If You Were Born Before The Bi'that...

[Khadim uz Zahra]

(bismillah)

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

(salam)

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 (pbuh) , 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! :D

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) .

Edited February 19, 2012 by Replicant
OP's request to change the wording

[worshiper]

a good nd logical question to me!!!

firstly the kind of life i m leading specifies that much of wat we follow is cz of we r born muslims or atleast r biased a bit.

but for ur question i wd like to answer that i wd have gone for the purpose(cause) and end of life as my questions if i wd hav born at that time.

i dont know if its wat u r askin. do tell me if its nt.

[Pascal]

Good old Khadim, always so inclusive ^_^ .

I guess first, it would depend what religion i believed in before the Bi'that. If i was already a Jew or Christian things would probably a bit easier to accept because i already believe in a God. On the flip side of that of course, Christians believe it ended with Jesus, so, that would be a little hard. If you look at Christianity though, it started as a breakaway sect of judaism.

I don’t think we also can’t forget the fact that Muhammad was also a politician and a general, we can't deny those aspects of power in gaining the allegiance of certain earlier followers and tribe. What still astounds me is we have (supposed) actual letters written from Muhammad as a head of state, sent to other heads of state ( https://en.wikipedia...oldid=461100745 ).

This reminds me of a question that always use to previously bug me. I use to think back to the time of Jesus, he gained followers, some people obviously believed him and people still had common sense back then.... If people believed him surely some of this stuff must of happened. I struggled with the question for a while, then i realised, just because he managed to get some people to believe him it does not necessarily mean any of it happened. We have people with very wacky beliefs today like the Raelians and scientology. So, the property of having some people believe something in no way speaks to the veracity of it. Of course im not comparing Jesus to a cult leader or rael or anything like that, i don’t intend any offense, i'm just trying to illustrate the pure fact that some people have believers doesn’t necessarily speak to its validity.

There were plenty of other prophets around the Jesus as well but their religions didn't take off, Apollonius on tyana for example.

Jesus supposedly healed the sick, changed water into wine, made the blind see, most of us know these stories. If you saw something like someone healing a blind person (of course making sure that they’re actually blind and not just a plant or something, we have plenty of Christian pastors today who purport to be able to heal with the holy spirit but really its staged), i think that would be a pretty convincing experience. We obviously have limits to how sure we can be about...anything really but this will get too philosophical if i get down that road. I mean you could question it but once you are very sure there are no tricks (if you can get past this point) you just have to trust your senses (eyes ect) or question your own sanity i guess.

Let’s look at the prophets before Muhammad first. Say there was a guy going around town today telling people he was the son of god, would you believe him? If i walked up to you and told you God was talking to me, how would you feel? Would you honestly believe me or would you worry about me?

Reminds me of a comic i recently saw, I’m not sure if they're trying to be offensive or just point out that no one believes anymore:

Very few if any would believe me.

Look at it in another light, many here are muslims so of course they would of accepted muhammed either way, they're working backwards. Pretend it was some other person you had to asses and not muhammed, what questions would you ask, what proof would you need. Say you went back in time to the time around Jesus or moses, pretend you had no way of knowing who was jesus or who was moses, who was real or who was fake. You cant ask their names or tell by looking at them or any other way. The only way you can tell is by observing what they do, what would you need to see to be able to distinguish them from all the other false prophets of the time? What personal proof would we all require to be able to tell which ones are the real prophets and which ones are just full of hot air?

Of course, Jesus had the stupendous miracles like the loaves and the fish if the bible is to be believed. If you witnessed these with your own eyes, they are fairly hard to dispute. I think this would provide decent reason to believe but to me i think God could do an even better job of collecting followers by directly talking to them, it seems a little strange he sent Jesus in that light.

Things like changing water into wine; if you saw me change water into wine and i told you i could do it because i had powers from God would you truly believe me? Would you look for a hidden canister, powder, or something perhaps?

Onto another prophet, Moses. He had some of the most spectacular miracles, he split the red sea (most scholars actually don’t think it was the red sea, they might of just walked across another river at low tide). That’s fairly unbelievable and seas just don’t split themselves. It's not a natural event, it’s a supernatural event. Beyond things like questioning your senses or sanity of course, i think this would be strong proof. The red sea simply cannot split itself and there’s really no way to trick your way around that one, that is, if it actually did happen.

The problem for Muhammad of course is that he didn't really perform any miracles of this nature.

People often tell me the Quran is Muhammad miracle and keep shouting it at me how great the Quran is and how perfect it is. The fact of the matter is and I’m sure most of the mature people here can realise this, that fact alone won’t win you many converts. Almost all the people who claim its impressive are already Muslims, they are working backwards to justify their faith. I have read most of it and i do not find it particularly enthralling or amazing. As far as literature alone goes i personally prefer the bible or even better the gnostic gospels (Before people bombard me with the sura why challenge or other things like that, I’ve already looked at these things, I’m not really interested in being told of them or arguing over them once again).

Muhammad seemed to have a fair few people believe him before the Quran was even revealed in its totality, they didn’t see the entire Quran yet and still believed this.

No offense intended of course but say i told you God was talking to me and i wrote this down. I gave you the book telling you God was talking to me and this is what he said, what would your reaction be? The reaction you probably would have is the reaction most people would probably have.

So, i think i would find it very difficult to believe Muhammad was a prophet of God using that as my only basis and proof.

Obviously, times are a lot different now but some of the general ideas still apply.

Clearly, if you look at many of the new religious movements or what some people call cults, we can see it is not terrible hard to get at least some people to believe you.

Personally, i do not think we should discount the political climate and things like that which might of lead to Muhammad gaining followers.

That said, if i were around at that time, being the same i am now, i probably wouldn't believe him. If i saw Moses split the waters though or bring plagues on egypt (another debated topic among biblical scholars) i just might believe.

Edited February 19, 2012 by kingpomba

[Khadim uz Zahra]

a good nd logical question to me!!! firstly the kind of life i m leading specifies that much of wat we follow is cz of we r born muslims or atleast r biased a bit. but for ur question i wd like to answer that i wd have gone for the purpose(cause) and end of life as my questions if i wd hav born at that time. i dont know if its wat u r askin. do tell me if its nt.

Simply put, what I am asking is, if you were born before Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) and then he announced his Prophethood, what would make you accept him as a Prophet and accept Islam?

^ If you don't mind, please don't take this as rude, can you please write in full and proper English because I, unfortunately, am very bad at contractions and, therefore, did not understand much of your post. Please don't get offended by this. I only said that because I wanted to understand what you say.

[MysticKnight]

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.

[Ugly Jinn]

The answer would be miracle/s and/or empirical evidence.

You can apply your scenario to the present, especially to Muslims, what would Al-Mehdi have to do to make you believe that he is the real divine agent and not a fraud?

Miracles have been used throughout Islamic history to authenticate a divine agent, hence there is an objective for the concept of miracles.

Look at the current situation of Agha Khan, he claims to be a divine agent and has a mass following, and he didn't have to provide any empirical evidence/miracles. Miracle/Empirical evidence has to be a prerequisite (an authenticity check).

So if I lived back then and a person was walking around claiming to be a divine Messenger appointed by God, and that he speaks to angels, and we should listen to everything he says, then I would need to see proof - not just words.

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

@MysticKnight

All of those can be accomplished by a regular/fallible person.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Ugly Jinn

[Khadim uz Zahra]

By the way, to everyone who posted in this thread and have read it, I have made a slight change to the opening post. It was first "...if you were born before this incident" but I have changed it to "...if you were an atheist before this..." I had, originally, also wanted it to be atheist but it seems I had just forgotten to add that. So, if any of you thinks you want to make any amendments with this change, please do so. Like, for example, Kingpomba, you had mentioned it would depend on which religion you would be following at that time (which is what, in the first place, reminded me that I had made a mistake so thank you! :D ) which becomes quite irrelevant after this change.

So, if anyone thinks they need to change their replies, please do so.

Sorry for the trouble.

[MysticKnight]

On 2/23/2012 at 1:29 PM, :

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

What if such a person disbelieves in Islam?

[Hameedeh]

(bismillah)

(salam)

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:

Quote

[shakir 19:66] And says man: What! when I am dead shall I truly be brought forth alive?

[shakir 19:67] Does not man remember that We created him before, when he was nothing?

[shakir 19:68] So by your Lord! We will most certainly gather them together and the Shaitans, then shall We certainly cause them to be present round hell on their knees.

Holy Qur'an, Sura 3 Aya 191 to 195:

Quote

[shakir 3:191] Those who remember Allah standing and sitting and lying on their sides and reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth: Our Lord! Thou hast not created this in vain! Glory be to Thee; save us then from the chastisement of the fire:

[shakir 3:192] Our Lord! surely whomsoever Thou makest enter the fire, him Thou hast indeed brought to disgrace, and there shall be no helpers for the unjust:

[shakir 3:193] Our Lord! surely we have heard a preacher calling to the faith, saying: Believe in your Lord, so we did believe; Our Lord! forgive us therefore our faults, and cover our evil deeds and make us die with the righteous.

[shakir 3:194] Our Lord! and grant us what Thou hast promised us by Thy messengers; and disgrace us not on the day of resurrection; surely Thou dost not fail to perform the promise.

[shakir 3:195] So their Lord accepted their prayer: That I will not waste the work of a worker among you, whether male or female, the one of you being from the other; they, therefore, who fled and were turned out of their homes and persecuted in My way and who fought and were slain, I will most certainly cover their evil deeds, and I will most certainly make them enter gardens beneath which rivers flow; a reward from Allah, and with Allah is yet better reward.

Source: http://quran.al-islam.org/

[MysticKnight]

Quote

(bismillah)

Depends. If a man says another man is not divinely inspired, then at least one of them is not divinely inspired. Do you know of anyone to whom I can ascribe the aforementioned qualities and who disbelieves in Islām?

I quoted everything up to the point he claims he is a Prophet. So what I meant is what if a person had those qualities but disbelieved in Islam. What would you think of the person?

And I don't know anyone of that qualities and claims Prophethood and disbelieves in Islam, but what about Baha'Allah? Bahais believe he was a good truthful person, and had much wisdom.

[Khadim uz Zahra]

Quote

(bismillah)

He doesn't disbelieve in Islm, which, actually, would make him a better candidate in my book than if he had disbelieved.

Of course, he does not disbelieve in Islam but he does claim to be either the bab (door) to the Imam or a Prophet himself. I think his question is based much more on the premise that Baha'Ullah is also seen by many as being good and moral, having all the qualities you described so will you also believe in the claims he makes for himself, just like you are saying that you would believe in Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) because he possessed these virtues?

[MysticKnight]

Quote

(bismillah)

He doesn't disbelieve in Islām, which, actually, would make him a better candidate in my book than if he had disbelieved.

You avoided the first question. What if a person had those qualities but didn't believe in Islam and didn't claim Prophethood? What would you think of the person?

Quote

The reasons I don't believe in Bahaullah is purely through thinking it through. But these are irrelevant to your OP.

It's not irrelevant. First you said if you saw a person whom certain qualities you would accept him. Bahais believe that their Prophet has such qualities. However you dismiss them on other grounds.

So this shows the criteria you put was not sufficient.

Also some people interact with Mohammad, and he get's a reputation of being truthful. People talk about him being truthfull. Doesn't mean he cannot ever then lie. Islamically, you look at Iblis. He was obedient servant of God for a very long time, then changed all of sudden.

The point is people can change. Also having reputation of something doesn't always mean you are that thing. People might think a person is truthful, but that person lies, but just get's away with it. If he lies and never get's caught, then his reputation of being truthful will be there. He would just never had got caught for lying.

If a person had reputation from being good, it can't be he can't change nor does it mean everyone is correct about that person.

Also another thing, is that perhaps he didn't have this reputation, but as Islam prevailed, and people wanted to write history in favor of Mohammad and Islam, people noted that. But we don't know because it's winner side history. Ofcourse if he had a reputation of being a liar, Muslims would not have recorded that in history, and it would not become the pravelent view.

Also, you add living simple. How do you judge that? What about the many wives he had, to many this would seem excessive and unneccessary, and not acsetic at all or simple.

[Ugly Jinn]

Quote

If I still happen to harbour some doubt, I would reveal it to him, knowing that he would address and allay it with kindness and divine attention, should he be a prophet. If he manages to do so, I would believe.

And if someone has doubts presently, how can one address 'him'?

If a person cannot do so, then the doubts will remain until "he would address and allay it with kindness and divine attention".

[Ugly Jinn]

Quote

To Jinn

Yes, if I understand you correctly, then I would agree with what you have said.

Hence the dilemma.

Quote

EDIT: Of course, the kind of reasons for believing in a prophet in my own times is different from the kind of reasons for believing in a prophet in the past. Because I cannot verify the past prophet in the same way as the contemporary prophet. And the reasons I presented in my original post were aimed at evaluating a contemporary prophet, as the OP has me considering a hypothetical situation in which I am a contemporary of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

The criteria you listed to evaluate a divine agent are nothing more than personality traits, it can be achieved by fallibles, hence those traits are not exclusive to divine agents.

We all have our own prerequisites to judge (hence the plethora of beliefs - i.e. Agha Khan), but can you verify your judgement now? Yes/No? If so, how?

[Lanatin]

Also another thing, is that perhaps he didn't have this reputation, but as Islam prevailed, and people wanted to write history in favor of Mohammad and Islam, people noted that. But we don't know because it's winner side history. Ofcourse if he had a reputation of being a liar,

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.

[Ugly Jinn]

Quote

Yes, I can verify them. But I'm not going to do that now.

How and when?

Quote

If a person did achieve it, I would no longer call them fallible. Such a sane, genuine, truthful and self-sacrificing person who claims prophethood is not lying and is a prophet. Hence, they are not fallible.

You will be in the same boat as other folks who 'believe' using personally customized criteria claiming verification can be made (i.e. Agha Khan followers).

I know you said, "I can verify them", I'm waiting to see how you do that.

[MysticKnight]

What if you didn't know the person personally, but only knew about him of what you heard of others? What if you had no personal relationship with him, never met him before he claimed Prophethood?

[Khadim uz Zahra]

(bismillah)

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

(salam)

Good old Khadim, always so inclusive ^_^ .

Thank you! :D 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 (pbuh) 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 (as) 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 (pbuh) 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 (pbuh) 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?

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.

[Guest Jebreil]

(bismillah)

(salam)

To Jinn

You will be in the same boat as other folks who 'believe' using personally customized criteria claiming verification can be made (i.e. Agha Khan followers).

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

I know you said, "I can verify them", I'm waiting to see how you do that.

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

(wasalam)

What if you didn't know the person personally, but only knew about him of what you heard of others? What if you had no personal relationship with him, never met him before he claimed Prophethood?

(bismillah)

To Mysticknight

I'll get to meet the person, acquaint myself with him, observe him for a month or two, and make a decision. I would take into account his reputation, and I'll be checking if it matches what I see. I may require something miraculous if I still have doubts.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Jebreil

[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 (pbuh) 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 (pbuh) or ask him for any miracles, why do you believe in Islam today?

Edited February 25, 2012 by Khadim uz Zahra

[Guest Jebreil]

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 yo see why those who follow Islam, today, do so.

Like for example, Jebreil's reasons were much more ethical and dependent on seeing the Prophet (pbuh) 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 (pbuh) or ask him for any miracles, why do you believe in Islam today?

(bismillah)

(salam)

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.

(wasalam)

[Khadim uz Zahra]

(bismillah)

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

(salam)

(bismillah)

(salam)

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.

(wasalam)

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 (pbuh). 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? :donno: 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 February 25, 2012 by Khadim uz Zahra

[Pascal]

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.

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

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 February 25, 2012 by kingpomba

[Khadim uz Zahra]

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! :D

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]

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.

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 (pbuh) 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.

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 February 25, 2012 by kingpomba

[MysticKnight]

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]

(bismillah)

(salam)

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]

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]

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.

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.

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 February 25, 2012 by Ugly Jinn

[Guest Jebreil]

(bismillah)

(salam)

To Jinn

I'm paying, if you wish.

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.

(wasalam)

To Kingpomba

I don't think a person can really feign being sane, genuinely caring, scrupulously truthful, sagacious and simple, and self-sacrificing for a sustained period of time of say a year?

Once I establish that someone satisfies the criteria, should they then say, "I'm a Prophet", I would most probably believe. If doubts arise, I would discuss it with him, and his method of allaying my doubts would prove his truth to me. A miracle is not necessary, though it can help in some circumstances.

[Khadim uz Zahra]

To Jinn

I'm paying, if you wish.

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

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. (wasalam)

Okay, thank you! :D 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]

(bismillah)

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

(salam)

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 :P ).

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' (as) - you see that even though they had loads and loads of miracles their nations either rejected them, as was the case with Jesus (as), 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 (as) 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 (as) 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 (as) '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 (pbuh) 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.

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! :D

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?

[Guest Jebreil]

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?

(bismillah)

To Mysticknight

But I don't really know if those companions actually satisfied the criteria I seek. Ordinary people can change, but infallible people cannot. I mean, the criteria are pretty fallible-proof. It's not easy to have such qualities in a society and sustain it for a year.

A prophet must be excellent and divine in character, to prove that he is ordained.

Otherwise, what's the difference between a magician and miracle-worker? Both produce works which appear supernatural. But which one stems from the Perfect God?

--------

To put this into perspective, I have yet to meet a person who satisfies the criteria for me. Have you met such a person who satisfies the criteria, who has excellent qualities and who claims to be a prophet?