Was Muhammad (P.B.U.H) a True Prophet?

Greetings,

OK, so we have four and counting. Fair enough.

Interesting clips - thank you. :)

Peace
 
Can you elaborate on that?

You ask me to prove that the Qu’ran is not the word of God.

There are several forms of accepted methods of proof and the form I choose is reductio ad absurdum. See . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum In short, this method of proof requires and agreed starting point and evidence showing that the proposition in question contradicts the agreed starting point and is consequently reduced to the absurd (reductio ad absurdum) – proof by contradiction.

The agreed starting point is the description of God. To be God the entity must be:
Perfect;
He must be just (dispensing perfect justice);
He cannot make a mistake;
He must know everything; everything that has been and everything that will be.
He must be able to do anything.

That is our agreed starting point – the definition of God.

That definition is contradicted by the below actions:

Islam teaches that God delivered the Ten Commandments to Moses as a guide for what men must do and not do to please God. If God needed to return and deliver additional messages to Muhammad did he not make himself clear first time or was that message not complete – did he make a mistake?

Surely God wouldn’t need 23 years to deliver his message, did he not know it all on day one.

Why did God, knowing the future and the needless need for scholars to interpret the Qu’ran not give it in writing on day one (as he did with the ten commandments?

The Qu’ran states: 2:106: None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: And 16:101: When We substitute one revelation for another, God is saying that he’s going substitute one statement with another, if he knows all things how come he doesn’t know something will occur later requiring the verse to be amended and consequently get it right first time?

The Qu’ran sanctions injustice - how can that be, God cannot be unjust. The Qu’ran sanctions killing and slavery, it sanctions segregation and preference, it condemns all those who do not become ‘believers’ and abide by the verses of the Qu’ran to hell and more; that is not the actions of an entity dispensing perfect justice.

I submit that if any one of the above items is correct, the actions contradict the definition of God and consequently the Qu’ran cannot be the words of God.
 
Hello again mr Thinker .I hope I can help u, I ll do my best isa, honestly I hope peace to u.


I think its unchallengeable that fourteen hundred years ago people wasn`t able to know when hearing, vision, skin, flesh, and bones of the embryo r created (there wasn`t sonar).

prophet muhammed said {In every one of you, all components of your creation are collected together in your mother’s womb by forty days}Narrated in Saheeh Muslim, #2643
and said {If forty-two nights have passed over the embryo, God sends an angel to it, who shapes it and creates its hearing, vision, skin, flesh, and bones}Narrated in Saheeh Muslim, #2645


Dr. Joe Leigh Simpson (which is the Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Professor of Molecular and Human Genetics at the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. Formerly, he was Professor of Ob-Gyn and the Chairman of the Department of Ob-Gyn at the University of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee, USA. He was also the President of the American Fertility Society. He has received many awards, including the Association of Professors of Obstetrics and Gynecology Public Recognition Award in 1992).
Professor Simpson studied these two sayings of the Prophet Muhammad and said
So that the two hadeeths (the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad ) that have been noted provide us with a specific time table for the main embryological development before forty days. Again, the point has been made, I think, repeatedly by other speakers this morning: these hadeeths could not have been obtained on the basis of the scientific knowledge that was available [at] the time of their writing . . . . It follows, I think, that not only there is no conflict between genetics and religion but, in fact, religion can guide science by adding revelation to some of the traditional scientific approaches, that there exist statements in the Quran shown centuries later to be valid, which support knowledge in the Quran having been derived from God.”

Ah my new Egyptian friend – is this the best ‘proof’ you have? It appears that Muhammad learned these things from the Greeks - read on . . .

You say that the idea of the embryo developing through stages is revealed by Muhammad for the first time. . . . . . Many ancient writers like Galen taught that humans developed in different stages. And, for example the Jewish Talmud states that the embryo has six stages of development. Samuel ha-Yehudi was a 2nd century Jewish physician, and one of many with an interest in embryology [22]. The embryo was called peri habbetten (fruit of the body) and develops as
golem (formless, rolled-up thing);
shefir meruqqam (embroidered foetus - shefir means amniotic sac);
'ubbar (something carried);
v'alad (child);
v'alad shel qayama (noble or viable child) and
ben she-kallu chadashav (child whose months have been completed).
Yet with the benefit of modern science we now know that the formation of a human being is a seamless continuation from conception to birth, hence the reason why there is so much contemporary confusion about abortion and embryo research. For if we develop as a continuous process it is impossible to draw hard-and-fast boundaries about when life starts. That makes a nonsense of the Qur'anic verse which says (71:14) "When He created you by (divers) stages".

The account of the different stages in embryology as described by the Qur'an and hadeeth was taught by Galen, writing in around AD 150 in Pergamum (Bergama in modern Turkey). Galen taught that the embryo developed in four stages as detailed below.
Galen: De Semine in Greek

(Note - the Greek document didn't copy across - possibly because it's a picture)

English translation:
But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails (Arabic nutfah). At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood (Arabic alaqa), and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus. The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts (Arabic mudghah). You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches. The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed (Arabic ‘a new creation’) ...
... The time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other, and along their entire length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on which it caused flesh to grow [19].

Qur'an: Sura 23:13-14 in Arabic for comparison

(Note - the Arabic document didn't copy across - possibly because it's a picture)

English translation:
Thereafter We made him (the offspring of Adam) as a Nutfah (mixed drops of the male and female sexual discharge and lodged it) in a safe lodging (womb of the woman). Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (Alaqa, a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh (Mudghah), then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!
The first stage, geniture, corresponds to [nutfah], the drop of semen; the second stage, a bloody vascularised foetus with unshaped brain, liver and heart ("when it has been filled with blood") corresponds to [alaqa], the blood clot; the third stage "has the form of flesh" and corresponds to [mudghah], the morsel of chewed flesh. The fourth and final stage, puer, was when all the organs were well formed, joints were freely moveable, and the foetus began to move [20]. If the reader is in any doubt about the clear link being described here between the Galenic and the Qur'anic stages, it may be pointed out that it was early Muslim doctors, including Ibn-Qayyim, who first spotted the similarity. Basim Musallam, Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge concludes
"The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific account ... There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur'an and Galen, for Arabic science employed the same Qur'anic terms to describe the Galenic stages" [21].
 
Last edited:
Islam teaches that God delivered the Ten Commandments to Moses as a guide for what men must do and not do to please God. If God needed to return and deliver additional messages to Muhammad did he not make himself clear first time or was that message not complete – did he make a mistake?
Nope. People disobeyed. God had mercy and gave them another chance.

Surely God wouldn’t need 23 years to deliver his message, did he not know it all on day one.
Can a human being learn the entire UK [or any] legal system in one day? No. So how can you expect someone to learn 6,666 verses in the same time period? It was over a period of years so people could actually hope to understand it, least of all the Prophet [saw].

Why did God, knowing the future and the needless need for scholars to interpret the Qu’ran not give it in writing on day one (as he did with the ten commandments?
Again, 6,666 verses are a lot more than 10.

The Qu’ran states: 2:106: None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: And 16:101: When We substitute one revelation for another, God is saying that he’s going substitute one statement with another, if he knows all things how come he doesn’t know something will occur later requiring the verse to be amended and consequently get it right first time?
Laws and rulings went through progression/stages. Implimenting final-cut laws do not work (see: alcohol prohibition in america).

The Qu’ran sanctions killing and slavery
Killing enemy combatants and/or criminals
Slavery because of the time period (where slavery was a social norm. Again, this went through progressive stages)

Removing the context from Quranic verses is not cool.

it sanctions segregation and preference
-Segregation between men and women you mean. To prevent flirting and promiscuity which lead to adultery, under aged sex, child abortions. How is segregation in that context BAD?
-Preference in terms of behaviour and manners.

it condemns all those who do not become ‘believers’ and abide by the verses of the Qu’ran to hell and more
Think of the Quran as a map to paradise. If you don't follow it (and therefore believe it) will you get to paradise? Nope. Quran just makes it clear from the get-go: don't follow this map and you won't go to paradise. No BS or hidden fees.

that is not the actions of an entity dispensing perfect justice.
Even though Allah grants them justice in THIS life?

I submit that if any one of the above items is correct, the actions contradict the definition of God and consequently the Qu’ran cannot be the words of God.
You didn't give any real examples other than blanket statements. I suggest you back up your theories with relevant examples (perhaps Quranic Ayats [you gave a couple but no more] hadith etc) - it would lend more weighting towards your argument. As is, any practicing muslim can and will refute you sufficiently with mere common knowledge/basics of Islamic teachings/theology.

Now, unless you understand the basics of Islamic theology, don't even attempt to refute it as a religion.
 
Last edited:
It didn't work as well as the booze ban, Muslim traded slaves up until the 20th century.
True, but it was better than nothing I'm sure you can agree.

As for rights, well, rights...
Again though, much better than what they had before. A slave back then was closer to what we deem a prison biatch nowadays. After the Quranic rulings, slaves were more akin to butlers/house workers.

In any case, the point I was making was those verses regarding slaves are for those who have/had slaves or are living in conditions were slavery is a normality (as it once was). So, essentially, there exists context behind those verses that many critics often fail to see.
 
True, but it was better than nothing I'm sure you can agree.


Again though, much better than what they had before. A slave back then was closer to what we deem a prison biatch nowadays. After the Quranic rulings, slaves were more akin to butlers/house workers.

In any case, the point I was making was those verses regarding slaves are for those who have/had slaves or are living in conditions were slavery is a normality (as it once was). So, essentially, there exists context behind those verses that many critics often fail to see.
They were still slaves and definitely not akin to butlers. And even if they were, Arabs were mainly selling them to non-Muslims.
And yes, it is better do give them some rights than do nothing but it's still owning human beings. I wouldn't expect a god to condone it and if what you say is true, that slavery was a social reality that had to be removed in stages, why did it fail so utterly, why didn't it go along the lines of alchohol ban, why is there no clear timeline and method to gradually abolish it?
 
They were still slaves and definitely not akin to butlers. And even if they were, Arabs were mainly selling them to non-Muslims.
And yes, it is better do give them some rights than do nothing but it's still owning human beings. I wouldn't expect a god to condone it and if what you say is true, that slavery was a social reality that had to be removed in stages, why did it fail so utterly, why didn't it go along the lines of alchohol ban, why is there no clear timeline and method to gradually abolish it?
Technically they were servants with the rights that were given to them.
 
They were still slaves and definitely not akin to butlers. And even if they were, Arabs were mainly selling them to non-Muslims.
And yes, it is better do give them some rights than do nothing but it's still owning human beings. I wouldn't expect a god to condone it and if what you say is true, that slavery was a social reality that had to be removed in stages, why did it fail so utterly, why didn't it go along the lines of alchohol ban, why is there no clear timeline and method to gradually abolish it?

I'm no expert in the field so cannot comment much beyond what I've already posted. The Qur'an did allow for slaves to be freed and we have the Prophet's examples to look to for evidence. So I don't see what the issue is (or why thinker brought it up originally). Yes it allowed for slavery but it also encouraged you to free slaves.

Why the methodology was different? Perhaps because one deals with alcohol (an addictive beverage) and the other slavery?
 
I'm no expert in the field so cannot comment much beyond what I've already posted. The Qur'an did allow for slaves to be freed and we have the Prophet's examples to look to for evidence. So I don't see what the issue is (or why thinker brought it up originally). Yes it allowed for slavery but it also encouraged you to free slaves.

Why the methodology was different? Perhaps because one deals with alcohol (an addictive beverage) and the other slavery?
I meant why does it merely encourage it and on the other hand commands the banning of alcohol?
 
Well lets look at the rights given to slaves:
(1) Masters must treat them good and provide them proper food, shelter, and clothing. If a master failed to do these things a slave can go to court which would penalize master, move slave to different master, or slave might be set free.

(2) Slaves had the right to earn their freedom.
 
Well lets look at the rights given to slaves:
(1) Masters must treat them good and provide them proper food, shelter, and clothing. If a master failed to do these things a slave can go to court which would penalize master, move slave to different master, or slave might be set free.

(2) Slaves had the right to earn their freedom.
The key word in both cases is allow/encourage rather than command. The Quran doesn't command to free slaves, it doesn't prescribe the slave's right to earn his freedom, I don't even think it commands master to treat their slaves well, though if tehy can go to court, that is probably teh case.
And of course, slavery is owning a human being no matter what rights they may have.
 
Slaves were already there, but they had the right to earn their freedom.
Did they or was it just the goodwill of their masters to let them earn it?
Show me a verse that clearly states a slave has the right to earn his or her freedom.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top