Okay, the category of miracles I am discussing are the type that are signs and proofs.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It is impossible Mohammad (s) and his family (a) historically existed and they did not perform miracles.
- Thread starter Link
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
Wait
not all "miracles" are signs or proofs?
Please show from authenticated eyewitness sources what settings were used for the miracles of Mohammed so that we can rule out the possibility of they being.
By the way, population of Medina at that time is lower than population of a small village today and it is in the interest of that powerful people of Medina to "get" convinced under a cause to gain dominance over rival township of Mecca.
I mean for the public. I am specifically talking the type that would be displayed publically.
There are many hadiths however my argument more hinges on how much Quran emphasizes on such miracles and signs in the past messengers and links it to final family of the reminder and says go ahead and ask. If it didn’t emphasize on them in the past and emphasize Mohammad is performing such miracles or Quran was written way after (historically doubted) then okay.
Madina would not let it go either. A small town would not conspire and pretend.
Ajax
Active Member
No it does not. It's exactly the same with the example I gave you and you didn't believe it. That I have done many miracles and my companions wrote a book about my miracles.
What exactly did you say?
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
You totally missed the point.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
You don't seem to understand. You can make statements you think support your claim, and those supportive statements don't actually support the claim. People use logical fallacies all the time.
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
Example please.
Augustus
…
You might be interested in this:
A possible Jewish source for this unusual 'night journey' to Jerusalem appears in the Rabbinic translation exegesis in Aramaic of the Bible attributed,though this is questioned, to R. Yonatan Ben Uziel from the Tannaitic period. It is considered that this translation/commentaryfrom the post-Temple period diverges with a powerful midrashic-homilectical inclination from the Hebrew Biblical text.' This characteristicis evident in the case before us. The relevant narrative in question from the Book of Exodus(Ch. 19:4) recalls what God 'did to Egypt' in the course of the Jewish flight to freedom, and how He raised the Children of Israel 'on wings of eagles' (al kanfeinesharimin) bringing them close to Him. The Aramaic translation describes how God placed the Israelites on clouds, as if on the wings of birds, and carried them from Pilusin, to be identified with Ramses in Egypt, and brought them to the site of the Beit Mukdasha (Temple) situated in Jerusalem. Thus, as the Yonatan Ben Uziel exegesis continues to explain, the Israelites were brought to the Temple in order to slaughter the Passover sacrifice animal there, that same night returning to Pilusin in Egypt. So the Israelites who were in the desert were brought to Mount Moriah, where the Temple would later stand, and there offered the sacrificial Passover lamb on the altar; thence, they quickly retumed that same night to Egypt. (Noteworthy is that neither the Qur'anic verse about the 'furthest mosque' nor the Targum Yonatan on the Biblical verse from Exodus mention Jerusalem by name, but that may be due to the fact that the city only acquired its special status by virtue of the holy mount itself.)…
the Israelite 'night journey' to Jerusalem, besides fulfilling a halakhic condition, also introduces a further miraculous character to the already variegated miraculous divine struggle against Egypt and Pharaoh. This point thereby provides a certain contextual credibility for the otherwise allegorical supranatural exegesis offered by Targum Yonatan.
We have, therefore, discovered in this Passover tale a possible classical Rabbinic source for a difficult Qur'anic passage on Mohammad's mi'rda that contains the essential timing (night), site (Temple Mount), and mechanism (flight) for the 'night journey' to Jerusalem. Further investigation may later shed light on the validity of
this proposal.
Note on a Possible Jewish Source for Muhammad's 'Night Journey' - Mordechai Nisan
You are still doing handwaving arguments that are easily dismissed.
For example...most of the religious leaders I mentioned also fall back on traditions of previous religious figures to justify their legitimacy (Hindu incarnations, Christian second comings, prophet traditions etc).
Of course they would . Medina and Mecca were rivals. Just like today, rivals will give asylum and support friends of their enemies to gain advantage.
Augustus
…
Arguably it was intended to be the holiest site during Mo’s life (perhaps until he died during the attempted conquest and thus inconveniently ‘failed’)
It’s certainly a bit of an ambiguous issue though and many competing views exist.
Mecca is, at best, mentioned once and arguably not at all anyway which adds to the fun.
Yes, it’s basically the same point I’ve always been making.
Much of the “history” recounted in Hadith, sirah and occasions of revelation literature is largely exegetical in nature and emerged for theological reasons to explain and contextualise the Quran rather than being accurate records of historical events.
Early exegetes clearly didn’t understand significant portions of the Quran and seem to have invented occasions of revelation to explain them.
It is hard to square with the idea they accurately recorded many other details of Muhammad’s life yet also managed to forget how to understand the Quran.
Even something as simple as the following developed a fake historical context:
Perish the hands of Abu Lahab, and perish he! (1) His wealth avails him not, neither what he has earned; (2) he shall roast at a flaming fire (3) and his wife, the carrier of the firewood, (4) upon her neck a rope of palm-fibre. (5)
It seems fantastical to assume the "historical context" for this was that the wife of Muhammad's uncle used to walk in front of him throwing prickly wood in his way, and that god decided to immortalise it in a timeless text as one of the only references to a contemporary human.
It’s pretty clearly just a metaphorical warning against putting worldly status above piety and salvation. Yet tradition has turned it into a factual event from Muhammad’s life.
The night journey and moon splitting are the best supported events in Muhammad’s life according to Islamic sources and “Hadith science”, as a result we have to question the entire corpus as potentially untrustworthy.
Many people reject the miraculous events as obvious fabrications, but then trust the (less well attested) but mundane narratives as being pretty much reliable, even though they also clearly serve exegetical functions.
We know that major miraculous narratives were fabricated and we know that mundane and trivial details were fabricated, as such my view is that we don’t simply accept any events in the sirah happened simply because tradition says they did.
Sirah and Hadith might be no more reliable than the Gospels and acts of the apostles and we should be equally as sceptical when treating them as history.
The scholarly approach has tended to be “assume mostly true unless reasons to believe otherwise” only relatively recently have critical scholars started to contend that things should probably be “assume mostly fabricated unless reasons to see as true”.
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
The entire religion is built on the obvious fabrication that 1) there is a supreme creator, and that it 2) sent an angel to instruct Mohamed. Every single word of the Qur'an is a lie.
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
Yet another CLAIM of a miracle.
Why don't you address the post I replied to you when you asked for proof Mohammad (s) did miracles (of the public type) per Quran. Instead of simply dismissing it.
People can be obtuse for example, Quran says Mohammad (s) to say "I do not claim to be an Angel" and similarly other Prophets (a) said same, yet Bahais believe Prophets (a) are Angels and in context of God's Angels, it refers to his chosen ones. This is a clear mistake by Baha'allah, and shows he is a false Prophet. But people will then say "not claiming" is not the same as saying "he is not an Angel". I figured people can be very obtuse to Quran in ways people are not towards speech of others.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
No, a sign. People can make their own mind up as to whether or not it is reasonable to think that it was a coincidence.
Augustus
…
There is still a historical context for the emergence of Islam though, and this is relevant (and to me very interesting) regardless of the theological “truth” or lack thereof of the religion.
The historical context as recorded in the sirah seems much more of a later theological and exegetical creation rather than an accurate record of real events.
IMO this is worth noting.
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
I withdraw the question.
McBell
Unbound
For what purpose would a miracle be specifically for the public?