Jump to content
Christianity

Why should I believe in Muhammad over others?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, kirtc said:

what im trying to say is that shias have a much more trusted book of hadiths. a. because they make sense. and b. because they have a ilm al rijal which is a study of hadith narrators.

Where did you get that from? Our scholars would disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

Where did you get that from? Our scholars would disagree.

you dont agree that shia hadiths are more authentic than sunni's?

Edited by kirtc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kirtc said:

revert from sunni father and a christian stepmom. 

Wmehar is pushing a Quranist perspective and im trying to prove that islam is not about the Quran alone. maybe im not the right person to do that.. but there is a lack of learned members replying to this thread.

salam bro

i'm not disagreeing with you at all. nor am i a learned member. but i think a bit less confrontational would be:

Quran is sufficient if only there is an interpretor for it. shias believe after the Prophet saww, these interpretors are the 12 imams (as).

the differences in interpretation gave rise to sects. i believe many hadiths were fabricated to justify each sect's interpretation of Quran. Of course there are other reasons to fabricate hadiths. But to totally reject hadiths is bit foolhardy to me.

a case in point with regards to differing interpretaion, is quranic verse 3:7

[Shakir 3:7] He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.

shias believe "none knows its interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge".

on the other hand, ahlul sunnah wal jamaah, according to tafsir ibn kathir on this verse,

1. some believe only Allah knows its interpretation while

2. others believe "none knows its interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge". the argument put forward being, Allah won't communicate something which people don't understand and Ibn Abbas claimed he is one of those firmly rooted in knowledge - page 12/343, surah Ali Imran Tafsir Ibn Kathir.

Quranist? they think every jack and jill can interpret, using their own conjectures.

Edited by justAnothermuslim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kirtc said:

you are aware that cerain hadiths are fabricted and therefore have decided to not trust them. but what im trying to say is that shias have a much more trusted book of hadiths. a. because they make sense. and b. because they have a ilm al rijal which is a study of hadith narrators.

and what im also saying is that hadith can give you a deeper insight into islam then just the Quran alone.. 

Ok, we're getting somewhere!

Id like to know the criterion these Studies use from these hadith narrators, to grade authenticity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

No, I don't.Sunnis also have an ilm-al-rijal too and between the two of them, they are both not reliable sources. We have to be really careful with hadith.

...sigh nevermind... GC you amaze me.. you are very wrong and I will stop at that. Im sorry. the word abu hurraira alone should say something. 

Edited by kirtc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, kirtc said:

 Im sorry. the word abu hurraira alone should say something. 

It does, it is a byword for lies. I am amazed that you are disappointed and hurt over this.  Sunni have an Ilm-al-rijal too.

The information is there on SC, this is not something I made up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2018 at 11:52 AM, Gaius I. Caesar said:

I know, right? Some of it is truly, for the lack of a better word, vile.

Brother

Please tell me one thing. 

When  you were thinking of converting to Islam, did the hadiths not put you off from Islam?

How did you resolve the hadith riddle?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, IloveImamHussain said:

Brother

Please tell me one thing. 

When  you were thinking of converting to Islam, did the hadiths not put you off from Islam?

How did you resolve the hadith riddle?

 

I only solved a part of it, that is some of it  must be political propaganda. I intend to research into it further soon.

When I was thinking about converting to Islam, I was unaware of hadiths at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

I only solved a part of it, that is some of it  must be political propaganda. I intend to research into it further soon.

When I was thinking about converting to Islam, I was unaware of hadiths at that time.

The way I see it is quite simple.

1. The battle of Karbala took place 50 years after the Prophet's death.

That means that the Muslim character had sunken too low even within 50 years to expect good reportage.

So it is not possible to expect honest hadith reporting. 

2. As for history, the first history book was written by ibn Ishaq who was employed by the the Abbasid caliph al Mansur. Do we expect him to write honestly? Of course not.

3. The split in Islam caused a lot of people to invent stories.

Sunnis invented hadiths to justify the position of A&O as the first two caliphs.

Shias invented hadiths to justify the claim of Imam Ali.

4. So neither side can claim perfect hadiths.

5. Our only job now is to find out who invented more hadiths than the other.

6. I personally think that Sunnis invented many more hadiths than Shias because Imam Ali's claim is reasonably upheld even with Sunnis hadiths alone.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2017 at 10:50 PM, Christianity said:

Many people have claimed some kind of divine revelation throughout history, so in that respect Muhammad is no unique. I want to know your reasons for choosing Islam over any other religion, and why I should chose it. Why should we believe in Muhammad over Zoroaster, or Buddha, or Mani, or Joseph Smith, or Ellen G. White? How is Muhammad superior to these other "prophets"? How did he prove himself? What makes him unique? 

Three reasons, 

1. The Message of Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h) which is the message of Islam is both 100% rational, and internally consistent. There are not parts of the Quran or part of his Message from Authentic hadith that contradict each other. Since non contradiction is one of the basic facts of how we discern truth from falsehood, if he was truely a Messenger from God(s.w.a), the religion that he brought should have this feature. 

2. This message is also consistent with human nature (called fitra in Arabic) and human society. It is put into practice in every location on earth and in every circumstance. It is free and easily accessible to everyone. It has very subtle and sophisticated theology and yet  the basic truths of the religion are easily understandable and able to be practiced, even by a child. If God(s.w.a) is just and a Divine religion exists, this should be one of its main features, and it is. 

3. The Quran is the only Divine book that exists in the same form, word for word and letter for letter, as it did during the time of Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h). The Quran has stood the test of time. In 1400 years, noone has found either a grammatical, local, or scientific error in it (and the Quran has hundreds of verses that discuss science in the way we understand it today and the statements are experimentally verifiable). Again, if God(s.w.a) wrote a book and conveyed it to people via a Messenger(i.e. Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h), this should be one of its main features, and it is. 

 

 

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems something related to  inheritance came up in another passage @andres @Gaius I. Caesar and whoever else finds this interesting.

2:240

And those who are taken in death among you and leave wives behind - for their wives is a bequest: maintenance for one year without turning [them] out. But if they leave [of their own accord], then there is no blame upon you for what they do with themselves in an acceptable way. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

What does this part mean?^ I don't get what is meant by "without turning [them] out."

It means that they can stay at House their deceased wife for one year with financial support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

It means that they can stay at House their deceased wife for one year with financial support.

yes and there are verses that default the wife after divorce stay living there in the home and to not be turned out either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/02/2018 at 12:13 PM, Abu Hadi said:

Three reasons, 

1. The Message of Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h) which is the message of Islam is both 100% rational, and internally consistent. There are not parts of the Quran or part of his Message from Authentic hadith that contradict each other. Since non contradiction is one of the basic facts of how we discern truth from falsehood, if he was truely a Messenger from God(s.w.a), the religion that he brought should have this feature. 

2. This message is also consistent with human nature (called fitra in Arabic) and human society. It is put into practice in every location on earth and in every circumstance. It is free and easily accessible to everyone. It has very subtle and sophisticated theology and yet  the basic truths of the religion are easily understandable and able to be practiced, even by a child. If God(s.w.a) is just and a Divine religion exists, this should be one of its main features, and it is. 

3. The Quran is the only Divine book that exists in the same form, word for word and letter for letter, as it did during the time of Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h). The Quran has stood the test of time. In 1400 years, noone has found either a grammatical, local, or scientific error in it (and the Quran has hundreds of verses that discuss science in the way we understand it today and the statements are experimentally verifiable). Again, if God(s.w.a) wrote a book and conveyed it to people via a Messenger(i.e. Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h), this should be one of its main features, and it is. 

 

 

One may also add the prophecies within both the HB and the NT, as well as the criteria within these very books as to the identification of a true prophet. 

For example a false prophet, in the Hebrew Bible is one:

- whose prophecies do not come true Deut18:22

- who speaks in the name of other gods Deut13

- who proclaims any precept of the Torah to be abrogated or adds to it Deut13:4-5. It is to be noted that a case is mentionned where a prophet -Elijah- was commanded to conduct the famous challenge of the two bullocks on Mount Carmel, even though that temporarily violated the Torah prohibition against offering sacrifices outside the Temple or places designated fit for the ritual by God.

The performance of miracles and wonders are not a valid criteria for the identification of a true prophet Deut13. Any type of communication with God is a prophetic experience, it doesnt have to be an information from the future but since only God knows the future, we attach that connotation to the word "prophecy". If a prophet did tell of what would happen in the future such a statement was given either as a promise or a warning. A true prophet's promises always comes to pass but his warnings may or may not happen, such as in the case of the prophet Jonas/Yunus after the repentance of his addressees. This is what Jeremiah explained when he stated in the HB that a prophet should be tested on the basis of his positive prophecies Jer28.

However it should be noted that not a single commandment they were given in Deut18, says that whatever a prophet commands in the name of God has to be in the Torah. The belief that whatever is written in the Torah is binding eternally is rooted in the belief that the promised Messiah will reinstate all of the mosaic law that is now in great parts abandonned due to the Temple's destruction.

What it states unequivocally is that when this time comes and that this Prophet arises, whoever does not hearken to his words whatever He speaks in the name of God, they will be held accountable. Deuteronomy 18 then clarifies how one can distinguish this Prophet from others, for which the answer is NOT that he follows the Torah eternally, but that whatever he states comes to pass in the name of the Lord. If one argues that every commandment is binding in the Torah for one to be considered a true Prophet, then this negates practically every single injunction given to the Israelites, i.e. the rites of sacrifice, which are included in Deuteronomy 12 and 17, among other. Why the Israelites arent going around driving idolaters from Israel, battling the descendants of certain specific nations whom they were commanded as an everlasting ordinance to exterminate off the earth's face, as well as not forsaking the Levites, because they have no inheritance? This surely has nothing to do with the rites of the temple and we know of countless Prophets in the Hebrew Bible that weren't driving out idolaters, between the time of Moses to this day even when the Temple was standing. Further, as even the Hebrew Bible admits, Prophets have come and with other laws that would replace laws that were given by Moses, amongst them Solomon in Kings telling Israelites how to behave, even when the Temple is destroyed. Is every one of these Prophets a liar, despite the Hebrew Bible calling them true prophets?

As to the Quran, through the story of ancient nations and prophets, it establishes a common pattern by which to distinguish the truthfulness of an envoy from God. Besides uprightness in character and an unflinshing, uncompromising stance as regards his mission, to have been foretold by previous prophets, that all his prophecies come true, the one that is most emphasised is that nations being punished for fighting and opposing their Messengers was a well-known Semitic tradition and the Quran places Muhammad inside that pattern at a time when none could have imagined for him and his small band of followers to become victorious and establish themselves 37:171-182. Muhammad then effectively rises up and says to his tribe that they will meet a similar fate, they oppose the message and prevent the people from it and get punished by the sword. End of the matter. None after him came with any of the following and was able to back his claims up:

1) comes from a common background yet claims to be a Messenger, in fact the Final Messenger of God

2) warns his people of Divine chastisement

3) the chastisement comes home to roost and the partisans of the Prophet are established in the land

This is the exact process that occurred with the Bani Israil in the time of Moses, with the drowning of the host of Pharaoh and the deliverance of the Israelites, with the uprooting of the Canaanites and the establishement of the way of God. Not to mention, the Quranic invitation to the Arabs to see or recall for themselves the fate of the deniers of Nuh, Lut, Saleh, Shuayb, Hud... It is a Book of Warning that has already delivered its judgment in this world 53:36"This is a warner of the warners of old" 54:42-5"Are the unbelievers of yours better than these, or is there an exemption for you in the scriptures?...Soon shall the hosts be routed, and they shall turn (their) backs". As said in Deuteronomy regarding the awaited prophet "If any man will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name, I myself will make him answer for it".

God Almighty says that Prophethood has ended with the Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet bore witness to the unity of God, and his deniers were punished in this life. For those who claimed to be Prophets after him did they remain unvanquished as per the tradition of Allah, did they emerge as triumphant leaders or does their life and death fail to bear witness to their claims?

For example Musaylima emerged shortly after the Prophet's death and was killed under the orders of Abu Bakr. Another one was Bahaullah - though later his followers branched off into the Bahai faith which is based on the nice concept of unity of religions- he died a prisoner of the Ottoman Empire. There is also Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from Qadian, Punjab - his death is widely cited to be from either one of these diseases - cholera, diarrhoea, plague, or dysentery. Besides numerous prophecies regarding the timing and manner of his death were left unfulfilled - though Ahmadis now intrepret those in a metaphorical manner- but the manner of death is hardly inspiring for one claiming to be a Prophet.

There is then Rashad Khalifa who was a modern claimant based on his theory of the number 19's pattern in the Quran. Well, besides being accused of paedophilia, he was assassinated and his theories entirely discredited.

But above all, their theories did not prevail and either remained confined to a small number of followers or were simply lost and forgotten shortly after their death.

Another modern claimant was Joseph Smith in the US who started the Latter Day Saints movement and is the founder of Mormonism. He too was unfortunately assassinated. As a side note even the Mormon story has more grounds to stand on from the point of view of authenticity, than the NT story, in that there are actually known then-living individuals who executed an affidavit saying that they had, themselves, seen something of the Mormon story whereas the NT is written by anonymous people with no first hand information decades after the alleged, unsubstantiated life of the NT Jesus.

Of all the new religions that have sprung up after Islam, one may perhaps say Sikhism is also there. But Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith, never claimed for himself Prophethood. Also, Sikhism emerged as a reform movement intertwined between Hinduism and Islam. The holy book Guru Granth contains quotes from Sufi saints as well.

On the face of it, finality of Prophethood seems to be a tenuous claim. After all, potentially anyone can stand up and say that he is a Prophet of God - but so far all the instances in which this has happened has failed to even come close to the scale and scope of the Prophet Muhammad's mission. Also, if we examine the entire career of these claimants - they have singularly and absolutely failed to match the life-chart of Prophet Muhammad and moreover their death poses even more questions than their life. What is even more interesting that none of them claimed to be the final Prophet, much less Jesus who predicted in the NT the coming of a powerful figure after him, the Paraclete, that shall bring justice to the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×