| Flying Dutchman |
| What about miracles? I am not sure about this, but at least most prophets of the OT and Jesus of course performed miracles. As far as I know Mohammed didnīt. |
| shafique |
In the Quran/Biblical Integrity thread:
My answer is that Muhammad, pbuh, does need to meet the 'basic criteria for what makes a true prophet'. My contention is that he does meet all the criteria. But as freza raised this, I will let her state the criteria and why she states that Muhammad, pbuh, does not meet these. I have suggested we take the Bible as a common frame of reference for these criteria - for there are verses which prophecise the coming of future prophets and also how to recognise them. We also have the narratives of what 'true prophets' said and did. Therefore we have both the criteria and the examples to refer to. I think it would be more orderly to look at one criterion at a time, but I'm happy to let freza decide whether to address a number at a time or singly. Cheers, Shafique |
| freza |
| ah, interesting! I just have some basic questions to start.. When Mohammad first had his other-worldy visions, why did he doubt that it was God who was speaking to him? Why did he need reassurance of his wife to convince him that he was dealing with the divine? Who were the witnesses of Mohammad's status as God's messenger? Saying he has a message from God is one thing, but proving it? How? What did he do that proved he wasn't just a regular person with a vivid imagination? |
| shafique |
Simply a natural human reaction. What would you do if an unseen voice talks to you and asks you to recite/read!? You must also realise that prior to being called to prophethood Muhammad, pbuh, was a shy, modest person who chose solitude/meditation rather than more mundane passtimes. He showed no political or social aspirations - choosing to give away wealth rather than amass it.
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand. Can you perhaps give me an example from say the life of Moses or Jesus when you say 'witness' or 'prove'. How did Moses prove himself to be a prophet to Pharaoh, or how did Jesus prove he was the Messiah to the Pharisees and Priests? I guess we will come to what Muhammad, pbuh, did do when you list what a true prophet should do and we examine whether he did that or not. The Bible is pretty clear on how to recognise a true prophet and distinguish from a person with a vivid imagination or one who is just ill/has epilepsy. Cheers, Shafique |
| ebonics |
| another case where common sense prevails i wouldnt accept a womaniser as a prophet, regardless of who says what. |
| ebonics |
jesus raised dead shafique he was raised from the dead jesus' body isnt on this earth, muhammads is... what else proof do you want? |
| shafique |
| Thanks ebonics. Did all the Jewish people accept Jesus after he raised Lazarus from the dead? How about the Romans? Ebonics - I uncovered in the other thread that the Coptic Bible has some extra books in the New Testament - as you were a Coptic Christian, do you know which books these are (being lazy here, but I'm hoping you can save me looking this up). As for the 'womaniser' comment - I take it that anyone who has more than one wife cannot be a prophet in your eyes. Fair enough - but that would rule out Abraham as a prophet for one (and not to mention Solomon and David). Do you really believe these weren't prophets? Oh, and also you seem to be confusing the fact that I do believe Jesus was a prophet of God and was asking for criteria to judge a true prophet. Being bodily transported to heaven isn't generally a criterion for prophethood - for only Elijah and Jesus (according to the Bible) would qualify. Do you believe Elijah will come down bodily? Cheers, Shafique |
| shafique |
Sure - miracles are certainly a feature of prophets, but I'm not sure they are a criterion. However they are typically not seen as miracles by the opponents of prophets, and to my knowledge performing of miracles is not a Biblical criterion for the truthfulness of a prophet. But, for the record, Muhammad, pbuh, is recorded as performing miracles. One is where a bowl of milk was shared via a large number of people. Another interesting one is where he pointed to the moon and it appeared to split into two. I read that this phenomenon was also recorded in India by a ruler of the time, so there is some corroborating evidence that this is the case. Prior to this, the records relied on the fact that the opponents of Islam did not dispute that this account was false. That said, I do not view miracles as a definitive sign of prophethood. Most Muslims will say that the biggest miracle is the Quran. A quick Google came up with this list (I don't vouch for it as I'm not sure who they are, but a quick glance down shows the miracles that I'm aware of - and one's I wasn't aware of, eg curing a blind person. Some of the hadith are questionable, but I give you the list to make your own mind up). http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Muhammad-and-Judaism/miracles-of-mohammed.htm Cheers, Shafique |
| freza |
If none other but God makes contact with a human prophet-to-be, would he leave any doubt that he was God? That Mohammad questioned that it was God is very significant. Other prophets have questioned "why did you choose lowly, insignifcant me God?" but to question the ultimate divine presence...hhhmm |
| shafique |
| freza - thanks for your comments. Do you have the criteria for us to judge a true prophet by? I'll start you off with two. One I would say, is to declare they are a prophet of God. Another is to make prophecies in the name of God and have them come true. Both these are fulfilled by Muhammad, pbuh. My understanding of the Bible is that a false prophet cannot make a prophecy in the name of God and have it come true. Do you agree? Cheers, Shafique |
| shafique |
This 'phase' of his life was age 40, married to a rich lady for 15 years and given away much of the wealth and set all the slaves free.
Actions speak louder than conjecture.
Well, it wasn't God who made contact with the Prophet, pbuh - so I'm not sure what your statement is based on.
:) So your criticism is that he had doubts. Ok - fair enough (but he would be right to doubt that it wasn't God, because it wasn't God :) ) Cheers, Shafique |
| freza |
| Right, it was God who told the angel Gabriel to contact Mohammad. this makes his doubts perfectly OK! silly me! :-) I thought Mohammad was 25 years old when he married the rich widow. Can you clarify this. can you also reference to writings - outside of the Quran - that state that he had absolutely no political and social aspirations. |
| ebonics |
the only prophets in the true sense that i believe in are jesus & moses, everyone else is just another human being. some more spiritual than others. but not prophets. |
| shafique |
Yes, he was 25 when he married his first wife. (40-25 = 15)
All accounts of Muhammad's, pbuh, early life are outside of the Quran, so not sure what you are asking for. There are many biographies out there. Interesting that you don't consider Abraham etc prophets. You are the first Christian I have debated with that does not consider the Biblical prophets to be prophets. (BTW - Moses married twice as well according to Biblical scholars, the second wife being an black Eithiopian, but that's a different discussion). Anyway, do you agree that only true prophets make prophecies in the name of God and have them come true? Cheers, Shafique |
| freza |
However, this is an interesting observation because it seems that after Khadeejah died, his personal life was very...fast paced..so to speak. He married a bunch of women and had concubines some of them extremely young. How many wives did Mohammad have after Khadeejah's death? What is the opinion of Islamic scholars about slavery, concubines and war captives? This is another thing that strikes me when you compare other prophets with Mohammad. Other prophets fell out of favor with God over sins, sometimes forgiven sometimes not. The prophet Mohammad who has a place of such high esteem in Islam - shouldn't he have led a less reproachable life? If the Quran itself states his weaknesses, we can only imagine what was not said. This glaring contradiction begs the question - why ask something of his devotees that he didn't comply with himself? How can you even begin to justify this..?
|
| shafique |
| I note that you are still refusing to give us the criteria by which to judge Muhammad, pbuh, and show where in the Bible the criteria come from. I'll however put this down to selective reading, and indulge your question.
Not really. He married divorced and widowed women, and was married Aisha when she was a young girl, but the marriage was not consummated until her maturity.
God's opinion is clearly stated in the Quran - what are you confused about?
I believe all prophets are sinless - but that is another matter. Sinless in that they don't knowingly break God's law.
We do hold Muhammad, pbuh, to a high level and yes he must lead a less reproachable life than other prophets. I'm not sure what weakness you are referring to - if you could give me the reference that would be good.
You will have to point out the 'glaring contradiction' before I can justify it. Can't see the contradiction yet.
Ok - so let us see, how many Romans converted because Jesus walked on water or fed the multitudes? Why did the High Priests not convert? Is that fact not 'very very odd' if 'miracles are not small things' and 'word of them spreads'? As I stated before, I don't consider miracles to be a criterion - but if you do, please state how you consider Muhammad, pbuh, to have not fulfilled them (is it because splitting the moon is less than walking on water, or that he did not feed many people with the milk?). So, let us see - so far we have established: 1. Muhammad, pbuh, declared himself a prophet of God 2. Muhammad, pbuh, made prophecies in the name of God 3. Said prophecies came true. 4. Muhammad, pbuh, performed miracles 1, 2 and 3 are my criteria which I took from the Bible - but you still haven't stated which criteria you are using. Quoting from the 'I Spy' book of Islam bashing is not quite what I was expecting. Disapointed, but not surprised. Cheers, Shafique |
| shafique |
| double post Edit, let me just remind everyone why this thread was set up
freza - can we have the 'basic criteria' and where these criteria come from. Cheers, Shafique |
| ebonics |
so far you have established the above, we havent established squat. he declared himself a prophet, with no specific grounding really.... he made ludacris hadiths in the process (not sure what prophecies you're talking about) and no documented case of widely accepted miracles are known about him, other than your niche example, that was hardly ever announced by anyone before... as for that, a small ern of wine fits an entire congregation at communion... so what you're saying isnt exactly far fetched, enough to call a MIRACLE miracles: raising dead instantly healing sick opening eyes with a touch beating death and rising from it. splitting the red sea big difference. |
| freza |
actually you decided this theme: compare/contrast. about the criteria, I'll get to that. First let me get the basics out of the way:
|
| shafique |
Why did he marry other women after his first wife died and chose to marry divorcees and widows? Can you prove that the marriage to Aisha was not consummated after her maturity? We have all her hadith and they paint a picture of a happy, loving marriage that puts mine to shame (the prophet, pbuh did all the housework!). Why not marry? Is it un-prophetlike to marry?
The Quran is quite clear on this - s. e. x outside of marriage is a sin.
Huh? Like I said, you should not rely on the 'I spy' book for facts! :) Cheers, Shafique |
| ebonics |
yes they are, the quran clearly says "and whatever their right hand posesses" in arabic, "wa malakat aymanohom." one of the most debated verses, within the muslim community, mainly from women against clerics... |
| ebonics |
shafique, explain "whatever their right hand posses" or "wa ma malakat aymanohom" |
| ebonics |
| personally, IF you believe that the quran is the literal word of god, do you believe that god would say such a thing? logic says no .... shafique says yes .... i chose logic. |
| shafique |
It means what it says - those whom you have control over - it can refer to slaves or prisoners of war. The Quran says it is legal for Muslim men to marry these women - but they cannot be forced into marriage: 24:33 Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them). 4:24 Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise. etc. The Quran acknowledges the presence of slaves and ordains how they should be set free and their treatment. In times of war, prisoners of war also become captives and their treatment is governed by the same rules. Where it is impractical to keep POW in camps, the usual treatment in history is that they are all put to death. Tellingly though, there are no commandments in the Quran specifying when it is acceptable to take slaves. There is no equivalent teaching in the Bible, to my knowledge, and many slave owners used the Bible to justify slavery (wrongly, in my opinion). But, again, I can't see this as a criterion of prophethood - sure we can discuss Islam's teachings vis-a-vis slaves (and I'm happy to do so). Cheers, Shafique |
| shafique |
I do believe - and others are free to believe in what they wish.
:) How is your 'disecting' of the Quran coming along? Cheers, Shafique |
| ebonics |
| my disecting of the quran is yielding that aisha, admitted on several occasions, that the quran's been re-worded... it took me hard streneous research to find out such information, bounded by the censorship of etisalat.. when i air it out here, you'll do what you did with the hadith that sparked my "disecting" of your quran, dismiss it as unauthentic...... like groundhog day you're becoming more and more predictable shafique. |
| shafique |
Wow - I'm now being criticised for a discussion that hasn't taken place yet! :) I'll wait for you to post before I address it. Cheers, Shafique |
| ebonics |
i can only judge you on your past merits equation went like this: hadith was mentioned by me and questions azhar confirmed hadith is correct several others confirmed hadith is correct international muslim clerics in international press confirmed hadith is correct shafique dismissed it as rubbish made by none muslims to make islam look bad..... with no credible research i may add. past record speaks for itself. |
| shafique |
| :lol: |
| freza |
Was Aisha really that happy in the marriage? Aren't there accounts that state that there was some serious discord between the wives due to an increasing household? That Aisha was unhappy and resentful at times and even plotted against Mohammad? Btw, do you think that a nine year old girl has reached maturity? She was nine when Mohammad was in his 50s and the marriage was consummated, right? |
| shafique |
To show there is no stigma in marrying divorcees and widows. Some marriages - such as with Safiyyah, from a Jewish tribe, were political. However they were all marriages - where the women consented.
No, it was not the only charity - but to make a widow the wife of the leader of a religion and empire is not without its merits. Same goes for the wife who was a widow as a result of war (which one were you thinking of?)
To my knowledge, yes. It was a normal marriage with some touchingly normal sides - the Prophet used to mend his own clothes and do the chores. He used to have a race with Aisha each year (running race) - he won in the early years, but later on she beat him. He used to ask permission from her to spend the night in prayers - she used to admonish him for praying too hard.
Yes, there are these reports. Bear in mind that certain sects of Islam see Aisha as a hate figure. However, it is also instructive to read that even the best marriages have their ups and downs and isn't a fairy tale.
Yes, there was a big age difference. Aisha was the daughter of his best friend and later his first successor. The marriage was consumated when Aisha was mature and not when she was 9. The facts do not support the accusation that the Prophet, pbuh, was a s.e. xual predator or paedophile. He was faithful to one wife during the prime of his life - when he achieved power he did not marry nubile young women, but divorcees and widows. He did marry the daughter of his closest friend and she was his closest companion after marriage. Yes she was young, but by all accounts it was a public marriage and one full of love. If you want, I'll get some quotes from historians for you - but I think the facts speak for themselves. Can we perhaps now move on to the criteria for prophethood? Cheers, Shafique |
| freza |
If at least two of Mohammad's marriages were to war captives, how does war captive marriage = consent? marry me or end up as loot for my soldiers or flogged and made slave, your choice. ok, I'll marry you. this type of consent?
|
| shafique |
Yes.
When he was a political leader, he did political things. I said that before his call to prophethood he had no political and social aspirations. The facts speak for themselves. I don't see anything wrong in politically motivated marriages - goes on today.
No - once he was a political leader, he had to act like a political leader. As Jesus said, when I was a child, I acted like a child..
No - it goes like this 'will you marry me - the choice is yours'. The Quran is clear on this point - you can't force women into marriage. The choice is therefore to be a widow of a defeated army, or to become a wife. It is a choice. Safiyyah, for example, proposed to the Prophet after she had a dream. And remember that women in Islam have full rights of divorce, so marriage is not seen as making a woman the property of the husband (and Christians used to criticise Islam for being too liberal for this very point - and it took over 1000 years for Europe to catch up and give women these same rights).
Please look up the word 'choose' and contrast it with 'made'. You seem to have a dim view of the institution of marriage. Marrying someone is not the same as having a girlfriend - but sometimes we lose sight of this fact.
You seem to characterise this a paedophillia. It was common practice for royalty and high class people to marry/bethrow their children very young. It is not a common or even a recommended practice. In this case it was a loving relationship and I see nothing wrong with how it turned out.
Indeed. But hardly shows he isn't a prophet - if you recall this is the purpose of this thread :)
She was past puberty when the marriage was consumated. Some reports have her as young as 6 when she married, some say 9. There aren't clear reports as to the age when the marriage was consumated - but extensive hadith by Aisha herself about the marriage. I'm disagreeing with the characterisation that Muhammad, pbuh, was a s.e.xual predator for marrying the daughter of his best friend when he was in his 50s and the ruler of the whole of Arabia and by Arab tradition could have any woman he wished. And as luck would have it, the one relationship that detractors of Islam will focus on, is the one relationship where we have the words of the lady herself. She was no shrinking violet - she led an army against the 4th Khalifa, so she did not hold her tongue - and therefore we can judge the Prophet's (pbuh) and her marriage from her perspective. Perhaps I am wrong for trusting the word of the lady herself? So, can we now have a criterion for prophethood that Muhammad did not meet (and show that the criterion comes from former scripture). Cheers, Shafique |
| freza |
| your replies are jaw-dropping unfreakinbelievably disturbing... We've established (well you've only admitted this half-way) the common sense things: Mohammad had political motivations, sure. Nothing wrong with marrying a rich widow which would die before he did and would leave him a fortune upping any future political aspirations. Common sense here. He was a political leader - some of this motivations might have more to do with politics than religion.
You also leave out the reports that Aisha's own father was not too happy about Mohammad's request for his daughter, even though he was friends with Mohammad, the best of friends from what I understand. This to me indicates that this child marriage was not as acceptable back then as you want to make it out to be. Sure it happened, but it wasn't considered a wonderful thing by everyone.
MOST Islamic and Quranic sources CONFIRM that Aisha was a child when Mohammad married her. Just accept it dude, your vagueness doesn't cut it in this case. You are saying that this is fine. We shouldn't think of Mohammad as a pedophile. Amazing. But it's not recommended now a days. OK, do as Mohammad, err, God tells you, not as Mohammad does. Got it. Other do as I say not as I do: You can only have up to four wives according to the Quran but Mohammad had 11+. According to the Quran: marrying your daughter in law is a no-no. but Mohammad not only desired his adopted-son's wife, he married her. But conveniently Mohammad received this little message by way of that famous divine revelation saying that he can in fact marry his adopted son's wife, because why? because his son was adopted and not biological? why exactly? You see, Shafique, anyone with common sense would deduct that there is a serious disconnect in the ways of Mohammad. Can you see it without accusing them of being anti-Quranic or anti-Islamic? Can you understand what is so obviously lacking about Mohammad's basic human character just within this context here? You can't, you won't, why do I even bother. |
| shafique |
I love you too. :)
Not before he was a prophet, and even then some years after he was called to the prophethood.
You seem to be ignoring the facts here. She proposed to him. He gave away her fortune.
He became a political leader and acted like one - no question about this. The point I made early on was that prior to being told to proclaim his prophethood he eschewed the material trappings and stayed away from politics.
Do you have a different source of information?
I'm not sure what you are objecting to - is it wrong for a woman to propose?
Ok - we get you are disgusted.
Is there another sort of prophet? Has there ever been a prophet who hasn't declared himself a prophet?
Yes - this is a problem shared by many Biblical prophets, including Moses. In the Bible he is portrayed as a murderer/manslaughterer and fugitive from justices and condoning the killing of innocent Egyptian boys by God, as well as leading his people for 40 years around the desert. His sister-in-law chastises him for marrying an Eithiopian lady. His armies commit slaughter of innocents - yet he is a true prophet according to you.
Really? I did mention she is a hate figure to some. There are some very unsavoury 'hadith' about her - but the question really should be what did she say about the marriage.
You are entitled to your view and you have made it well.
What do you think their fate would be if they said no? It would be the same fate as the other widows who weren't proposed to.
Yes - I have not denied she was a child when they were married. The marriage was only consumated after puberty.
No - I think you are free to consider Muhammad, pbuh, as whatever you want. I'll just state the facts as I know them.
Yes.
Because he was adopted, you are right.
I'm still waiting for the 'basic criteria' - so far we haven't had any but just some re-hashed accusations about who he married and why.
You'll have to help me understand what was lacking in his conduct as a groom and a husband.
I wonder why you bother as well with these old accusations- you stated that Muhammad, pbuh, failed 'basic criteria' for prophets. To date you have not given me one criterion that Muhammad, pbuh, failed that other prophets passed. The Bible clearly states how we can judge whether a prophet is true or not. My contention is that Muhammad, pbuh, meets these criteria (re-read the title of this thread). You have consistently deferred discussion on the point you yourself raised. I'm not angry, I'm not disappointed and I'm not surprised. The religion he brought you call 'beautiful', you accept he had a happy relationship with Aisha but you think it despicable he married someone so young. If this is your only criterion for rejecting him, fair enough, come out and say so - but this isn't a 'basic criteria' according to the Bible. You also seem to have a problem with women choosing to marry and become Queens of an empire. This somehow is to you a punishment or a way of a man satisfying his carnal desires. You discount the responsibilities that go with a marriage and equate it with servitude (which it was in Europe until relatively recently). Anyway - can we now move to some criteria? Cheers, Shafique |
| freza |
OK, so to run down the factoids. Aisha was a tiny child when the old man started desiring her and 9 years old when the marriage was consummated. You excuse this act because they led a happy marriage according to you and because it was not entirely unusual for old men to marry kids back then. This is like sooo convincing - that kids like to be with old men, Aisha's happiness is palpable through-out the Hadiths, isn't it? So s e x with children is ok as long as the girl has started menstruating and as long as it was a long time ago and as long as he made up a nifty though ridiculous excuse. Got it. Makes perfect sense! Moses was a man who did great things but also committed offenses against men and against God. God punished him - do you forget these things? Have I ever said that Moses was a white dove? I've never said this of him. I actually find some of the things he did quite disturbing and I'm not blind to reality even if it's reality which I'm fond of. What is pretty clear is that he erred, he admitted his offenses, he eventually admitted his short-comings. I'm not excusing him in any way, why should I? but I'm saying that this guy actually took some level of responsibility towards his actions. Mohammad never did. I never said it is wrong for a woman to propose, don't start with your silliness Shafique. And I don't hold any dim view of marriage - ridiculous assumption on your part. Marriage is a very good thing -I may sound like a lil bastard but I'm actually a product of a wonderful marriage - shocking I know! :P Marriage to widows is an even better thing apparently. Have you ever considered practicing extreme charity Mohammad-style by marrying a bunch of widows? (serious question). I wonder why this "example" didn't take off in the Muslim world... speaking of.., well a hypothetical question: Just to go on the "logic" of this example. Let's say Mohammad would have decreed that homosexuals should not be stigmatized by society. What example do you think he would give to get his point across? OH. I guess he didn't actually have to illustrate examples did he? yikes. But it's pretty clear that Mohammad preached what he didn't practice starting in his marriages and his preoccupation with plural marriages and perfumes when he should have been preoccupied with winning wars and spreading the religion of peace around. *cough* :D Seriously though, prophet of a great religion - concentrate on the religion. Makes sense. How on earth did he have the time...unless... I haven't differed any question. I wanted to start off by seeing the true nature of Mohammad. Which as been established. You're the one that came up with this topic, remember? A flawed prophet - entirely normal. An immoral and hypocritical one - God wouldn't have chosen him or God would not have let him go further. Strike 1 against his prophethood: voices in his head were just that, voices in his head. His dreams were soaked but not with spirituality. Strike 2: he was way too flawed and he was quite hypocritical. now please continue. why don't you list his prophet-like qualities. (I will be back next week, inshallah) |
| shafique |
| I listed 3 criteria in a previous post: 1. Declare yourself a prophet of God. 2. Make prophecies in the name of God. 3. Prophecies come true. According to my reading of the Bible, only true prophets of God can fulfil these 3 criteria together. Muhammad, pbuh, fulfils these. Cheers, Shafique |
| shafique |
Totally agree with you that the nature of Prophet should be moral and unhypocritical. The facts as I see them is that Muhammad, pbuh, meets these criteria. It is interesting that you believe prophets can be flawed - Muslims believe prophets are sin-less, but can and do make mistakes. Cheers, Shafique |
| ebonics |
i couldnt have worded it better myself. 10 points shafique, the fact that you believe all your defences, which like freza said 9/10th of them are assumptions, especially in the marriage forcing part - is very amusing. FYI: the "ma malakat aymanohom" aya caused a muslim muhajaba woman to question this in public on TV, clerics failed to explain what was "God's wisdom" in that aya of course with the pretence of saying crap like "well it is the literal word of god, so it must be true" she took the liberty in saying OPENLY "people do not believe, and need the proof that it is the literal word of god, i for one, do not believe it" after that TV show she took off the hijab, and denounced islam - now a christian. but it doesnt stop there they planted a bomb, in her car, which successfully exploded, sending her a chilling message that she's not welcome in her own country anymore, now she's left and gone into hiding fearing for her life. over 3 words in the quran........ imagine all the other things she doubted in it. so what you dismiss as "normal aya, they can marry whoever they wish with consent" - if far from that, muslim women question that aya on a daily basis, and frankly, no god would EVER say that - thats logically speaking. but i still understand you are completely blind with faith. i dont know if its a good or a bad thing really, bit of both. |
| shafique |
| Thanks ebonics. As I said in my first post, this thread is about whether Muhammad, pbuh, meets the criteria of prophethood contained in the Bible. The answer is yes. If you (or freza) disagree, please post the relevant criteria from the Bible and show why Muhammad, pbuh, does not meet these. I understand both of you do not like Muhammad, pbuh, and you are free to do so and give your reasons, but this is not a 'Do I like Muhammad, pbuh', thread. Cheers, Shafique |
| ebonics |
ill correct you again, the answer is yes to you, and no to me and freza...... refer to the blind by faith comment. |
| shafique |
I thought that you didn't believe in following the Bible (and in any case the Coptic Bible has more books than the one freza uses). It is quite instructive though that neither you nor freza has once referred to the Bible in this thread in terms of a criterion. Now, what was that about 'blind' faith? :) Cheers, Shafique |
| ebonics |
you're correct in me following no bible, you're compltely incorrect in assuming that muhammad has prophet like qualities - he's far from it, as i already said in the start of the thread, regardless of who says what.... because yet again, common sense prevails. |
| shafique |
So, whilst Muhammad, pbuh, meets Biblical criteria for being a prophet, he does not meet common sense criteria (in your view). Therefore the Bible is not compatible with common sense according to you. Is this why you don't follow the Bible? Cheers, Shafique |
| ebonics |
you're an expert in creating your own logic - whimsical logic. i dont believe muhammad meets the biblical criteria of being a prophet.. nor does he meet mine. muhammad declared himself a prophet of god anyone can do that his teaching after that are corrupt, and justify his personal agenda - i dont see how that in any way is "foreseeing the future" and "these claims came true" on the contrary, i find the quran full of contradictions, even though you seem to think otherwise, full of things that are completely against logic, and full of things placed by him, to justify his actions. "we ma malakat aymanohom" prime example. so please, do not place words into my mouth, using your strange logic.. |
| ebonics |
| my nets freaking out |
| shafique |
| ebonics, Sorry, I didn't see a quote from the Bible in your post. So do you agree that the Bible isn't compatible with your view of 'common sense'? Cheers, Shafique |
| ebonics |
and sorry i dont see the point that you're trying to make to yourself, that makes 0 sense... you're making claims that the bible says muhammad passes the test of prophethood, when it doesnt do such a thing by a long shot. where you're heading with this argument of yours, other than to validate your own argument to your own brain, im not entirely sure? |
| shafique |
| I don't see how you can argue Muhammad, pbuh, does not meet Biblical criteria without referring to the Bible. Is there a flaw in my logic? Why the reluctance to quote from the Bible? Cheers, Shafique |
| ebonics |
ill let you answer your own question..... |
| freza |
| Shafique, why do you insist on having us state comparisons between prophets of the Bible to Mohammad when you will undoubtedly end up doing what you have been doing up to now, completely ignoring some of the blatant facts of the Quran while slicing away with your little wooden knife at the Bible. When I state these things about Mohammad it's not that I'm making them up, or that I hate him. What I and other state is what he really was. What you're making up are excuses that shouldn't fit an intelligent but very biased grown man who brings out every conceivable and inconceivable judgment against other religions but buries his head in the sand when it comes to his own. 2 Peter 1:19-21 states: " Moreover, we possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing. You do well if you pay attention to this as you would to a light shining in a murky place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophets own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. " Prophecies are meant not for the prophet. No, they're NOT self-serving they're not for the prophets own human impulses but rather for spiritual revelations. A prophet is a vessel in which God communicates to humans. But unless the prophet is enlightened - he can Not enlighten his message to mankind. Makes sense, doesn't it? How did Mohammad's wet dreams-via God benefit mankind? They didn't benefit anyone but himself. Furthermore some of his actions are not considered acceptable per Islamic practices and were not even considered acceptable per his own "moral code" back when he lived. Without sin and perfect? Hardly and doesn't even make sense when applying it TO A WHOLLY HUMAN PROPHET. Men/women are by their very nature flawed! (((hello))) Or are Muslims perhaps implying that Mohammad was a divine being? Only divine beings are "sinless". Shafique, get with it. When choosing prophets God didn't necessarily choose the most perfect, virtuous and accomplished people. But he also didn't choose morally destitute people. 1John 2:18-19 Children, it is the last hour, and just as you heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. We know from this that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us, because if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. hhmmm |
| Flying Dutchman |
| I donot have any quotes from the Bible, just some remarks, notes and personal thoughts. Yes, I also do have problems with the way Mohammed behaved and his relationships with many women. I donot think even one Muslim is completely 100% comfortable with the relationship with Aisha. Sure, they can talk around it or make excuses. Hey, I have a daughter now who is almost six years. I just might loose my temper when a guy knocks on my door and says he wants to marry her, but will wait with consuming it after menstruation, puberty or whatever. Last week I read a article about a new world record. In KSA two cousins around 10 years old married, and it was all according to the Sharia. I am not a Christian or Mulsim (obviously) (I am one freza doesnīt like), but I do identify much more with the teaching of Jesus. He was non-violent, lived by his own code, never denied himself and even died for his convictions. Didnīt Mohammed agree during the Hudaibiya treaty to change his signature from "Mohammed, Messenger of God" to "Mohammed , son of Abdullah". Isnīt that denying himself? Didnīt Mohammed break the peace treaty? Thereby coming back from a previous oath? Would a prophet do that? Anyways, I have a theory (and itīs just a theory). I stated before that I think that self-confident people donot resort to violence. Why is it then, that as soon somebody comes closes to Mohammed (with pictures and negative storied about him) Muslims resort to death threats and violence? I think itīs because they are uncomfortable... |
| shafique |
| freza - you fail to address the simple fact that according to the Bible only true prophets who make prophecies in the name of God will have their prophecies fulfilled. I am not asking for a comparison with other prophets, but criteria from the Bible stating how to recognise a prophet. I direct you to Deuteronomy 18 - do you agree with the criteria laid out there or not? As for 2 Peter 1:19-21 it does not say that there will be no true prophets in the future. My contention is that Muhammad's revelations (which constitute a beautiful religion in your opinion) weren't just from his imagination. The reason I make this statement is that the Bible (and the Quran) says that only God has knowledge of the future and that only true prophets can make prophecies in the name of God that come true (the crux being that the prophecies are claimed to be from God). Your criteria of only accepting a prophet if he is 'enlightened' is not one I have read in the Bible - but surely a beautiful religion is a sign of enlightenment? If a person committing manslaughter and war crimes is 'enlightened' - what is an un-enlightened person? Let me turn it round - can a false prophet claim to be from God, make prophecies in the name of God and these prophecies come true? If you say yes - then please confirm that you disagree with what is written in Deut 18. FD - yes, I have no issue with people questioning Muhammad's (pbuh) conduct - be it his marriages, wars, revelations etc. However, this thread was started when a statement said he failed the basic criteria of prophethood. Given that Biblical prophets are recorded as committing adultery and even sleeping with their own daughters (David, Lot respectively) - I was curious as to what criteria Muhammad, pbuh, was accused of not meeting. I too would balk at my young daughters being married off. I am also horrified at the stats of my home country, the UK, as to the age of teen and even pre-teen pregnancies. In the 6th century and for many centuries onwards, it was not uncommon to marry off royals very early. This took place in Europe and Asia alike. So, why it is unthinkable today - I say we need to look at the marriage holistically. However distasteful the multiple marriages were, I cannot see how a believing Christian would point to this as a reason to reject a claim of prophethood. It certainly will not be because of the Bible. That said, freza has said she does not consider Abraham, David, Solomon, Lot etc as prophets - so that is another part of the Bible she does not take literally. Cheers, Shafique |
| shafique |
| FD - I totally agree with you last comment about death threats coming from people who are not totally self confident. Remember though that these mobs get disproportionately more coverage. I refer you to the press statement I posted recently which addressed the cartoons. Also recently the Deobandi school of Islam issued a clear edict signed by all its scholars which denounced terrorism. The ultimate irony is that the Prophet, pbuh, was insulted to his face - knew the hypocrites around him, and yet did not punish anyone for just insulting him or having a belief contrary to Islam. Religion has always been misused for ulterior means - the cartoons issue was one that was artificially stoked (it was a number of months before any uproar occured, and that was only after leaflets including invented cartoons that weren't published were distributed). Cheers, Shafique |
| spoonman |
Is Freza a she? |
| Flying Dutchman |
I know, couldnīt help myslef to give my two cents... |
| shafique |
No probs - we haven't talked about the basic criteria from the Bible in the thread so far, so why not look at other questions? :) spoonman - I've always thought freza was a 'she', can't remember why though. Cheers, Shafique |
| Galactico |
Yeh Freza is a "she" even though she discusses like a guy... :lol: |
| freza |
Shafique, get this in your head and make sure it stays there. I did not say that Islam is beautiful because of Mohammad. I said I find it beautiful in a mostly superficial way ("it photographs well"), it's visually stunning. and not too superficially in this way: I find that some of what it has become does stand for good things. So I find it beautiful in spite of Mohammad and the faulty Quran which as I have said before I believe to be a combination of inventions, stories: truthful and not, things that were added to it along the years but I do not think it was inspired nor original. I see it as based on Jewish and Christian influences. (I actually think its more Jewish than Christian.) mkay, got it? So next time you want to quote my "beautiful" reference, make sure you actually know what I meant.
Matthew 7, 12 " In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets. Did Mohammad treat everyone the way he wanted to be treated himself? You ignore what really counts against Mohammad's prophethood: 1 John 2:18-19 Says that that there will be wanna-be prophets who will take things from the Bible and make them their own, who will not accept Jesus as the true Messiah. This applies to Mohammad! I mean, how much more clearer do you want things to get? The Bible also states that the Prophets know the Law. Mohammad bungled the OT and didn't even know enough of the NT. He got Mary and the Holy Spirit confused!! Mohammad who claimed to be of Abrahamic descent should have known the laws. And should have known that they had been fulfilled in the NT. |
| shafique |
I don't see it as such - he didn't deny he was a prophet of God but agreed to not use the term as the opponents objected. Had he agreed to write 'Muhammad, not Messenger of God' that would be a denial.
Yes, had he personally broken an oath that would be against the conduct of a prophet of God. However the treaty was broken when a tribe from among the muslims fought with a tribe allied with the Quraish. The Quraish were offered 3 alternatives and chose to agree that the treaty was dissolved. I don't think Muhammad, pbuh, ordered the fighting to break the truce. The analogy I would draw is of the disobedience of the tribes of Israel against Moses when they made a cow of gold to worship - they went against a prophet's will. Tellingly, there was no bloodshed in the conquest of Mecca - largely because Islam had spread so much in the two years of ceasefire that where he had to accept the terms of the Quraish at Hudaibiyya with a few hundred supporters, two years later he had an army 10,000 strong. Cheers, Shafique |
| shafique |
Islam is a religion. It was brought by Muhammad, pbuh. You stated that you had no problem with people following Islam and asked 'why would I?'. Therefore I took you at your words that you found the teachings of Islam as beautiful. If you meant 'Islamic architecture' or 'Islamic Men' or 'Islamic Women' as something beautiful, then you should have said so.
Methinks the lady protests too much. You said Islam is beautiful - I agree with you. You don't believe in the Quran and look down on Muhammad, pbuh. You have the right to hold those opinions. I don't share those and am willing to put my case.
Agreed. Muhammad, pbuh, passes this test.
I have respect for all prophets of God - even the ones you consider are not real prophets (such as Abraham, Lot, David and Solomon).
This is one aspect where the Quran differs from the Bible - it exonerates Prophets what Muslims consider as slander. This is one reason why your assertion that the Quran copied the Bible rings hollow.
You really should get off the high horse some time. We don't believe any prophets committed sins. It seems hypocritical to me to criticise Muhammad, pbuh, for alleged lapses which are much less than what is attributed to Biblical prophets (eg. Lot slept with his daughters allegedly, Solomon had a thousand wives etc)
My fault - apologies for this mistake. It was ebonics who said that he only considered Jesus and Moses to be true prophets. Sorry, I should have checked more carefully (it was in this thread he said this a few pages back). We at least agree that Prophets in the Bible include OT prophets, such as Lot, David, Solomon and Abraham.
Yes.
He accepted Jesus as the Messiah. As do I. He and I both rejected the teachings of Paul though.
Which Bible are you referring to? You have argued until you were blue in the face that the Bible needs interpretation and that 'hear' can mean 'understand' to resolve a contradiction. The Quran is internally consistent and corrects many a mistake in the Bible - eg that Lot's wife chose to stay behind rather than turning into a pillar of salt. He was not a Jew and was not subject to Judaic laws - or did that fact escape you? Anyway, I'm glad you raised some Biblical criteria that Muhammad, pbuh, passed with flying colours. However, I note with interest you ignored my direct question: According to Deut 18 - can a false prophet make a prophecy in the name of God and have that prophecy come true? If a Prophet claims to be from God, makes prophecies in the name of God and that prophecy comes true, according to Deut 18 do we not have to accept him as a true prophet? I'll keep asking the question until you answer. Cheers, Shafique |
| ebonics |
so if someone came up to you and went: behold shafique, for i am a prophet from God i prophecise that you will sleep tonight and you will rise, go to the mosque and pray with your fellow men. tommorrow that person maybe a prophet, if those prophecies came true.... according to your logic of again, taking the bible how you want to take it. here you go shafique, in answer to your question.
to liken muhammad to moses is rather laughable in my opinion... God talked to moses directly, and when moses asked to see God, God revealed himself to moses..... muhammad had "dreams"...... validated or not, is personal debatable opinion, as freza already outlined. id say nostradamus is on a far higher level of prophet than muhammad, even though he wasnt a prophet of God, he was a prophet all the same. |
| shafique |
| ebonics - nostradamus didn't claim to be a prophet of God. According to Deut 18 - only true prophets who make prophecies in the name of God have the prophecies come true. I know you don't believe in the Bible, but that is what it says. As for Moses and Muhammad, pbuh - in two important aspects they were similar. Both brought new laws and both fought wars. Cheers, Shafique |
| shafique |
I stated earlier that I did not think Muhammad, pbuh, ordered the raid that broke the treaty. I went and refreshed my memory of the situation and I quote from the book: Muhammad, A Biography of the Prophet by Karen Armstrong pg 240-241 "At the end of the year, the Meccans broke the Treaty of Hudaybiyah and were newly vulnerable. The tribe of Bakr had remained confederates of the Quraysh but they had for decades been the sworn enemy of the Khuza'ah, which joined Muhammad's confederacy. In November 629 one of the clans of Bakr had attacked the Khuza'ah by night in their own territory in a surprise attack and it appears that some of the Quraysh had aided and abetted this assault: they had given weapons to Bakr and it is said that Safwan had even taken part in the fighting. Khuza'ah promptly retaliated and there was even fighting between the two tribes in the Meccaan Sanctuary, so the Khuza'ah appealed to Muhammad and he agreed to come to their aid. Immediately some of the Quraysh had second thoughts when they realised that they had handed Muhammad a perfect excuse to attack Mecca. Safwan and Ikrimah remained hawkish and defiant, but even Suhayl, whose mother had been a member of Khuza'ah, was for disowning Bakr. .... ..shortly after the breach of the armistice, Abu Sufyan arrived in Medina to ask for peace - an event that would have been unthinkable two years earlier.' So, the above account shows it was the Meccans and not the Muslims who broke the treaty of Hudaybiyah. Cheers, Shafique |
| shafique |
To say that the Quranic words mean 's.e.x' when it does not is a lie. Please show me where the word in classical Arabic, fursa, means s.e.x and not marriage. To argue that in Misri or lebanese dialect a word means 's.e.x' and therefore the Quran changed the meaning is a jaw-droppingly naive/stupid comment as it says that the dialects are purer than fursa. Please show in a lexicon what you assert, and I will take back my comment. Cheers, Shafique |
| freza |
God did NOT advise them to be sinful , they were sinful all on their own and they admitted it! If God didn't mind that some of the prophets sinned, why did he punish them? There IS a pattern here. You can't be that blind to it. Can we imagine God's angel saying: "hey prophet, so you find your son's wife sexy? ok, I give you permission to marry her. just tell your people I said it's ok, we'll amend some laws or something." ugh, NO! He Never Advised sin to prophets. EXCEPT to Mohammad(!) Nope. that wasn't God's messenger speaking to Mohammad... ((((COMMON SENSE WHERE ARE YOU? SHAFIQUE NEEDS YOU))))
|
| ebonics |
i stilll consider nastrodamus a prophet, on a personal level. |
| shafique |
Yes, I have no problem with that. Nostradamus got more wrong than he got right, and never claimed to have divine revelations. I can make predictions - I do it all the time. My latest one is that John McCain will be the next President of the USA. Cheers, Shafique |
| shafique |
God didn't. I started the thread about Biblical criteria so that we could compare and contrast. Muhammad, pbuh, was treated as a Prophet and behaved as previous Prophets.
Yes the hadith record how he spent the nights praying asking for forgiveness.
How was Lot punished? And Solomon and David? That is the part I don't get. And Moses - how was he punished? How are these punishments different from what Muhammad, pbuh, suffered?
I keep telling you that I don't believe any prophets were sinful. Why do you keep asking me to justify sins that I don't believe they committed?
What sin did Muhammad, pbuh, commit? Even if we take your contention that he had a concubine - how is this different from the Biblical account of Abraham having a concubine (Hagar)? Which law of God did Muhammad, pbuh, break?
:) Common sense tells me that a man's imagination cannot fulfil prophecies in the Bible in such a spectacular and literal way (eg making Arabs into a great nation, fulfilling the prophecies of literal revelations of scripture, bringing a new law and leading armies like Moses etc etc).
Nope - Deut 18.20 onwards talks about how to recognise any prophet of God, it does not say that God only sends Prophets to Jews. It clearly states how to recognise a true prophet from a false one. Why do you reject these words of God? Is it because Muhammad, pbuh, fulfils these criteria? Cheers, Shafique |
| shafique |
| freza - you asked what prophecies are contained in the Quran that were fulfilled. http://www.answering-christianity.com/prophecies_muh.htm According to the Bible, only true prophets of God can make prophecies in the name of God and they come true. So just one prophecy coming true - if made in the name of God by a claimant of prophethood - should be enough for a believer in the Bible. This is explicit in Deuteronomy 18: 20But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." 21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. v21and 22 tells how recognise a true prophet from a false claimant - if they make a prophecy in the name of God and it does not come true, they are false. v20 - says that any prophet who prophecises in the name of God or any other God and is false - that prophet will be killed (in conjunction with v22, it is not saying that men should kill the prophet - but can only mean that God will cause the false prophet to die an un-natural death.) For me it is clear that Muhammad, pbuh, meets the criteria in the Bible - however, just as Jews continue to reject Jesus and state that he does not meet Biblical prophecies, I recognise that Christians also use the Bible to reject Muhammad, pbuh. Jews are entitled to their opinions, and so are Christians - I am stating my opinion. Cheers, Shafique |
| ebonics |
| shafique, i believe muslims around the world regard muhammad as a great leader and they like to mirror his life, thats where the term "sunna" comes from, mirroring muhammad's life.. would you agree that mirroring his life, coupled with severe under education would be the cause of this: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9B2DAD0F-5DE8-4450-84C5-1B378B458B24.htm happening today? for those who cant be bothered opening the link
this is congruent to the prophet's way of marrying women at an early age, and is also congruent in how muslims are allowed to marry "wa ma malakat aymanohom" - what you argued is CONSENTED marriage, clearly isnt in this case, and clearly wasnt in the cases of prisoner of war during the islamic wars - but you seem to believe otherwise, and you seem to believe otherwise when it comes to islam spreading by the sword, again i commend you on your blind faith. you may raise the point, that islam isnt blamed on this article once, to which i reply, the source is al jazeera, of course they will not blame islam. now back to this:
you're trying to tell me, that this right here, is the literal word of God? shafique, i ask you to just stop and think about what you are saying - would this be considered ok today? in all honesty.... and is God THAT incompetant to issue something that is only valid for a certain period of time? i also raise the point:
the english translation says "marry" do you knwo what the arabic version says shafique? "ENKAHOO" is the word used, which literarly, means f.u.c.k...... again i question God's wisdom in using such a word. |
| shafique |
| ebonics - yes Muhammad, pbuh, is considered a model for all Muslims. No, the examples you showed are of people not following Islam. I'm surprised at your last argument that Islam condones s.e.x outside of marriage. I think you have some valid arguments, but when you post arguments like this it discredits you and shows that you just have a burning hatred of Islam. Do you really think that Muslims think it is ok to go around raping or sleeping with women outside of marriage? Can you also give us a link to an Arabic dictionary or lexicon that backs up your assertion. The verse in question says 'fankihoo' - please show that in classical arabic this does not mean marry as all the translations show. Cheers, Shafique |
| ebonics |
|