What was Muhammad (pbuh) if not a prophet?

[Malaikah]

Hello... this thread is dedicated to the non-Muslim members particularly...

So, obviously, as non-Muslims you do not believe that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was the Messenger of God... If Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was not a Prophet, then what was he, and where did the Quran come from?

Please vote... and here are some pre-prepared responses to the options.

Oh, and I know some people will probably be hesitant to share their opinion, but I assure you as long as you are POLITE and respectful... there should no be a problem inshaallah.

(The following are based on a lecture by Yasir Qadhi)

All these following attacks are attackes against the prophet by modern orientalists… none of these accusations are original, they are all exactly the same as the accusations made by the pagan Arabs of his time. They can’t come up with something new.

Number one: they claim he is a poet.

The claim: He was an extraordinary poet, anyone who has knowledge of Jewish history and has poetic fire can write it.

The response: When the mushrikoon (the pagan Arabs of his time) claimed the Quran was poetry, Allah responded and said that Muhammad pbuh was not a poet. “Let them bring forth a miracle like the people before them”. The challenge: if you think he was a poet, so then bring forth something similar to it.

Furthermore, the Quran is nothing like the poetry known to the Arabs, at all, and poetry is something the Arabs specialized in. How then could an illiterate man have produced this work (i.e. the Quran)? Also, he had no knowledge of Jewish history!

Number two: He was a mad man (God forbid!)/had epilepsy.

The respone: But can a madman live such a sane life, where he founds an empire, where all the people love and respect him, where he is a father, a husband, a friend, a companion, a military leader and a statesman, where he is one who is giving out laws by the name of Allah, and yet his madness is not shown? His life shows the height of intelligence, passion, of controlling ones passion and desires.

The mushrikoon also claimed this, and Allah replied to this in the Quran, and said he came with the truth. Can a mad man preach the truth? How can he live a normal life?

Number three: the prophet was power hungry.

The response: Look at how he lived, his house, nothing but his bed and water. His family would sometimes go to sleep hungry, with no food, they sometimes went a month or two eating only dates and water. What kind of power is he after then?

Furthermore, he was known to his people as“The one who is trustworthy” how can someone who was known as the most trustworthy his whole life come forth with the biggest lie (i.e. a lie against God Himself)?

Number four: he imagined that he was a prophet

There are those who realize that his life was a life of honesty and integrity, so the only logical explanation they have is that he assumed he was a prophet, and ‘worked himself up’ into thinking he was. But this does not make sense because his life was an example of the height of sanity (see point 2).

Number five: the Quran was thought to him by other people.

Some claim that the prophet learned the Quran from others, because they recognize that Muhammad pbuh never studied history and nor was he, as an illiterate man, a poet. Is this even possible?

The Quran was not written in one go, it was revealed over a period of 20 years, therefore the candidates must have been present with the prophet through out his whole prophethood, read right besides him to reveal verses as soon as a situation arose... but there is no supporting evidence for this at all.

Furthermore, all the people suggested to have been the one who taught him the Quran, along with its knowledge Jewish and Christian traditions are extremely unlikely candidates.

For example:
- Bahira: bahira only meet him for an hour or so, when he was a teenager. It isn’t even sure that he was meet him.
- Salman al-farasi- meet him 15 years after he started teaching/preaching islam. Where then, did Muhammad learn the Quran from before he meet Salman al-farasi?

Also none of the people they point to are Arabs, they couldn’t speak it fluently, yet the Quran is the height of eloquence. This is also meantioned in that Quran, that the person who they accuse you of learning from is not Arab and this Quran is in Arabic.
​

 

[snakelegs]

i didn't vote. i have no problem with the concept of muhammad being a prophet.

 

[Malaikah]

wow snakelegs, thats awesome...

er.. so if you have no problem with him being a prophet, then why aren't you a Muslim?:?

 

[Trumble]

but I assure you as long as you are POLITE and respectful...

I voted "some other combination of points 1-5". My comments are given in the spirit you suggest above. One starting point, though..

All these following attacks are attackes against the prophet by modern orientalists… none of these accusations are original, they are all exactly the same as the accusations made by the pagan Arabs of his time. They can’t come up with something new.

I don't understand the need for originality on this point; indeed the fact that those same criticisms were contemporary with Mohammed rather strengthens them.

Number one: they claim he is a poet

The response: When the mushrikoon (the pagan Arabs of his time) claimed the Quran was poetry, Allah responded and said that Muhammad pbuh was not a poet. “Let them bring forth a miracle like the people before them”. The challenge: if you think he was a poet, so then bring forth something similar to it.

Furthermore, the Quran is nothing like the poetry known to the Arabs, at all, and poetry is something the Arabs specialized in. How then could an illiterate man have produced this work (i.e. the Quran)? Also, he had no knowledge of Jewish history!

The strongest of the points raised by some distance, although the final point is not (we have no idea what he had knowledge of, and of who passed through where he lived, and what they knew). However, there are possibilities. Mohammed was undoubtably a political genius; there is no reason he could not have been a poetry one as well (literacy certainly helps, but there are plenty of oral poetic traditions across world cultures. We have no idea how much collaberation Mohammed may have had from those who were literate, and who shared his political objectives.

Number two: He was a mad man (God forbid!)/had epilepsy.

The response: But can a madman live such a sane life, where he founds an empire, where all the people love and respect him, where he is a father, a husband, a friend, a companion, a military leader and a statesman, where he is one who is giving out laws by the name of Allah, and yet his madness is not shown? His life shows the height of intelligence, passion, of controlling ones passion and desires.

Define 'madness'... virtually every founder of an empire was 'mad' in some way or another; you probably have to be. It didn't stop the likes of Alexander fulfilling all of the above. Julius Caesar is perhaps history's most famous epileptic, although it is an essential point that that fact was deduced by historians (with Plutarch probably being the first), and although it would have been known to Caesar's close associates there was no contemporary record of his epilepsy.

The mushrikoon also claimed this, and Allah replied to this in the Quran, and said he came with the truth. Can a mad man preach the truth? How can he live a normal life?

See above. Insofar as an empire-founders life is 'normal', the answer is pretty much 'yes'.

Number three: the prophet was power hungry.

The response: Look at how he lived, his house, nothing but his bed and water. His family would sometimes go to sleep hungry, with no food, they sometimes went a month or two eating only dates and water. What kind of power is he after then?

'Power hungry' is a very emotive phrase, suggestive of Hitler, Napoleon etc as well as those I mentioned already. There is no reason to believe Mohammed sought personal power rather than a better life for his people and indeed humanity in general, although, granted, such people are rare indeed. Even apart from that, the argument is unconvincing. Many conquerors were actually very austere in their personal habits... they were simply too focused on what they were doing to worry about accumulating or enjoying the trappings of wealth.

Furthermore, he was known to his people as“The one who is trustworthy” how can someone who was known as the most trustworthy his whole life come forth with the biggest lie (i.e. a lie against God Himself)?

This is where I have to be very careful on 'offence', so be please be assured none is intended. Surely being known as "most trustworthy" does no more than indicate a perception of character.. the expected one as there is no doubt that Mohammed 'delivered' for his people in general and those close to him in particular. I should maybe refer you to Machievelli's The Prince on that point. As to the "biggest lie", lets stick with the philosophers and turn to Plato. In the 'Republic' (and its fascinating to speculate whether Mohammed was familiar with that work, although its unlikely) Plato describes the "noble lie". The idea is that the vast majority of people are incapable of actually understanding what is best for themselves, and how best to get along with others. It is therefore necessary to impose a certain system of ethics for the benefit of all (whether they appreciate it or not), and what better way to deliver it than packaged as an easily understandable religious package, geared to the intelligence of the people and that they will believe. Deception is therefore a requisite for instilling virtue, "the lie in words is in certain cases useful and not hateful". Personally, I believe the Qur'an to be the definitive example of the application of that principle.

Number four: he imagined that he was a prophet

There are those who realize that his life was a life of honesty and integrity, so the only logical explanation they have is that he assumed he was a prophet, and ‘worked himself up’ into thinking he was. But this does not make sense because his life was an example of the height of sanity (see point 2).

Likewise my reply to point 2.

Number five: the Quran was thought to him by other people.

Some claim that the prophet learned the Quran from others, because they recognize that Muhammad pbuh never studied history and nor was he, as an illiterate man, a poet. Is this even possible?

The Quran was not written in one go, it was revealed over a period of 20 years, therefore the candidates must have been present with the prophet through out his whole prophethood, read right besides him to reveal verses as soon as a situation arose... but there is no supporting evidence for this at all.

There is none it didn't happen either, some people were certainly around him for the whole of that period. The Qur'an has several distinct styles, as would certainly be expected if compilation was over a 20 year period, but is also supportive of variations in co-authorship. So, yes, it is perfectly possible.

Furthermore, all the people suggested to have been the one who taught him the Quran, along with its knowledge Jewish and Christian traditions are extremely unlikely candidates.

What about the ones we don't know about? 'Airbrushing' from history is far from unknown, particularly when there is an obvious reason to do so, and even an obvious reason for those involved to actively collaborate in doing so.


So where does that leave us? With some weak objections by Yasir Qadhi (although not original ones, of course )and a couple of rather stronger ones. I fully understand that muslims will reject my responses to one and five as weak. The certainly suggest things that may be improbable (even very improbable, but NOT impossible, as is frequently suggested here). BUT, the point is that in history the improbable does happen, and among billions of humans a few are truly extraordinary. Cyrus, Alexander, Caesar, Ghengis Khan, Tamerlane, Mohammed, Napoleon. Conquest is not required, consider other great religious and cultural figures, Jesus, the Buddha, Lao Tsu, Confucius, Leonardo. It is why the few are remembered across thousands of years while the rest are forgotten. The existence of such people, and events, is far less improbable than the existence (unsupported by any real evidence) of a God as muslims and Christians perceive Him.

 

[snakelegs]

wow snakelegs, thats awesome...

er.. so if you have no problem with him being a prophet, then why aren't you a Muslim?:?

i have no problem with muhammad being a prophet mainly because i see no reason why he couldn't have been. there have probably been many prophets sent to many people in many forms.
i'm not a muslim because i believe god is too big to be contained in any one religion.

 

[Malaikah]

i'm not a muslim because i believe god is too big to be contained in any one religion.

That doesn't make sense. How can you say that it is possible that Prophet Muhammad pbuh was sent by God Himself- meaning that everything he said was true, and yet you still think that God it too great to be contained by one religion, even though it was God Himself who revealed that religion.

In other word- God was wrong to have sent the Prophet??

 

[sevgi]

i'm not a muslim because i believe god is too big to be contained in any one religion.

jst like to add to what sis malaikah jst said...

ur mentality is so corect in one way...God IS too big to be contained in any one religion...

the religion doesnt contain him...he contains the religion...ie, Islam.

 

[Malaikah]

I don't understand the need for originality on this point; indeed the fact that those same criticisms were contemporary with Mohammed rather strengthens them.

Not really. It just means that all the points have already been refuted, and that the sources of Islam provide a strong tool for those wishing to address these claims, because they are all old. Also, note that none of the points were successful... as admitted by the very people who made up these attacks... there is actually a very good hadith about this... I might try to find it later.

The strongest of the points raised by some distance, although the final point is not (we have no idea what he had knowledge of, and of who passed through where he lived, and what they knew).

That is what biographies are good for.

We have no idea how much collaberation Mohammed may have had from those who were literate, and who shared his political objectives.

That is just pure speculation, bring forth your evidence! What political objects? Such a person must have stayed with the prophet through out his whole life as a prophet, and must have been a close associate... and therefore it is almost impossible that such a person would have escaped being recorded in history. We know who his close associates were. That has been recorded in numerous hadiths. Now all you need to do is find someone who fits your description (you will find no one).

Define 'madness'... virtually every founder of an empire was 'mad' in some way or another; you probably have to be. It didn't stop the likes of Alexander fulfilling all of the above. Julius Caesar is perhaps history's most famous epileptic, although it is an essential point that that fact was deduced by historians (with Plutarch probably being the first), and although it would have been known to Caesar's close associates there was no contemporary record of his epilepsy.

Well, I'm not the one making the claim that he was mad, so perhaps you could do that for us? We have his biography, down to the most (seemingly) irrelevant details... such as which hand he ate with, one which side of his body he slept etc. If he was so mad, point out to us the actions that show his madness? Given that we have so much of his life documented, if you can't find any solid evidence of his madness, then this whole point is baseless.

The epilepsy idea came about from the fact that when the Prophet Muhammad pbuh received revelation, he would sweat deeply even on a cold day and be silent... as well as other symptoms... some have likened this to epilepsy, while ignoring all the ways in which it is different to epilepsy... Also how many people go into an epileptic fit and then come out of it, producing a verse from the book of the greatest eloquence? I've seen epileptics, they come out of it confused and dazed, and yet this man comes out of it with a verse/verses of the highest literary standard... is that really madness?

Also, one companion reported that ones the prophet was lying down with his head (or part of his body) on his leg, and the prophet received revelation... the companion said that while the prophet pbuh was receiving revelation, his body exerted such a strong force on this leg that he thought his leg was going to snap from the pressure... again, does this sound like an epileptic? Not at all...

Oh yeh, and he can't have faked it because I don't know of many people how can sweat like and develop those kind of symptoms by choice (And, incidently, at exactly the right time when revelation was needed!).

See above. Insofar as an empire-founders life is 'normal', the answer is pretty much 'yes'.

So no body, not even his closest friends, or wives, or children would have known that he was mad?? And yet, we can know by studying his life 1400 years later??

Even apart from that, the argument is unconvincing. Many conquerors were actually very austere in their personal habits... they were simply too focused on what they were doing to worry about accumulating or enjoying the trappings of wealth.

A desire for power is exactly what the argument is... if it was power, richest and glory that he wanted, he could have had it, but he never did... he lived a life of poverty even though he had sooo many chances of gaining wealth for himself, instead he gave in charity and dealt with the treasury justly...

In what way is the argument unconvincing? There is no evidence at all in his life that he used his power for personal gain, at all.. in fact for the first ten years it was nothing but hardship and torture for him and his followers. What did he have to gain in those 10 years? Nothing. If it was power that he wanted, he was offered it by his tribe, as a bribe to get him to give up his religion, they offered him so much, but he refused it all and just told them he will never give up on Islam. The offer was made at the time when he was weak. If he wanted power, it was staring him in the face, keeping in mind, of course, that if he was not divinely guided then he would have had no way of knowing that he would have amazing success in the future, and therefore taking a risk by neglecting the offer for power and other things.

This is where I have to be very careful on 'offence', so be please be assured none is intended. Surely being known as "most trustworthy" does no more than indicate a perception of character.. the expected one as there is no doubt that Mohammed 'delivered' for his people in general and those close to him in particular.

What are you trying to say? That the whole 'town'/tribe was wrong in referring to him as their most trustworthy, honest and decent man? Even though he was the height of morality in a time when immorality was 'normal'? When you compare what he was like (even before he became a Prophet) to what the rest of the people were like, it is easy to see why he was given such a noble title. And he was like that for his whole life... isn't not like he matured into a good person, even in his teens he was nothing like the other teenagers.

As to the "biggest lie", lets stick with the philosophers and turn to Plato. In the 'Republic' (and its fascinating to speculate whether Mohammed was familiar with that work, although its unlikely) Plato describes the "noble lie". The idea is that the vast majority of people are incapable of actually understanding what is best for themselves, and how best to get along with others. It is therefore necessary to impose a certain system of ethics for the benefit of all (whether they appreciate it or not), and what better way to deliver it than packaged as an easily understandable religious package, geared to the intelligence of the people and that they will believe. Deception is therefore a requisite for instilling virtue, "the lie in words is in certain cases useful and not hateful". Personally, I believe the Qur'an to be the definitive example of the application of that principle.

So you are saying that Prophet Muhammad, the one who was known for his honest, lied about Islam, for 'the greater good'. Keeping in mind that he was always a religious man and would no doubt have considered this a horrible blasphemy? His whole tribe were idol worshipers, but he never ever fell in to that, he was completely against it. Why? Because he believe in one God worthy of worship. And yet you would have us believe that he did something that was probably just as bad as worshiping idols- he lied to thousands of people and lied about God Himself?? That makes no sense at all... not mention you have no proof for your theory.

There is none it didn't happen either, some people were certainly around him for the whole of that period. The Qur'an has several distinct styles, as would certainly be expected if compilation was over a 20 year period, but is also supportive of variations in co-authorship. So, yes, it is perfectly possible.

Like I said earlier, we know who those people were, none of them are likely candidates.

Co-authorship? Don't get too excited there- it is hard enough finding even one person who could have been the candidate for writing the Quran, and now you suggest it could have been multiple people?

I have no idea how the styles of Quran can support your theory? Especially considering they are only variants of the original??

What about the ones we don't know about? 'Airbrushing' from history is far from unknown, particularly when there is an obvious reason to do so, and even an obvious reason for those involved to actively collaborate in doing so.

What do you mean by aribrushing? As i said, his life was well documented and any one who could have been a possible author of the Quran would have had to spend immense amount of time with the prophet pbuh. Any candidates??

So where does that leave us? With some weak objections by Yasir Qadhi (although not original ones, of course )and a couple of rather stronger ones.

No one ever claimed they were original, and any weakness was my own weakness in transcribing the lecture and leaving out details so it doesn't get too long.

I fully understand that muslims will reject my responses to one and five as weak. The certainly suggest things that may be improbable (even very improbable, but NOT impossible, as is frequently suggested here).

Exactly. Your asking for too much, with out proper knowledge of the prophets biography, with absolutely no evidence at all.

 

[Trumble]

Not really. It just means that all the points have already been refuted

No. It means attempts have been made to do so. Like 'proof', 'refuted' is a word used far too casually at times.

That is just pure speculation, bring forth your evidence! What political objects?

I would have thought the political objectives were completely obvious, considering the history and that, to a large degree, they are detailed in the Qur'an itself! Politics is about how people should live, who has 'power' is only a sub-subject within it. As to 'evidence', I am merely speculating, suggesting plausible alternatives to the Prophet/God scenario in response to your first post, not attempting to prove any of them correct. Bring forth your 'evidence' as to the actual revelation of the Qur'an by God.

We know who his close associates were. That has been recorded in numerous hadiths. Now all you need to do is find someone who fits your description (you will find no one).

No, all we can know is what was recorded in Hadiths. We have no idea how complete, or accurate, they are. Exactly the same is true of any historical document.

Well, I'm not the one making the claim that he was mad, so perhaps you could do that for us?

Why? I'm not claiming he was mad, either. Quite the contrary, in fact. You raised the issue, if only to argue against it.

We have his biography, down to the most (seemingly) irrelevant details... such as which hand he ate with, one which side of his body he slept etc. If he was so mad, point out to us the actions that show his madness? Given that we have so much of his life document, if you can't find any solid evidence of his madness, then this whole point is baseless.

To be honest, that just shows a complete lack of understanding of mental health issues and an understanding of 'mad' that belongs in the seventh century. Nevertheless, as I said I am not claiming it. I am not actually claiming anything, just answering your question. If you re-read my previous answer you will see that point fully 'refuted'.

I've seen epileptics, they come out of it confused and dazed, and yet this man comes out of it with a verse/verses of the highest literary standard... is that really madness?

Epilepsy is not 'madness' at all, and symptoms vary. Regardless, though, I am not arguing Mohammed was epileptic. I know of no evidence for same. I am under no obligation to argue for/against other people's views on the subject.

So no body, not even his closest friends, or wives, would have known that he was mad?? And yet, we can know by studying his life 1400 years later??

Again, see everything I've written previously. Define 'madness'. How close is it to 'genius'? Neither necessitates either prophethood or divine inspiration. I have mentioned several historical figures, all have been argued 'mad' in some way or another. Of course we don't know any more than we know about Alexander, the point is about possibilities, no more.

A desire for power is exactly what the argument is... if it was power, richest and glory that he wanted, he could have had it, but he never did... he lived a life of poverty even though he had sooo many chances of gaining wealth for himself, instead he gave in charity and dealt with the treasury justly...

In what way is the argument unconvincing? There is no evidence at all in his life that he used his power for personal gain, at all.. in fact for the first ten years it was nothing but hardship and torture for him and his followers. What did he have to gain in those 10 years? Nothing. What are you trying to say? That the whole 'town'/tribe was wrong in referring to him as their most trustworthy, honest and decent man? Even though he was the height of morality in a time when immorality was 'normal'? When you compare what he was like (even before he became a Prophet) to what the rest of the people were like, it is easy to see why he was given such a noble title.

Again, I can't really add to what I've said already. I am stating my view, not defending other peoples'. I do not believe Mohammed had a "lust for power" with a view to personal gain. I believe he sought power for benevolent, political, but not divinely given, motives.

So you are saying that Prophet Muhammad, the one who was knowing for his honest, lied about Islam, for 'the greater good'. Keeping in mind that he was always a religious man and would no doubt have considered this a horrible blasphemy? His whole tribe were idol worshipers, but he never ever fell in to that, he was completely against it. Why? Because he believe in one God worthy of worship. And yet you would have us believe that he did something that was probably just as bad as worshipping idols- he lied to thousands of people and lied about God Himself?? That makes no sense at all... not mention you have no proof for your theory.

I am suggesting a possibility, not trying to 'prove' one. So long after the event it can no more be proved than disproved. You say he "would no doubt have considered this a horrible blasphemy", that is clearly only true if you make the starting assumption that the possibility is in fact impossible.

I have no idea who the styles of Quran can support your theory? Especially considering they are only variants of the original??

Of course they are only variants. Assuming the primary author was Mohammed throughout, that is what you would expect.

What do you mean by aribrushing? As i said, his life was well documented...

It was well documented by people who both knew Mohammed's motives and had their own. Far less biased historical recording has made far far greater omissions and errors than we are talking about here, both deliberate and intentional.

Exactly. Your asking for too much, with out proper knowledge of the prophets biography, with absolutely no evidence at all.

I am not asking anything, I am answering your question. I would not have posted on this subject unless invited to do so. I have a passable knowledge of Mohammed's life; but that does not mean I accept every word of what is 'known' about it as true. In the context of any other historical figure, even those rather better documented, such a belief would be considered by extremely foolish by historians, and for me the "religious figure get-out clause" doesn't apply. If it's any consolation, I consider the 'biographies' of Jesus and the Buddha in exactly the same way - rather more so in both cases, actually. To save you asking, in the case of the Buddha it simply doesn't matter, as the authorship of Buddhist teachings doesn't matter. They stand by themselves to be taken or left as you choose, something clearly not the case for something claimed to be the Will of God. Rest assured that if I found that idea in relation to the Qur'an even remotely convincing I would become a muslim overnight. But I don't.

Speculations or not, I consider them far less speculative, not to mention plausible, than the existence of a God who's existence must be a pre-requisite for true prophethood. That's all it comes down to, reallly. As I said I certainly wouldn't expect any muslim to agree with me.. they would not be muslims if they did.

 

[Malaikah]

Okay, so in other words you are talking about nothing but mere speculation... well I'd rather talk facts.

No, all we can know is what was recorded in Hadiths. We have no idea how complete, or accurate, they are. Exactly the same is true of any historical document.

Okay, that is pretty baseless, the hadith have to undergo very strict testing before they are considered to be authoritative... but I think that is best discussed in a different thread.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

i'm not a muslim because i believe god is too big to be contained in any one religion.

your saying that a religion is not necessary, and that God doesnt need to be worshipped? But thats your own thinking, what if you knew that God himself commanded that you worship him. That makes things a lot different then?

 

[Trumble]

Okay, that is pretty baseless, the hadith have to undergo very strict testing before they are considered to be authoritative... but I think that is best discussed in a different thread.

Possibly, but I'll answer it here. Baseless? Far from it. 'Strict testing' by who? Somebody who was there? Somebody who saw the event described? Or by a suitable quorum of such people? One is never reliable. Somebody totally neutral in the matter? Can there be such a person Hadith are no different from any other historical documents, if the "religious get-out" is ignored. Quite apart from which such testing could never, even theoretically, acknowledge what was omitted or just not recorded, for whatever reason.

Well I'd rather talk facts

Good, I have provided plenty of facts. What I have not done is claim they represent any sort of 'proof' or 'refutation' of the points you raised. You also have provided facts to support your position but which, as is invariably the case on such topics, 'prove' or 'refute' nothing, either. It is a matter of faith and belief, not 'facts'.. and any view as to what constitutes 'truth' is determined by those pre-existing beliefs. I have merely attempted to answer your original question.

 

[Keltoi]

I chose the "I don't know..I don't have a problem with it" choice. I do not believe he was a prophet, but like Trumble stated, it is a matter of faith.

 

[Malaikah]

Possibly, but I'll answer it here. Baseless? Far from it. 'Strict testing' by who? Somebody who was there? Somebody who saw the event described? Or by a suitable quorum of such people? One is never reliable. Somebody totally neutral in the matter? Can there be such a person Hadith are no different from any other historical documents, if the "religious get-out" is ignored. Quite apart from which such testing could never, even theoretically, acknowledge what was omitted or just not recorded, for whatever reason.

Do you know anything at all about the hadith sciences? This really isn't the place for it. Lets just leave that for another thread.

Good, I have provided plenty of facts.

What facts? I must have missed something. It was all speculation, you said that yourself.

I have merely attempted to answer your original question.

That fine.

Keltoi, would you consider ignorance/lack of knowledge to be the reason you voted for that last option?

You say it is a matter of faith- I don't think it is 100% faith. There is a lot of logic and reasoning involved in the matter was well. I really dislike when people just fall back on faith, it just destroys discussion (although it is an interesting thing itself to discussion... which gives me an idea for a new thread... hmm..)

 

[Jayda]

hola Malaikah,

given what happened with the "why not islam" thread dont you think this thread may not be a good idea... i do not think certain members can handle this kind of discussion without becomming overly agitative or agitated...

Dios te bendiga

 

[Malaikah]

Hi Jayda,

That is why I said that members should be respectful of Islamic beliefs when they state their opinions... so far so good.

As long as someone doesn't say something utterly stupid, such as accusing Prophet Muhammad pbuh of being a terrorist, then I think this *might* work... as long as people are respectful and careful with their wording.

 

[Jayda]

Hi Jayda,

That is why I said that members should be respectful of Islamic beliefs when they state their opinions... so far so good.

As long as someone doesn't say something utterly stupid, such as accusing Prophet Muhammad pbuh of being a terrorist, then I think this *might* work... as long as people are respectful and careful with their wording.

hola Malaikah,

gracias... i will be interested to see where this goes...

Dios te bendiga

 

[Trumble]

What facts? I must have missed something.

You did. I'll go back to my first post and point out the facts I was using to support my views (and indeed, speculations) if I must, although that really shouldn't be necessary.

You say it is a matter of faith- I don't think it is 100% faith. There is a lot of logic and reasoning involved in the matter was well. I really dislike when people just fall back on faith, it just destroys discussion (although it is an interesting thing itself to discussion...

If I may take the liberty of commenting on that also, no, it is not 100% faith. But always, in the end, such arguments are on foundations of faith.. they depend ultimately on faith based assumptions. Much the same logic and reasoning has been used for the better part of two millennia, and it 'proves' or 'refutes' no more now than it did at any previous time. People still reach their own views and beliefs, but ultimately they are based on faith not reason. That does not mean attempts at reason cannot direct people towards a particular faith; it is the major reason I hold my own. Where there is dispute, people will generally favour one position over another even when there is no logical proof to justify it. There may well be evidence to support (as oppose to 'prove') a particular view, but peoples' assessments of the weight of that evidence vary, too. Most things in life are like that, there are very few things in real-life that can be logically proven. The world is just too complicated.

 

[Idris]

'Power hungry' is a very emotive phrase, suggestive of Hitler, Napoleon etc as well as those I mentioned already. There is no reason to believe Mohammed sought personal power rather than a better life for his people and indeed humanity in general, although, granted, such people are rare indeed. Even apart from that, the argument is unconvincing. Many conquerors were actually very austere in their personal habits... they were simply too focused on what they were doing to worry about accumulating or enjoying the trappings of wealth.

I think all the conquerors looked for power and wealth.But Muhammad lived this hard life till he died although the Muslim treasury was at his disposal, the greater part of the Arabian Peninsula was Muslim before he died.

 

[Trumble]

I think all the conquerors looked for power and wealth.

Actually, the usual obsession was eternal fame and glory rather than power and wealth, although I suppose you could say in most cases the ability to achieve the former depended largely on possessing the latter. Power and wealth was the means, not the end.