God was wrong to have sent the Prophet??:confused:

it's hard to explain to a religious person.
the fact that i believe that it is quite possible that muhammad was a prophet is not the same as believing he was, but i see no reason why he couldn't have been. as for everything he said being true or not - i don't know. some things i believe and some i don't - but neither can i say for certain that it wasn't/isn't true. god probably speaks to different people at different times in ways they can understand - it may be a prophet, it may be a beautiful sun set, the lone flower in the desert, a piece of music, the smell after a good summer rain, the light in a child's eyes etc etc.
i think god is real but i think religion is a man-made institution and one that i personally feel no need for in order to worship god.
but ultimately of course, i do not know and feel that it is unknowable.
as you would say, and i would agree -
and allah knows best.
p.s. i probably have some postive feelings toward muhammad because i listen to naats all day!

[snakelegs]

jst like to add to what sis malaikah jst said...

ur mentality is so corect in one way...God IS too big to be contained in any one religion...

the religion doesnt contain him...he contains the religion...ie, Islam.

well i would say god contains all religions and is beyond them as well.

[Mustafa Sharif]

Salam,
I m with you aswell ^Trumble^
i vote that 1 aswell because i believe that 1 most.. so i vote that 1 and i didnt no which 1 is the right 1.. ALLAH KNOWS THE RIGHT ONE
May Allah Bless You And Everyone.. Inshallah
Fii Amani Allah

Thank you,

Regards

Your Brother : Mustafa Sharif
MUSTAFASHARIF.COM

[snakelegs]

your saying that a religion is not necessary, and that God doesnt need to be worshipped? But thats your own thinking, what if you knew that God himself commanded that you worship him. That makes things a lot different then?

yes, i guess it would make things different and of course what i say is my own thinking and i wouldn't advocate it for anybody else because i don't think you are wrong - simply a different approach.
how could i know that god has commanded that i worship him? i could believe that but i don't think there is any way i could know what god wants. (i do worship god by the way).
we could both be wrong and we could both be right.
(yeah, i am pretty weird!).

[Malaikah]

I m with you aswell ^Trumble^
i vote that 1 aswell because i believe that 1 most.. so i vote that 1 and i didnt no which 1 is the right 1.. ALLAH KNOWS THE RIGHT ONE

:sl:

But you're a Muslim! You believe that Muhammad pbuh was the messenger of God, and none of those things on the poll!!!:uuh:

[Abu Zakariya]

By the way, there's another differerence between Hitler and Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam), apart from what I already said, that makes that comparison more against the "madman theory" than for it. Look at what these two men did and how their lives ended. One of them called for eugenics and genocide, the other one preached devotion to God and tried to wipe out tribal pride and nationalism. One of them is universally hated and considered a madman, the other one is loved around the world and considered on of the - if not the - most influental men in the history of mankind. One of them killed himself, the other one died having united the Arabs (something never done before, because of their tribalism).

So that example isn't really a good one.

[wilberhum]

I just love these “What do you think” polls.
You have a limited choice and if you chose anything other than what the originator conceders the right answers, they explain why you are wrong.
Of course the given explanation only takes into account what they think your reasons are and assumes your opinion was reached as a simple, not thought out, valueless, misconceptions.

Example: (You have to love this one)

When the mushrikoon (the pagan Arabs of his time) claimed the Quran was poetry, Allah responded and said that Muhammad pbuh was not a poet.

Allah responded? If you don’t accept Allah as God, this statement is totally meaningless. This is just another of the 1000’s of arguments that are only considered valid by Muslims.

can a madman live such a sane life, where he founds an empire,

Yes, many have. :hiding:

where all the people love and respect him,

All the people? Do you think the Banû Qurayza loved and respected him? :thumbs_do

[Abu Zakariya]

Allah responded? If you don’t accept Allah as God, this statement is totally meaningless. This is just another of the 1000’s of arguments that are only considered valid by Muslims.

The point was that

1. This isn't a new claim and it has been dealt with earlier.
2. It's been refuted already. You don't need to believe in God to understand the objection to this accusation.

Yes, many have.

Care to give us an example?

All the people? Do you think the Banû Qurayza loved and respected him?

Of course his enemies didn't love him, you take the statement to literally.

[wilberhum]

If Al Madani had not edited my post you would understand why there is no further response. So if you want to know PM me.

[Mustafa Sharif]

:sl:

But you're a Muslim! You believe that Muhammad pbuh was the messenger of God, and none of those things on the poll!!!:uuh:

WALLAHI I DIDNT NO THAT .. I DO BELIEVE THAT THE PROPHET MUHAMMED IS A MESSANGER OF ALLAH

[karim]

i agree

[north_malaysian]

I cant think of Prophet Muhammad of not being a prophet... sorry.. I cant vote.

[thirdwatch512]

Number one: they claim he is a poet.



Number two: He was a mad man (God forbid!)/had epilepsy.

Number three: the prophet was power hungry.


Number four: he imagined that he was a prophet


Number five: the Quran was thought to him by other people.
[/INDENT]

** Please realize that this is my opinion, and I am NOT trying to offend anyone. and i am deeply sorry if i do. **
1. about poetry - the arabs were some of the most poetic people at that time. since they didn't write a whole lot, they would use poetry as a way to remember things better. MANY arabs were poetic. it was normal lol.

2. i don't think he was a mad man. but i still don't think he was a prophet.

3. i doubt he was power hungry either

4. i don't think he imagined he was a prophet either. i think he knew he wasn't.

5. i think a lot of stories inthe qu'ran were taught by other people.

ok now here's my sort of response to all questions in one. and remember this is only my opinion.

mohammad, at that time, taught a pretty good message for such a corrupted society. however, that doesn't by any means mean he was being honest when he said he was inspired by God.

as muslims, you guys believe that mohammad was the last prophet. so you don't believe that the Bab and Baha'u'llah were prophets. yet baha'is do obviously lol. the bab and bahaullah were VERY devout to their teachings, that the bab was killed for it. bahaullah was jailed for life. however, they were very inspirational people. they taught to love God, and to be great people, they taught unity. they taught equality of men and women. they taught that all religions have truth in it. but you guys don't believe it do you? and i don't either. they weren't just about themselves either. in fact, the bab and bahaullah don't even have a book like the hadith. so these people were so inspirational, and VERY serious (to where they were killed from it) but they still stuck with their beliefs.

same with joseph smith, mormon so called prophet. he was VERY devout in his teachings. he was also illeterate(or he claimed.) yet he created the book of mormon. a book with zero contradictions. zip. nada. none. it's bigger then the qu'ran too. but you guys, and i, believe that he wasn't a prophet!!

krishna and hindu's.. same thing.

just because someone is devout, and they seem serious doesn't mean that they are right. the bab and bahaullah weren't trying to get attention and weren't power hungry. neither was joseph smith. but they still taught what they did.

mohammad had TWENTY THREE years to make a book no bigger then a book by lemony snicket, or harry potter. and harry potter took only a few years to write. if someone gave me 23 years of nothing but being a prophet, be rest assured that i could make a book just as good as the qu'ran, only even longer. don't even give me paper, don't give me a computer, don't give me a cell phone.. and i can still do it. easily.

and how can you say that mohammad didn't alk with christians and jews? medina at that time was jewish majority. mohammads cousin was a christian. during a battle these gnostic chrsitians helped him, and he got to stay with them.

and also, one thing that a lot of people don't realize is how similar islam is to gnostic christianity and to judaism. some of the qu'ran stories had been jewish folktales. and a lot of stories had relations to gnostic christians.

as for science.. the qu'ran has verses almost exactly the same as what galen wrote. like they are almost identical teachings. i'm not denying the fact that the qu'ran has science.. i just think the qu'ran has borrowed science.

the claim of science in the qu'ran can be debunked. because all of the science at that time was known, and was very heavily taught in the arab region. also, the Vedas are VERY rich in science, as well as writings by the Buddha.

as for the claim that mohammad was illetarate.. oh please. he came from the richest tribe in arabia and was a trader.. of course he knew how to read and write. if i lived in 600 A.D. i'm sure i could say i was illeterate and people would believe it. that doesn't mean i was being honest though.

[Malaikah]

mohammad had TWENTY THREE years to make a book no bigger then a book by lemony snicket, or harry potter. and harry potter took only a few years to write. if someone gave me 23 years of nothing but being a prophet, be rest assured that i could make a book just as good as the qu'ran, only even longer. don't even give me paper, don't give me a computer, don't give me a cell phone.. and i can still do it. easily.

That is not true. Verses were revealed on demand, depending on the situation they weren't pre-prepared. It is impossible for the prophet to have known that something was going to happen before it did and prepare verses on the spot when a situation was presented to him.

For example, when the Jews wanted to test Muhammad's pbuh knowledge, and they challenged him to tell them the story of Prophet Joseph, the entire chapter was revealed to him at that moment. And it was pages long. And it is also the only story of any prophet in the entire Quran to have one chapter dedicated completely to the whole story of the prophet. Are you telling me the prophet knew that they were going to ask him specifically about Prophet Joseph and prepared the chapter earlier?^o)

and how can you say that mohammad didn't alk with christians and jews? medina at that time was jewish majority. mohammads cousin was a christian. during a battle these gnostic chrsitians helped him, and he got to stay with them.

Okay, firstly, I didn't say that he did not talk with them, but I said none of them could have taught him anything.

Firstly, his 'cousin' wasn't cousin at all, it was his wife;s cousin, and there was no evidence that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh had even met the man before he became a Prophet. And in case you didn't know, he also died three days later, so there is no possibility that he could have helped Muhammad pbuh forge the Quran. (Not to mention he wrote in Hebrew).

Madinah had Jews, yes, and they were enemies with the Prophet lol so I don't think they would have helped him, not to mention that Muhammad didn't go to Madinah until 10 years after the Quran started to be revealed, so they can't be responsible.

and also, one thing that a lot of people don't realize is how similar islam is to gnostic christianity and to judaism. some of the qu'ran stories had been jewish folktales. and a lot of stories had relations to gnostic christians.

What are gnostic Christians?

as for science.. the qu'ran has verses almost exactly the same as what galen wrote. like they are almost identical teachings. i'm not denying the fact that the qu'ran has science.. i just think the qu'ran has borrowed science.

Who was Galen? Can you show me which verses from the Quran match his text?

I believe I have heard this claim before, that Muhammad simply stole theories from philosophers and changed them a bit and kept them. Again, a baseless claim, but even if we assume it has some basis, why is it that Muhammad only kept that parts that were true and didn't include parts of their theories that were incorrect?:rolleyes: He must have been one smart guy to have figured it out himself.

the claim of science in the qu'ran can be debunked. because all of the science at that time was known, and was very heavily taught in the arab region. also, the Vedas are VERY rich in science, as well as writings by the Buddha.

Can you prove that it was well known to the Arabs? That can hardly be true, the Arabs of that time were very backwards with respect to science.

Oh, and you know what is hilarious... some of the things mentioned in the Quran weren't even known 1 century ago... let alone by Greek philosophers! :rolleyes:

as for the claim that mohammad was illetarate.. oh please. he came from the richest tribe in arabia and was a trader.. of course he knew how to read and write. if i lived in 600 A.D. i'm sure i could say i was illeterate and people would believe it. that doesn't mean i was being honest though.

Now you are just making stuff up. He was illiterate, as was almost everyone. All the evidences suggests this, please don't think yourself an authority to assume things and make up your own baseless theories. Do you even know how Arab society functioned? do you know for fact that being part of a noble family meant you had to be literate in Arabia? Do you know that all traders has to be literate? Proof?

Why assume people were stupid just because they lived in 600 A.D. It wouldn't take a genius to figure out if a man were illiterate or not, perhaps seeing him read something might have been a give away.

[thirdwatch512]

first off, please show me some of the science that wasn't known until recently?

the 7 layers of the universe, bees, mountains going under, all of those were known by aristole.. AKA in the B.C. times. all.

as for gnostic christians.. basically, a lot of people made up stories, and said that it was supposed to be in the Bible. there were a ton of people who made thier own gospels, and this and that. gnostic christians followed them. islam has a lot of similarities with it.

and arabs have always been very poetic and known science. before the 1900's, the arabs have ALWAYS been the smart people, all the scientific univerisites were always in persia and what is now saudi arabia, baghdad, damascus, so forth. the arabs and the greeks always knew the most about science.

as for the "prophet" reciting the jews the surah on joseph or whatever.. how do you know that is a true story? what if it was supposed to be metophorical? religions have made these kinds of things up all the time. in hindu scripture it says krishna led an army and killed 1/3 a trillion people. and a billion people almost believe that. but can you honestly say that happened? no! there is no archeological proof, no records, nada. but people still believe in it.

[Malaikah]

first off, please show me some of the science that wasn't known until recently?

the 7 layers of the universe, bees, mountains going under, all of those were known by aristole.. AKA in the B.C. times. all.

The process of formation of the embryo... pretty recent, unless they had microscopes in BC times. :rolleyes:

and arabs have always been very poetic and known science. before the 1900's, the arabs have ALWAYS been the smart people, all the scientific univerisites were always in persia and what is now saudi arabia, baghdad, damascus, so forth. the arabs and the greeks always knew the most about science.

LOL.:D You are correct, but that only occured AFTER Islam was already well establish and the Prophet had passed away. In fact that first university was only ever established by Muslims after Islam was well established.

Except for the poetry, but I'm sure I explained that in my first post already, if you could please refer back to that, and let me know if it still didn't answer your questions.

as for the "prophet" reciting the jews the surah on joseph or whatever.. how do you know that is a true story? what if it was supposed to be metophorical? religions have made these kinds of things up all the time. in hindu scripture it says krishna led an army and killed 1/3 a trillion people. and a billion people almost believe that. but can you honestly say that happened? no! there is no archeological proof, no records, nada. but people still believe in it.

I think you missed the point. The story he told was similar to the version told by the Jews. He didn't just make something up or else that would have proven to the Jews that he was lair!

Don't you know who Joseph is? :? He was Jacob's son, his 10 brothers pretended to kill him and threw him down a well... he was sold as a slave in Egypt, etc...?

[SilentObserver]

** Please realize that this is my opinion, and I am NOT trying to offend anyone. and i am deeply sorry if i do. **

You should not have to apologize, you were invited to give your opinion with impunity, no matter what it is (provided you are not rude while giving it).

[north_malaysian]

You should not have to apologize, you were invited to give your opinion with impunity, no matter what it is (provided you are not rude while giving it).

I dont know about other cultures... but in Malay culture if we give an opinion that we think might offended others .. we have to ask for apologise (but sadly, many Malay Muslims dont practice this culture)imsad

[Umar001]

You should not have to apologize, you were invited to give your opinion with impunity, no matter what it is (provided you are not rude while giving it).

I could not agree more.

I do not think anyone should have to apologise as such, though stating that one is not intenting to cause offence is cool.

I hope also that people do understand the difference between keeping someone quiet and allowing them to put forth their point and then debating or have a dialogue over it.

[SilentObserver]

I hope also that people do understand the difference between keeping someone quiet and allowing them to put forth their point and then debating or have a dialogue over it.

This is something that is very important that some still need to work on, but I think it is getting better.

[Abu Zakariya]

Sister Malaikah has done a good job answering thirdwatch's points, who seems to have confused a lot of the dates and timings. For instance, he speaks of the Madinan Jews while missing the fact that Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) went to Madina only after the Qur'an had already mentioned so much of the stories of the Prophets. Another example is the fact that he confused the time of the Arabs superiority in science, which was after Islam.

I'd just like to link to a website that answers the specifical gnostic Christian and Jewish borrowing theories:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/

Oh, one more thing:

as for the "prophet" reciting the jews the surah on joseph or whatever.. how do you know that is a true story? what if it was supposed to be metophorical? religions have made these kinds of things up all the time.

Well, if you are to be consistent, you would not bring it up, as you did, that there was a Jewish community in Medina. How do we know that there was? It could've been made up.
The thing is that the same sources that state that there were Jews in Medina, also state that they demanded that Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) tell them about Prophet Joseph ('alayhi salam), so if you are going to believe in one thing and not the other, then you are in fact choosing what to believe based on what is convenient for your argument.

[thirdwatch512]

Sister Malaikah has done a good job answering thirdwatch's points, who seems to have confused a lot of the dates and timings. For instance, he speaks of the Madinan Jews while missing the fact that Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) went to Madina only after the Qur'an had already mentioned so much of the stories of the Prophets. Another example is the fact that he confused the time of the Arabs superiority in science, which was after Islam.

I'd just like to link to a website that answers the specifical gnostic Christian and Jewish borrowing theories:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/

Oh, one more thing:



Well, if you are to be consistent, you would not bring it up, as you did, that there was a Jewish community in Medina. How do we know that there was? It could've been made up.
The thing is that the same sources that state that there were Jews in Medina, also state that they demanded that Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) tell them about Prophet Joseph ('alayhi salam), so if you are going to believe in one thing and not the other, then you are in fact choosing what to believe based on what is convenient for your argument.

well, the first point you tried to make was abouts cience in arabia, and how it supposingly came AFTER islam.. that's totally false. science was thriving in arabia, and in the entire arab region. demascus was a science hub. and din't mohammad visit jerusalem and damascus (or live there) for 20 years? hmm, makes you wonder...

then you show a site.. thanks for the link, and i've been reading through a lot of it. but it prooves nothing. like it tries to debunk the fact that there was a pagan god named "allah." but documents, drawings, and so forth show so otherwise. karen armstrong, one of islams biggest non muslim allies even has said that allah was a pagan moon god at that time.

then you ask why would i believe that medina had a lot of jews, but not believe in mohammad when it comes to his so called revelation and recitement of a surah. i believe that medina had a lot of jews because sources show it. documents show it. remains of old syangogues have even been found. torah manuscripts have been found, and so forth. as for mohammad reciting something to the jews.. besides the qu'ran and hadiths, there is no document of that. and also, if he did that, then why did you many jews decide NOT to convert. an entire jewish tribe was KILLED for not converting.

[Malaikah]

well, the first point you tried to make was abouts cience in arabia, and how it supposingly came AFTER islam.. that's totally false. science was thriving in arabia, and in the entire arab region. demascus was a science hub. and din't mohammad visit jerusalem and damascus (or live there) for 20 years? hmm, makes you wonder...

Where are you getting your information from? Provide a source please.

It would be impossible for him to have spent 20 years there, considering he went there for the first time when he was 25, and returned, and was 40 years old when her was in Mecca and became a prophet, which sums to only 15 years which he could have possibly spent in Damascus.

However, from what I know, he only visited for a few months. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could confirm how long he spent there?

and also, if he did that, then why did you many jews decide NOT to convert. an entire jewish tribe was KILLED for not converting.

What a lie! It is about time you got your information straight! They were killed for committing TREASON, huge difference!

And why didn't the Jews convert? Well someone of them did, others didn't because of their arrogance, for years they teased their Arab neighbours that a Jewish prophet was about to come, and when he did he would get rid of them all, and then when their prophet did come, they couldn't handle the fact that he was Arab and not a Jew!

People witnessed many signs of his, including the miracles such as the Quran itself, the splitting of the moon etc, and they still didn't convert. Lack of conversion means nothing, especially when you consider how many people did convert, comparatively, they were much greater than the number who didn't!

[SilentObserver]

Splitting of the moon?

[Malaikah]

One of the Prophet Muhammad's pbuh miracles was his splitting of the moon:

Narrated Anas: "That the Meccan people requested Allah's Apostle to show them a miracle, and so he showed them the splitting of the moon. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 831)"

[thirdwatch512]

One of the Prophet Muhammad's pbuh miracles was his splitting of the moon:

Narrated Anas: "That the Meccan people requested Allah's Apostle to show them a miracle, and so he showed them the splitting of the moon. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 831)"

well i guess a lot of people dont see the moon split. lol.

also, the Bible tells that there will be false prophets in the future who will show miracles, but they are still false.

if you want to hear about a really cool miracle in the sky, let's look at one that happened in 1917, fatima portugal. three kids had seen the virgin mary and talked to her. no one believed them so they said they would show a sign. well, 70,000 people gathered outside and the moon literally was dancing lol. blind people could see, crippled people could walk, and it was amazing. in fact, the first newspaper to report it was a communist newspaper. the virgin mary told them that three events would happen. one was WW2. the other was the pope getting shot (which he did, on may 17th, the SAME DAY mary showed, although of course different year) and the fall of communism in russia.

there are pictures of it, and there are recordings of the people just totally amazed, staarting to say the rosary and just soo surprised. :)

now THAT is a miracle!!

[Malaikah]

You call it a miracle, I call it the devil (if it even happened).

No offense intended.

[SilentObserver]

Moon splitting?

You call it a miracle, I call it the devil (if it even happened).

No offense intended.

[جوري]

I am not generally interested in this topic and don't wish to enter into a vain discourse.. but I found this link and pix from Apollo..... In general I couldn't care less who becomes Muslim or who dances Naked on the streets praising bleezebob--nice to see the same ole crowd though

Moon Splitting-A Miracle of Prophet Muhamad(PBUH) November 12, 2006
Posted by aymenmd in Blogroll. trackback
Among many miracles of Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings be upon him-salla Allahu alayhe wa sallam) one is splitting of the moon. It was Narrated by Anas bin Malik (may Allah be pleased with him): “The people of
Mecca asked Allah’s Apostle to show them a miracle. So he showed them the moon split in two halves between which they saw the Hiram’ mountain. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 208)” It is now proven in two ways: 1) By NASA photos. A Picture from NASA: 2002 October 29

A Lunar Rille
Credit: Apollo 10, NASA Explanation: What could cause a long indentation on the Moon? First discovered over 200 years ago with a small telescope, rilles (rhymes with pills) appear all over the Moon. Three types of rilles are now recognized: sinuous rilles, which have many meandering curves, arcuate rilles which form sweeping arcs, and straight rilles, like Ariadaeus Rille pictured above. Long rilles such as Ariadaeus Rille extend for hundreds of kilometers. Sinuous rilles are now thought to be remnants of ancient lava flows, but the origins of arcuate and linear rilles are still a topic of research. The above linear rille was photographed by the Apollo 10 crew in 1969 during their historic approach to only 14-kilometers above the lunar surface. Two months later, Apollo 11, incorporating much knowledge gained from Apollo 10, landed on the Moon. This is What God told us more than 1400 years ago: In the Name Of Allah The Most Gracious The Most Merciful((The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder.)) Sura 54:1(Al-Qamar( The Moon)) This lead a British citizen to embrace Islam after he saw a TV program by NASA. He read Quran and thought that moon splitting was nonsense. But he revised his stand after seeing the program. 2) By the Indian King of Kerala that witnessed it and had a journey to the Arab peninsula to meet the Prophet and be a Muslim. The journey he never came back from. He died on his way back in the Arab peninsula and was buried there. His descendents who remained faithful to their original religion allowed a mosque to be built in their kingdom and did not interfere with Muslims. Also they still exist and witness the truth of the story. CHAKRAWATI FARMAS KING OF
MALABAR, INDIA The incident relating to King Chakrawati Farmas is documented in an old manuscript in the India Office Library,
London, which has reference number: Arabic, 2807, 152-173. It was quoted in the book “Muhammad Rasulullah,” by M. Hamidullah: “There is a very old tradition in Malabar, South-West Coast of India, that Chakrawati Farmas, one of their kings, had observed the splitting of the moon, the celebrated miracle of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) at Mecca, and learning on inquiry that there was a prediction of the coming of a Messanger of God from Arabia (Detail given bellow), he appointed his son as regent and set out to meet him. He embraced Islam at the hand of the Prophet, and when returning home, at the direction of the Prophet, died at the
port of
Zafar,
Yemen, where the tomb of the “Indian king” was piously visited for many centuries.”The old manuscript in the ‘India Office Library’ contains several other details about King Chakrawati Farmas and his travel[1]. The king spent weeks in seclusion. In the midst of his quiet life, he set out on the journey along with the Arab travelers who’d promised him earlier. On the way, they stopped by Koylandi and from there to Dharmapatnam where they halted for 3 days. Then they set out to Shehr Muqalla. On reaching there, they set for the Hajj pilgrimage and thereafter returned to Malabar. He aspired to spread the message of Islam. But on the way, he fell sick and breathed his last. A tradition of the Holy Prophet has also been reported from one of the companions, Abu Saeed al Kaudri, regarding the arrival of Cheraman Perumel. “A king from
India presented the Messenger of Allah with a bottle of pickle that had ginger in it. The Holy Prophet distributed it among his companions. I also received a piece to eat “. (Hakim reports in ‘Al Musthadrak ) Umar Qazi’s poem on Cheraman Perumal.Umar Qazi was well aware of the story of Cheraman Perumal - the first Indian to accept Islam. He narrates it thus in one of his poems inscribed on the walls of Ponnani Juma Masjid. Kodungallur was a center of festivals established by the great Emperor Cheraman Perumal …..
The major part of all the minor kingdoms were under his rule …
As such, one day he saw he saw the moon split into two (a miracle of Holy Prophet performed in
Arabia) on a clear cloudless night ….
As a result the love for Holy Prophet grew in his heart and he became the earliest Muslim of this nation….[2]Moon Splitting in The QuranThe splitting of the moon is mentioned in the Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Qamar (54), Verses 1-3: The hour drew nigh and the moon was rent in twain.
And if they behold a portent they turn away and say:
Prolonged illusion.They denied (the Truth) and followed their own lusts.
Yet everything will come to a decision. Moon Splitting in HadithsNarrated Abdullah bin Masud: “During the lifetime of the Prophet the moon was split into two parts and on that the Prophet said, ‘Bear witness (to thus).’ (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 830)” Narrated Anas: “That the Meccan people requested Allah’s Apostle to show them a miracle, and so he showed them the splitting of the moon. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 831)” Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: “The moon was split into two parts during the lifetime of the Prophet. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 832)” Narrated Anas bin Malik: “The people of Mecca asked Allah’s Apostle to show them a miracle. So he showed them the moon split in two halves between which they saw the Hiram’ mountain. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 208)” Narrated ‘Abdullah: “The moon was split ( into two pieces ) while we were with the Prophet in Mina. He said, “Be witnesses.” Then a Piece of the moon went towards the mountain. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 209)” Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas: “During the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle the moon was split (into two places). (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 210)” Narrated ‘Abdullah: “The moon was split (into two pieces). (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 211)”[3] According to Maududi, the traditionists and commentators have agreed that this incident took place at Mina in Makkah about five years before the Holy Prophet’s Hijra (migration) to Madinah. The Moon had split into two distinct parts in front of their very eyes. The two parts had separated and receded so much apart from each other that to the on-lookers (in Makkah) one part had appeared on one side of the mountain and the other on the other side of it. Then, in an instant the two had rejoined. This was a manifest proof of the truth that the system of the universe was neither eternal nor immortal, it could be disrupted. This incident indicated that huge stars and planets could split asunder, disintegrate, collide with each other, and everything that had been described in the Qur’an on the Resurrection could happen. The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) invited the people’s attention to this event only with this object in view and asked them to mark it and be a witness to it. But the disbelievers described it as a magical illusion and persisted in their denial. They were reproached in Surah Al-Qamar (The Moon) for their stubbornness. Other Relevant Notes
It is due to this incident about their king, the people of Malabar became the first community in India to accept Islam. Subsequently, they increased their trade with Arabs, as the Arab ships used to pass by their shores on the way to China before the advent of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Before Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), Malabar also had a Christian community dating back from the earliest followers of Prophet Jesus (’Isa), pbuh. St. Thomas is believed to have migrated to India and died there. This community remained untouched by later theological developments in Christianity until the arrival of Portugese traveler Vasco da Gama. When the British were consolidating their stronghold in India, they deployed the largest naval operation (on the shores of India) against the Muslims of Malabar[4]. Predictions of the coming of a Messanger of God from Arabia Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) was commanded by God to inform that he was not the only Messenger of God to the world [Al Qur’an 46:9]. Scholars say that there had been some 124,000 Prophet sent to the world who preached in the language of the respective people [A Qur’an 14:4]. The true religion they preached and their scriptures got corrupted with passage of time (with the exception of Al Qur’an). However, the message on the last and greatest Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) is retained till date in the scriptures of all major world religions. The Hindu scriptures identify the greatest Prophet to come mentioning details of his birth, events of his life, his followers, etc. Some even give his Arabic name or its equivalents! This article will help creating right belief (Iman) in other religionists. Further, it will help Muslims appreciate yet another facet of greatness of Prophet (Pbuh) and deepen their Iman. We will see here only a sample of the overwhelming evidences! Prophet (Pbuh) Foretold in India (A) Hindu scripturesThere is no doubt that God sent Prophets (Pbuh) to people of India. There is no mention of any Indian Prophet or scripture in Holy Qur’an. But Bukhari records Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) as saying he was enjoying breeze wafting from India laden with fragrance of Tawhid (unity of God). The four Vedas (scriptures) of Hindus and their epics are said to be 5000-10,000 years old. They contain a great deal of monotheistic ideas, and of course, prophecies on Hadrath Muhammad (Pbuh). Bhavishya Puran
This is a Sanskrit work of prophecies. The title means ‘Book of the Future’. Since Hinduism is based in India it was, and still is, taken for granted that its sages will be born in India itself. Contrary to this belief the Book says that a great master will appear in a foreign country (mlechcha acharya) and live in a sandy region (marusthal). His name will be Mahaaamad. Within a short span of 18 couplets Mahaamad is mentioned five times. There is an interesting information in Bhavishya Purana that Mahaamad would appear to Bhoj, ruler of Dhar, and say that he would establish the religion of meat eaters, by the command of Ishwar i.e. God. There is a tradition that long afterwards, Bhoj got terrified on seeing the full moon split into two. Learned men consulted holy books and told him that it was one of the signs of the Universal Master to be born in a country to the West. Bhoj sent his minister to Prophet (Pbuh) in Arabia, who named the king Abdullah. The Tomb of Abdullah is still there at Dhar… Mahabharat
This is a Hindu epic describing the struggle and triumph of good against evil. It was written by sage Vyas who also authored Bhavishya Purana. Mahabharata says that in the last eon called Kali Yug (in which we now live) a great sage will appear with name Mahaamad. He would preach about unity of God. He will be driven away from his native place by his own folk. By him the world would get peace. (Islam means peace). Mahabharat further says that cloud will provide him shade. It is recorded in history that Buhaira, the Christian priest of Syria observed this sign with Muhammad e in his boyhood and identified him as the last Prophet anticipated for millennia. Kalki Puran
The signs and events of the final Avatar Kalki point out to final Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh). They fit those of Muhammad (Pbuh) neatly and perfectly. They are as follows;

Kalki will appear in the last on Kali Yug and will be the guide for the entire world.
He will be born on the 12th day of the month. Prophet (Pbuh) as born on 12th Of Rabiyyul Awwal).
His parents will be: Vishnu Bhagat and Soomati meaning servant of God (the Cherisher) and peace. (Messenger’s (Pbuh) father’s name was Abdullah, God’s servant and mother was Amina refuge giver which includes the idea of ‘peace’.)
He will be with a beauty par-excellence. His body will be fragrant.
He will get wisdom on a mountain. (Messenger (Pbuh) was conferred Prophethood on Mt.Hira)
He will receive a horse from God, which will be faster than lightning. Riding it he will go around the earth and seven skies. (During Mi’raj Prophet (Pbuh) got Buraq meaning lightning and toured the entire universe.)
Kalki will split the moon. Like Bhoj, Cheraman (Zamorin) Perumal the ruler of Indian kingdom of Kerala, witnessed splitting of the moon performed by Prophet (Pbuh). After gathering the facts he sailed to Arabia and became Muslim at Prophet’s (Pbuh) hand. His Tomb is near the city of Salala in Oman[5].


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1] See: “CHAKRAWATI FARMAS King of Malabar India” by Dr. Z. HAQ at http://cyberistan. org/islamic/ farmas.html[2] See: “Cheraman Perumal The First Indian To Accept Islam” at http://jaihoon. com/watan/ perumalfirst. htm.[3] See: “Did Prophet Muhammad really split the moon with his index finger” at http://www.answerin g-christianity. com/moon_ split.htm[4] See: “CHAKRAWATI FARMAS King of Malabar, India” by Dr.Z.HAQ at http://cyberistan. org/islamic/ farmas.html[5] See: “Ultimate Prophet (Pbuh) Foretold” by M. I. Liaqat Ali at http://www.geocitie s.com/WestHollyw ood/Park/ 6443/Muhammed/ scriptures. html.

[thirdwatch512]

^^ interesting article, but i don't fall for it at all. the moon has all kinds of holes in it, and lines, and this and that. when they were driving on the moon they even left drive mark things lol.

if the moon did split the astronauts would have reorded that a rille would have gone all over the entire moon, and not just suddenly stop somewhere or start somewhere. and if the moon ever did split it prolly wouldn't piece together.

[جوري]

you tell yourself whatever you need and believe what you will :rolleyes:

[SilentObserver]

It is now proven in two ways: 1) By NASA photos. A Picture from NASA: 2002 October 29

Proven? It is amazing what some will call proof. This can hardly qualify as evidence, let alone proof.

The moon did not split in two.

[جوري]

here is an amazing little secret to let you on
there are (some) 1.8 Billion Muslims in the world and growing!.... Who even if didn't have vids. from Nasa, or pirctures or or or..... would know that the moon has split simply because it is the the word of G-D in his noble book!
There will always be people such as your person who are displeased with everything and indeed it is your prerogative... people who will throw little temper tantrums (I say it didn't happen, it didn't happen, It didn't happen) wishful thinking (nya nya nya nya nyaaaaaaaaaa).... let me carpet bomb the phrase with the most distilled essence of condescension ..... and it is cool.. it is amusing one some level that it threatens you so much you have to keep resurrecting an old post, which may lead other members to decipher what they may of your Psyche!

I'll still have to reference you to above written... by all mean Believe or disbelieve what you wish... No one is holding a gun to your head!

[Keltoi]

I don't think a canyon on the moon is evidence that God split the thing in two, but I'm not going to suggest it didn't happen. I don't know, I'm just a human being. Unlike many on this forum, I don't feel the need to call into question the faith of other people.

[جوري]

lol... is this a little confessional where people come to purge their souls of their ills? ..
Frequented by Skeptics, Bible thumpers, the "chosen". the fanatics. the emotionally disturbed, the philosophers, the die hard haters and faithful alike....

Someone should run a psychological experiment to the not so hidden meanings in some of these posts. It really is no longer a place of exchange or learning.......

.... very seldom is someone so fickle that a statement made by another post will sway their opinion one way or another. Especially one running along the lines of (oh wishful thinking) ... or "I don't think a canyon"etc etc--- coming from one who isn't a professional in that field!

NO one here has control over what another person feels or thinks. At least I don't think anyone is that talented! It is the job of the Muslims on the forum considering that it is an Islamic forum-- to explain Islamic Jurisprudence. Provide some history... and explain the Quran as is understood by Muslims, and the facets where Islam would dictate one's action and dealings with society and other beings to the new comers seeking knowledge on that subject Period!... All else is a waste of time... it is the reason I personally no longer visit the World's Affair forum.....

If you need this kind of exchange as it validates your identity as a person by all means. I have said all that needed to be said of this thread!

[AbuAbdallah]

salaam,
Here is my opinion, if NASA came out and said that in fact the moon was split 1400 years ago, not every non believer is going to convert to Islam.

[Siraaj]

Twelve Proofs that Muhammad is a True Prophet

Shaykh `Abdul Rahman `Abdul Khaliq

Originally published by IANA



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My brothers and sisters everywhere! With this essay, I am not singling out the adherents of Islam - to which I ascribe - but rather I am writing this essay to every man and woman throughout the whole world.

I ask Allah that He facilitates tat this essay reaches every ear, falls under the sight of every eye, and is understood by every heart...

Muhammad the son of `Abdullah is Allah's Prophet and the Final Messenger Sent by Allah to the Inhabitants of Earth.

My brothers and sisters everywhere! You should know that the Messenger, Muhammad the son of `Abdullah (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) is Allah's Messenger in reality and truth. The evidences that show his veracity are abundant. None but an infidel, who out of arrogance alone, could deny these signs.

Among these proofs:

1. Muhammad (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) was raised illiterate, unable to read or write, and remained like that till his death. Among all his people, he was known as being truthful and trustworthy. Before receiving revelation, he had no prior knowledge of Religion or any previously sent Message. He remained like that for his first forty years. Revelation then came to Muhammad with the Koran that we now have between our hands. This Koran mentioned most of the accounts found in the previous scriptures, telling us about these events in the greatest detail as if he witnessed them. These accounts came precisely as they were found in the Torah sent down to Moses and in the Gospel sent down to Jesus. Neither the Jews or Christians were able to belie him regarding anything that he said.

2. Muhammad (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) also foretold of everything that would occur to him and his community after him, pertaining to victory, the removal of the tyrannical kingdoms of Chosroes [the royal title for the Zoroastrian kings of Persia] and Caesar, and the establishment of the religion of Islam throughout the earth. These events occurred exactly as Muhammad foretold, as if he was reading the future from an open book.

3. Muhammad (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) also brought an Arabic Koran that is the peak of eloquence and clarity. The Koran challenged those eloquent and fluent Arabs of his time, who initially belied him, to bring forth a single chapter like the Koran. The eloquent Arabs of his day were unable to contest this Koran.

Indeed, till our day, none has ever dared to claim that he has been able to compose words that equal-or even approach-the order, grace, beauty, and splendor of this Glorious Koran.

4. The life history of this Noble Prophet was a perfect example of being upright, merciful, compassionate, truthful, brave, generous, distant from all evil character, and ascetic in all worldly matters, while striving solely for the reward of the Hereafter. Moreover, in all his actions and dealings, he was ever mindful and fearful of Allah.

5. Allah instilled great love for Muhammad (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) in the hearts of all who believed in and met him. This love reached such a degree that any of his companions would willingly sacrifice his (or her) self, mother or father for him.

Till today, those who believe in Muhammad honor and love him. Anyone of those who believe in him would ransom his own family and wealth to see him, even if but once.

6. All of history has not preserved the biography of any person in the manner it has preserved the life of Muhammad, who is the most influential human in history.

Nor has the entire earth known of anyone whom every morning and evening, and many times thereafter throughout the day, is thought of by those who believe in him. Upon remembering Muhammad, the believers in him will greet him and ask Allah to bless him. They do such with full hearts and true love for him.

7. Nor has there every been a man on earth whom is still followed in all his doings by those who believe in him.

Those who believe in Muhammad, sleep in the manner he slept; purify themselves (through ablution and ritual washing) in the manner he purified himself; and adhere to his practice in the way they eat, drink, and clothe themselves.

Indeed in all aspects of their lives, the believers in Muhammad adhere to the teachings he spread among them and the path that he traveled upon during his life.

During every generation, from his day till our time, the believers in this Noble Prophet have fully adhered to his teachings. With some, this has reached the degree that they desire to follow and adhere to the Prophet's way in his personal matters regarding which Allah has not sought of them to adhere to in worship. For example, some will only eat those specific foods or only wear those specific garments that the Messenger liked.

Let alone all that, all those who believe in Muhammad repeat those praises of Allah, special prayers, and invocations that he would say during each of his actions during day and night, like: what he would say when he greeted people, upon entering and leaving the house, entering and leaving the mosque, entering and leaving the bathroom, going to sleep and awaking from sleep, observing the new crescent, observing the new fruit on trees, eating, drinking, dressing, riding, traveling and returning from travel, etc.

Let alone all that, all those who believe in Muhammad fully perform-even to the minute detail-every act of worship-like prayer, fasting, charity, and pilgrimage-as this Noble Messenger (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) taught and as he himself performed.

All of this allows those who believe in him, to live their lives in all aspects with this Noble Messenger as their example, as if he was standing before them, for them to follow in all their doings.

8. There has never been nor will there ever be a man anywhere upon this earth who has received such love, respect, honor, and obedience in all matters-small and large alike-as has this Noble Prophet.

9. Since his day, in every region of the earth and during every period, this Noble Prophet has been followed by individuals from all races, colors and peoples. Many of those who followed him were previously Christians, Jews, pagans, idolaters, or without any religion. Among those who chose to follow him, were those who were known for their sound judgment, wisdom, reflection, and foresight. They chose to follow this Noble Prophet after they witnessed the signs of his truthfulness and the evidences of his miracles. They did not choose to follow Muhammad out of compulsion or coercion or because they had adopted the ways of their fathers and mothers.

Indeed many of the followers of this Prophet (may Allah's blessings peace be upon him), chose to follow him during the time when Islam was weak, when there were few Muslims, and when there was severe persecution of his followers on earth. Most people who have followed this Prophet (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) have done so not to acquire some material benefits. Indeed many of his followers have suffered the greatest forms of harm and persecution as a result of following this Prophet. Despite all this harm and persecution, this did not turn them back from his religion.

My brethren! All of this clearly indicates to anyone possessing any sense, that this Prophet was truly and really Allah's messenger and that he was not just a man who claimed prophethood or spoke about Allah without knowledge.

10. With all this, Muhammad came with a great religion in its credal and legal make-up.

Muhammad described Allah with qualities of complete perfection, and at the same time in a manner that is free of ascribing to Him any imperfection. Neither the philosophers or the wise could ever describe Allah like such. Indeed it is impossible to imagine that any human mind could conceive of an existing being that possesses such complete ability, knowledge, and greatness; Who has subdued the creation; Who has encompassed everything in the universe, small or large; and Who possesses such perfect mercy.

Nor is it in the ability of any human being to place a perfect law based upon justice, equality, mercy and objectivity for all human activity on earth like the laws that Muhammad brought for all spheres of human activity - like buying and selling, marriage and divorce, renting, testimony, custody, and all other contracts that are necessary to uphold life and civilization on earth.

11. It is impossible that any person conceive wisdom,, morals, good manners, nobleness of characters as what this honorable Prophet (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) brought.

In a full and complete manner, Muhammad spread a teaching regarding character and manners toward one' parents, relatives, fiends, family, humanity, animals, plants and inanimate objects. It is impossible for the human mind alone to grasp all of that teaching or come with a similar teaching.

All of that unequivocally indicates that this Messenger did not bring an) of this religion from his own accord, but that it was rather a teaching and inspiration that he received from the One Who created the earth and the high heavens above and created this universe in its miraculous architecture and perfection.

12. The legal and credal make-up of the religion that the Messenger, Muhammad, (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) brought resembles the engineering of the heavens and the earth. All of that indicates that He who created the heavens and the earth is the One Who sent down this great law and upright religion.

The degree of inimitability of the Divine law that was sent down upon Muhammad is to the same degree of inimitability of the Divine creation of the heavens and earth. For just as humanity cannot create this universe, in the same manner humanity cannot bring forth a law like Allah's law that He sent down upon His servant and messenger Muhammad (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him).

[SilentObserver]

here is an amazing little secret to let you on
there are (some) 1.8 Billion Muslims in the world and growing!.... Who even if didn't have vids. from Nasa, or pirctures or or or..... would know that the moon has split simply because it is the the word of G-D in his noble book!
There will always be people such as your person who are displeased with everything and indeed it is your prerogative... people who will throw little temper tantrums (I say it didn't happen, it didn't happen, It didn't happen) wishful thinking (nya nya nya nya nyaaaaaaaaaa).... let me carpet bomb the phrase with the most distilled essence of condescension ..... and it is cool.. it is amusing one some level that it threatens you so much you have to keep resurrecting an old post, which may lead other members to decipher what they may of your Psyche!

I'll still have to reference you to above written... by all mean Believe or disbelieve what you wish... No one is holding a gun to your head!

Threatens? LOL! No, not at all. I am amused by your analysis of my psyche, and I invite you to continue. Would you prefer if I allow you to draw conclusions and let you know later how close you are to allow you to gage your ability? Or would you prefer I let you know 'on the fly' so as to make course corrections, and avoid going to far off? Sounds like fun either way.

threatens you so much you have to keep resurrecting an old post

Actually, what happened was I was viewing who was online and someone was viewing this thread, so I had a look. Nothing more sinister than that, I promise:Evil: .
My comment was more about the definition of "proof", than about the moon splitting in two (which it did not:rollseyes ).

[جوري]

Threatens? LOL! No, not at all. I am amused by your analysis of my psyche, and I invite you to continue. Would you prefer if I allow you to draw conclusions and let you know later how close you are to allow you to gage your ability? Or would you prefer I let you know 'on the fly' so as to make course corrections, and avoid going to far off? Sounds like fun either way.).

Have no desire or need "analyze your Psyche"...As a general rule in medicine the term “zebra” is commonly and universally understood as a reference to a rare condition. Physicians are taught to assume that the simplest explanation is usually the best, so as not to go around diagnosing folks with all sorts of exotic disease that are highly unlikely. That be disease of the mind or otherwise.... Common things are common and rare things are rare. And you dear sir are as common as they get! Any fun to be had at this rate should be experienced solo by your person!

Actually, what happened was I was viewing who was online and someone was viewing this thread, so I had a look. Nothing more sinister than that, I promise:Evil: .
My comment was more about the definition of "proof", than about the moon splitting in two (which it did not:rollseyes ).

That is fantastic... What ever cure you can find to remedy that itch, go for it! I too should be entitled to Ahem! a roll of the eyes :rollseyes

[SilentObserver]

Have no desire or need "analyze your Psyche"...As a general rule in medicine the term “zebra” is commonly and universally understood as a reference to a rare condition. Physicians are taught to assume that the simplest explanation is usually the best, so as not to go around diagnosing folks with all sorts of exotic disease that are highly unlikely. That be disease of the mind or otherwise.... Common things are common and rare things are rare. And you dear sir are as common as they get! Any fun to be had at this rate should be experienced solo by your person!


That is fantastic... What ever cure you can find to remedy that itch, go for it! I too should be entitled to Ahem! a roll of the eyes :rollseyes

And you dear sir are as common as they get!

Sir? Ouch, please, that makes me feel so old. Humour me if you don't mind, and explain what is common about me. I only ask because in my daily life, I frequently hear otherwise. Quite frankly, I welcome being considered 'normal'(if common can be considered normal).

That is fantastic... What ever cure you can find to remedy that itch, go for it!

Which itch(I have a few)?

I too should be entitled to Ahem! a roll of the eyes :rollseyes

Of course! Please indulge!

[جوري]

Sir? Ouch, please, that makes me feel so old. Humour me if you don't mind, and explain what is common about me. I only ask because in my daily life, I frequently hear otherwise. Quite frankly, I welcome being considered 'normal'(if common can be considered normal).!

You should consider the company you keep when reflecting on what you just wrote!

Which itch(I have a few)?

Acyclovir 5% modified aqueous cream generally requires a prescription and isn't considered a cure... but I am speaking of your itch that flares incessantly on this forum.

Of course! Please indulge!

I think you have wasted enough of my time! I recommend "When You Are Old"
by Will Butler Yeats -- He most assuredly will "indulge" you better!

[SilentObserver]

You should consider the company you keep when reflecting on what you just wrote!

If you could understand the context in which this much is said, you would likely feel differently. Some of my peers are exceptional, but fail to see their own unique ability. So honestly, the company I keep would be rewarding for anyone as fortunate as I if given the chance to also keep the same company.

Acyclovir 5% modified aqueous cream generally requires a prescription and isn't considered a cure... but I am speaking of your itch that flares incessantly on this forum.

LOL! You have a sense of humour after all! "Remember kids, you can control it, but you can't cure it."
I have been accused of a number of things on this forum, so I hope you will excuse me for not knowing exactly which itch. (or is it 'witch itch'? No, that's the one I would need the cream for.)

I think you have wasted enough of my time!

Oh, come on, be honest. You were having fun too.

I recommend "When You Are Old"
by Will Butler Yeats -- He most assuredly will "indulge" you better!

I like that one, a tasteful choice.

When You Are Old

When you are old and grey and full of sleep,
And nodding by the fire, take down this book,
And slowly read, and dream of the soft look
Your eyes had once, and of their shadows deep;

How many loved your moments of glad grace,
And loved your beauty with love false or true,
But one man loved the pilgrim soul in you,
And loved the sorrows of your changing face;

And bending down beside the glowing bars,
Murmur, a little sadly, how Love fled
And paced upon the mountains overhead
And hid his face amid a crowd of stars.

-- William Butler Yeats

Poor Will, he spent so much time writing about growing old. I wonder if he was bothered by his passing years, or simply appreciated what age had brought him.

[Malaikah]

Aren't we getting a little of topic here...?

[AbuAbdallah]

salaam,

"My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level." [Michael H. Hart, THE 100: A RANKING OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSONS IN HISTORY, New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc., 1978, p. 33.]

That is because he was receiving revelation from the Almighty.

[AbuAbdallah]

"He was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope's pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports." [Bosworth Smith, MOHAMMAD AND MOHAMMADANISM, London, 1874, p. 92.]

[Asyur an-Nagi]

i didn't vote. i have no problem with the concept of muhammad being a prophet.

archetypal snake's answer :D simple and sensible.

[Malaikah]

^Not to mention that he was well known for his honesty and integrity, devotion to God, his kindness, selflessness and justice, which even his enemies could not deny...

Kathleena, your post has demonstrated a remarkable lack of understand about Islam and the Messenger of God, Muhammad (peace be upon him).