What was Muhammad (pbuh) if not a prophet?

[lavikor201]

But can a madman live such a sane life, where he founds an empire,

Hitler did, to make a brutal and unfair comparison.

 

[DAWUD_adnan]

Sister malaikah, i dont know why you bother , just keep thining to yourself '' Well see on The Day of Judgement'' yu know its gonna come right? so keep it in mind there is no point, most people will never understand.. leave it, this is what you should have said ( and the Quran says)..''[20:135] Say, "All of us are waiting, so wait; you will surely find out who are on the correct path, and who are truly guided." Peace

 

[Abu Zakariya]

I haven't read all of the posts, but the point about Plato's philosophicial argument about "the noble lie" is particularly interesting.
I learned (from a lecture by Yasir Qadhi actually) that a sect in Muslim history (called "the Mu'tazilah") actually adopted this philosophical argument and said that the Prophets only said these things to the masses because this was the only way they could be better people, and that there in fact was no Hereafter. And they said that because of this, the philosophers are on a higher level than the Prophets, since they - the "Elite" - know the real truth while the Prophets only preached to the masses. So you're not the only one coming up with this argument.

However, there's one thing you have to know. The main conflict between the Muslims and the Pagans wasn't about a system of ethics. The reason why the Pagans couldn't accept the religion of Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was because he demanded from them that they cease in their worship of the idols. They were even ready to make him their king, as long as he stopped calling to monotheism. This is crucial. Because, if his real intention was to come up with a system of ethics (in a religious package), why didn't he accept their offer? He would've become their king and he could come up with a system of ethics and his mission would've been accomplished. So obviously it wasn't about that. Instead, he was tortured and had to leave his own country because he continued to preach about monotheism, and they couldn't stand it. He only needed to say that the idols can be intercessors to God, and he would've become their leader. The Quraysh even believed in one God. But they also believed that these idols were intermediares between themselves and God. And they even believed that God controlled these idols. They basically believed in them as saints. So the only thing Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) had to do for him to become the ruler of Makkah and change the system of ethics to the better, was to say that these saints could be turned to as intercessors to God. He didn't even have to compromise his belief in one God. Why pass up such an opportunity?

Also, Islam's main teching is monotheism, it isn't about ethics (even though that's important and has to do with the Islamic concept of monotheism). If his real intention was to have a new system of ethics, why the emphasis on prayer, fasting etcetera? This is all related to God.

Hitler did, to make a brutal and unfair comparison.

I think that there's a difference between someone thinking that he recieves inspiration from God, and thinks that meets the angel Gabriel etc. and someone who's a madman in the sense that Hitler was. Hitler was more of a madman in the sense that he was evil, not in the sense that he thought that received revelation from God (which is what they claim about Muhammad sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam). It's really not the same thing.

 

[snakelegs]

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??

it's hard to explain to a religious person.
the fact that i believe that it is quite possible that muhammad was a prophet is not the same as believing he was, but i see no reason why he couldn't have been. as for everything he said being true or not - i don't know. some things i believe and some i don't - but neither can i say for certain that it wasn't/isn't true. god probably speaks to different people at different times in ways they can understand - it may be a prophet, it may be a beautiful sun set, the lone flower in the desert, a piece of music, the smell after a good summer rain, the light in a child's eyes etc etc.
i think god is real but i think religion is a man-made institution and one that i personally feel no need for in order to worship god.
but ultimately of course, i do not know and feel that it is unknowable.
as you would say, and i would agree -
and allah knows best.
p.s. i probably have some postive feelings toward muhammad because i listen to naats all day!

 

[snakelegs]

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.

well i would say god contains all religions and is beyond them as well.

 

[Mustafa Sharif]

Salam,
I m with you aswell ^Trumble^
i vote that 1 aswell because i believe that 1 most.. so i vote that 1 and i didnt no which 1 is the right 1.. ALLAH KNOWS THE RIGHT ONE
May Allah Bless You And Everyone.. Inshallah
Fii Amani Allah

Thank you,

Regards

Your Brother : Mustafa Sharif
MUSTAFASHARIF.COM

 

[snakelegs]

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?

yes, i guess it would make things different and of course what i say is my own thinking and i wouldn't advocate it for anybody else because i don't think you are wrong - simply a different approach.
how could i know that god has commanded that i worship him? i could believe that but i don't think there is any way i could know what god wants. (i do worship god by the way).
we could both be wrong and we could both be right.
(yeah, i am pretty weird!).

 

[Malaikah]

I m with you aswell ^Trumble^
i vote that 1 aswell because i believe that 1 most.. so i vote that 1 and i didnt no which 1 is the right 1.. ALLAH KNOWS THE RIGHT ONE

But you're a Muslim! You believe that Muhammad pbuh was the messenger of God, and none of those things on the poll!!!:uuh:

 

[Abu Zakariya]

By the way, there's another differerence between Hitler and Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam), apart from what I already said, that makes that comparison more against the "madman theory" than for it. Look at what these two men did and how their lives ended. One of them called for eugenics and genocide, the other one preached devotion to God and tried to wipe out tribal pride and nationalism. One of them is universally hated and considered a madman, the other one is loved around the world and considered on of the - if not the - most influental men in the history of mankind. One of them killed himself, the other one died having united the Arabs (something never done before, because of their tribalism).

So that example isn't really a good one.

 

[wilberhum]

I just love these “What do you think” polls.
You have a limited choice and if you chose anything other than what the originator conceders the right answers, they explain why you are wrong.
Of course the given explanation only takes into account what they think your reasons are and assumes your opinion was reached as a simple, not thought out, valueless, misconceptions.

Example: (You have to love this one)

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.

Allah responded? If you don’t accept Allah as God, this statement is totally meaningless. This is just another of the 1000’s of arguments that are only considered valid by Muslims.

can a madman live such a sane life, where he founds an empire,

Yes, many have. :hiding:

where all the people love and respect him,

All the people? Do you think the Banû Qurayza loved and respected him? :thumbs_do

 

[Abu Zakariya]

Allah responded? If you don’t accept Allah as God, this statement is totally meaningless. This is just another of the 1000’s of arguments that are only considered valid by Muslims.

The point was that

1. This isn't a new claim and it has been dealt with earlier.
2. It's been refuted already. You don't need to believe in God to understand the objection to this accusation.

Yes, many have.

Care to give us an example?

All the people? Do you think the Banû Qurayza loved and respected him?

Of course his enemies didn't love him, you take the statement to literally.

 

[wilberhum]

If Al Madani had not edited my post you would understand why there is no further response. So if you want to know PM me.

 

[Mustafa Sharif]

But you're a Muslim! You believe that Muhammad pbuh was the messenger of God, and none of those things on the poll!!!:uuh:

WALLAHI I DIDNT NO THAT .. I DO BELIEVE THAT THE PROPHET MUHAMMED IS A MESSANGER OF ALLAH

 

[karim]

i agree

 

[north_malaysian]

I cant think of Prophet Muhammad of not being a prophet... sorry.. I cant vote.

 

[thirdwatch512]

Number one: they claim he is a poet.



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

Number three: the prophet was power hungry.


Number four: he imagined that he was a prophet


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

[/INDENT]

** Please realize that this is my opinion, and I am NOT trying to offend anyone. and i am deeply sorry if i do. **
1. about poetry - the arabs were some of the most poetic people at that time. since they didn't write a whole lot, they would use poetry as a way to remember things better. MANY arabs were poetic. it was normal lol.

2. i don't think he was a mad man. but i still don't think he was a prophet.

3. i doubt he was power hungry either

4. i don't think he imagined he was a prophet either. i think he knew he wasn't.

5. i think a lot of stories inthe qu'ran were taught by other people.

ok now here's my sort of response to all questions in one. and remember this is only my opinion.

mohammad, at that time, taught a pretty good message for such a corrupted society. however, that doesn't by any means mean he was being honest when he said he was inspired by God.

as muslims, you guys believe that mohammad was the last prophet. so you don't believe that the Bab and Baha'u'llah were prophets. yet baha'is do obviously lol. the bab and bahaullah were VERY devout to their teachings, that the bab was killed for it. bahaullah was jailed for life. however, they were very inspirational people. they taught to love God, and to be great people, they taught unity. they taught equality of men and women. they taught that all religions have truth in it. but you guys don't believe it do you? and i don't either. they weren't just about themselves either. in fact, the bab and bahaullah don't even have a book like the hadith. so these people were so inspirational, and VERY serious (to where they were killed from it) but they still stuck with their beliefs.

same with joseph smith, mormon so called prophet. he was VERY devout in his teachings. he was also illeterate(or he claimed.) yet he created the book of mormon. a book with zero contradictions. zip. nada. none. it's bigger then the qu'ran too. but you guys, and i, believe that he wasn't a prophet!!

krishna and hindu's.. same thing.

just because someone is devout, and they seem serious doesn't mean that they are right. the bab and bahaullah weren't trying to get attention and weren't power hungry. neither was joseph smith. but they still taught what they did.

mohammad had TWENTY THREE years to make a book no bigger then a book by lemony snicket, or harry potter. and harry potter took only a few years to write. if someone gave me 23 years of nothing but being a prophet, be rest assured that i could make a book just as good as the qu'ran, only even longer. don't even give me paper, don't give me a computer, don't give me a cell phone.. and i can still do it. easily.

and how can you say that mohammad didn't alk with christians and jews? medina at that time was jewish majority. mohammads cousin was a christian. during a battle these gnostic chrsitians helped him, and he got to stay with them.

and also, one thing that a lot of people don't realize is how similar islam is to gnostic christianity and to judaism. some of the qu'ran stories had been jewish folktales. and a lot of stories had relations to gnostic christians.

as for science.. the qu'ran has verses almost exactly the same as what galen wrote. like they are almost identical teachings. i'm not denying the fact that the qu'ran has science.. i just think the qu'ran has borrowed science.

the claim of science in the qu'ran can be debunked. because all of the science at that time was known, and was very heavily taught in the arab region. also, the Vedas are VERY rich in science, as well as writings by the Buddha.

as for the claim that mohammad was illetarate.. oh please. he came from the richest tribe in arabia and was a trader.. of course he knew how to read and write. if i lived in 600 A.D. i'm sure i could say i was illeterate and people would believe it. that doesn't mean i was being honest though.

 

[Malaikah]

mohammad had TWENTY THREE years to make a book no bigger then a book by lemony snicket, or harry potter. and harry potter took only a few years to write. if someone gave me 23 years of nothing but being a prophet, be rest assured that i could make a book just as good as the qu'ran, only even longer. don't even give me paper, don't give me a computer, don't give me a cell phone.. and i can still do it. easily.

That is not true. Verses were revealed on demand, depending on the situation they weren't pre-prepared. It is impossible for the prophet to have known that something was going to happen before it did and prepare verses on the spot when a situation was presented to him.

For example, when the Jews wanted to test Muhammad's pbuh knowledge, and they challenged him to tell them the story of Prophet Joseph, the entire chapter was revealed to him at that moment. And it was pages long. And it is also the only story of any prophet in the entire Quran to have one chapter dedicated completely to the whole story of the prophet. Are you telling me the prophet knew that they were going to ask him specifically about Prophet Joseph and prepared the chapter earlier?^o)

and how can you say that mohammad didn't alk with christians and jews? medina at that time was jewish majority. mohammads cousin was a christian. during a battle these gnostic chrsitians helped him, and he got to stay with them.

Okay, firstly, I didn't say that he did not talk with them, but I said none of them could have taught him anything.

Firstly, his 'cousin' wasn't cousin at all, it was his wife;s cousin, and there was no evidence that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh had even met the man before he became a Prophet. And in case you didn't know, he also died three days later, so there is no possibility that he could have helped Muhammad pbuh forge the Quran. (Not to mention he wrote in Hebrew).

Madinah had Jews, yes, and they were enemies with the Prophet lol so I don't think they would have helped him, not to mention that Muhammad didn't go to Madinah until 10 years after the Quran started to be revealed, so they can't be responsible.

and also, one thing that a lot of people don't realize is how similar islam is to gnostic christianity and to judaism. some of the qu'ran stories had been jewish folktales. and a lot of stories had relations to gnostic christians.

What are gnostic Christians?

as for science.. the qu'ran has verses almost exactly the same as what galen wrote. like they are almost identical teachings. i'm not denying the fact that the qu'ran has science.. i just think the qu'ran has borrowed science.

Who was Galen? Can you show me which verses from the Quran match his text?

I believe I have heard this claim before, that Muhammad simply stole theories from philosophers and changed them a bit and kept them. Again, a baseless claim, but even if we assume it has some basis, why is it that Muhammad only kept that parts that were true and didn't include parts of their theories that were incorrect? He must have been one smart guy to have figured it out himself.

the claim of science in the qu'ran can be debunked. because all of the science at that time was known, and was very heavily taught in the arab region. also, the Vedas are VERY rich in science, as well as writings by the Buddha.

Can you prove that it was well known to the Arabs? That can hardly be true, the Arabs of that time were very backwards with respect to science.

Oh, and you know what is hilarious... some of the things mentioned in the Quran weren't even known 1 century ago... let alone by Greek philosophers!

as for the claim that mohammad was illetarate.. oh please. he came from the richest tribe in arabia and was a trader.. of course he knew how to read and write. if i lived in 600 A.D. i'm sure i could say i was illeterate and people would believe it. that doesn't mean i was being honest though.

Now you are just making stuff up. He was illiterate, as was almost everyone. All the evidences suggests this, please don't think yourself an authority to assume things and make up your own baseless theories. Do you even know how Arab society functioned? do you know for fact that being part of a noble family meant you had to be literate in Arabia? Do you know that all traders has to be literate? Proof?

Why assume people were stupid just because they lived in 600 A.D. It wouldn't take a genius to figure out if a man were illiterate or not, perhaps seeing him read something might have been a give away.

 

[thirdwatch512]

first off, please show me some of the science that wasn't known until recently?

the 7 layers of the universe, bees, mountains going under, all of those were known by aristole.. AKA in the B.C. times. all.

as for gnostic christians.. basically, a lot of people made up stories, and said that it was supposed to be in the Bible. there were a ton of people who made thier own gospels, and this and that. gnostic christians followed them. islam has a lot of similarities with it.

and arabs have always been very poetic and known science. before the 1900's, the arabs have ALWAYS been the smart people, all the scientific univerisites were always in persia and what is now saudi arabia, baghdad, damascus, so forth. the arabs and the greeks always knew the most about science.

as for the "prophet" reciting the jews the surah on joseph or whatever.. how do you know that is a true story? what if it was supposed to be metophorical? religions have made these kinds of things up all the time. in hindu scripture it says krishna led an army and killed 1/3 a trillion people. and a billion people almost believe that. but can you honestly say that happened? no! there is no archeological proof, no records, nada. but people still believe in it.

 

[Malaikah]

first off, please show me some of the science that wasn't known until recently?

the 7 layers of the universe, bees, mountains going under, all of those were known by aristole.. AKA in the B.C. times. all.

The process of formation of the embryo... pretty recent, unless they had microscopes in BC times.

and arabs have always been very poetic and known science. before the 1900's, the arabs have ALWAYS been the smart people, all the scientific univerisites were always in persia and what is now saudi arabia, baghdad, damascus, so forth. the arabs and the greeks always knew the most about science.

LOL. You are correct, but that only occured AFTER Islam was already well establish and the Prophet had passed away. In fact that first university was only ever established by Muslims after Islam was well established.

Except for the poetry, but I'm sure I explained that in my first post already, if you could please refer back to that, and let me know if it still didn't answer your questions.

as for the "prophet" reciting the jews the surah on joseph or whatever.. how do you know that is a true story? what if it was supposed to be metophorical? religions have made these kinds of things up all the time. in hindu scripture it says krishna led an army and killed 1/3 a trillion people. and a billion people almost believe that. but can you honestly say that happened? no! there is no archeological proof, no records, nada. but people still believe in it.

I think you missed the point. The story he told was similar to the version told by the Jews. He didn't just make something up or else that would have proven to the Jews that he was lair!

Don't you know who Joseph is? :? He was Jacob's son, his 10 brothers pretended to kill him and threw him down a well... he was sold as a slave in Egypt, etc...?

 

[SilentObserver]

** Please realize that this is my opinion, and I am NOT trying to offend anyone. and i am deeply sorry if i do. **

You should not have to apologize, you were invited to give your opinion with impunity, no matter what it is (provided you are not rude while giving it).