Non Muslims, how do you explain the existence of the Quran/Sincerity of the Prophet?

[Tyrion]

As for me personally, I believe Mohammed was a prophet of God, sent to bring the people back to him, and the qur'an is given by inspiration from God.

I'm curious as to how someone who accepts the Prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) could still remain a Christian?

 

[M.I.A.]

I'm curious as to how someone who accepts the Prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) could still remain a Christian?

if thats what pouringrain believes then i guess that belief would somehow show itself in christian circles, it must be hard to let go of any teaching if it has made you into a well grounded individual, especially one that has a wide enough field of vision to aknowlage the quran and the prophethood of muhammed peace and blessings be upon him.

 

[PouringRain]

if thats what pouringrain believes then i guess that belief would somehow show itself in christian circles, it must be hard to let go of any teaching if it has made you into a well grounded individual, especially one that has a wide enough field of vision to aknowlage the quran and the prophethood of muhammed peace and blessings be upon him.

I get in more disagreements with Christians than I do with Muslims. :embarrass

In general, my beliefs do not fall within mainstream Christianity. I am a Christian, because I am a follower of Christ and his teachings.

And that is the short answer to the questions. Okay, back to the thread. I am going to be off topic again today. :nervous: :giggling:

 

[Lynx]

I honestly don’t think this is a possibility, because if those were his intentions then he would be a liar, and if he was a liar then he could no longer be considered sincere. We know he was sincere and therefore not a liar, so I don’t see how this would possibly reconcile anything, as you claim it does.
I think the sincerity of the Prophet is backed up by history (I know you might argue about the validity of Islamic history, but I’ll let someone more qualified deal with that.) and most people (Muslim and non Muslims alike) seem to agree on this point. It seems very unlikely that he would deceive his people to that extent…

On a side note, I want to express my thanks to everyone who has replied to this thread so far. I’m learning quite a bit, so please keep the comments coming. 

Well first of all it's ridiculous to think a sincere person would never tell a lie. Second, I think he can still be sinceere if he thought the end justifies the means. Morality is complicated and a man who creates a religion is bound to have a complicated set of moral standards. Maybe he thought "this is good for everyone so a deception here would not make me a bad person".

I mean that is just one possibility. It's possible he was crazy too. Not all crazy people are self-destructive. Point is there are lots of possibilities and murky historical data. Your OP is assuming quite a bit.

 

[Tyrion]

Well first of all it's ridiculous to think a sincere person would never tell a lie. Second, I think he can still be sinceere if he thought the end justifies the means. Morality is complicated and a man who creates a religion is bound to have a complicated set of moral standards. Maybe he thought "this is good for everyone so a deception here would not make me a bad person".

I mean that is just one possibility. It's possible he was crazy too. Not all crazy people are self-destructive. Point is there are lots of possibilities and murky historical data. Your OP is assuming quite a bit.

sincerity
- 3 dictionary results
sin·cer·i·ty
   /sɪnˈsɛrɪti/ Show Spelled[sin-ser-i-tee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties.
freedom from deceit, hypocrisy, or duplicity; probity in intention or in communicating; earnestness.

Sincerity actually does mean some degree of honesty, and by your theory Muhammad wouldn't have just been a liar, but one of the biggest deceivers known to man... Most agree that he was not and could not have been a liar, and I feel that a brief study of the Quran and his history would show that he couldn't possibly have been the kind of man you're describing. Someone who knows more about Islamic history can give you details, but I really feel like you should rethink this idea...

 

[Lynx]

sincerity
- 3 dictionary results
sin·cer·i·ty
   /sɪnˈsɛrɪti/ Show Spelled[sin-ser-i-tee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties.
freedom from deceit, hypocrisy, or duplicity; probity in intention or in communicating; earnestness.

Sincerity actually does mean some degree of honesty, and by your theory Muhammad wouldn't have just been a liar, but one of the biggest deceivers known to man... Most agree that he was not and could not have been a liar, and I feel that a brief study of the Quran and his history would show that he couldn't possibly have been the kind of man you're describing. Someone who knows more about Islamic history can give you details, but I really feel like you should rethink this idea...

We don't know enough about his intentions and his own inner thoughts to assess what his 'motive' was if he made up Islam. But I don't think you can just say all his claims are true just because he had an upstanding character! It might be out of his strong character that he decided to make Islam up in order to bring out the best of his fellow Arabs. Are you saying it's impossible that he could be a person who rarely lies but decided that in this instance, the benefits outweigh the moral cost? Maybe he sincerely wanted to help his fellow man?

And as I mentioned, another possibility was that he was just plain old crazy. I don't think he was but that would reconcile the existence of Islam & his sincerity. Maybe he was a man with great ideas and those ideas manifested themselves in powerful hallucinations. I don't know; my point is there are so many other possibilities besides 'well I guess he was telling the truth and therefore Islam is right'. Religious prophets almost always face persecution when they bring forth a new religion...why do they all do it? Are they all telling the truth? It's more complicated than that, no?

 

[Tyrion]

And as I mentioned, another possibility was that he was just plain old crazy. I don't think he was but that would reconcile the existence of Islam & his sincerity.

Of course there are other possibilities... You can say there are possibilities for anything, but that doesn't mean they're likely. You said yourself that you don't think he was crazy. Most people don't, and most people don't think he was a liar. Historically, it just doesn't make sense as well, but I'll leave the history for someone else to tackle. But yeah, you acknowledge that it's not likely, so why say it in the first place? After a while, it just starts to seem like you're trying really hard to come up with a reason to doubt him, even when a likely one doesn't really exist.

 

[Hiroshi]

One's desperation is becoming increasingly apparent! One who searches through hadeeths to find anything that may enable them (wrongly) to say the Qur'an contains an error, such a person cannot hope to succeed here. May I ask, what are your motives to be here exactly? Is it to point out to us supposed "errors" in the Qur'an (which quite frankly is a waste of your time), or, is it to learn about Islam?

I think that everyone here on Islamic Board has been very patient and good natured towards me as a newcomer with all of the objections that I have raised. I want to say just one more thing on this if I may.

Pickthall's foreword to Surah 3 says: "Ali 'Imran takes its title from v.32 where "the family of 'Imran" (the father of Moses) occurs as a generic name for all the Hebrew prophets from Moses to John the Baptist and JUesus Christ. This, with the mention of the mother of Mary as "the wife of 'Imran" (v.34) ..."

And Dawood has a footnote to verse 32: "Amram, the father of Moses and Aaron (Exodus xi, 20)." And then his footnote to verse 34 reads: "'Imran is also the name given in the Koran to Mary's father."

So both of these translators comment that the 'Imran in verse 32 is a completely different man (and separated by 1,500 years of time!) to the 'Imran in verse 34.

Now this is hard for a non-Muslim like me to accept. The surah introduces us to 'Imran in verse 32 -- and then two verses later the name occurs again speaking of someone else. At least there should be a brief explanation for the casual reader who would naturally understand the narrative to mean the same individual in both verses.

Any comments?

 

[Salahudeen]

I think the proof he was a prophet is the fact that God all ways sends his prophets with miracles, this was the way to recognise a prophet from a mad man. Before the prophet Muhammed (saw) God would also send his prophets with miracles so that they could be recognised. Miracles can only occur at the hands of a prophet. The proofs for this are many, firstly the fact that God all ways sends his prophets with miracles, never does God send a prophet except that he has miracles, why?

Because before the advent of the prophet Muahmmed when prophets would be coming, how could you tell the difference between an imposter and a real prophet? one of the ways was through miracles, the imposter could not bring forth miracles yet the prophets would all ways bring forth miracles. So we know all of the prophets were given various miracles and we know some of these miracles, for example the miracles of Jesus involved curing people, healing the sick, the blind and leaper, resurrecting the dead person with the permission of God, creating a bird out of clay blowing into it and it becomes a real bird.

The miracles of Moses, of them was the staff, of them was the shining light with his hand, of them was the parting of the Nile and so on.

The Miracles of Abraham, to be thrown into a fire and not to be scorched or harmed by that fire and other miracles as well.

So these are miracles, all prophets have been given miracles therefore our prophet is not an exception, he too has been giving miracles. The Qur'an mentions, that the prophet has been given many miracles for example "The time for the day of judgement has come close and the moon has split" this is one miracle he was given, during his lifetime the moon split in halve. And the polytheists could see it split in halve. Likewise they could hear the rocks in the prophets hands saying "Subhanallah, Walhamdulilah" they could also see water come from his hands when they were short of water, he would put his hands out and the water would start coming out of his hands and they'd do wudu from that water and drink from it. Miracles taking place before their eyes, many miracles.

But there is one miracle that stands out from the rest and that is the Qur'an, the Qur'an is a linguistic miracle the arabs would call the prophet pbuh a magician and that's how he was able to produce such miracles. God says in the Qur'an addressing the polytheists challenging them as follows "if you are in doubt as to what we have revealed to our servant then produce a chapter like it"

"they say he has forged it then let them bring one surah like it"

this was a challenge to the polythiests at the time and the challenge stands today, no one has been able to produce anything like the miracle of the Qur'an. All some body has to do to prove the Qur'an isn't from God is produce a surah like it and people have tried but no one has been able to do so.

 

[Insaanah]

Now this is hard for a non-Muslim like me to accept. The surah introduces us to 'Imran in verse 32 -- and then two verses later the name occurs again speaking of someone else. At least there should be a brief explanation for the casual reader who would naturally understand the narrative to mean the same individual in both verses.

Any comments?

The Arabic word used in verse 35, imra'atu, can mean woman or wife. If it is meant as wife, then obviously this is a different Imraan from that mentioned in verse 33. In that case, one comes to the conclusion that the father of Mary (peace be upon her) was named Imraan after that ancestor, hence a link. But, if the word imra'atu is translated as woman, i.e. a woman from the family of Imraan, then it merely shows that Mary's mother was a descendent of Imraan. We possess no authentic knowledge on the basis of which one opinion may be preferred over another. Both explanations are equally acceptable. Moreover, it makes no difference whatosever in the line of argument adopted here to explain the miraculous birth of Jesus (peace be upon him), whether Imraan was the really the name of Mary's father or has been used so in the ancestral sense.

As for an explanation for the casual reader, if the casual reader has read from the beginning of the Surah, they will also have read:

[SIZE=-1][Pickthal 3:7] He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.

Peace.[/SIZE]

 

[Hiroshi]

The Arabic word used in verse 35, imra'atu, can mean woman or wife. If it is meant as wife, then obviously this is a different Imraan from that mentioned in verse 33. In that case, one comes to the conclusion that the father of Mary (peace be upon her) was named Imraan after that ancestor, hence a link. But, if the word imra'atu is translated as woman, i.e. a woman from the family of Imraan, then it merely shows that Mary's mother was a descendent of Imraan.

Muslim apologists appeal to the Bible to argue that because Mary's relative was "a daughter of Aaron" (Luke 1:5) then Mary herself must also have been descended from Aaron. But this doesn't necessarily follow.

Far more definite and conclusive scriptures show that Mary and Jesus had no Aaronic or Levitical ancestry at all (Hebrews 7:11-14).

 

[Insaanah]

Muslim apologists appeal to the Bible

Certainly I have nothing to apologise for the Qur'an, Allah's word, containing no mistakes and unadulterated by the pen of man, and I have no need to go to the Bible to confirm something, when we have 100% Allah's word with us.

The Qur'an came as our last hope and for the final time revealed the message along with restoring what has been lost and this time in a form for all people. It certainly contains the truth of what was revealed in the past, so if something true is still retained in what remains of the old books, we should be able to find the same in the Qur'an. Which we do.

Thus the Qur'an comes confirming those bits of the original revelations that may still remain in the earlier scriptures, rather than the other way around.

to argue that because Mary's relative was "a daughter of Aaron" (Luke 1:5) then Mary herself must also have been descended from Aaron. But this doesn't necessarily follow.

It equally can follow, but I have no need to worry about that, because of what I stated in my post above.

Far more definite and conclusive scriptures show that Mary and Jesus had no Aaronic or Levitical ancestry at all (Hebrews 7:11-14).

The Qur'an is the most definite and conclusive scripture of all - it's message to mankind and it's words are fully preserved. The ancestry of Mary (peace be upon her) would have been in the text of the Qur'an if it was necessary for us to practise our faith properly, but it isn't. Allah, Glorified and Exalted be He, told us what He deemed necessary. And He is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

Peace.

 

[YusufNoor]

Muslim apologists appeal to the Bible to argue that because Mary's relative was "a daughter of Aaron" (Luke 1:5) then Mary herself must also have been descended from Aaron. But this doesn't necessarily follow.

Far more definite and conclusive scriptures show that Mary and Jesus had no Aaronic or Levitical ancestry at all (Hebrews 7:11-14).

the OP should watch this guy carefully to learn how Shaytan leads human beings around. this cat here, Hiroshi, claims that he only has Pickthall translation of the Qur'an and yet he quotes from ibn Kathir and at-Tabari! gee, i wonder what website he is using....

allegedly, Hiroshi claims that because a few Sahabah had a misunderstanding about the Qur'an that, and a ayat that is amazing similar to one is his bible, that to him, proves something is false. so, because he doesn't understand something, to him it is proof that it is false.

well, he has offered "proofs" of his book, shall we look at them? let's start with this:

So the idea that Mary was some descendant of Aaron the high priest doesn't help. In fact, although Mary was Elisabeth's relative, her genealogy shows that she descended from Judah, not Levi, Aaron's tribe. In any case, if Aaron had been her ancestor then she would have been called his daughter, not his sister.

when asked whether on not the bible shows Mary's genealogy, he writes:

Your link cites the research of Dr. A. T. Robertson who proposed that Joseph had both a legal father and a biological father and that this is the reason for the variances in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. I will look into this. The article notes that Matthew is written from the point of view of Joseph and Luke from that of Mary. I would take this as an indication that, rather, Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, not Joseph.

M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774) says: “In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7).”

This is sufficient reason for Joseph to be called "son of Heli" at Luke 3:23 even if Heli was in fact the father of Mary

here, Hiroshi is playing a shell game, unless he is claiming that Dr Robertson is the author of Luke because Luke CLEARLY states that his genealogy is that of Joseph and NOT Mary. so i guess when reading the bible you have to know which words or names to substitute whenever you know there is an error. well, let's look at Luke anyway:

Luke 1
Introduction
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

the author of Luke [and we really don't know WHO wrote it] claims that he has carefully checked his facts because if you read other versions of this story you might NOT know the facts with certainty, but here you will. he doesn't say that if you replace certain words you might gain an understanding, does he?

23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

according to Hiroshi logic, maybe Joseph and Mary are brother and sister because they couldn't have fathers with the same name! but, of course the verse clearly states that Joseph is the son of Heli.

we can learn other things from Luke as well, in John 3:16 we read:

John 3:16 (New International Version)

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

do you know what Luke tells us about this? let's finish up the genealogy shall we:

35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.

well, Luke dispells the myth of the Jesus being a preexist-ant god by showing that the author himself believed Jesus to be Adam, somehow returned! aren't we glad Hiroshi pointed this out for us?

Far more definite and conclusive scriptures show that Mary and Jesus had no Aaronic or Levitical ancestry at all (Hebrews 7:11-14).

let's talk about Hebrews, ask Hiroshi who wrote it! no one knows who wrote it! at the least it is doubtful that ANY Pharisee wrote it, do you know why? this one is one of the proofs against the New Testament being divinely inspired, for how could the Jews KNOW who Melchizedek is, but not God, or the holy spirit, or whichever part of the christian god is responsible for inspiring people [a wee bit confusing, isn't it]?

actually, i'll let the suspense build on this one a bit and ask Hiroshi:

Hiroshi, who is the author of Hebrews?

Salaam

 

[glo]

I'm curious as to how someone who accepts the Prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) could still remain a Christian?

Seems there are Christians who have no problem calling Muhammad a messenger/prophet from God.

Our Vicar (clergy in the Church of England) mentioned only a few weeks back that he had had one of his regular meetings with the local Imam, and that he (the Vicar) had told the Imam that he would be happy to confirm that there was only one God and that Muhammad was his messenger/prophet ... but that didn't make him a Muslim by any means!

I remember being surprised that the Vicar would consider Muhammad a messenger from God (I don't think I could myself), and I wondered what he considered a 'messenger or prophet from God' to be.

Sometimes people use the same terminology, but actually mean different things by it.
Next time I have some time to talk to the Vicar, I will ask him further about this.

 

[Salahudeen]

I don't get why people have a hard time accepting him as a prophet when his call was the same call of the previous prophets, it's not as if he came with anything new. His call was to worship God alone without any partners just like Moses, Abraham, Noah, is that really such a bad call? I'd understand if he was calling to something new and strange but he's not. He is calling to what the prophets of God all ways call to, and that is the worship of God alone without partners.

This is nothing strange, all the other prophets also did this.

 

[جوري]

the problem is that they'd have to consider their own beliefs from outside and it might cause them a paradigm shift and that is sure to take them out of their comfort zone.

2:170 When it is said to them: "Follow what Allah hath revealed:" they say: "Nay! we shall follow the ways of our fathers:" what! even though their fathers were void of wisdom and guidance!




p.s . Bro. Yusuf another brilliant post, sure to be ignored, because there is nothing quite like a crisp clear slap you in the face facts from the books they use!

 

[K.Venugopal]

It is very interesting to note that you agree with K.Venugopal's statement which essentially agrees in the existence of God, because I previously thought you did not believe in the existence of God.

Islam teaches the Creator-Creation dichotomy and calls the creator God. There are teachings in the Dharmic religions that do not see such a dichotomy and recognize the oneness of existence - call it Brahman (totality) or shunya (nothingness) or jeeva (life).

 

[جوري]

Islam teaches the Creator-Creation dichotomy and calls the creator God. There are teachings in the Dharmic religions that do not see such a dichotomy and recognize the oneness of existence - call it Brahman (totality) or shunya (nothingness) or jeeva (life).

'oneness of existence' leaves many questions un-answered in a sense one would be better off as an atheist since they don't have to stretch their imagination to accommodate the gang:



Annapurna

Balrama

Bhuvaneshwari

Brahma

Buddha

Dhanwantari

Dhumavati

Durga

Ganga

Ganesha

Garuda

Hanuman

Indra

Kali

Kartikay

Krishna

Kurma

Lakshmi

Matangi

Maya

Ram

Saraswati

Shakti

Shiva

Sita

Vamana

Vishnu

all the best

 

[جوري]

by the way as an addendum, why the caste system if all is one?

all the best

 

[K.Venugopal]

'oneness of existence' leaves many questions un-answered in a sense one would be better off as an atheist since they don't have to stretch their imagination to accommodate the gang:

Oneness of existence does not foreclose its expression variously. Hasn't the one Allah many names?