182 replies to this topic

[Khadim uz Zahra]

In The Name of Allah (SWT) , The Most Beneficent, The Most Merciful.

kingpomba, on 19 February 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

Good old Khadim, always so inclusive .

Thank you! But, I think there are many who are much more inclusive than myself.

I am not going to quote the rest of your post because I have some problem when quoting such that it does not show any of the spaces. Now, since your post was quite lengthy, I don't think I would want to insert all the spaces manually. So, I won't be quoting it.

You did make some comments against religion in itself rather than about what criteria you would use to accept or reject a ideology. I won't be commenting on those.

But, yes, you had said that Prophet Muhammed did not have any miracles and I just wanted to make two small points here. Firstly, we cannot judge one Prophet over the other because of the miracles he brought because the miracles were suited to the needs of the time they were living in. So, taking the miracle of Moses when he split the sea apart, since no other Prophet had the same circumstances as his, there was no need to bring forth such a miracle, even if the Prophet, through Allah (SWT) 's permission could do it. Secondly, Prophet Muhammed did have his own miracles. One example being the splitting of the moon. Of course, you neither believe in the miracles of Moses nor Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon them both) but, since you are using the accounts of their followers, I think you should also be using the accounts of Muslims when talking about the miracles of Prophet Muhammed and, therefore, include the splitting of the moon as one of his miracles.

Apart from all this, the only thing I got out of your post was that you would believe if you saw miracles happening right in front of you. So, is that the only criteria for you when choosing a religion?

La, on 24 February 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

Actually it is well known the Prophet was regarded as a liar after his prophethood, it is no secret and is surprisingly quoted by the Quran itself. That's why we're lucky to have the Quran in its uninterrupted transmissions and early manuscripts, as it provides an authentic presentation of 'both sides' and their arguments against Muhammad (which you've already read enough times to realise). So yes he was "Al Sadiq Al Ameen", but the meccans probably assumed he exploited this trust he had gained as you insinuated so they began labelling him as a liar. Scribes could have wiped out the Koranic verses that highlight these allegations so as to cover up the skepticism that turned the Prophet from "The Truthful" to "a sorcerer, a liar", but fortunately they didn't.

Please respond to my opening post as well. Since I know that you have been an atheist for two years, I am very interested in the answer you give to my question.

[Khadim uz Zahra]

Okay, most of you have shared your views about what you would look for if you were an atheist before the Bi'that. Now, I would like to know why those who follow Islam, today, do so.

Like for example, Jebreil's reasons were much more ethical and dependent on seeing the Prophet himself and, then, evaluating his behaviour to fit the standards he believes are fit for the level of a Prophet. So, Jebreil, since you can neither see the Prophet or ask him for any miracles, why do you believe in Islam today?

Edited by Khadim uz Zahra, 25 February 2012 - 08:02 AM.

[Khadim uz Zahra]

In The Name of Allah (SWT) , The Most Beneficent, The Most Merciful.

Jebreil, on 25 February 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

To Khadim

I respect your respectfully-put question, but I have to repeat the same answer I gave to Jinn. Come over, let's meet, get to know one another, watch a comedy or something, and then we can discuss the matter over and after lunch.

I am sorry but I did not really get you. Firstly, as I have stated in my opening post itself, the reason I may be criticising some of your asnwers is not because I don't find them valid or because I am against Islam but because I want to look at what people think is the best approach when choosing religion. The only reason I am doing this is because I, myself, am confused as to what should the best approach be because I have doubts about nearly all the approaches I have seen, while I will outline as follows:

1. Miracle - the problem I have here is that the followers of every religion claim that they had a miracle in their life and, even according to Islam, sometimes the followers of a wrong religion can have a miracle (look at this post of mine). So, since even the followers of a wrong religion can have miracle regarding small and personal things and, since there is not much happening in the world or any Prophets at the moment who would provide a major miracle, I can't use miracles as the way to find which religion is right.

2. Morality of the main personality in a religion - my problems are the same as one of the members above has outlined. There are a lot of grey areas when it comes to morality of people, especially historical personalities. Take, for example, the first three Caliphs. We, as shias, find these personalities the most abominable and immoral of all while the Sunnis regard them as the most pious after the Holy Prophet . Therefore, this, in my view, cannot be the only criteria when judging a religion.

This has made me more and more reliant on intellectual proof alone but, in a recent lecture, I have also heard that only taking intellectual proof is not the vest approach as well. Therefore, I am starting to think that any religion, if it is the Truth, should prevail in all these areas - intellectually, morally and supernaturally.

Since I was so confused, I wanted to see the views of others, especially those who are more into philosophy, like yourself (which I why I asked you to comment on this thread).

If you think I was unduly criticising you, then, no, this is not the case and if I have offended you in anyway, I am sorry.

As for meeting you, I think that was sarcasm? In anyway, I don't live in UK (which is where I think you live) so that is not much of a possibility.

I just wanted to know, why are you uncomfortable in telling us your reasons here.

Edited by Khadim uz Zahra, 25 February 2012 - 09:17 AM.

[Pascal]

Jebreil, on 23 February 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

If a person was known to be sane, scrupulously truthful, genuinely caring, who shows this in words and actions, who sacrificed a lot for what I knew to be good, and who lived simply, whose speech I would learn from the benefit of hindsight to be wise and clairvoyant, then, should they say, "I am the Prophet of God", I would believe him.

The first four could easily be put on show. I'm sure there are some insane people or cult leaders who naturally display these traits. Psycopaths are very good at faking these thigns to the point of being extremely convincing as far as i'm aware.

The sacraficed a lot is a good one though, it shows they have decent intentions unless its one hell of an exceedingly elaborate scam.

Someone could be all these things without being a prophet though. Even if the person truthfully denied they were a prophet (eg not trying to hide it for some reason), they could still posses all these qualities and not be a prophet, thats where the problem is. You have some good criteria but i think theres a slight falter in the final step which basically just requires someone to claim to be a prophet and then its acceptable.

Where as if they didn't say anything about their prophetic status but had all these qualities, it would be a lot more iffy. Good list though. Personally, i think some supernatural evidence is warranted in a case like that though.


========================================================

MysticKnight, on 19 February 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

I wouldn't know how I would be in the past, but if I were in the state as of now, I believe the religion should teach the following:

1) There is no punishment in this world or the next for not believing or disbelieving, believing is a free-choice if convinced and has no consequence if not convinced, and there is no consequence if you believe it is wrong and made up.
2) Long elaboration on how we should establish a just government and a just society. The reason being, if he wants us to look up to him for guidance, he should guide us on this vital aspect of humanity.  He should also not simply dictate what to do, but explain why, so that the guidance speaks for itself, rather then that we just take it because we believe in the religion.
3) Take other humans are you brothers and sisters, not only people in your religion.
4) Declaration of universal human rights.
5) It should not be repetitive of the same points over and over again, because it will seem that the author had not much to say, as opposed to the divine whom has much to say.
6) God doesn't hate disbelievers or non-believers in Him or his religion neither is it the case that he does not love them.
7) An elaborate theodicy. I think if God is going to talk to us, he should atleast explain why there is so much suffering to the extent it is, staying silent while wanting to guide us, will seem to be regarded that the author didn't recognize this problem, which is one of the hugest questions of humanity as of now.
8) believing in a false cosmology or theology or many gods will not make you hated by God or kindle his wrath upon you or make him not love you or make him punish you. I want an understanding as to why people have false beliefs and follow it, a forbearing understanding, stating reasons that are not so blamable, but rather very common for reasons that apply to almost all humans.  I don't want to see this super angry I'm going to torture people for these sort of things.
9) An image of God that is all beautiful, beauty is defined by our perception, so I would say God has to be beautiful...if his description seems ugly, I'm not going to believe in it.


These would be some necessary things in the religion, however, I'm not sure I would be convinced the religion would be from God if this the case. Because it still can be human. But I would believe in it, in a different sense. If all the moral code seemed convincing, and all it taught seemed logical, then I would believe in that at least, even if I didn't necessarily believe the religion was from God.

Not sure if this has been pointed out but you're essentially designing what you want your religion or prophet to look like and saying it has to look like that to be a prophet.

What if contrary to your want there is a hell but this guy still is quite clearly a prophet? What do you do ?

It seems like your almost saying, well, i want my religion to look like this, so my prophet must look like this, if it doesnt look like what i want it to look, he isn't a prophet. Kind of holding a gun to God or the guy's head saying your religion has to be the way i want it or i won't accept you.

Now that i think about it....this is more of a list of what you want your religion to look like rather than a prophet detection mechanism so it were.

If he performed miracles that were obviously supernatural and from God but didnt fulfil your list would you still think he was a prophet?

Edited by kingpomba, 25 February 2012 - 10:19 AM.

[Khadim uz Zahra]

kingpomba, on 25 February 2012 - 10:17 AM, said:

Not sure if this has been pointed out but you're essentially designing what you want your religion or prophet to look like and saying it has to look like that to be a prophet.

What if contrary to your want there is a hell but this guy still is quite clearly a prophet? What do you do ?

It seems like your almost saying, well, i want my religion to look like this, so my prophet must look like this, if it doesnt look like what i want it to look, he isn't a prophet. Kind of holding a gun to God or the guy's head saying your religion has to be the way i want it or i won't accept you.

Now that i think about it....this is more of a list of what you want your religion to look like rather than a prophet detection mechanism so it were.

If he performed miracles that were obviously supernatural and from God but didnt fulfil your list would you still think he was a prophet?

I like this response!

By the way, I have quoted you and asked you some question in the first post at the top of this page (page 2). Please reply to that as well.

[Pascal]

Khadim uz Zahra, on 25 February 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

Firstly, we cannot judge one Prophet over the other because of the miracles he brought because the miracles were suited to the needs of the time they were living in.

Well, that is a good point. It actually makes a lot of sense too in regards to the killing of pharo ect. Couldn't they perform any miracles they wanted to though? If you look at Jesus he just went around performing a plethora of miracles when he felt like it (or so it appears) like changing water into wine or healing the blind, he could of just as equally healed 1 person as he could of 10 000. Why is the number what it is?

It seems in this case though the view is the miracles are more on the provision of God since the prophets themselves arent devine (?) like Jesus is in Christian theology.

So, i guess in this case God always had a plan to perform certain miracles at certain times. We can't really move either way on this though, it seems like a kind of deadlocked issue. Of course at some point the answer will be along the lines of "thats just how it is".

Surely though a better job of gathering followers would of been done it each prophet did miracles that were just as stupendous as the ones of Jesus. Thats very offtopic though i guess.

The quran to me just isn't as convincing as splitting water. I'm sure people can see why i would think this way.

Khadim uz Zahra, on 25 February 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

One example being the splitting of the moon. Of course, you neither believe in the miracles of Moses nor Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon them both) but, since you are using the accounts of their followers, I think you should also be using the accounts of Muslims when talking about the miracles of Prophet Muhammed and, therefore, include the splitting of the moon as one of his miracles.

From what i've seen in academia at least theres debate (even among muslim and muslim scholars, western ones anyway) that if this actually occured. I wouldn't count it as supernatural though, unless it very clearly was. There are many things that could make it look like the moon split that could be possibly explained away via naturalistic purposes (some kind of eclipse, dust in the atmosphere, large asteroid hitting the moon and creating a cloud of dust to make it appear that way). The people of that time obviously weren't as scientifically sophisticated or minded as we are today either, so, if it looked like it split, to them it probably just did split. It would of been hard to find another reason at the time. It wasn't clear he directly caused it either.

I can draw a parallel between creation i guess. Pre-darwin and mendel it would of been very hard to understand how everything could of been this way without some kind of divine creator. It was simply *the* answer of the time. Obviously now we have more knowledge and more than one alternative.

Something like splitting a sea seconds after you commanded it to split though (i'm imagining like 20 m high walls of water and walking across the sea bed, things like that) obviously doesn't occur in nature. Water can't usually hold itself up like that against gravity and form a passage for you to walk across. It's a lot more clear that moses is directly linked to the occurance of this as well. It's not like the sea just happened to split that day and he was around. With the moon splitting miracle though there could of been an eclipse or some other event and it was ascribed as the doing of muhammed.

Khadim uz Zahra, on 25 February 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

Apart from all this, the only thing I got out of your post was that you would believe if you saw miracles happening right in front of you. So, is that the only criteria for you when choosing a religion?

It's not the criteria for choosing a religion, i could probably write a whole thread on that (and still probably not entirely succeed). If i had to tell if someone was a prophet though, a prophet of any kind, this is what i would do. I think i need to make a distinction between being the prophet i want it to be and being just a prophet. Some people seem to be veering into the 1st one. I can't remember if we're talking about prophets in general or muhammed, if its the former though, it could concievably be a cruel prophet but obviously still the work of supernatural (so maybe an evil god?). I think it was in reference to muahmmed though, i'd have to be very careful about kind of backtracking from any knowledge i currently posses about him.

I'm trying to use parsimony (criteria should be the most simple) in this situation so i didn't want a long list of rules, i tried to cut it down to the bare minimum. Some kind of supernatural (exceeding the natural, so above anything natural its obviously the work of something special) event to me would indicate some kind of God.

Or with more humour aliens... I remember a famous writer or astronomer saying if technology is sufficiently advanced compare to the people observing it, it would appear to be magic or the supernatural. If you went back in time and showed people a camera or a television even a lighter or a torch perhaps they would think some kind of magic is going on. The aboriginals in Australia originally thought the white men invading their country were supernatural in some way because they could shoot fire (rifles) and they obviously hadn't seen anyone white before (most likely anyway).

Barring Aliens though, theres obviously some kind of supernatural at work. One of my main problems with any of the conceptions of God (an obviously essential feature of a prophet is some connection to a God) or a religion is the unproved supernatural, seeing one of these things is obviously a proof.

Haha, i typed my above response then scrolled back and noticed you asked me as well. You asked me to respond, i only saw this after i was done responding haha. Oh well, already done.

Edited by kingpomba, 25 February 2012 - 10:48 AM.

[MysticKnight]

kingpomba, on 25 February 2012 - 10:17 AM, said:

If he performed miracles that were obviously supernatural and from God but didnt fulfil your list would you still think he was a prophet?

Sure you can state what if the person performed miracles, but what if he taught to sacrifice babies every year, some of the community would be picked to sacrifice babies, what if he taught to kill all non-believers, etc...

Also magic was a prevalent view, and believed in, supernatural "miracles" might or might not have been conclusive to a person. The sorcerers of the Pharaoh were able to perform what we would deem a miracle per Quran.

In fact, Muslims believe Dajjal will perform miracles like cause the earth to grow things or raise people from the dead, and they believe it's a test from God. So in the same way the Dajjal whom will claim he is God can be a test for humanity, why couldn't a false Prophet teaching immoral things be a test to humanity.

If Dajjal being God can be a test of your recognition of God, why couldn't be a false teaching attributed to God be a test of recognition.

[Inception]

Assalaam aleykom

first of all, good topic Khadim...so philosophic, and bringing forth the dilemma that all human beings in history have had gone through before they decided to either join/follow the prophet or be on the opposing side..

and excuse my english it will be simple since I'm not native english speaker, and I feel this topic is too philosophic for my basic english, but anyway, hope my idea will come through

If I was atheist (God forbid) and have no prejudice/expectaions towards religion in general (which will make it even more difficult)...

Even if I don't know the person, I think I would just listen to his words, understand what he is talking about, if he's making sense...feeling the words, because usually, what we see from Holy Quran and tradition of Ahlulbayt, that prophets and Imams had specific ways to be, specific characteristics, thier words were strong, thier logic is firm, his wisdom is beyond what I've seen, and ofcaurse that he is making sense, not all this carisma and aura and then encouraging for slavery or women abuse or so...so I think that part would open my ears and my heart to that person..

But then, to be honest to myself before being honest to you, I'm not expecting my self to be one of the first to believe (sadly enough)..I know I will question and doubt and so on so forth, then I need miracles, proof of his prophethood...I think if I didn't fear to lose alot, I will maybe believe already with the first step (I mean his characterictic and logic)....but we human beings (as Allah (swt) described us in Holy Quran) we argue alot and doubt alot and cant easily have faith...so yes I think I would need miracles...

so, this is how I think I would be as atheist (a'ootho billah)...

[hameedeh]

Quote

First of all, everyone knew that the Holy Prophet SA was honest, so nobody should question anything he said.
But if I was an athiest, God forbid, I would be convinced to believe in the Holy Prophet SA when I heard him recite the Holy words of Allah about Heaven and Hell.
Holy Quran, Sura 19 Aya 66 to 68
Holy Qur'an, Sura 3 Aya 191 to 195
Source: http://quran.al-islam.org/

Brother, my answer for the past which I wrote in Post #10 above, would be my same answer today, except that now I have the Holy Qur'an, the Miraculous book to hold in my hand and read it, instead of listening to the Prophet SA recite the words in person. Allah SWT would not send the miraculous Holy Qur'an to a person who is a liar, naoozibillah, because Allah is Just.

[MysticKnight]

hameedeh, on 25 February 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

Brother, my answer for the past which I wrote in Post #10 above, would be my same answer today, except that now I have the Holy Qur'an, the Miraculous book to hold in my hand and read it, instead of listening to the Prophet SA recite the words in person. Allah SWT would not send the miraculous Holy Qur'an to a person who is a liar, naoozibillah, because Allah is Just.

This actually is the most consistent answer. If you believe now because of the Quran, you should believe in the past because of the Quran.

[Ugly Jinn]

Jebreil, on 25 February 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:

That's a pre-judgemental opinion. If that's how you feel then that's how you feel.

Your criteria (personality traits) are personalized according to what will convince you. Person X will have a different list of prerequisites.

Quote

You can come along and meet me someday. We can discuss the matter over lunch.

Are you paying?

I've actually had an encounter with an Ismaili a month back. He basically tried to convince me for 40 minutes how Agha Khan is a legitimate divine agent. He gave his reasons, criteria, and verification. His verification was basically using bloodline, Imamat is contradictory if there is no physical Imam to guide,  and couple of hadiths which supported his claim. On paper, you'd see he has a strong argument, but at the end one needs more than just 'words'.  I just asked him, "Why doesn't Agha Khan perform any type of miracles to authenticate his divinity without any doubt?" (and I used hadiths of miracles performed by divine agents), but he casually dismissed it by saying, "He doesn't need to do it, the evidence is overwhelming.....(and went on and on....).

The point is that we cannot verify such claims ourselves, but we do, hence the variations of beliefs (i.e. Agha Khan). Because we don't live in a time where a divine agent is physically available, verification is not possible. Even with claims of a divine agent physically available (ex. Agha Khan) it holds no weight unless the subject himself proves it (i.e. miracle).

Like they say, you can't clap with one hand.

Khadim uz Zahra, on 25 February 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

1. Miracle - the problem I have here is that the followers of every religion claim that they had a miracle in their life and, even according to Islam, sometimes the followers of a wrong religion can have a miracle (look at this post of mine). So, since even the followers of a wrong religion can have miracle regarding small and personal things and, since there is not much happening in the world or any Prophets at the moment who would provide a major miracle, I can't use miracles as the way to find which religion is right.

But miracles have played a vital role in Islamic history to authenticate a divine agent. In theory, the ideal approach would be to witness miracles (like people have in the past). A divine agent is not a prerequisite for a miracle in Islam.

So to your opening question. If I lived at the time when Muhammed became a Prophet, I would may have been interested by his words, but would need to see a miracle/emperical evidence for confirmation. Without that - doubts will remain, it's human nature for most.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 25 February 2012 - 01:38 PM.

[Khadim uz Zahra]

Jebreil, on 25 February 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

To Jinn

I'm paying, if you wish.

Is that offer for me as well? I would LOVE to meet you! But, yes, you will have to pay for a long air ticket.

Jebreil, on 25 February 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

To Khadim

I know you were not criticising me. But your OP asked me what evidence I would look for if I was living before the Bi'that and I heard the Prophet Muhammad claiming to be a messenger of God. I tailored my response to that hypothetical. But my answer to why I'm a Muslim today is much more detailed and elaborate than that, and it's not easy for me to communicate.

Okay, thank you! I understand your position better now. But, you could, at least, try, no? If you think you may not explain too well and that people could misunderstand you, then, maybe, send it to me in a PM because I am generally - and genuinely - interested in your opinions. This will ensure that, even if you did not explain properly, only one person misunderstands you and so its not much of a risk, is it?

[Khadim uz Zahra]

In The Name of Allah (SWT) , The Most Beneficent, The Most Merciful.



To Kingpomba


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, that is a good point. It actually makes a lot of sense too in regards to the killing of pharo ect. Couldn't they perform any miracles they wanted to though? If you look at Jesus he just went around performing a plethora of miracles when he felt like it (or so it appears) like changing water into wine or healing the blind, he could of just as equally healed 1 person as he could of 10 000. Why is the number what it is?

It seems in this case though the view is the miracles are more on the provision of God since the prophets themselves arent devine (?) like Jesus is in Christian theology.

So, i guess in this case God always had a plan to perform certain miracles at certain times. We can't really move either way on this though, it seems like a kind of deadlocked issue. Of course at some point the answer will be along the lines of "thats just how it is".

Surely though a better job of gathering followers would of been done it each prophet did miracles that were just as stupendous as the ones of Jesus. Thats very offtopic though i guess.

The quran to me just isn't as convincing as splitting water. I'm sure people can see why i would think this way.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, forgive me for quoting in this way. I am having some problems when quoting and, therefore, am forced to adopt this way (partially copied from Jebreil ).

So, well, yes, you may say that "a better job of gathering followers would of been done it each prophet did miracles that were just as stupendous as the ones of Jesus" but that goes against the reality and the "hard facts". Why do I say this? Like you have said, Jesus (peace be upon him) had myriads of miracles to his credit but, when you look at his life, you see that the number of followers he had was quite less. In fact, they were so less that he was persecuted for all his life and, as according to the Christian belief (the Muslim belief is, as you are well aware, different but I didn't want to divert and go off-topic), even crucified while no one raised a finger to help him! In fact, his most trusted disciple, as according to the Bible, all "forsook him and fled" and one of them was the one who gave the "tip" about Jesus (peace be upon him) and betrayed him.


Therefore, even though on face value, it does seem that more miracles means that there is a higher possibility of having people to believe but, when you look at his life - and also Moses' - you see that even though they had loads and loads of miracles their nations either rejected them, as was the case with Jesus , or did not obey them, which is what happened when the Israelites started worshipping the calf after Moses (peace be upon him) had left for Mount Sinai.

In fact, there are also verses in the Quran which allude to this. I don't remember the exact references (as I had seen them in a lecture and I don't really notes when listening to one) but the theme of them was that Allah (SWT) did not give Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him and his progeny) as many miracles as, say, Jesus because he had given the previous nations an ample amount of miracles but they still rejected the message. An example that the speaker gave was that of a nation mentioned in the Quran (I forgot their name) who were given a miracle whereby a she-camel came out of a rock for them. Their Prophet had told them that this was God's special camel but, in spite of knowing this and having the miracle, they still killed the she-camel.


Also, the speaker had mentioned, what seemed to me as a valid point, that if Allah (SWT) just kept on showing miracles then there would be no test. Since this life is a test, then, there is no use if believed were just shown miracles every second.

He went on to prove from different verses of the Quran that there are four reasons for the use of miracle, of which I only remember two now which were as follows:

1. Deterrence - an example of this would be the case of Moses (peace be upon him) where he brought hordes of locust and frogs on the people of Egypt in order to deter them from oppressing the Israelites. His miracle of splitting the sea would also fall in this category because, after all, it was of no use to anyone in terms of belief; the ones who disbelieved - the Pharaoh and his people - were killed because of it so it did not help them to believe and those who this miracle helped - the Jews - were already believing so there was no use of a miracle in this regard. Therefore, it can be argued that this great miracle was solely for deterrence although, of course, it could, and did, strengthen the belief of the Jews. But, even though this happened, they still disobeyed later.

2. To stop people from relying solely on intellectual thought alone - I, unfortunately, do NOT remember the explanation he gave here.

This is the explanation given in the Quran and does also make sense. In fact, the Quran specifically uses the word deterrence in the verse he mentioned.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From what i've seen in academia at least theres debate (even among muslim and muslim scholars, western ones anyway) that if this actually occured. I wouldn't count it as supernatural though, unless it very clearly was. There are many things that could make it look like the moon split that could be possibly explained away via naturalistic purposes (some kind of eclipse, dust in the atmosphere, large asteroid hitting the moon and creating a cloud of dust to make it appear that way). The people of that time obviously weren't as scientifically sophisticated or minded as we are today either, so, if it looked like it split, to them it probably just did split. It would of been hard to find another reason at the time. It wasn't clear he directly caused it either.

I can draw a parallel between creation i guess. Pre-darwin and mendel it would of been very hard to understand how everything could of been this way without some kind of divine creator. It was simply *the* answer of the time. Obviously now we have more knowledge and more than one alternative.

Something like splitting a sea seconds after you commanded it to split though (i'm imagining like 20 m high walls of water and walking across the sea bed, things like that) obviously doesn't occur in nature. Water can't usually hold itself up like that against gravity and form a passage for you to walk across. It's a lot more clear that moses is directly linked to the occurance of this as well. It's not like the sea just happened to split that day and he was around. With the moon splitting miracle though there could of been an eclipse or some other event and it was ascribed as the doing of muhammed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, again, just because a miracle *could* (take note of the fact that we are not sure) be explained by science does not mean it is any less a miracle than if it couldn't.

First of all, I have heard (although never seen it myself) that there was a documentary which tried to explain how Moses 's parting of the sea could have occurred, using science. Even if the miracle could be explained through some explanation involving tectonic plates (we should get iSilurin here!), it is still very unnatural and too much of a coincidence that as soon as he lifted his cane, the plates started acting that way. Why not 10 minutes before or why not 10 minutes after (when Pharaoh would have massacred half the Jews)? Therefore, even if we can explain the natural processes that took place behind these miracles, the timing of the event show that it was, indeed, a miracle.

The same is the case for the splitting of the moon. Yes, there could (take note of the uncertainty again) have been a meteorites which struck the moon to give a dust cloud or there could have been an eclipse but I think we are stretching chance a bit too much if we are to say that the fact that it happened just after the non-believer asked Prophet Muhammed to show a miracle on the skies was just a coincidence.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not the criteria for choosing a religion, i could probably write a whole thread on that (and still probably not entirely succeed). If i had to tell if someone was a prophet though, a prophet of any kind, this is what i would do. I think i need to make a distinction between being the prophet i want it to be and being just a prophet. Some people seem to be veering into the 1st one. I can't remember if we're talking about prophets in general or muhammed, if its the former though, it could concievably be a cruel prophet but obviously still the work of supernatural (so maybe an evil god?). I think it was in reference to muahmmed though, i'd have to be very careful about kind of backtracking from any knowledge i currently posses about him.

I'm trying to use parsimony (criteria should be the most simple) in this situation so i didn't want a long list of rules, i tried to cut it down to the bare minimum. Some kind of supernatural (exceeding the natural, so above anything natural its obviously the work of something special) event to me would indicate some kind of God.

Or with more humour aliens... I remember a famous writer or astronomer saying if technology is sufficiently advanced compare to the people observing it, it would appear to be magic or the supernatural. If you went back in time and showed people a camera or a television even a lighter or a torch perhaps they would think some kind of magic is going on. The aboriginals in Australia originally thought the white men invading their country were supernatural in some way because they could shoot fire (rifles) and they obviously hadn't seen anyone white before (most likely anyway).

Barring Aliens though, theres obviously some kind of supernatural at work. One of my main problems with any of the conceptions of God (an obviously essential feature of a prophet is some connection to a God) or a religion is the unproved supernatural, seeing one of these things is obviously a proof.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, that is a possibility but, honestly, what is the probability of that? Sometimes, I find it quite hypocritical of atheists to reject God but just blame everything on chance; it seems to me as if their god is chance! Yes, some aliens could pull off some crazy tricks and make everyone believe that they are "supernatural" but we have enough proof to show that Moses, Jesus and Prophet (peace be upon them all) were born and raised within their nations and, therefore, there is no chance of them being aliens who pulled off some out-of-the-world tricks using advanced technology.

You do believe that there may be a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% of God existing, don't you? So, if you can believe the ridiculous notion that either of these Prophets (peace be upon them all) was an alien, I don't think atheists should have a problem in believing the "ridiculous" (as according to the atheists) notion of a God existing.

kingpomba, on 25 February 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

Haha, i typed my above response then scrolled back and noticed you asked me as well. You asked me to respond, i only saw this after i was done responding haha. Oh well, already done.

Thank you for taking your time and responding!

May Allah (SWT) bless us all, our families and loved ones, may He guide us all to The Straight Path and may He, The Forgiver of Sins and The Oft-Forgiving, forgive all our sins for, verily, there is neither any refuge nor any respite for the sinners, except in Allah (SWT) .

[MysticKnight]

Jebreil, don't you find it contradictory that majority of companions whom were praised as Sadiqeen in Quran, can change and turn on their backs, abandon their appointed leader after fighting for their previous appointed leader and obeying him and supporting, yet, one person whom you find truthful, and other qualities you think he has (what people think of people are not always correct), cannot change, and must be telling the truth?

[MysticKnight]

Jebreil, on 25 February 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

Have you met such a person who satisfies the criteria, who has excellent qualities and who claims to be a prophet?

Not a person whom claims to be a Prophet, but I would say my Dad has all the other qualities.

[MysticKnight]

He is not infallible. Your criteria is easily achievable by fallible's.

[MysticKnight]

æóÞóÇáõæÇ áóæúáóÇ äõÒöøáó åóٰÐóÇ ÇáúÞõÑúÂäõ Úóáóìٰ ÑóÌõáò ãöäó ÇáúÞóÑúíóÊóíúäö ÚóÙöíãò {31}
And they said why has not this Quran been brought down upon one of great men of the two towns.


It seemed Mohammad didn't have reputation of having been one of the great men,  so they are wondering, why not one of the great men.  If he was known to have exceptional character that stood out and was a great person in midst of bad character...then why are they objecting here and asking why wasn't it revealed to one of the great people?

I'm not saying it means he didn't have exceptional character, the thing is people could've been wrong about him, not really know how great a person he is, yet this seems to go against the notion that he had reputation of being a great person before that.

But in the same way people can be wrong about him not being great, you could very well be wrong about him being great.

If my Dad claimed Prophethood, I would lose all my respect I had for him straight up. He's a good person, but he is not that special to be a Prophet. He sacrificed a lot and had to suffer for it,  he was put in Jail and then kicked out of the country, because he was a revolutionary. This is in Bahrain. He cares about his people, sacrificed, and tells the truth unless it's necessary to lie (for greater good/taqiya). But as high respect I have for him now, I know I would not believe he is a Prophet if he claimed to be.

Your criteria doesn't show infallibility. It just shows a good person. A good person can change into a bad person. A good person can be struggling against evil, and he can chose evil. We are never set to stone that we can't change.

People change.

[Lanatin]

MysticKnight, on 26 February 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

وَقَالُوا لَوْلَا نُزِّلَ هَٰذَا الْقُرْآنُ عَلَىٰ رَجُلٍ مِنَ الْقَرْيَتَيْنِ عَظِيمٍ {31}
And they said why has not this Quran been brought down upon one of great men of the two towns.


It seemed Mohammad didn't have reputation of having been one of the great men,  so they are wondering, why not one of the great men.  If he was known to have exceptional character that stood out and was a great person in midst of bad character...then why are they objecting here and asking why wasn't it revealed to one of the great people?

I'm not saying it means he didn't have exceptional character, the thing is people could've been wrong about him, not really know how great a person he is, yet this seems to go against the notion that he had reputation of being a great person before that.

But in the same way people can be wrong about him not being great, you could very well be wrong about him being great.

If my Dad claimed Prophethood, I would lose all my respect I had for him straight up. He's a good person, but he is not that special to be a Prophet. He sacrificed a lot and had to suffer for it,  he was put in Jail and then kicked out of the country, because he was a revolutionary. This is in Bahrain. He cares about his people, sacrificed, and tells the truth unless it's necessary to lie (for greater good/taqiya). But as high respect I have for him now, I know I would not believe he is a Prophet if he claimed to be.

Your criteria doesn't show infallibility. It just shows a good person. A good person can change into a bad person. A good person can be struggling against evil, and he can chose evil. We are never set to stone that we can't change.

People change.

Those who were considered "atheem" were the rich merchant rulers in those days, personal wealth was the criteria of greatness back then; this is why the "great man" for them was confined to the two urban cities
(Qaryatayn) Mecca and Taif , both of which were ruled by merchant kings. He would always extravagantly use Khadija's money to assist the poor and needy in his house, and the arabs had a rigid caste system back then which believed that the poor deserved to be in their abject position as it was part of God's will (see surat Yasin).

Quote

Please respond to my opening post as well. Since I know that you have been an atheist for two years, I am very interested in the answer you give to my question.

Well if the Prophet came to me as an atheist, he would have to give me an intellectual incentive that convinces me of God's All-Pervading existence; otherwise there would be no hope in me believing in any divine revelation in the first place. He not only has to bring logical arguments, but he has to also be a noble character beforehand. Consistency is also something I would want... but the most important thing that would ultimately prove whether he is in connection with the divine or has lost his mind is an established, independant criterion that showcases a divine source for all the words he speaks.

Edited by La'nat Ma Man, 26 February 2012 - 05:43 PM.

[MysticKnight]

Jebreil, on 26 February 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

Third, about people changing. Yes, some people might change, but Prophets do not.

At this point, how do you know there are humans that are infallible,  how do you infallibility is even possible, how do you know Prophets exist...how do you know they cannot change...and how do you establish a person is infallible...what is the character of excellence that is your criteria? What would you observe about him, that fallible cannot achieve.