Muhammad said he was a prophet, therefore we have two possibilities; either he said the truth, or he was a liar and an imposter. Only one of these 2 can be true.
Let’s 1st look at the hypothesis that he was a liar and an imposter, that he himself invented the Quran, and that even though he was illiterate.
First what was Muhammad’s interest to create a new religion? Until the age of 40, he lived a happy and comfortable life with his rich wife Khadija, he was loved and respected for his honesty and morality by all of his tribe. Why would he have gone through 10 years of persecutions, hardships and reject from most of his tribe, what was his interest in going through so much suffering and persevering in the transmission of his message?
Until the end of his mission, even when he ruled almost the whole of the Arabic peninsula (a territory about 5 times the size of France), he always lived in the most complete destitution, sleeping on a bed of dried leaves, without a castle nor a palace or anything resembling it, without a single bodyguard, wearing clothes repaired by himself, shoes repaired by himself… Why did this “imposter” never used all his power to acquire wealth, palaces and luxurious gardens like other kings and heads of states?
And if he only had created this religion in reaction to Jews and Christians as some have claimed, why would about half of the Prophets mentioned in the Quran would be …Jewish? Why does the Quran praise so much Mary the mother of Jesus, a Jewish woman, but never mentions Muhammad’s mother, nor any member of his family?
In order to convince the Arabs, who were often in conflict with the Jews, wouldn’t it have been easier to denigrate all these Jews instead of praising them? Yes, but that’s neither what the Quran says, nor what Muhammad said.
Moreover, if you wanted to create and spread a new religion, surely you’d make it easy to practice, with as few constraints as possible, just like most idolatrous religions of the time. Would you try to impose the complete banning of alcohol, a whole month of fasting every year, 5 compulsory daily prayers at fixed times?… No, it wouldn’t make sense, because nobody would follow such a religion. But amazingly that’s what the Quran and Muhammad have done, without ever accepting any compromise to this message. And the most extraordinary is that this religion has triumphed over all the others !
If Muhammad was an imposter, what was his personal interest to have his people abide by these countless food restrictions, this entire month of fasting every year, these 5 compulsory prayers every day? Why did he insist so much on these restrictions, which personal interest did he get from it?
Of course none, it even made many tribes hesitate and sometimes abandon him. It really made his mission very much harder to fulfill, but yet he never accepted any compromise to this message.
In a famous episode of Muhammad’s life, a tribe called Thaqif accepted to convert to Islam and to obey Muhammad if he allowed them to keep some of their idols and to be exempted from the 5 daily prayers. Muhammad refused categorically. Rather than to acquire absolute power over this important tribe without any effort, he preferred to remain faithful to the message God had transmitted him.
But let’s still continue this hypothesis “Muhammad was an imposter and invented the Quran”, already shaken by these few facts; if Muhammad wasn’t guided by God, then we also have to admit that he was:
-The greatest Arabic writer in history ; because no one can deny that the Quran is the greatest literary piece ever written in this language. Still 14 Centuries later, if you go to any University to study Arabic literature, you’ll study mainly the Quran for its inimitable style and the beauty of its verses. God himself challenges anyone to produce anything like it (Quran 11:13,14). A challenge that still 14 Centuries later no human has been able to meet.
-A scientific genius; the reproduction of humans, of plants, the aquatic origin of all life, the orbits of the sun and the earth, the expansion of the Universe, these are a few of the scientific truths mentioned in the Quran, some of which discovered more than 1000 years later.
-A genius in medicine; thanks to its very strict hygiene and food restrictions, the Quran and the Sunna (the teachings of Muhammad) have allowed Muslim countries that abode by these laws to be spared from most great epidemics that wreaked havoc in other parts of the world. Still today, look at how the latest great epidemics, the AIDS virus, has strangely largely spared the Middle East, the Maghreb and the Arabic peninsula (all the Muslim countries), whereas it causes havoc in all the neighboring regions (Sub-Saharian Africa and South-Western Asia).
Everyone now recognizes the importance of diet, sexual non promiscuity and regular washing of one’s feet and hands to prevent the transmission of diseases. All these principles were dictated 14 Centuries ago by an illiterate Arab who had never studied medicine in his life.
-A genius in law ; The Quran and Muhammad’s Sunna are the first great legislation in history to elaborate such a comprehensive list of the rights and duties of all human beings (several thousands of pages covering a multitude of fields), about 11 Centuries before the West had any kind of counterpart with the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights, itself much less comprehensive than the vastness of domains broached by the Islamic Law.
-A speaker with amazing eloquence; thanks to his wisdom and eloquence, Muhammad managed to touch the heart of billions of human beings and to convince them that he was the Messenger of God, and that in spite of the horrendous persecutions that hit the first men and women that believed in his Mission. He was so much admired that tens of thousands of pages of his sermons and teachings were memorized by his companions and their descendants and put into writing to constitute what we now call the Sunna.
From which other great Man of History have we preserved so many teachings?
-A military genius; what Muhammad accomplished in this field in so little time, he who until the age of 52 (when God revealed him the verse ordering him to defend himself) had never shown any interest for war nor had had any experience whatsoever neither as a fighter or as a strategist, is really beyond the extraordinary.
He’s often compared to Alexander the Great and Napoleon, but what Muhammad accomplished is even more extraordinary, and that for the 2 following reasons:
-While the vast empires that Alexander and Napoleon established crumbled pretty quickly (a few decades after his death for Alexander and in his own lifetime for Napoleon, which shows how little support they had in the land they had conquered), the conquests of Islam not only didn’t crumble after Muhammad’s death, but continued to expand under his companions and successors. Even during the era of colonization, while the Europeans had managed to impose Christianity in most of their colonies, they never succeeded in Muslim countries, such was the attachment of Muslims to their religion. On the contrary, 14 Centuries later, in the whole of Europe and North America, it is islam and mosques are spreading like flooding waters.
-Another big difference: Greece already was a powerful nation when Alexander took power, and France was along with England the most powerful country in Europe when Napoleon came to power. In other words Alexander and Napoleon had right from the start huge means; a great, experienced and well-equipped army…
Muhammad had nothing, no army, no king or nation to support him, he was at the beginning completely alone. He had to convince his co-tribesmen and contemporaries one by one about the truth of his Mission, endure his tribe’s persecutions, build with his companions makeshift weapons to defend himself, then constitute a modest army with people who for many of them had no experience in fighting whatsoever.
From this modest start, and thanks to miraculous victories over armies largely superior in numbers and in means, he succeeded in spreading Islam over almost the whole of the Arabic Peninsula.
How could a man have achieved such a feat if he had not been protected and guided by God?
-A political genius; thanks to judicious treaties with other Arab tribes, intelligent strategic decisions both in and off the battlefield, Muhammad managed to spread Islam on most of the Arab peninsula, and make of this forgotten and desertic land the heart of a civilization that would later expand from Morocco to India !
And what other great King or Emperor managed to rule over such a large territory without ever owning any palace, any fortress, any bodyguard, relying only on his Lord and Creator to Guide him and Protect him?
History has seen a few literary geniuses, and also a few military geniuses, and a handful of geniuses in each of the fields I have mentioned.
But having a man excel in all these fields at once, surpassing all the geniuses from any period of History in such various and different domains, it is simply out of this world. And this coming from a man who had never followed any education and could hardly even read ! ! !
Is it reasonable to think that this man (who until the age of 40¾the beginning of his Mission¾ had never shown any interest for any of these fields) could have suddenly become such a genius?
Or is it more reasonable to think that something really extraordinary happened in this night of the year 610, that through the Angel Gabriel it is really God that addressed him and Guided him in a Divine Mission.
You can guess of course what my opinion is. An opinion based not only on faith but also on reason.
In conclusion, here’s what the great French poet Lamartine said after studying his life:
“If the greatness of a man is to be measured by comparing the smallness of his means with the greatness of his accomplishments, then what great man in History can seriously be compared to Muhammad."
Lamartine, Histoire de la Turquie.
In truth there are really obvious signs for people who meditate. (Quran 13:3)
Muhammad said he was a prophet, therefore we have two possibilities; either he said the truth, or he was a liar and an imposter. Only one of these 2 can be true.
Or he was himself deceived??? That would be a third possibility.
Peace.
Peace glo
Here I stand.
I can do no other.
May God help me.
Amen.
Come, let us worship and bow down •
and kneel before the Lord our Maker
[Psalm 95]
Or he was himself deceived??? That would be a third possibility.
Peace.
Yep that would come under him being truthful thought, because if he was decieved he would be telling the truth, meaning that the source he had told him this and that.
But anyhow, it would be nice to see someone asnwer that
Or he was himself deceived??? That would be a third possibility.
Peace.
If you are implying the possibility of the Prophet(pbuh) being epileptic, then that cannot be so. Below is the extract of a good book i have: "The amazing Qur'an" by Gary Miller.There are good answers here.
Exhausting the Alternatives
The real certainty about the truthfulness of the Qur'an is evident in the confidence which is prevalent throughout it; and this confidence comes from a different approach - "Exhausting the alternatives." In essence, the Qur'an states, "This book is a divine revelation; if you do not believe that, then what is it?" In other words, the reader is challenged to come up with some other explanation. Here is a book made of paper and ink. Where did it come from? It says it is a divine revelation; if it is not, then what is its source? The interesting fact is that no one has yet come up with an explanation that works. In fact, all alternatives have bee exhausted. As has been well established by non-Muslims, these alternatives basically are reduced to two mutually exclusive schools of thought, insisting on one or the other.
On one hand, there exists a large group of people who have researched the Qur'an for hundreds of years and who claim, "One thing we know for sure - that man, Muhammad (s), thought he was a prophet. He was crazy!" They are convinced that Muhammad (s) was fooled somehow. Then on the other hand, there is a group which alleges, "Because of this evidence, one thing we know for sure is that that man, Muhammad (s) was a liar!" Ironically, these two groups never seem to get together without contradicting. In fact, many references to Islam usually claim both theories. They start out by stating that Muhammad (s) was crazy and then end by saying he was a liar. They never seem to realize that he could not have been both! For example, if one is deluded and really thinks that he is a prophet, then he does not sit up late at night planning, "How will I fool the people tomorrow so that they think I am a prophet?" He truly believes that he is a prophet, and he trusts that the answer will be given to him by revelation.
The Critic's Trail
As a matter of fact, a great deal of the Qur'an came in answer to questions.
Someone would ask Muhammad (s) a question, and the revelation would come with the answer to it. Certainly, if one is crazy and believes that an angel put words in his ear, then when someone asks him a question, he thinks that the angel will give him the answer. Because he is crazy, he really thinks that. He does not tell someone to wait a short while and then run to his friends and ask them, "Does anyone know the answer?" This type of behavior is characteristic of one who does not believe that he is a prophet. What the non-Muslims refuse to accept is that you cannot have it both ways. One can be deluded, or he can be a liar. He can br either one or neither one, but he certainly cannot be both! The emphasis is on the fact that they are
unquestionably mutually exclusive personality traits.
The following scenario is a good example of the kind of circle that non-Muslims go around in constantly. If you ask one of them, "What is the origin of the Qur'an?" He tells you that it originated from the mind of a man who was crazy. Then you ask him, "If it came from his head, then where did he get the information contained in it? Certainly the Qur'an mentions many things with which the Arabs were not familiar." So in order to explain the fact which you bring him, he changes his position and says, "Well, maybe he was not crazy. Maybe some foreigner brought him the information. So he lied and told people that he was a prophet." At this point then you have to ask him, "If Muhammad was a liar, then where did he get his confidence? Why did he behave as though he really thought he was a prophet?" Finally backed into a corner, like a cat he quickly lashes out with the first response that comes to his mind. Forgetting that he has already exhausted that possibility, he claims, "Well, maybe he wasn't a liar. He was probably crazy and really thought that he was a prophet." And thus he begins the futile cycle again. As has already been mentioned, there is much information contained in the Qur'an whose source cannot be attributed to anyone other than Allah. For example, who told Muhammad (s) about the wall of Dhul-Qarnayn - a place hundreds of miles to the north? Who told him about embryology? When people assemble facts such as these, if they are not willing to attribute their existence to a divine source, they automatically resort to the assumption someone brought Muhammad (s) the information and that he used it to fool the people. However, this theory can easily be disproved with one simple question: "If Muhammad (s) was a liar, where did he get his confidence? Why did he tell some people out right to their face what others could never say?" Such confidence depends completely upon being convinced that one has a true divine revelation.
A Revelation - Abu Lahab
Prophet Muhammad (s) had an uncle by the name of Abu Lahab. This man hated Islam to such an extent that he used to follow the Prophet around in order to discredit him. If Abu Lahab saw the Prophet (s) speaking to a stranger, he would wait until they parted and the would go to the stranger and ask him, "What did he tell you? Did he say, 'Black'? Well, it's white. Did he say 'morning'? Well, it's night." He faithfully said the exact opposite of whatever he heard Muhammad (s) and the Muslims say. However, about ten years before Abu Lahab died, a little chapter in the Qur'an (Surah al-Lahab, 111) was revealed about him. It distinctly stated that he would go to the fire (i.e., Hell). In other words, it affirmed that he would never become a Muslim and would therefore be condemned forever. For ten years all Abu Lahab had to do was say, "I heard that it has been revealed to Muhammad that I will never change - that I will never become a Muslim and will enter the Hellfire. Well, I want to become Muslim now. How do you like that? What do you think of your divine revelation now?" But he never did that. And yet, that is exactly the kind of behavior one would have expected from him since he always sought to contradict Islam. In essence, Muhammad (s) said, "You hate me and you want to finish me? Here, say these words, and I am finished. Come on, say them!" But Abu Lahab never said them. Ten years! And in all that time he never accepted Islam or even became sympathetic to the Islamic cause. How could Muhammad (s) possibly have known for sure that Abu Lahab would fulfil the Qur'anic revelation if he (i.e., Muhammad) was not truly the messenger of Allah? How could he possibly have been so confident as to give someone 10 years to discredit his claim of prophethood? The only answer is that he was Allah's messenger; for in order to put forth such a risky challenge, one has to be entirely convinced that he has a divine revelation.
The Flight
Another example of the confidence which Muhammad (s) had in his own prophethood and consequently in the divine protection of himself and his message is when he left Makkah and hid in a cave with Abu Bakr (ra) during their emigration to Madeenah. The two clearly saw people coming to kill them, and Abu Bakr was afraid. Certainly, if Muhammad (s) was a liar, a forger and one who was trying to fool the people into believing that he was a prophet, one would have expected him to say in such a circumstance to his friend, "Hey, Abu Bakr, see if you can find a back way out of this cave." Or "Squat down in that corner over there and keep quiet." Yet, in fact, what he said to Abu Bakr clearly illustrated his confidence. He told him, "Relax! Allah is with us, and Allah will save us!" Now, if one knows that he is fooling the people,
where does one get this kind of attitude? In fact, such a frame of mind is not
characteristic of a liar or a forger at all. So, as has been previously mentioned, the non-Muslims go around and around in a circle, searching for a way out - some way to explain the findings in the Qur'an without attributing them to their proper source. On one hand, they tell you on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, "The man was a liar," and on the other hand, on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday they tell you, "He was crazy." What they refuse to accept is that one cannot have it both ways; yet they need both theories, both excuses to explain the information in the Qur'an.
I think what was implied was that Mohammed thought he was a Prophet of G-d but actually was decieved by Satan, which once one studies the quran finds illogical, but many people say this as a possability.
I think what was implied was that Mohammed thought he was a Prophet of G-d but actually was decieved by Satan, which once one studies the quran finds illogical, but many people say this as a possability.
I think what was implied was that Mohammed thought he was a Prophet of G-d but actually was decieved by Satan, which once one studies the quran finds illogical, but many people say this as a possability.
but anyway, there are verses asserting that the Qur'an cannot be of evil sources(satan).
The Prophet was therefore not a liar, imposter, epileptic or an evil person>> which can only mean that he was a true messenger of Allah! swt.
But what some will tell you is, and I used to think this before, that maybe satan put those verses in there to make us think that it was from G-d. tryna play the bluff, and so on.
It goes on and on bro, trust me essays could be written on this.
If you are implying the possibility of the Prophet(pbuh) being epileptic, then that cannot be so. Below is the extract of a good book i have: "The amazing Qur'an" by Gary Miller.There are good answers here.
Exhausting the Alternatives
The real certainty about the truthfulness of the Qur'an is evident in the confidence which is prevalent throughout it; and this confidence comes from a different approach - "Exhausting the alternatives." In essence, the Qur'an states, "This book is a divine revelation; if you do not believe that, then what is it?" In other words, the reader is challenged to come up with some other explanation. Here is a book made of paper and ink. Where did it come from? It says it is a divine revelation; if it is not, then what is its source? The interesting fact is that no one has yet come up with an explanation that works. In fact, all alternatives have bee exhausted. As has been well established by non-Muslims, these alternatives basically are reduced to two mutually exclusive schools of thought, insisting on one or the other.
This is simply stating what it tries to prove. How does he know that no one has come up with an explanation? How does he know that all alternatives have been exhausted? What this author has done is reduced the world of possible options to two and then produced a spurious argument to show that in fact Muhammed must have been a prophet. Now theologically there may be reasons to accept Muhammed's claims, but as a logical argument this is utterly flawed and we know this from other cases of other would-be prophets and the like. For instance,
On one hand, there exists a large group of people who have researched the Qur'an for hundreds of years and who claim, "One thing we know for sure - that man, Muhammad (s), thought he was a prophet. He was crazy!" They are convinced that Muhammad (s) was fooled somehow.
Who are these people? As far as I know this is an entirely new school of thought. In the past people thought Muhammed was inspired by the Devil, not that he was crazy. After all traditionally people thought insanity was a gift from God.
Then on the other hand, there is a group which alleges, "Because of this evidence, one thing we know for sure is that that man, Muhammad (s) was a liar!" Ironically, these two groups never seem to get together without contradicting. In fact, many references to Islam usually claim both theories. They start out by stating that Muhammad (s) was crazy and then end by saying he was a liar. They never seem to realize that he could not have been both! For example, if one is deluded and really thinks that he is a prophet, then he does not sit up late at night planning, "How will I fool the people tomorrow so that they think I am a prophet?" He truly believes that he is a prophet, and he trusts that the answer will be given to him by revelation.
Well that underestimates the potential of the insane - who tend to be pretty good liars anyway. I do not see that these two opinions are contradictory. Let us suppose that someone is insane and thinks he is Napoleon. To maintain this illusion the insane person must construct a fantasy world to explain away the fact that he is not Napoleon. It doesn't mean that he is not insane, nor does it mean that he is always telling the truth - even if he comes to believe his own lies. No expects the insane to sit up at night thinking how to convince people that they are what they say they are. But if they really want to convince people of their fantasy they have to be quick to invent reasons why the things they say are really true.
The Critic's Trail
As a matter of fact, a great deal of the Qur'an came in answer to questions.
Someone would ask Muhammad (s) a question, and the revelation would come with the answer to it. Certainly, if one is crazy and believes that an angel put words in his ear, then when someone asks him a question, he thinks that the angel will give him the answer. Because he is crazy, he really thinks that. He does not tell someone to wait a short while and then run to his friends and ask them, "Does anyone know the answer?" This type of behavior is characteristic of one who does not believe that he is a prophet. What the non-Muslims refuse to accept is that you cannot have it both ways. One can be deluded, or he can be a liar. He can br either one or neither one, but he certainly cannot be both! The emphasis is on the fact that they are
unquestionably mutually exclusive personality traits.
You can still have it both ways. Let us suppose that someone hears voices in his head. He may think about the origins of these. He may be terrified of them. He may think he is loosing his mind. But then someone explains to him that it is God speaking direct to him. This gives him an explanation which does not mean he is insane and gives him a great deal of psychic comfort - after all he is speaking to God. Someone asks him a question, he sleeps on it, the voices in his head do their thing, he interprets those voices in a way that gives a sensible answer even though they do not really say what he says they say. There is no contradiction there. This is basically what Hong Xiuquan did when he claimed he was Jesus Christ's younger brother. As you do not believe he was Jesus Christ's younger brother, he must have been something else - insane or a liar?
The following scenario is a good example of the kind of circle that non-Muslims go around in constantly. If you ask one of them, "What is the origin of the Qur'an?" He tells you that it originated from the mind of a man who was crazy. Then you ask him, "If it came from his head, then where did he get the information contained in it? Certainly the Qur'an mentions many things with which the Arabs were not familiar."
Such as?
So in order to explain the fact which you bring him, he changes his position and says, "Well, maybe he was not crazy. Maybe some foreigner brought him the information. So he lied and told people that he was a prophet." At this point then you have to ask him, "If Muhammad was a liar, then where did he get his confidence? Why did he behave as though he really thought he was a prophet?"
How is this a contradiction? Good liars never ever behave as if they are not. Look at Confidence tricksters - they are always positive and always stick to their story. But again someone may be crazy and yet inspired by information he got from elsewhere. Hong, again, picked up information on Christianity in the early 1830s but it sat unread on his shelf for 10 years. It was only after he started having fits and visions that he picked it up and realised that it referred to the figures in his vision. Being insane and picking up foreign information is not mutually exclusive as Hong shows.
As has already been mentioned, there is much information contained in the Qur'an whose source cannot be attributed to anyone other than Allah.
Such as?
For example, who told Muhammad (s) about the wall of Dhul-Qarnayn - a place hundreds of miles to the north?
No idea. But what Wall of Dhul-Qarnayn? Do you think that perhaps Muslims have taken a Quranic story and applied it to a wall that has no connection with Dhul-Qarnayn even if he knew who he was? You see the problem of getting the story backwards?
Who told him about embryology?
What makes you think that he would have needed anyone to have told him? Exposure to aborted and miscarried foetuses would have been common for anyone who herded sheep. Did he ever herd sheep?
When people assemble facts such as these, if they are not willing to attribute their existence to a divine source, they automatically resort to the assumption someone brought Muhammad (s) the information and that he used it to fool the people. However, this theory can easily be disproved with one simple question: "If Muhammad (s) was a liar, where did he get his confidence? Why did he tell some people out right to their face what others could never say?" Such confidence depends completely upon being convinced that one has a true divine revelation.
There was a French man who made a good living in Britain claiming he was from Taiwan. He got a job at Oxford University as a Professor in Taiwanese and wrote books on Taiwan's history and even a dictionary of Taiwanese language. He was French. He had never been to Asia in his life. He fooled Oxford University. Where did he get his confidence? Are you saying that only the insane can pull off a stunt like this? Evidence please.
A Revelation - Abu Lahab
Prophet Muhammad (s) had an uncle by the name of Abu Lahab. This man hated Islam to such an extent that he used to follow the Prophet around in order to discredit him. If Abu Lahab saw the Prophet (s) speaking to a stranger, he would wait until they parted and the would go to the stranger and ask him, "What did he tell you? Did he say, 'Black'? Well, it's white. Did he say 'morning'? Well, it's night." He faithfully said the exact opposite of whatever he heard Muhammad (s) and the Muslims say. However, about ten years before Abu Lahab died, a little chapter in the Qur'an (Surah al-Lahab, 111) was revealed about him. It distinctly stated that he would go to the fire (i.e., Hell). In other words, it affirmed that he would never become a Muslim and would therefore be condemned forever. For ten years all Abu Lahab had to do was say, "I heard that it has been revealed to Muhammad that I will never change - that I will never become a Muslim and will enter the Hellfire. Well, I want to become Muslim now. How do you like that? What do you think of your divine revelation now?" But he never did that. And yet, that is exactly the kind of behavior one would have expected from him since he always sought to contradict Islam. In essence, Muhammad (s) said, "You hate me and you want to finish me? Here, say these words, and I am finished. Come on, say them!" But Abu Lahab never said them. Ten years! And in all that time he never accepted Islam or even became sympathetic to the Islamic cause. How could Muhammad (s) possibly have known for sure that Abu Lahab would fulfil the Qur'anic revelation if he (i.e., Muhammad) was not truly the messenger of Allah? How could he possibly have been so confident as to give someone 10 years to discredit his claim of prophethood? The only answer is that he was Allah's messenger; for in order to put forth such a risky challenge, one has to be entirely convinced that he has a divine revelation.
Or alternatively he knew his uncle very well or he knew that his uncle would never mean it - after all hypocrits do not become real Muslims and do not go to Heaven do they? And anyone who converted to Islam to prove it wrong would be a hypocrit wouldn't he? Even if Abu Lahab had "converted" to prove a point, Muhammed could just assert, correctly, he was lying and he would go to Hell and so prove Islam was true. As the Quran is true, anything that happened or happens must be reconcilable with the Quran.
The Flight
Another example of the confidence which Muhammad (s) had in his own prophethood and consequently in the divine protection of himself and his message is when he left Makkah and hid in a cave with Abu Bakr (ra) during their emigration to Madeenah. The two clearly saw people coming to kill them, and Abu Bakr was afraid. Certainly, if Muhammad (s) was a liar, a forger and one who was trying to fool the people into believing that he was a prophet, one would have expected him to say in such a circumstance to his friend, "Hey, Abu Bakr, see if you can find a back way out of this cave." Or "Squat down in that corner over there and keep quiet." Yet, in fact, what he said to Abu Bakr clearly illustrated his confidence. He told him, "Relax! Allah is with us, and Allah will save us!" Now, if one knows that he is fooling the people,
where does one get this kind of attitude?
Again you are asserting a story's truth without looking at the source. Why do you think this story is true? How do you know that in fact Muslims who later believed that Muhammed was the prophet wrote this story in light of how they thought that a prophet would behave? What is the source?
In fact, such a frame of mind is not characteristic of a liar or a forger at all.
Actually it is. Liars are often very good at maintaining their lies. It is also characteristic of someone with some sort of pathology. It may well also be characteristic of the prophet of God, but Hong maintained his calm right up to the moment he died.
What they refuse to accept is that one cannot have it both ways; yet they need both theories, both excuses to explain the information in the Qur'an.
Actually you can have both if you feel like it. More to the point, you have excluded other possibilities and asserted there are merely two. This is not the case as we know of other cases where the leader was clearly not the Son of God or the Brother of Jesus. Islamic history is full of such examples as well. The same argument can be applied to them - did Hong lie or was he insane? He must have been Jesus Christ's little brother by this argument.
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
but anyway, there are verses asserting that the Qur'an cannot be of evil sources(satan).
Hhhhmmmmm ... if we just for one momet allow ourselves to imagine that satan had deceived Muhammed into believing that his message was from God, would he (satan) not make sure to assert that it could never have been from any evil source?
After all, satan is not stupid! :X
Peace.
Peace glo
Here I stand.
I can do no other.
May God help me.
Amen.
Come, let us worship and bow down •
and kneel before the Lord our Maker
[Psalm 95]
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Re: Muhammad: a Prophet or an imposter?
:brother:
That would be a third possibility.
Jaa-Ro-Nee-Mo!!!
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks