Basis for Trusting Muhammad?

[sun rise]

I hear what you are saying and I agree with you, but only up to a certain point. There is no Jew in the world that would have trusted the Maggid had he instituted a new religion with a new book. Heck, even if he didn't make a new religion, but claimed to be a Jewish prophet, he'd probably have been lynched.

And this case of Muhammad is even harder. In the case of the Maggid, there was already an existing framework within which a Jew could ascertain that the Maggid is coming from a real concept. But the Arabs of the day didn't even have that. A random man, they had no relationship to, gets up and claims to be a prophet of G-d and builds them an entirely new religion from scratch. They don't even have a framework to determine if what he is teaching them is called serving G-d better. And before you argue that a framework isn't necessary, consider that he gave them a framework. Which means both he and they now believe that a framework is necessary. So what standard did they have to decide he was teaching them this?

Yes it is harder. A prophet or teacher who works within an established religion has that going for him as you stated.

The test is necessarily more severe for what some call a World Teacher or Avatar and in the case of this thread Muhammad. We've seen many false gurus or prophets in the past few decades who have deceived many and in some cases fatally so. So it's dangerous to put one's life and one's future in unclean hands.

Does the person live their words? How do they treat people? Does their lifestyle betray lust, greed or other desires or do they live positive values? How do their followers behave during the years when the prophet lived. Every religion has those who pervert the message and today Islam is in particularly a hard place because of the terrorists who claim to be Muslims. But when I was studying world religions, I found this story. Whether or not it's true is not important. The message of this story is to me the point and reflects that people need to understand their emotions in deciding whether or not someone is a true prophet:

At the Battle of the Ditch, the noble Imam 'Ali had knocked an enemy soldier to the ground and was raising his sword to kill him, when the unbeliever spat in the blessed face of the Valiant Lion, may Allah be pleased with him. Imam 'Ali at once stood still and refrained from killing his enemy. Hardly able to believe his own eyes, the unbeliever asked: "Why have you spared me, O gracious one?"

To this, the noble 'Ali repliied: "Your property and your life have become sacrosanct to me. I am not authorized to slay you. I can receive permission to kill only in holy combat, in fighting commanded by Allah. Just a few moments ago, I had overcome you in battle, knocked you to the ground and was on the point of slaying you. But when you spat in my face, my selfish anger was aroused against you. If I had killed you, I would have slain you not for Allah's sake but for my own selfish reason; they would then have called me not a champion warrior, but a murderer. When you spat in my face, my selfish passion threatened to overwhelm me, so instead of striking you with the sword for my own sake I struck my passion for the sake of Allah, Exalted is He. There you have the reason for your escape."

Another test to me is what someone says and writes. In this case the Quran. I'm far from a scholar of Islam, but I've noted how little most Muslims know what is in the Quran and how others often cite passages out of context and without considering the document as a whole. Of course, translation is a tricky business especially with Quranic Arabic, so I often rely on looking at multiple translations. But in writing this post, I stumbled on a web page that talks about the difference between how the Quran refers to the "Children of Israel" and "Jews". To us, there is no distinction but http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/quranhadith.html draws a historical distinction which to me is meaningful. And noting 17:104, I looked up other translations http://submission.org/d/x/webqt.php which illustrates the problem of translation.

 

[sun rise]

Few Jews believe Moses tied his shoe correctly, some Christians believe that Jesus tied his shoes correctly, all Muslims believe Mohammad tied his shoes correctly.

I disagree with you. What value has your opinion or mine? None that I can see outside of the right of people to express their opinions.

 

[Augustus]

That is not correct.

"Divine judgment by God was then passed upon Sodom and Gomorrah and two neighboring cities, which were completely consumed by fire and brimstone." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

Then Jesus began to criticize openly the cities in which he had done many of his miracles, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you! And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be thrown down to Hades! For if the miracles done among you had been done in Sodom, it would have continued to this day. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for the region of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woes_to_the_unrepentant_cities

Mohammad went one step further. He did not wait for God to destroy the cities, he himself had them destroyed.

Sorry I was being sarcastic.

Should have added a

 

[FearGod]

What about it?

It means you follow his thoughts.

The Eightfold Path, jhanic meditation, etc.

Do you believe in the afterlife and rebirth?

If the "prophet" never existed, then that "prophet's" message is invalid, and his "god" would also be invalid. It is a cult of personality, that depends on the real existence and the real acts of that prophet to verify and validate his message and his god.

And if Buddha didn't exist you won't then follow the Eightfold path.

On the other hand, there is no god which must be validated in Buddhism, nor a god's message. The Buddha's message itself is verifiable by the individual in any point in time or history, without dependance on the true, real existence of the Buddha and his alleged acts.

Yes, philosophy, man made ideas and thoughts.

For example, Muhammad might have said "God's Name is Allah". I can't verify that message for myself. I have to have blind faith that 1. Muhammad actually existed, 2. that he actually said that, in order to believe, also on blind faith, that "God's Name is Allah". Similar arguments goes for Abraham, or Jesus.

It isn't blind faith, we have enough evidences that he was telling the truth.

Buddha also might have said "life is filled with suffering, and right mindfulness and concentration leads to cessation of suffering". I *can* verify that message for myself, as I understand suffering personally, and through personal practice of mindfulness and concentration, I know for myself that it leads to a reduction in suffering. I do not need to have faith that 1. the Buddha actually existed as a man/ghost/god/etc., and 2. that the Buddha actually taught that.

Reading about modern psychiatry may give better results than Buddha.

 

[Augustus]

A complete destruction of one great city in one day can never be imagined by people fighting with the swords.

Tell that to the people of Soddom and Gomorrah and everyone who was familiar with the story.

 

[FearGod]

Sorry I was being sarcastic.

Should have added a

I wonder that he didn't know.

 

[Neo Deist]

A man comes out of a cave and claims he recieved a prophecy. Why do you believe him?

Yes, I understand he was successful in his wars. But does that make him more heaven-sent than any other successful general?

If you were around in the time of Muhammad, on what basis would you believe he's telling the truth?

I do not put much stock in some illiterate fishing merchant that hallucinated in a cave and copied the moral codes of numerous religions that came before.

 

[FearGod]

Tell that to the people of Soddom and Gomorrah and everyone who was familiar with the story.

Someone already mentioned it, so read the previous posts.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

I believe in Him because of his pure monotheistic message. Disbelieving him means iam disbeliever in Noah, Moses, Abraham and Jesus peace be upon them.
Also i strongly believe his coming was foretold in the Bible.


My reason for believing him has nothing to do with military succes. If i lived in the time of Zacharias and Johannes i would believe in them even though the disbelievers "won" by beheading both. I believe in the prophets purely based on their Monotheistic message clear from smallest doubt.


A prophet who is martyred in the cause of Allah or dies natural death, their message stays the same. It doesnt make someone a false prophet if he killed.
So Muhammad PBUH is saying there is One God worthy of worship. Christians and jews disbelieving in him means they disbelieve automatically in all prophets such as Abraham Moses and Jesus. Their message was one.



The people of Nooh (Noah) belied the Messengers”
[al-Shu’ara’ 26:105]

We all know only Noah was sent as messenger to his people, yet Allah said they belied/rejected the messengers. It means they would also reject Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad if they saw them.

 

[Pastek]

I don't think that's false and the point was mentioned by another poster. But I'm interested in hearing why Muslims today believe that Muhammad must have been a prophet. Whether its actually true or even pssible is irrelevant to me. I just want to know why.

You need to read the Quran to understand what we like in it.

It's difficult to answer to you if you don't read it, because it's a matter of faith. People believe in the Quran cause they believe it can only comes from God.
So the Quran is the most important here, then we can discuss about Muhammad.
But as it was said , it was a truthworthy person, kind and honnest so this was also the carateristics of previous prophets, but you need to see what he brought that made us believe in him, not just his charisma etc

 

[buddhist]

Do you believe in the afterlife and rebirth?

No, I don't believe in it. I know of it.

And if Buddha didn't exist you won't then follow the Eightfold path.

Not really. Whether the thoughts attributed to the Buddha actually came from one man, a woman, multiple people, or thousands of monkeys typing wouldn't change the truths in the Eightfold path.

It isn't blind faith, we have enough evidences that he was telling the truth.

Evidence is not proof.

Reading about modern psychiatry may give better results than Buddha.

Perhaps so; interestingly much of modern psychology is derived from the tenets of Buddhism.

 

[von bek]

@FearGod,

Why am I being tagged in your quotes in post #164? Those are not from me, they are from @buddhist.

My question to you was in post #157 on page eight of this thread.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I believe in Him because of his pure monotheistic message. Disbelieving him means i am disbeliever in Noah, Moses, Abraham and Jesus peace be upon them. Also i strongly believe his coming was foretold in the Bible.

For the same reason, you should believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or Bahaullah. Their message also is purely monotheistic.

 

[Tumah]

You need to read the Quran to understand what we like in it.

It's difficult to answer to you if you don't read it, because it's a matter of faith. People believe in the Quran cause they believe it can only comes from God.
So the Quran is the most important here, then we can discuss about Muhammad.
But as it was said , it was a truthworthy person, kind and honnest so this was also the carateristics of previous prophets, but you need to see what he brought that made us believe in him, not just his charisma etc

If you believe in the Qur'an because Muhammad was trustworthy, then why don't you believe in the Bab, who was trustworthy as well?

 

[Aupmanyav]

But as it was said , it was a truthworthy person, kind and honnest so this was also the carateristics of previous prophets, but you need to see what he brought that made us believe in him, not just his charisma etc

There is a little incident of Maria al-Qibtiyya which made Mohammad to stay away from sex for more than a fort-night. That was too much and God asked him to forget about that vow. Alas, men are fallible.

 

[Tumah]

Yes it is harder. A prophet or teacher who works within an established religion has that going for him as you stated.

The test is necessarily more severe for what some call a World Teacher or Avatar and in the case of this thread Muhammad. We've seen many false gurus or prophets in the past few decades who have deceived many and in some cases fatally so. So it's dangerous to put one's life and one's future in unclean hands.

Does the person live their words? How do they treat people? Does their lifestyle betray lust, greed or other desires or do they live positive values? How do their followers behave during the years when the prophet lived. Every religion has those who pervert the message and today Islam is in particularly a hard place because of the terrorists who claim to be Muslims. But when I was studying world religions, I found this story. Whether or not it's true is not important. The message of this story is to me the point and reflects that people need to understand their emotions in deciding whether or not someone is a true prophet:

At the Battle of the Ditch, the noble Imam 'Ali had knocked an enemy soldier to the ground and was raising his sword to kill him, when the unbeliever spat in the blessed face of the Valiant Lion, may Allah be pleased with him. Imam 'Ali at once stood still and refrained from killing his enemy. Hardly able to believe his own eyes, the unbeliever asked: "Why have you spared me, O gracious one?"

To this, the noble 'Ali repliied: "Your property and your life have become sacrosanct to me. I am not authorized to slay you. I can receive permission to kill only in holy combat, in fighting commanded by Allah. Just a few moments ago, I had overcome you in battle, knocked you to the ground and was on the point of slaying you. But when you spat in my face, my selfish anger was aroused against you. If I had killed you, I would have slain you not for Allah's sake but for my own selfish reason; they would then have called me not a champion warrior, but a murderer. When you spat in my face, my selfish passion threatened to overwhelm me, so instead of striking you with the sword for my own sake I struck my passion for the sake of Allah, Exalted is He. There you have the reason for your escape."

I think at this point, that you are interpreting Islam as a whole in an entirely different way that Muslims and I intend here.

Another test to me is what someone says and writes. In this case the Quran. I'm far from a scholar of Islam, but I've noted how little most Muslims know what is in the Quran and how others often cite passages out of context and without considering the document as a whole. Of course, translation is a tricky business especially with Quranic Arabic, so I often rely on looking at multiple translations. But in writing this post, I stumbled on a web page that talks about the difference between how the Quran refers to the "Children of Israel" and "Jews". To us, there is no distinction but http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/quranhadith.html draws a historical distinction which to me is meaningful. And noting 17:104, I looked up other translations http://submission.org/d/x/webqt.php which illustrates the problem of translation.

The author of that article seems to not be aware of the numerous times that "Judean" is used in the books of the prophets. In fact its used exclusively in Esther. The Jewish kingdom as a whole split early on into two kingdoms, the Israelite kingdom composed of 10 tribes and the Judean kingdom composed of the remaining two. Close to the end of the First Temple period, the Israelite kingdom was destroyed and exiled leaving only the Judean kingdom. It was those people that were exiled to Babylon and so the book of Esther which was written during that time period, uses only this term.

This is well before the Romans came around as that article states. All they did was Romanize the Hebrew from Yehudah to Judea.

The distinction only makes sense when referring to the separate kingdoms, not to the nation as a whole. In the books of the prophets, the people of the kingdom of Judah pray to the G-d of Israel and the prophets refer to them as the "children of Israel".

 

[Tumah]

People asked the prophet to tell them about the events that may happen which can be a sign for the last hour,
his sayings were recorded later on as a reference.

By people who also had the same honest character as Muhammad?

I don't know about him and I'm not interested to know.

Honestly, can you explain why not? What is the difference between Muhammad and him that you would only want to learn about one and not the other? With so many prophecies that came true, is it not possible that he is also a prophet of G-d, even if he doesn't actually have much of a message?

 

[Tumah]

None of the prophecies listed in that link are found in the Quran - they're all recorded in the Hadith which were written long after the events in question had occurred. For the first hundred or so years after Muhammad's death the hadith were an oral tradition. It isn't a stretch of the imagination to assume someone retro-fitted those prophecies into place.

Its possible that all those people who passed down the oral tradition and hadith also had stunningly honest character, that was testified by their enemies, no?

 

[sun rise]

I think at this point, that you are interpreting Islam as a whole in an entirely different way that Muslims and I intend here.
...

Then my ethnic heritage is shining through: "Two Jews, three opinions" I can easily accept that my viewpoint is a minority one. I arrived at it through study and contemplation including reading things like this over a decade ago which led me to the conclusion that the essential message is the same in spite of wildly different theologies:

...Islam (submission go God) is the religion given to mankind from the very beginning. There have been primordial muslims (hanif) since the creation of Adam. Why do you think Muslims recognize the prophethood of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Solomon, David, Jesus, etc. (God's grace and peace be on each and every one of his prophets)?

The Torah, Evangel and Qur'an are all three God's revelation of himself to mankind at a particular time and to a particular people. That revelation is from the uncreated and eternal Word of God. It tells all mankind that the only religion acceptable to God (Allah) is submission (islaam). The eternal truth of islam as the first and only divinely accepted religion for all mankind was clearly summarized by Jesus (peace be on him):

"Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God: the Lord is One. You shall love the Lord with all your heart, mind and strength. This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is similar: you shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law (Torah) and the Prophets (naviim).

And it's true that only a minority would respond to Shalom Aleichem with "Wa ‘alaykum al-salaam", but there are some, even today, who respond to a message of peace with a message of peace. But I stand with that minority in the hopes that more will join.

 

[Tumah]

Then my ethnic heritage is shining through: "Two Jews, three opinions" I can easily accept that my viewpoint is a minority one. I arrived at it through study and contemplation including reading things like this over a decade ago which led me to the conclusion that the essential message is the same in spite of wildly different theologies:

...Islam (submission go God) is the religion given to mankind from the very beginning. There have been primordial muslims (hanif) since the creation of Adam. Why do you think Muslims recognize the prophethood of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Solomon, David, Jesus, etc. (God's grace and peace be on each and every one of his prophets)?

The Torah, Evangel and Qur'an are all three God's revelation of himself to mankind at a particular time and to a particular people. That revelation is from the uncreated and eternal Word of God. It tells all mankind that the only religion acceptable to God (Allah) is submission (islaam). The eternal truth of islam as the first and only divinely accepted religion for all mankind was clearly summarized by Jesus (peace be on him):

"Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God: the Lord is One. You shall love the Lord with all your heart, mind and strength. This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is similar: you shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law (Torah) and the Prophets (naviim).

And it's true that only a minority would respond to Shalom Aleichem with "Wa ‘alaykum al-salaam", but there are some, even today, who respond to a message of peace with a message of peace. But I stand with that minority in the hopes that more will join.

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me as though you are looking at Islam as an Eastern religion: a wise man giving over his musings called the Qur'an, rather than a revelation from All-h.