It is impossible Mohammad (s) and his family (a) historically existed and they did not perform miracles.

[Ajax]

I would not believe you and furthermore society would not believe nor accuse if they don't support you of being a sorcerer. You would be just termed a liar and that's it. You would not become famous. You wouldn't have followers believing you did miracles and opponents accusing you of sorcery.

Thank you. So why should we believe the Quran?

 

[LuisDantas]

Thank you. So why should we believe the Quran?

@Link will have his own answer, different from mine, of course.

But trying to give a honest answer of my own: we should probably believe that the Qur'an was indeed dictated by Muhammad and put into writing by his companions, mainly because it is not all that extraordinary a claim and there is reasonable evidence that much of that activity had plenty of witnesses.

The supernatural claims, of course, are considerably more difficult to support. Not just the miracle making, but also the claim that the text actually comes from Allah.

IMO it all comes down to a combination of arbitrary belief and having been raised into a culture that teaches not to question that belief.

Edited to add: also, I suspect that there may some factors at work that would surprise people without a certain level of awareness of social psychology and human sciences subject matters.

In a nutshell, people tend to be eager to build, believe in and protect myths and legends and to hesitate to question them. All the more so when those myths and legends are a significant part of the dominant social contract.

 

[Ajax]

@Link will have his own answer, different from mine, of course.

But trying to give a honest answer of my own: we should probably believe that the Qur'an was indeed dictated by Muhammad and put into writing by his companions, mainly because it is not all that extraordinary a claim and there is reasonable evidence that much of that activity had plenty of witnesses.

The supernatural claims, of course, are considerably more difficult to support. Not just the miracle making, but also the claim that the text actually comes from Allah.

IMO it all comes down to a combination of arbitrary belief and having been raised into a culture that teaches not to question that belief.

Yes, I offered no objection that Muhammad dictated the Quran, neither that his companions wrote it.
It is the miracles that I object to and that it was inspired by Allah.

 

[Link]

Thank you. So why should we believe the Quran?

I'm saying Mohammad (s) would not have followers and society would have rejected him if a few companions (friends) wrote he did miracles or he dictated such without actually being able to perform miracles.

Just as you can't gain following by such means.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm saying Mohammad (s) would not have followers and society would have rejected him if a few companions (friends) wrote he did miracles or he dictated such without actually being able to perform miracles.

Just as you can't gain following by such means.

There are plenty of counterexamples, though. Even some very extreme ones.

Maybe there is some significant reason why Muhammad's situation was very different, but in all honesty it is not obvious to me what it would be.

 

[BrightShadow]

Salam

(1) The Quran and hadiths claim Mohammad (s) and his family (a) performed miracles (1), if they historically existed, and weren't able to perform such things, they would have been refuted and none would believe in them (2) or (3) they would have made tons of excuses for not performing miracles rather than emphasizing on them.

Subject 1: Quran and hadiths claim Mohammad (s) and his family (a) performed miracles (can be and will be proven)

Subject 2: Why they would not have had followers if they did not perform such miracles (I will discuss why) if they didn't perform or made excuses for not performing them.

Subject 3: They didn't make excuses for not performing miracles.

Conclusion: Historical Mohammad (s) and his family (a) is either made up or they are true to their claims of performing miracles.

Subject 4: It's impossible Mohammad (s) and his family (a) didn't exist historically for many reasons (will discuss them).

Putting it all together, this is a pretty solid case for Islam.

To put it in perspective. The main reason Jesus (a) isn't historically accepted is because of miracles. If he was just claiming to be God or something and there were no miracles involved, historically, he would not be something to be doubted.

However, Mohammad (s) should by this standard also be denied historically. The problem is historically he exists. Therefore this is a very solid case.

When put it all together these subjects, it becomes clear Mohammad (s) historically existed and performed miracles. Now comes the thread. I will be trying to elaborate on these subjects, but they are interlinked so will be sort of going about it in a round about way.

Miracles are not necessary. Not important. Back in the day - it may have been necessary to get attention,

Quran is the ONLY miracle a Muslim should concentrate on while on earth.

If a Muslim wants to concentrate on another miracle - then he should worry about how to unite and have one faith and not split into any sects.

[Quran 6:159] As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects, thou(O Muhammad SAW) hast no part in them in the least: their affair is with Allah: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did.

Mohammad did not advocate any "split". So, why the split happened? Who is responsible?

It will be a miracle when Muslims around the world realize that and shed off all differences and unite with one voice. The alternate is not good because they have to answer why they split! The blame could go back to the first folks who split.

 

[Link]

Quran is the ONLY miracle a Muslim should concentrate on while on earth.

That would be only true for people who despair at meeting the guide from God who can perform such miracles per Quran. But your post if way off-topic.

 

[Link]

There are plenty of counterexamples, though. Even some very extreme ones.

Maybe there is some significant reason why Muhammad's situation was very different, but in all honesty it is not obvious to me what it would be.

I see the difference.

The counter examples:

(1) Controlled settings OR
(2) Excuses for not doing the big type miracles in public
(3) A Few stories but not performing miracles in public and public is not accusing him of either sorcery or believing it to be miracles.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Salam

(1) The Quran and hadiths claim Mohammad (s) and his family (a) performed miracles (1), if they historically existed, and weren't able to perform such things, they would have been refuted and none would believe in them (2) or (3) they would have made tons of excuses for not performing miracles rather than emphasizing on them.

Subject 1: Quran and hadiths claim Mohammad (s) and his family (a) performed miracles (can be and will be proven)

Subject 2: Why they would not have had followers if they did not perform such miracles (I will discuss why) if they didn't perform or made excuses for not performing them.

Subject 3: They didn't make excuses for not performing miracles.

Conclusion: Historical Mohammad (s) and his family (a) is either made up or they are true to their claims of performing miracles.

Subject 4: It's impossible Mohammad (s) and his family (a) didn't exist historically for many reasons (will discuss them).

Putting it all together, this is a pretty solid case for Islam.

To put it in perspective. The main reason Jesus (a) isn't historically accepted is because of miracles. If he was just claiming to be God or something and there were no miracles involved, historically, he would not be something to be doubted.

However, Mohammad (s) should by this standard also be denied historically. The problem is historically he exists. Therefore this is a very solid case.

When put it all together these subjects, it becomes clear Mohammad (s) historically existed and performed miracles. Now comes the thread. I will be trying to elaborate on these subjects, but they are interlinked so will be sort of going about it in a round about way.

I sort of Agree.

But also disagree.

I believe many of the early believers, saw the Quran as the Miracle. To them, the Quran itself was the sufficient proof.
They did not believe in literal and majical signs that happened, such as splitting moon, or Muhammad flyng with donkey.

Later generation of Muslims though, mostly, thought the Prophets had done literal Miracles, just as you do, now, without seeing them.

 

[Link]

I sort of Agree.

But also disagree.

I believe many of the early believers, saw the Quran as the Miracle. To them, the Quran itself was the sufficient proof.
They did not believe in literal and majical signs that happened, such as splitting moon, or Muhammad flyng with donkey.

Later generation of Muslims though, mostly, thought the Prophets had done literal Miracles, just as you do, now, without seeing them.

You also believe day of judgment is your Prophet manifestation, so your interpretation is noted, but won't be taken seriously here. Bahai Faith is an example of a religion that made excuses for not performing miracles in public. So it can't be used as a counter example.

To make consistent that your Prophet didn't perform miracles, you have to assume same is true of Mohammad (s), Musa (a) and others. But the Quran is clear and we know to you everything in Quran is a riddle only a few solve and God is a trickster to rest of humanity.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You also believe day of judgment is your Prophet manifestation, so your interpretation is noted, but won't be taken seriously here. Bahai Faith is an example of a religion that made excuses for not performing miracles in public. So it can't be used as a counter example.

To make consistent that your Prophet didn't perform miracles, you have to assume same is true of Mohammad (s), Musa (a) and others. But the Quran is clear and we know to you everything in Quran is a riddle only a few solve and God is a trickster to rest of humanity.

"And is it not sufficient for them that We revealed to you the Book which is recited to them? Indeed in that is a mercy and reminder for a people who believe." 29:51

Seems He says, the Book alone is sufficient as proof.
So, that means it is possible the Prophet did not need to do any other Miracles.

 

[Link]

"And is it not sufficient for them that We revealed to you the Book which is recited to them? Indeed in that is a mercy and reminder for a people who believe." 29:51

Seems He says, the Book alone is sufficient as proof.
So, that means it is possible the Prophet did not need to do any other Miracles.

Okay, you don't believe in miracles. We get it. God speaks in riddles only and your fellows get. We've discussed these things before, even the issue of miracles. This thread is not about Bahai faith.

 

[McBell]

You really don't understand my argument.

What then, exactly, is your 'argument'
I flat out ask because I am having a rather difficult time separating an 'argument' from all your bold empty claims.

 

[Link]

What then, exactly, is your 'argument'
I flat out ask because I am having a rather difficult time separating an 'argument' from all your bold empty claims.

If I explain it again, you probably will say the same thing, it's all empty claims. Why don't you show how you understand it, and I can correct you if you misunderstood it.

 

[McBell]

If I explain it again, you probably will say the same thing, it's all empty claims. Why don't you show how you understand it, and I can correct you if you misunderstood it.

You have not demonstrated that the miracles you accept as miracles are actually miracles.
You have merely claimed them to be.

Yet you (claim) to go to great lengths to rebut all other claims of miracles.
Which brings up two questions:

1. Are you actually rebutting them or merely rejecting them out of hand?
2. Why is it the "miracles" you disagree with have to meet such a higher standard than the miracles you simply proclaim are true?

You claimed in the OP you would prove the claimed miracles in your point number 1.
But you merely chase your tail trying to convince others (and perhaps even yourself) that your "proof" is anything other than philosophical tail chasing.

So at this point in the thread, it appears that unless I am willing to lower my standards so far everyone will have to be concerned with stubbing their toes, you have nothing that someone outside your choir can take seriously.

 

[Link]

You have not demonstrated that the miracles you accept as miracles are actually miracles.
You have merely claimed them to be.

Yet you (claim) to go to great lengths to rebut all other claims of miracles.
Which brings up two questions:

1. Are you actually rebutting them or merely rejecting them out of hand?
2. Why is it the "miracles" you disagree with have to meet such a higher standard than the miracles you simply proclaim are true?

You claimed in the OP you would prove the claimed miracles in your point number 1.
But you merely chase your tail trying to convince others (and perhaps even yourself) that your "proof" is anything other than philosophical tail chasing.

So at this point in the thread, it appears that unless I am willing to lower my standards so far everyone will have to be concerned with stubbing their toes, you have nothing that someone outside your choir can take seriously.

I claimed in point number 1, that Quran and hadiths claim Mohammad (s) did miracles. The whole argument is making a case of miracles of Mohammad (s) being true, that is the conclusion. The premises, I am not claiming the conclusion, the premises together make the case.

 

[McBell]

I claimed in point number 1, that Quran and hadiths claim Mohammad (s) did miracles. The whole argument is making a case of miracles of Mohammad (s) being true, that is the conclusion. The premises, I am not claiming the conclusion, the premises together make the case.

And until such time as you can show the premises are something other than bold empty claims, your premises are nothing more tha bold empty claims.

Building up bold empty claims with more bold empty claims does nothing but make a bold empty claim mountain.
thus you do not have an "argument"
You simply have a mountain of bold empty claims.

So, like I already said, you have not presented anything that someone outside your choir can take seriously.

 

[Link]

Yet you (claim) to go to great lengths to rebut all other claims of miracles.

I can claim to perform miracles. If I was rich, I can probably even offer some people to make up stories. In controlled settings, people can act cured and convince others.

This is not "Signs", because it can be something else then a genuine power from God that only he trusts his trustees with.

I would not be able to claim I can perform miracles that of Moses (a) or Jesus (a) or Mohammad (a) caliber in public, and say there is never a time I will not perform these, and say go ahead and not ask only me, but people who would succeed my position from my offspring, and they are expected to perform miracles in public.

Not only if I don't perform miracles, but if I claim there are say 8 successors (in Quran and Sunnah it's twelve), and right after me, none can perform it, the religion foundation would fall quickly.

If I make excuses and talk about miracles as something for a few elite friends of God to witness, okay.. but that's different then telling the public go ahead and ask for miracles, but you will not believe but call them magic most likely. And that constantly people were calling it magic.

I can claim I can do same and am doing same, but I would be laughing stock when tested, wouldn't I? My reputation would be that of a foolish liar, and no one would accuse me of sorcery.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Okay, you don't believe in miracles. We get it. God speaks in riddles only and your fellows get. We've discussed these things before, even the issue of miracles. This thread is not about Bahai faith.

Muhammad was not educated. He had not studied Religions and this was well known in His tribe.
It was a different time. They didn't have library or books.
So, He was known as an illiterate.
It must have sounded Miraculous for the people around Him, that all the Sudden He was showing so much knowledge and was saying the verses.
It does not feel Miraculous in out time, because, so much info is available now, and we can easily access and learn. But in His time, and in the deserts of Arabia, seeing a man with so much knowledge, was Miraculous to some.
I think this is why, they believed Him. Beside this, He was an honest, trustworthy and righteous person.
People in His time were thirsty for knowledge and guidance. Because they were really in darkness. So, they could recognize His light.
I think they believed in Him for these reasons mostly.

 

[McBell]

I can claim to perform miracles. If I was rich, I can probably even offer some people to make up stories. In controlled settings, people can act cured and convince others.

This is not "Signs", because it can be something else then a genuine power from God that only he trusts his trustees with.

I would not be able to claim I can perform miracles that of Moses (a) or Jesus (a) or Mohammad (a) caliber in public, and say there is never a time I will not perform these, and say go ahead and not ask only me, but people who would succeed my position from my offspring, and they are expected to perform miracles in public.

Not only if I don't perform miracles, but if I claim there are say 8 successors (in Quran and Sunnah it's twelve), and right after me, none can perform it, the religion foundation would fall quickly.

If I make excuses and talk about miracles as something for a few elite friends of God to witness, okay.. but that's different then telling the public go ahead and ask for miracles, but you will not believe but call them magic most likely. And that constantly people were calling it magic.

I can claim I can do same and am doing same, but I would be laughing stock when tested, wouldn't I? My reputation would be that of a foolish liar, and no one would accuse me of sorcery.

Post #57