182 replies to this topic

[rotten_coconut]

Khadim uz Zahra, on 19 February 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

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



I hope, and pray, that you are all in the best of health and, more importantly, Imaan (faith).

So, I have a question for all the members here, including non-Muslims and atheists. Bi'that refers to the occurrence in history where Prophet Muhammed , a the age of 40, declared his Prophethood. My question to you all is, if you were an atheist before this incident and were, then, presented with Islam, what would make you accept Islam as the religion you want to follow? For atheists, I will modify the question a bit and ask "what is the criteria for you when deciding which ideology you want to follow?

Also, for those who reply, I will ask you further questions and maybe even criticise your reasons. This is not because I am against Islam (I am a Muslim!) but because, apart from showing the strengths of Islam, I also have others reasons for starting this thread like finding out what, according to the different members here, is the best method to use when deciding on which ideology to follow. So, if one of you says I would accept Islam for XTZ reasons, I may ask you to clarify further or criticise you but that neither means that the reasons you gave are not valid or that I am against Islam.

Thank you for all the replies in advance!

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

Salam,

An interesting thought. I think the most effective way to convince people of claim of prophethood is through recognized miracles. But, the issue in such temporal miracle is the effect was quite limited: only to the people who witnessed the miracle. So, for wider & longer purposes, the recognized miracle need to be something that can be accessed by a lot of people no matter their location or time. I think that's why as Islam claims to be the last religion, the ultimate miracle of the Prophet is the al-Qur'an (the Prophet has other miracles aside al-Qur'an).

[Ugly Jinn]

Jebreil, on 29 February 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

On the Agha Khan point, I would argue that the criteria, while correct, can be misapplied. A universal rule, if followed improperly, would fail to achieve results. Say, the so-called laws of logic.

The whole point is that it won't matter, even if applied correctly, a fallible can meet that requirement.

You need to insert one more criteria which a fallible cannot fulfill, only an infallible can.

Quote

But do you think a fallible can achieve "scrupulous truthfulness" and "sanity" and "claiming to be a messenger of God" simultaneously?

Obviously. There is more than enough historical evidence of individuals claiming to be 'divine', and having followers. This is why the list needs a criteria that only an infallible can achieve.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 01 March 2012 - 03:40 AM.

[Ugly Jinn]

Jebreil, on 01 March 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

But don't you think that if it was established that they were scrupulously truthful and sane, then their claim is in fact true? And so therefore, they're prophets and not fallible?

No, obviously that's not enough. Again, truthfulness and sanity can be achieved by a fallible, hence not enough to differentiate a fallible from an infallible. You need one more universal ingredient which only an infallible can achieve.

And, 'establishing' is subjective, if you ask any Ismaili, "Is Agha Khan truthful and sane?", the answer would be "Ofcourse!".

Quote

I mean, we don't about these figures of the past, because we haven't witnessed them, and so we need other criteria to evaluate them.
However, aren't you assuming that these people who claimed were all scrupulously truthful and sane? We don't know if they fit the criteria or not. We have reports, but as you mention, followers always report the good whereas non-followers are not so impressed. So, reports are not sufficient. We have to witness for ourselves.

Yes, exactly. We are definitely at a disadvantage.

[Ugly Jinn]

Jebreil, on 02 March 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

Well, isn't he? Why do you think he isn't? If he is truthful and he says that he's the representative of God's will on earth, then it's true. So why do you think he's not truthful? Clearly, you don't think he is - so why?

Because he didn't fulfill the requirement which only an infallible can achieve.

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

The prerequisites are dependent on the claim.

If a claim is fallible (a fallible can achieve it), then the prerequisites would include fallible requirements.
If a claim is 'infallible/divine' in nature, then the prerequisite must involve an 'infallible' requirement.

You cannot prove a 'infallible/divine' claim with fallible requirements, that's illogical.

[Ugly Jinn]

Jebreil, on 02 March 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

If x truthfully claims to be a prophet then it is true that x is a prophet.

Prophet is necessarily infallible

Therefore,

If x truthfully claims to be a prophet then it is true that x is infallible.

You are missing the point. "Truthfulness" cannot be verified, it's subjective, achievable by a fallible, hence that why Ismailis' claim Agha Khan is 'truthful'.

Quote

So, all you need to know is whether x is a truthful character and whether x claims to be a prophet.

To know whether x is a truthful character, you have to be closely acquainted with x for quite a long period, and it becomes clear at the end how much one can rely on x. Other factors which help are his sincerity of actions, kindness, self-sacrifice and simplicity of living. These show that he is not only honest in words but also honest in actions.

Again, subjective. And because of this flawed approach many individuals have declared themselves 'divine' and had followers. Agha Khan is just one popular example.

Quote

here is a question:
Find me 1 fallible which you know has fulfilled all the criteria - and then I can accept that a fallible can fulfill the criteria.

My answer will be an opinion, nothing more, hence irrelevant. But I'm sure many will consider certain Marjas meet your prerequisites.

Divine claims must be backed up with a divine prerequisite, it's plain and simple.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 02 March 2012 - 05:10 PM.

[Ugly Jinn]

Jebreil, on 02 March 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

No. I disagree. I would just say that they've been non-rigorous and lax about applying the criteria. Because it's convenient to confirm the belief of your parents, society, culture and therefore, one is prejudicial towards that.

Influences have an impact, no disagreements there. But your argument holds the same weight as an Agha Khan follower stating "we have been rigorous about applying the criteria".

It's illogical to argue over something that can be achieved by a fallible. If you are satisfied with a fallible prerequisite than that's your prerogative.

Quote

And what is this plain and simple divine prerequisite which is not subjective?

I'll leave that open for you and others to decide. As long as there is something a fallible cannot achieve, only an infallible can.

The formula needs to be correct before using it. You are more concerned about how the formula is applied, my argument is that application is a moot point right now because your formula is incorrect.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 02 March 2012 - 05:47 PM.

[Ugly Jinn]

Jebreil, on 02 March 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

I disagree that it is a fallible prerequisite as I syllogistically proved that it can only be achieved by an infallible. Your only proper point against it was against the practicality of establishing the premise of truthfulness, calling it subjective. That has already been responded to, which you have not addressed.

Again, you are too concerned about how the formula is applied, whether it was applied correctly or incorrectly. Why don't you move a step back and analyze the formula itself.

A personality trait, which a fallible can achieve, cannot be authenticated, only guessed upon. Even lie detectors aren't 100% accurate. And I've backed this claim with historical evidence of fallibles claiming to be 'divine' with followers throughout history.

Your formula involves fallible conditions, my formula will include an infallible condition (whatever that may be). We can agree to disagree.

Quote

Your argument for it being incorrect is unsupported: that it is a criteria which a fallible can achieve; but you have not yet supported this by an example of one fallible which you know has achieved all the criteria. The reason is, you cannot find such a fallible being who satisfies all the criteria without believing that he is a prophet and therefore, infallible.

Again, me picking a fallible which meets your fallible conditions will be opinionated. But I will pick a name to support my claim, in my opinion Sistani meets all your prerequisites (ex. sane, truthful, caring, etc.)

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 03 March 2012 - 12:39 AM.

[MysticKnight]

A truthful person does not lie, but can lie. A truthful person doesn't become immune from lying. He can begin to lie.

A good honorable person can change for the worse.

People are not set to stone.

People can change.

We have "free-will". Free-will implies we can do evil, if we so chose to. The choice is never impossible.

[Ugly Jinn]

^ Sistani meets your prerequisites, not claim.

Prerequisites and claim are 2 separate things.

There is no one right now that meets your prerequisites AND claims to be a divine agent.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 03 March 2012 - 10:00 AM.

[Ugly Jinn]

Jebreil, on 03 March 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

Claim was part of prerequisite

We are discussing prerequisites for a claim, that was the whole point of the thread. Prerequisites are dependent on the claim, you can't group them together, there is no dependency.

Regardless, it's your formula - if that's what you believe is right, so for your formula where the claim is included as a prerequisite - the answer would be 'no one' right now.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 03 March 2012 - 10:54 AM.

[Lanatin]

Khadim uz Zahra, on 27 February 2012 - 06:20 AM, said:

And, what would, according to you, be a good criterion?

May I add by "independant" I mean an objective criterion, not subject to change by any external factors and circumstances. Just look at Jebreil's feud with ugly jinn and you will see qualities such as truthfulness and generosity will never be a determining factor for the unseen (i.e. the divine). Personality traits are always prone to change, there has to be something fixed. But that doesn't mean a noble character is not expected beforehand, there has to be a righteous character from the beginning if any impetus to believe is ever going to be provided.

What constitutes a good criterion includes:

• a miracle unique to the claimant of prophethood that has an actual physical affect on natural phenomena so the question of illusion doesn't come into play
  
• fulfilled prophecies, and not just your average prediction on who's going to win the FA Cup; the prophecies will have to be specific, timed (not just a vague reference to the future), and connects events totally unrelated to the prophecy (i.e., are not the usual cyclical turnout of events we see in history)

The list could go on but i'll leave it at that.

[Ugly Jinn]

Jebreil, on 03 March 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

Yes. It was a prerequisite. We can't identify a man to be a prophet if he doesn't claim to be.

I invite you to read my initial post on this matter:

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.

So, the jury's verdict is:

That's fine. If your claim is part of the prerequisite then it doesn't change much (just that it's incorrect - but I don't want to get into that). Any fallible can claim to be a divine agent, hence there is Agha Khan, the whole point is, 'How do you prove it?' You're just proving it using fallible personality traits only, that's logically not enough.

Regardless, if you read La'nat Ma Man's post, he provided a logically sound prerequisite that differentiates an infallible from a fallible. He gave a perfect answer. I choose not to get into specifics of the prerequisites, rather state that something only an infallible can achieve must be a condition.

Jebreil, on 03 March 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

But, magicians and demons can pretend miracles and provide predictions - so this is insufficient, which throws you back to the ethical character of the man doing the miracles and predictions!

Even for the sake of argument the if person was conned, his formula is still sound, even if he made an error in it's application. Your formula is erroneous to begin with, in my opinion, and because of that approach there are millions of Agha Khan followers.

Why hasn't Agha Khan performed either of the conditions La'nat Ma Man's posted if it's so easy to 'pretend' it? Because it's not something one can 'pretend' that easily, and to be honest with no disrespect, he doesn't need to because people are using your approach. On the other hand, if your fallible conditions were applied (ex. sanity, truthful, claimed to be a divine agent, etc.), all Agha Khan followers will easily say, "Our beloved Agha Khan meets all your requirements".

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 03 March 2012 - 04:57 PM.

[Lanatin]

Jebreil, on 03 March 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

To La'nat

My understanding from your post: if ethics is not a sufficient pointer, we might add miracles and predictions (as well as other things, which are not mentioned).

But, magicians and demons can pretend miracles and provide predictions - so this is insufficient, which throws you back to the ethical character of the man doing the miracles and predictions!

There's no way round it. Only the light of sincere character differentiates the Truth from Falsehood - everything else can be preformed by evil, except goodness itself.

And as for this idea that people can change, I repeat the message: return to the real world, and leave the imaginary realm of metaphysical hypotheticals. If you can change, change, and observe if it's easy to live for a year like this:


sane, scrupulously truthful, genuinely caring, who shows this in words and actions, who sacrificed a lot for what you knew to be good, and who lived simply, whose speech you would learn from the benefit of hindsight to be wise and clairvoyant.

Only people who are sincere - and not pretending - can pull this off consistently. Human beings act in character, and it's not easy to have excellent ethics. It takes one stupid fit of anger to disqualify you. It takes one lie to pull the rug. It takes one hateful remark to prove your fallibility.  There's a reason why we need discipline to act good - let alone intend to be good. Because it's not easy to achieve, and impossible if one has a corrupt heart.

That's the point jeb, what seperates black magic from miracles is that the former is an illusion whilst the latter has a physical effect on natural phenomena. It is a sign from God that His divine hand is behind the prophet.

And no it's not just any old "predictions" im looking for, that's a very shoddy assessment of the criterion I laid out. And yes if you read my previous posts I also alluded to the necessity of a morally upright man, and we can accept a man having consistent morals for 40 years as being sincere. But then the accusation will easily switch to the following: "this guy seems really sincere in what he's saying, but we haven't seen any angel descending from heaven so the likelihood is he's probably lost his head". This is exactly what the arabs said, they switched the accusations from a "liar" to a "madman" (and also a "soothsayer" and "insane poet"). The objective criterion is a necessity to prove divine revelation, and I thought you would have agreed to this already.

That's not to say I believe this objective criterion hasn't been fulfilled with the Quran though, i'm just trying to be neutral in this thread is all lol.

[Lanatin]

Yeah the Quran is a unique case indeed.

But you ignored the rest of my post which elaborated on the fact that the accusations can easily switch; people can still accept the sincerity of the claimant of prophethood but will regard him instead as deluded/insane. It'll continue going back and forth until an objective criterion is laid out, and fortunately such a criterion exists for the Quran.