Muhammad: a Prophet or an imposter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter abd77
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 119
  • Views Views 16K
Hi there

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

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

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


Peace. :)

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

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

"Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him." (Q 5:75)
 
Well the old testament doesnt just speak of a coming messiah thats the thing.
 
Hello,

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

This is simply stating what it tries to prove. How does he know that no one has come up with an explanation? How does he know that all alternatives have been exhausted? What this author has done is reduced the world of possible options to two and then produced a spurious argument to show that in fact Muhammed must have been a prophet. Now theologically there may be reasons to accept Muhammed's claims, but as a logical argument this is utterly flawed and we know this from other cases of other would-be prophets and the like.
As I had already indicated in my first post, what was posted was only an extract, not the whole book.However, the Author does address certain other issues such as the possibility of the Prophet being inspired by satan.This discussion would be more open, if you could specify what you think are the possible "alternatives"(apart from the ones already discussed).

On one hand, there exists a large group of people who have researched the Qur'an for hundreds of years and who claim, "One thing we know for sure - that man, Muhammad (s), thought he was a prophet. He was crazy!" They are convinced that Muhammad (s) was fooled somehow.
For instance, Who are these people? As far as I know this is an entirely new school of thought. In the past people thought Muhammed was inspired by the Devil, not that he was crazy.
Yes i know. I guess this was fed into English society after(or before?) the crusades. But then, times have changed. This author is a convert to Islam from Christianity, Surely he must have attended many discussions on the topic. I'll take his word for it.

After all traditionally people thought insanity was a gift from God.
Your'e kidding right? Could you elaborate on that one?

Well that underestimates the potential of the insane - who tend to be pretty good liars anyway. I do not see that these two opinions are contradictory. Let us suppose that someone is insane and thinks he is Napoleon. To maintain this illusion the insane person must construct a fantasy world to explain away the fact that he is not Napoleon. It doesn't mean that he is not insane, nor does it mean that he is always telling the truth - even if he comes to believe his own lies. No expects the insane to sit up at night thinking how to convince people that they are what they say they are. But if they really want to convince people of their fantasy they have to be quick to invent reasons why the things they say are really true.
Like they say: To make up one lie, you have to make up a hundred lies. But the extract further down addresses this question, namely 'the Prophet had confidence'. What would you probably expect, when an insane person meets you? The Prophet was however calm and cool like a cucumber even in the toughest of situations. if there were signs of insanity, they would have been noticed easily in these tight situations.

You can still have it both ways. Let us suppose that someone hears voices in his head. He may think about the origins of these. He may be terrified of them. He may think he is loosing his mind. But then someone explains to him that it is God speaking direct to him. This gives him an explanation which does not mean he is insane and gives him a great deal of psychic comfort - after all he is speaking to God. Someone asks him a question, he sleeps on it, the voices in his head do their thing, he interprets those voices in a way that gives a sensible answer even though they do not really say what he says they say. There is no contradiction there. This is basically what Hong Xiuquan did when he claimed he was Jesus Christ's younger brother. As you do not believe he was Jesus Christ's younger brother, he must have been something else - insane or a liar?
Good point.But again you forget that the Prophet had confidence in his abilities, and all those things he intended for turned out in his favour, for eg:the incident at the cave with Abu Bakr(R). And as for those that didn't turn out in his favour, he responded to those hurdles through the best possible means that you can possibly think of.

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

So in order to explain the fact which you bring him, he changes his position and says, "Well, maybe he was not crazy. Maybe some foreigner brought him the information. So he lied and told people that he was a prophet." At this point then you have to ask him, "If Muhammad was a liar, then where did he get his confidence? Why did he behave as though he really thought he was a prophet?"
How is this a contradiction? Good liars never ever behave as if they are not. Look at Confidence tricksters - they are always positive and always stick to their story. But again someone may be crazy and yet inspired by information he got from elsewhere. Hong, again, picked up information on Christianity in the early 1830s but it sat unread on his shelf for 10 years. It was only after he started having fits and visions that he picked it up and realised that it referred to the figures in his vision. Being insane and picking up foreign information is not mutually exclusive as Hong shows.
I made the big mistake of posting the extract as answers are scattered throughout it.. I cannot post the full book here either as it is too big.The book addresses this question as well. If the Prophet was insane, from where did all that information in the Qur'an come from: the beautiful poetry et al? Come on. Insane people don't come up with briliant inventions do they? was there any scientist who was insane and won the nobel prize?

As has already been mentioned, there is much information contained in the Qur'an whose source cannot be attributed to anyone other than Allah.
I thought everyone on the forum would be familiar with the Miracles mentioned in the Qur'an.

No idea. But what Wall of Dhul-Qarnayn? Do you think that perhaps Muslims have taken a Quranic story and applied it to a wall that has no connection with Dhul-Qarnayn even if he knew who he was? You see the problem of getting the story backwards?
There is a possibility from your perspective.Yet, this is only an Assumption.

Who told him about embryology?
What makes you think that he would have needed anyone to have told him? Exposure to aborted and miscarried foetuses would have been common for anyone who herded sheep. Did he ever herd sheep?
Maurice Bacille states in his book that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to come up with the facts mentioned in the Qur'an with the technology and knowledge that was available 1400 years ago. To make it simple: you need a microscope to come up with the facts mentioned in the Qur'an regarding embryology.

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

Or alternatively he knew his uncle very well or he knew that his uncle would never mean it - after all hypocrits do not become real Muslims and do not go to Heaven do they? And anyone who converted to Islam to prove it wrong would be a hypocrit wouldn't he? Even if Abu Lahab had "converted" to prove a point, Muhammed could just assert, correctly, he was lying and he would go to Hell and so prove Islam was true. As the Quran is true, anything that happened or happens must be reconcilable with the Quran.
Good point.Let's exhaust the alternatives.Abu Lahab had ten yrs to convert, he didn't.Let's suppose he DID convert to Islam and prayed 5 times a day and gave charity with no signs of a disbeliever.. If the Prophet had declared him a disbeliever, he would have lost the confidence and trust that his companions had in him. what say you? Let's also suppose that the Prophet declared him a hypocrite? ok, now that would be a point to consider.. but note that all those people whom the Prophet declared hypocrites, showed their true colours at a later stage. If Abulahb was one of them, the Prophet would have known in any case, and Abu Lahab would have consequently been exposed.

Again you are asserting a story's truth without looking at the source. Why do you think this story is true? How do you know that in fact Muslims who later believed that Muhammed was the prophet wrote this story in light of how they thought that a prophet would behave? What is the source?
You might as well reject the Holocaust and WWII, if you doubt this one.I'll see if i can get a narration for you.

Actually it is. Liars are often very good at maintaining their lies. It is also characteristic of someone with some sort of pathology. It may well also be characteristic of the prophet of God, but Hong maintained his calm right up to the moment he died.
Interesting.never heard of the fellow.
 
HeiGou said:
This is simply stating what it tries to prove. How does he know that no one has come up with an explanation? How does he know that all alternatives have been exhausted? What this author has done is reduced the world of possible options to two and then produced a spurious argument to show that in fact Muhammed must have been a prophet.

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

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

For instance, Who are these people? As far as I know this is an entirely new school of thought. In the past people thought Muhammed was inspired by the Devil, not that he was crazy.
Yes i know. I guess this was fed into English society after(or before?) the crusades. But then, times have changed. This author is a convert to Islam from Christianity, Surely he must have attended many discussions on the topic. I'll take his word for it.

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

Well that underestimates the potential of the insane - who tend to be pretty good liars anyway. I do not see that these two opinions are contradictory.
Like they say: To make up one lie, you have to make up a hundred lies. But the extract further down addresses this question, namely 'the Prophet had confidence'. What would you probably expect, when an insane person meets you? The Prophet was however calm and cool like a cucumber even in the toughest of situations. if there were signs of insanity, they would have been noticed easily in these tight situations. [/quote]

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

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

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

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

How is this a contradiction? Good liars never ever behave as if they are not. .... Being insane and picking up foreign information is not mutually exclusive as Hong shows.
I made the big mistake of posting the extract as answers are scattered throughout it.. I cannot post the full book here either as it is too big.The book addresses this question as well. If the Prophet was insane, from where did all that information in the Qur'an come from: the beautiful poetry et al? Come on. Insane people don't come up with briliant inventions do they? was there any scientist who was insane and won the nobel prize?

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

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

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

No idea. But what Wall of Dhul-Qarnayn? Do you think that perhaps Muslims have taken a Quranic story and applied it to a wall that has no connection with Dhul-Qarnayn even if he knew who he was? You see the problem of getting the story backwards?
There is a possibility from your perspective.Yet, this is only an Assumption.

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

What makes you think that he would have needed anyone to have told him? Exposure to aborted and miscarried foetuses would have been common for anyone who herded sheep. Did he ever herd sheep?
Maurice Bacille states in his book that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to come up with the facts mentioned in the Qur'an with the technology and knowledge that was available 1400 years ago. To make it simple: you need a microscope to come up with the facts mentioned in the Qur'an regarding embryology.

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

Or alternatively he knew his uncle very well or he knew that his uncle would never mean it - after all hypocrits do not become real Muslims and do not go to Heaven do they? And anyone who converted to Islam to prove it wrong would be a hypocrit wouldn't he? Even if Abu Lahab had "converted" to prove a point, Muhammed could just assert, correctly, he was lying and he would go to Hell and so prove Islam was true. As the Quran is true, anything that happened or happens must be reconcilable with the Quran.
Good point.Let's exhaust the alternatives.Abu Lahab had ten yrs to convert, he didn't.Let's suppose he DID convert to Islam and prayed 5 times a day and gave charity with no signs of a disbeliever.. If the Prophet had declared him a disbeliever, he would have lost the confidence and trust that his companions had in him. what say you? Let's also suppose that the Prophet declared him a hypocrite? ok, now that would be a point to consider.. but note that all those people whom the Prophet declared hypocrites, showed their true colours at a later stage. If Abulahb was one of them, the Prophet would have known in any case, and Abu Lahab would have consequently been exposed.

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

Again you are asserting a story's truth without looking at the source. Why do you think this story is true? How do you know that in fact Muslims who later believed that Muhammed was the prophet wrote this story in light of how they thought that a prophet would behave? What is the source?
You might as well reject the Holocaust and WWII, if you doubt this one.I'll see if i can get a narration for you.

By all means. But the Holocaust analogy is nuts because no one wants the Holocaust to be true. There is a wealth of documentation and from both sides. There is only Muslim histories for the early Muslim period. And those histories show signs of being written by pious people.
 
No Muslim would ever assert that Muhammad s.a.w. is the Messiah. Muhammad salallahu 'alayhi wassalam is the Prophet and Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets.

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

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

Peace.
 
Thank you for clarifying that for me. :)

Peace.

look dats not what i was implying! muslims also belive that Isa a.s (jesus) is going to return. i dont if it was christians or jews as i havnt research enough but i know one of these were expecting that there will be someone of great importans as we believe Muhammed was will be coming. however muslims believ they wouldnt accept the fact that it was our prophet and that he was claiming Islam. if i went wrong please correct me! ta!
salamz
 
If, however, as I was imagining, satan had deceived Muhammed into believing his message was from God, then your whole argument would be based on satan's teachings, not God's.

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

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

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

Satan denys who Jesus is...this is how Christians know what is from God and what is not.
 
many people can argue for example Jews that Jesus was also fooled by satan! (i dont believe) you see its the same allegations, its al about believing!
 
Well this is a Muslim forum so the number of options I could specify would be limited, but presumably there are dozens of them if not more. Let's go with what we have and see how things work out.
As you wish. It would be better not to post it here if it may seem offensive.This discussion cannot proceed constructively without a goal in mind.After all, muslims cannot debate or discuss just for the sake of it.But anyway,we'll see how things turn out.

These days, perhaps, there are people who argue that Muhammed was crazy but they tend to be ex-Muslims.
It's obviously hatred, for their former belief.

Western scholars try to be polite about other religions these days and so won't say it even if they believe it. But if you know of any credible scholar who argues that I would be interested to know.
The only scholars i happen to know of are Muslim scholars or Convert muslim scholars such as the author of this book.

It is what I would expect of someone who believed in what he was doing or someone who wanted you to believe in what he was doing. The first is compatible with many things (including being a prophet or being insane) while the second is compatible with others (including being a liar). What what else is he going to do in that cave? Caves don't have back doors. In a similar circumstance a liar would have nothing to lose - if they are not discovered he is famous for being calm, if they are it doesn't matter as there is no other option. Hong was very calm as the Chinese army beseiged Nanjing. Why not?
Neglecting Allah's role regarding the incident at the cave would prove to be a true example of bravery on the Prophet's part.Acknowledging Allah's role in safeguarding the Prophet from the meccans would only mean the Prophet had faith in Allah. Either way, Bravery and faith are not synonymous with Insanity. There's no room for 'insanity' anywhere in this story or any other story of the Prophet.

Of course I'd ask how well sourced that claim is - does it come from a later generation of pious Muslims who would expect Muhammed to behave this way and if so what is its isnad? After all the story is odd - I see no evidence that the Quraysh were not happy to see him go and if they wanted to kill him surely they would have done so while he was in Mecca.
Just before the Prophet's migration to medina, the Quraish did hatch a plot to kill him, this time with the help of other tribes, so that all of them would be equally blamed for the murder.As you may know, the Prophet came from a respectable family and tribe, killing him without the correct precautionary measures would have started a war.

Of all the possible prophets in the world only a few create large religions. Only a few of them last more than a short while. Things turn out in favour of those few - now that may just be luck or it may be God looking out for them. But some of them have to be luck as they can't all be true. Think of all the would-be prophets you have never heard of because they were discovered in their caves?
Allah doesn't send prophets to caves, so that they may be ignored.there is a verse in the Qur'an which says that Allah has sent a Prophet to every nation(so that they may be guided).

Well yes I think there were. Linus Pauling was a little odd. Newton was seriously odd. I do not know about the poetry because I am not placed to judge it. I notice that Western scholars who think it is great tend to be converts and those that think it is awful do not. Which comes first - the conversion or the belief in the poetry?
Dedicated people are engrossed in their work so badly, that they lose track of reality. Insanity would be the wrong word here. Abnormality would be a better word.

Egyptians used to worship Gods with Donkeys' heads. Now we find this silly but that is because we do not worship Gods with Donkeys' heads. Egyptians, who grew up thinking that Gods had donkey heads, did not think it was stupid but divine. Has anyone ever told you the poetry of the Quran was anything other than beautiful?
Many Arab Christians have themselves admitted to the fact that the Qur'an is unmatchable.It is the Qur'ans' poetry that gives them the thought that the Qur'an cannot be the work of man.Probably why you hear a lot of them say that the Prophet was demon inspired.

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

Well in the north of Persia near the border with Turkmenistan there is a wall that was built by the Persians. Yet the Muslims there, descendents of those Persians, claim it was built by Alexander the Great (or more accurately I expect they think it was built by Dhul-Qarnayn). This is obviously because their religion informs their culture which does not talk about Darius but about Dhul-Qarnayn. It is a possibility. Find me any reference to D-Q at all outside the Muslim tradition.
It cannot be Alexander the great for a number of reasons.The last material i read on this matter, was hoping to prove that Dul-Qarnayn was Cyrus(but i don't know which cyrus). Not familiar with the topic here.But historical figures could be known by different names throughout the world, can't they?

I disagree. And I am not convinced of anything that MB says as I have read his book. What do you think you would need a microscope to say?
Since i am not familiar with the topic of embryology.I suggest you read a good book by Harun Yahya titled "The Miracle of Human creation". The latter half of the book deals with embryology and its links to the Qur'an.Here is the link to the file. If you happen to read the book, let me know your comments on it.

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

Showed their true colors at a later stage. The Muslims were used to the idea that Muhammed declared people hypocrits even though they gave every sign over long periods of time of being good Muslims?
The companions trusted the Prophet with their very lives.Why should so many people trust a man with their lives and believe every word he said? it certainly wasn't blind faith in a Prophet.Would you and I follow a man tomorrow who claims to be a Prophet? Why then should these companions follow the Prophet of Islam, when they were so accustomed to their own polytheistic religion? When the companions were living in luxury, why then would they sacrifice so much? Incredible isn't it..

Ten years is a long time to build an Islamic state. Think of the damage that Muhammed and AL would do to AL's "real" cause - resisting Islam - in that time. Is it really a useful thing for AL to have done? From our perspective perhaps, in retrospect, but not when you're there at the time. Better things could be done.
Sorry.I didn't get you. Are you asking the reason why the Prophet was quiet and took no action against the hypocrites?

By all means. But the Holocaust analogy is nuts because no one wants the Holocaust to be true. There is a wealth of documentation and from both sides. There is only Muslim histories for the early Muslim period. And those histories show signs of being written by pious people.
Since you yourself insist that this narration was recorded by pious people, it only reinforces the idea that auch narrations are truly authentic.Allow me to quote another hadith.

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

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

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

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

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

Volumn 006, Book 060, Hadith Number 185.
-----------------------------------------
Narated By Abu Bakr : I was in the company of the Prophet in the cave, and on seeing the traces of the pagans, I said, "O Allah's Apostle If one of them (pagans) should lift up his foot, he will see us." He said, "What do you think of two, the third of whom is Allah?"
 
i'd bet my life he was an imposter. the whole story is absolutely preposterous. There is only blind faith to support such a myth. If I told you that the angel Gabriel visited me and mumbled "god's" will to me I would be taken to the nearest nut-hut.

the reaon for this is your too ignorant! do you believe in any religion?
 
Well I would say like others that there are three possibilities:

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

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

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

a) He was insane.

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

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

Anyone disagree with the above?

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

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

Here is from a (non-Muslim) Islamolog:

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

My translation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well I do not care to increae my demerit point by talking about specific cases. But it is possible that visions might be caused by illnesses and injuries. It is possible that people having these visions, without proper medical knowledge, might think they were divine communications. The Romans called epilepsy the Divine Disease for precisely that reason. You, Glo and me might all have different examples in mind, but given so many people from so many Faith communities have such visions, which they interpret as communications from the Divine, we cannot say that they are the only two possibilities in every single case.
 
If Muhammad (saws) was an imposter than why would such a person devot his whole life at an old age turning people around to a different religion? How can he write the quran, I challenge all of you who think he wrote the quran that you write a book like that ... a normal human being that was an imposter would've stopped but if he was telling the truth he wouldve kept on going.

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

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

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

Similar Threads

Back
Top