The trouble with prophets

format_quote Originally Posted by Saimah Ali

this thread starting post is so silly

Really? I thought it was a pretty good question, because it applies to you as well.

format_quote Originally Posted by - Qatada -

This is the EXACT reason Allah sent Messengers', so we had a clear distinction and agreement as to the difference between wrong and right, truth and falsehood. So mankind could unite upon that set truth and live at peace with one another.

Peace.

Does he still keep sending messengers? Prophets haven't stopped coming. Hard to tell who's real and fake. Instead of sending messengers, god itself could just come down (probably never gonna happen).

format_quote Originally Posted by K.Venugopal

This verse in Quran suggests that soul/spirit is a valid subject, of which Islam does not proceed to say much. However, Vedas say much about the soul/spirit and therefore Hinduism leads its practitioners to divinity, whereas the Quran, as conceded in the above Quranic verse, does not say much of the soul/spirit and therefore Islam does not take its practitioners much beyond being loyal slaves of Allah.

I am pressed for time today-- so let's make it brief..
The soul as discussed in the Quran and Sunna
Database Search Results

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

The query [soul] generated the following matches:

Translations of the Qur'an

002.048 002.123 002.200 002.231 002.233 002.281 002.286 003.025 003.030 003.091 003.145 003.161 003.185 004.001 004.079 004.110 004.111 005.030 005.032 006.061 006.070 006.098 006.104 006.151 006.152 006.158 006.164 007.042 007.188 007.189 007.205 010.030 010.044 010.046 010.054 010.100 010.108 011.105 012.053 012.068 012.077 012.101 013.033 013.040 013.042 014.051 016.111 017.014 017.015 017.085 018.006 018.028 018.035 018.074 020.015 020.096 021.035 021.047 023.062 025.068 026.003 027.014 027.040 027.044 027.062 027.092 028.016 029.006 029.057 031.012 031.028 031.034 032.013 032.017 033.037 033.050 034.019 034.050 035.008 035.018 035.032 036.054 039.007 039.041 039.042 039.056 039.070 040.017 040.077 041.046 045.015 045.022 047.038 048.010 050.016 050.021 053.058 056.002 056.083 056.087 059.009 059.018 063.011 064.016 065.001 065.007 073.006 074.038 075.002 075.026 079.040 081.014 082.005 082.019 086.004 089.027 091.007
http://www.usc.edu/cgi-bin/msasearch

`- The query [soul] generated the following matches:

Complete Sahih Bukhari

001.003.115 001.003.124 001.011.617 001.012.768 002.013.055 002.023.375 002.023.399 002.023.434 002.023.444 002.023.471 002.026.795 003.031.118 003.031.128 003.031.189 003.034.291 003.034.425 003.034.432 003.040.555 003.043.642 003.046.718 003.046.724 003.047.785 003.050.885 003.050.891 004.052.059 004.052.283 004.053.340 004.054.430 004.054.467 004.055.549 004.055.657 004.056.659 005.058.254 005.059.314 005.059.459 005.059.462 005.059.541 005.059.542 005.059.546 005.059.597 005.059.702 005.059.740 006.060.151 006.060.159 006.060.160 006.060.236 006.060.249 006.060.250 006.060.251 006.060.302 006.060.303 006.060.378 006.060.473 007.062.137 007.072.735 008.073.008 008.073.161 008.073.237 008.076.509 008.076.513 008.076.516 008.076.535 008.076.537 008.076.542 008.076.570 008.077.593 008.077.600 008.078.625 008.078.626 008.078.628 008.078.629 008.078.630 008.078.631 008.078.632 008.078.634 008.078.635 008.078.636 008.078.637 008.078.638 008.078.639 008.078.640 008.078.698 008.081.778 008.082.815 008.082.821 008.082.826 008.082.842 009.083.050 009.087.165 009.088.189 009.088.237 009.093.485 009.093.506 009.093.507 009.093.532v 009.093.546 009.093.601

Complete Sahih Muslim

001.0157 001.0221 001.0228 001.0229 001.0363 004.0946 004.1680 004.1995 004.2003 004.2005 004.2008 004.2098 005.2219 005.2287 008.3371 008.3373 008.3380 010.3788 017.4238 024.5268 024.5272 024.5273 027.5595 027.5597 031.5933 033.6406 035.6568 039.6712 040.6780 040.6782 040.6783 040.6867 040.6868 043.7171 043.7172 043.7173

Partial Sunan Abu Dawud

002.0667 008.1543 009.1645 010.2036 014.2681A 014.2730 021.3258 025.3639 038.4414 038.4426 039.4522 041.4883

http://www.usc.edu/cgi-bin/msasearch

feel free to follow the site enclosed and validate-- If anything, it shows how much you know of Islam!

I enjoy otherwise how you seem to draw such satisfaction out of simplistic conclusions.. I suppose indeed in the end that is why you are a Hindu.. what modern day human thinks holy sh*t is an object for consecration?

cheers

format_quote Originally Posted by Qingu

By "prove" do you mean "quote from the prophet's loyal followers"?

.

surely even you have heard of recorded history? I believe they teach it in school as a separate course? Or do you believe in it as registered in a permanent form only when you deem the subject derogatory and can engage in discourse about it until kingdom come? What a hilarious hypocrite!

as an addendum:

in science you can never prove something to be true.. surely an 'educated' person such as yourself has heard of the null hypothesis? perhaps you can use the scientific method-- confidence interval and P value amongst others to make us too arrive to your learned conclusion? put the proper variables into each component using set criteria as given in the Quran .. or the single variable I have proposed just a few pages ago.. or you can buzz off on the account I don't think you either understand the scientific method, what science actually proposes, or what is recorded history or how to separate that from other fields even that are the component of the human condition ...

a sample of the scientific method from every day life

Those of us who understand the scientific method.. come across what is known as the Null Hypothesis --the first thing to do when given a claim is to write the claim mathematically (if possible), and decide whether the given claim is the null or alternative hypothesis. If the given claim contains equality, or a statement of no change from the given or accepted condition, then it is the null hypothesis, otherwise, if it represents change, it is the alternative hypothesis..

when using the scientific method, we never accept the null hypothesis, we either reject it or fail to reject it.. and that alone in the vernacular defines for one, that nothing is 100% absolute.

I don't know how many scientists you've come across? But to be a scientist doesn't denote you accept things at face value or because a percentage of it believes this or that to be true.. , prior I have given an analogy of Dr. Sampson's hypothesis:

for simplicity sake, let's take Dr. John Sampson's theory of retrograde menstruation as a cause of endometriosis, seems plausible for all intensive purposes, that blood traveling backwards carrying in its midst endometrial cells, can implant itself in the vicinity, and this endometrial like tissue acts very much like the linning of the uterus, responding to hormones and may shed from where it shouldn't cause various other nuisances to millions of women-- well how does this theory reconcile for women who have retrograde menses but never develop endometriosis? or how does it reconcile it for women who develop endometriosis in the lung or the nose or the liver, far away from uterine blood? Someone else sits down and challenges the theory, states no it is spread via lymphatics, another says it is iatrogenic due to doctor error, no it is environmental, no cells can naturally morph into others as a result of hormone therapy, no it is auto-immune in origin, no it favors only hispanic women because of genetics.. Do we actually know? we can theorize, and the theories appear very plausible and by folks who have earned their place in the scientific community, but we don't peddle theories as facts and then impugn those who theorize differently...You'd be interested to know that today the theory most people accept is Dr. Sampson's, but the question marks are left in the areas that his theory fails to address!

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post993317

format_quote Originally Posted by Qingu

How many ancient historical texts have you studied?

Enogh to be asked to take over the professor's course in my undergrad for the 10 days he was on vacation!

Even texts by well-regarded historians (like Thucidydes) are full of errors and exaggerations and legends.

we're not talking about Thucidyces.. we are talking acceptable history that is taught in textbooks.. unless you personally were there and have a different eye witness, I suggest you keep your theories to yourself or likeminded individuals who would rather get their facts from a cesspool than respected scholars!

The highly respected Roman historian Seutonius recorded that the Roman Emperor had the power to heal cripples and blind people.

see my previous reply-- otherwise-- when arguing against Islam don't take the arguments that appeal to you contextually and leave the rest.. you come across as a blathering fool!

Josephus, another respected ancient historian, recorded that an army of warriors and chariots appeared in the clouds, portenting the war between Romans and Jews during the first century A.D.

so?

Alexander the Great's historians recorded that he had magic powers, sometimes that he was actually descended from gods.

see my previous replies!

And this is to say nothing of religious texts. Many Hindus regard their epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, as official history—these stories tell of gigantic talking monkeys, of gods throwing mountains at magic archers who shoot them into pieces with arrows, of demons who ride flying chariots, etc.

I guess you are on to something.. religion indeed should make accurate sense at least 90% of the time-- if it makes sense in great part then faith will cover the whole.. the same way you put blind faith in evolution without respect to documented mutations or have it be in convert with such things as trinucleotide repeat expansion disorders in terms of natural selection!
faith is faith whether expressed in science or religion.. do read the post right on top of this for more details!

Surely you're not suggesting that "recorded history" is perfectly accurate? I mean, you don't even believe this about your own tradition's recorded history (i.e. the Bible).

unless you have something equally reputable and equally ancient to refute it, which is in fact the case of much of the nonsense you have proposed, then I don't see any reason why not-- further if coroborated by other historians or texts across the centuries then I don't see how one can deny it.. again, unless you personally were there and of credible character, you are in no position really to state what is accurate history and what is mythology!

In any case, Skye—unless you start responding with reasoning instead of childish ad hominem insults, this is the last time I am going to respond to one of your posts. Peace be upon you

that sounds great.. I'd rather you buzz off!

cheers

format_quote Originally Posted by Qingu

That's wonderful. Likewise, I believe the Universe does not have a beginning, nor is dependent upon another.

So does Stephen Hawking, probably the best-respected physicist of our time, along with hundreds of other physicists.

So where does that leave us? It seems like your argument for God only works if you mis-characterize what atheists and physicists are saying about the origin of the universe and go from there.

kool, so let's get this straight. You believe that this universe is eternal, and its just by coincidence that the universe formed in harmony - with order prevailing instead of chaos (surprising isn't it?), and furthermore this order is in such a state that it is able to produce life in such a way that scientists themselves are unable to do the same, but wait - let's look at the possibility of life coming into existence without the aid of control - the concept of abiogenesis;

An average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can be arranged in 10300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number, consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) Of all these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid chains that are either totally useless or else potentially harmful to living things.

In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein molecule is "1 in 10 to the power 300" [300 zeros after it!] . The probability of this "1" to occur is practically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 10 to the power of 50 [50 zeros after it] are thought of as "zero probability"). So imagine 300 zeros after it, its more impossible than impossible itself.

Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is a rather modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" is insufficient to describe the true situation.


When we proceed one step further in the evolutionary scheme of life, we observe that one single protein means nothing by itself. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma hominis H39, contains 600 "types" of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability calculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility.

Please don't quote me Miller, because his own teacher says the following (Miller himself later admitted his environment was false and not accurate);


Harold Urey (an evolutionist scientist who performed the Miller Experiment together with his student Stanley Miller):

All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.

W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co. , 1991, p. 325.

By "prove" do you mean "quote from the prophet's loyal followers"?

Because that's easy.

If you can't answer me as to why Prophet Muhammad claimed Prophethood, then maybe this question is easier; Why did his followers choose to follow him when they knew they would be expelled from their households, tortured, rejected and even killed by following him? While knowing that they have no worldly benefit in doing so?

If you say they were ignorant and therefore easily believed in him, then is someone so gullible really willing to go through so much sacrifices? And further on - be teachers for mankind, for the most advanced civilization in the world? You know that many of these companions later on became governors of the great Persia [former Sassanid empire], Syria [former byzantine power], within just a few years after Prophet Muhammad's death right? Just as he had promised them. If he was false in his Prophecies, then why did they believe his claim and actually achieve it?

No, this is not what I said.

I said it is conceivable that all prophets are just after fame and/or power.

I then asked how Muslims differentiate between such prophets and "true" prophets like their own.

So far, I haven't seen a single argument for Muhammad being a "true prophet" that could not also be applied to Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, or any other "prophet" we both accept as phony. You and your fellow Muslims continually quote from Muhammad's followers who extoll his virtue and sacrifice—as if Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard don't have similar followers who similarly extoll their virtues and sacrifices.

This is really a small example of the general problem with religious apologists. Any argument you make for your religion, by the same logic, can be made for almost any other religion. Any argument you make against rival religions can usually be made against your own religion, using the same logic. The arguments "for" tend to be based on hearsay, non-objective witnesses (like the gospel and hadith authors), and poor arguments about vague prophecies and pseudoscience, and so aren't really logical at all.

As far as prophets go, almost every religious tradition is based on some guy who ran off into a cave or a desert alone and then came back claiming to have spoken to a deity, and then proceeded to round up worshipful followers and occasionally make war on his skeptics and detractors. One wonders why such people are the only ones deities ever bother to speak to.

Well if the points so simple, then why can't you tell me - what was Muhammad after by claiming Prophethood? Is that too much to ask? I don't care about the points people have made generally about 'Prophets' whether the person claiming it is true or false. Since i know that there are many lies, so since I'm a Muslim, I want you to explain to me what Muhammad (peace be upon him) was after in his claim for Prophethood?

If you can answer that, maybe we can go further in the discussion.


Just to make a few relevant points;

1) He never wanted people to overpraise him, he would tell the people to call him "the slave and Messenger of God." and not to exaggerate in his praise like the christians did to Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him.) He also said [translation of the meaning;]

"Beware of exaggerated praise for it was only this which led those before you to destruction" (As Saheehah/Authentic of Al Albaanee #1283) So he wasn't after praise and fame.


2) He lived and died poor, even after being the leader of arabia (the arabs became Muslim willingly during his lifetime), with only a few silver coins in his house before his death. That's because he spent his wealth on the needy all the time. So he wasn't after wealth. If you say he wanted to be the leader of arabia for fame, then why didn't he accept their offer during Makkah instead of facing hardship in Medinah [for 10 long years] later anyway? Surely a person wanting kingdom wants it quick.


3) He could get married to any woman he wanted in Arabia, but he married many widows. The only one being virgin was Aisha. So he wasn't after women. Otherwise he could choose the most beautiful ones, and no-one would argue. But he still never.

What was Muhammad (peace be upon him) after by claiming Prophethood?

on the universe not being dependent on another, if you replace god with matter/energy , wouldn't that be faith as practiced by religion with only the object of faith being different?

as for historical texts and their accurateness, other than being a solipsist, you'll have to accord them some measure of truth, the more recent or those with other texts to compare to being more verifiable.
as for the Qur'an being a historical book and containing expressions and stories that might not be historically accurate or verifiable, see the purpose of stories in the qur'an is not to be accurate as it is to be effective in conveying certain meanings and morals, in the end they are simply stories. notice that the stories are mostly vague when it comes to time or surroundings, or even the order of events.

the purpose of stories is using them in a religious context, for morals and so on, not to entertain us or tell it simply for the telling as many -even muslims- seem to think. the problem arose when some muslims used jewish, sabean and other texts to explain parts of the qur'an, or took some parts too literally.
Qingu was trying to use the presence of tales in holy texts as a refutation to them, my reply is in that context.

I truly don't get how you are comparing Joseph Smith with prophet Muhammad, it's not a very accurate example, don't you think? It's somewhat insulting, although you might not mean it to be.
you like most of us are following the religion of your environment/upbringing, and faith is one of the hardest things to justify, it isn't the scientific method, and doesn't make claims to it anyway. how would you justify the prophet hood of whatever prophets you believe in? as it were the bible is so full of scandals and far from humane actions to make that quite easily refutable for many cases.
n Islam, our paradigm is somewhat different than yours when judging who is prophet/messenger of god or not, and so is our reception of them thereof, if one is indeed claiming to be prophet while he is not, he is to be condemned and rejected, there is no room for dovey feelings or over romanticism. if such a person were genuinely trying to 'correct' what he perceived to be errors, and couldn't know the true message to begin with, then I would sympathize, otherwise the person is spreading a false religion and thus slandering against god.