Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: Why would anyone believe him? Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 13
Author Message
Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1790
Quote Ron Webb Replybullet Posted: 04 August 2014 at 4:31pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

How typical!  Every time you get cornered, you try to weasel your way out by moving the goal post.  All this time, you never questioned the "heavily biased Muslim sources", but now that you have run out of hiding places, now you try to question those sources.

Actually, I mentioned it back on July 13: " At this point, 1400 years later and based solely on anecdotal information filtered through fanatical believers, there is no hope in getting to the real story."  You didn't respond at the time, so I let it go.  I'm only bringing it up again because you are trying to make the case that Muhammad was universally trusted -- and for that you obviously need sources other than his own followers.

Originally posted by islamispeace

More mindless theorizing and uncertainty!  I already commented on why the pagans did not "trust" him as a prophet.  They had religious and economic reasons not to "trust" him.  He just was not telling them what they wanted to hear.  If he had promised them certain concessions, then they would have believed him.  For example, Abu Lahab had wondered if his status would entitle him to preferential treatment as a Muslim.  Of course, the answer was no.

That would be according to your heavily biased Muslim sources, I presume?  Any independent verification?

Interestingly, according to the Armenian Christian historian Sebeos:

"In that period a certain one of them, a man of the sons of Ishmael named Muhammad, a merchant, became prominent. A sermon about the Way of Truth, supposedly at God's command, was revealed to them, and [Muhammad] taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially since he was informed and knowledgeable about Mosaic history. Because the command had come from On High, he ordered them all to assemble together and to unite in faith. Abandoning the reverence of vain things, they turned toward the living God, who had appeared to their father, Abraham. Muhammad legislated that they were not to [123] eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsehoods, and not to commit adultery. He said: "God promised that country to Abraham and to his son after him, for eternity. And what had been promised was fulfilled during that time when [God] loved Israel. Now, however, you are the sons of Abraham, and God shall fulfill the promise made to Abraham and his son on you. Only love the God of Abraham, and go and take the country which God gave to your father, Abraham. No one can successfully resist you in war, since God is with you."" (http://rbedrosian.com/seb9.htm)

So Sebeos confirms much of what the so-called "heavily biased" Muslim sources say.  He confirms that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a merchant who then brought God's revelation to the Arabs.  He also confirms that they abandoned their previous religion and followed him.

Yes, we know all that; but Sebeos says nothing about the pagans and their motives, nor even mention Abu Lahab.  It's a complete non sequitur to your previous claims.

Speaking of "independent verification", do you have any for your *****ic theories?  Oh right...I forgot...You have none!

Of course not.  My whole thesis is that we don't know what happened 1400 years ago.

So, the fact was that this individual was a foreigner who did not speak Arabic, whereas the Quran was in the Arabic language.

Which proves nothing, of course.  No doubt Muhammad spoke other languages besides Arabic and could translate.

But anyway, I don't see why you bothered to quote this verse.  Surely you're not saying that such a person actually existed!  I'm certainly not saying that.  I'm saying that if he or someone like him existed, any credible evidence in his favour would disappear from the oral history.  All that would remain would be a few verses such as this one which discredit him.

Dummy, dummy...wait a minute.  Think.  It was the unbelievers who asked for a "sign", remember?  Hence, they were shown the "sign" of the splitting of the moon, which was also given as a sign of the Day of Judgment.  The Day of Judgment applies to all people, believers and unbelievers, because all will face judgment.

The Day of Judgement is for all, the signs are only for believers.  Yes, the unbelievers may ask for a sign, but as the Quran says, if they see a sign, they dismiss it as magic.  That is why the last prophet was a warner only, not a miracle worker.  His only (alleged) miracle was the Quran.

1.  They were at Mina with the Prophet when the moon split.

Sure, but did they witness it?

2.  The Prophet told them to "be witnesses".

Sure, but did they witness it?

3.  Abdullah described how the moon split, stating that a piece "went towards the mountain".

All of this indicates that Abdullah ibn Masud and others witnessed the miracle.  Otherwise, he wouldn't have what he saw!

Sure, but did he witness it?  Or did he just repeat what others told him?

By the way, are you sure it was Abdullah ibn Masud?  Because Bukhari quotes him as saying, "Narrated Abdullah bin Masud: During the lifetime of the Prophet the moon was split into two parts and on that the Prophet said, "Bear witness (to thus)."  (Book #56, Hadith #830)  Surely if he was an eyewitness he could do better than "during the lifetime of the Prophet."

The other odd thing about all of these so-called descriptions is that they really don't describe it.  What did it look like?  How long did it last?  Were they round pieces, or jagged?  Did it begin and end abruptly, or slowly?  Surely anyone who actually saw a miracle would have more to say than just "the moon split".

Even such descriptions as we have are inconsistent.  The hadith you quoted says "the moon split in two halves between which they saw the Hiram' mountain."  But the one just before it (Bukhari, Book 58, Hadith 208) says "a piece of the moon went towards the mountain."  So which is it?

Originally posted by Ron Webb

This is all according to the Muslim oral history, of course.  Do we have any independent evidence?

Running out of arguments, huh?  Poor, poor Bozo.

I'm not the one running out of arguments.  Take away the Muslim sources with their obvious bias, and you've got nothing.

More ignorance!  Nepotism was a common occurrence, dummy.  It would not have been unusual.  Family dynasties often had all the power.  This was true in many cultures.

Right, and if Muhammad had given his uncle special powers or benefits, they would have been seen as just another family dynasty, rather than a Prophet of God.

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Were they calculated by Allah?  If Allah is omniscient, then He would have known that His religion would result in all these terrible events.  So either that was part of His plan, or he made a mistake, or He couldn't help it.  Take your pick.  But if it was part of His plan, it looks a lot like an evil plan to me.  Something more like what Satan might come up with.

Your idiocy just has no limits.  Read the book I previously recommended.  You need some education.

So, no substantive response, eh?  Just pure ad hominem?

By the way, are you aware that just about every one of you posts on this discussion has flagrantly violated the terms of use of this board?  You might want to reread the Guidelines for Discussions, specifically Rules 15 and 16.

Personally, I don't mind -- I prefer to let your rudeness and sarcasm speak for themselves -- but even if you have no respect for me and no concern for your own reputation, you ought to have some consideration to the moderators, who are being remarkably patient with you.

In any case, who said that there couldn't be bad Muslims?  People have free will.  They can choose to be good or bad.  Just because some Muslims choose to use violence (due to legitimate complaints), doesn't mean that the majority do.

Nobody is saying otherwise.  It's just that as I look around the world today, I find it hard to see how Islam, or monotheism for that matter, has been a net benefit to humanity.

Furthermore, dark times were inevitable.

Some of them perhaps, but certainly not all.  You claim that Allah raised a sandstorm to prevent the pagan army from defeating the early Muslims.  Could He not have done the same to keep the planes grounded on Sept 11, 2001?  Or at least to have prevented them from reaching their targets?

But we actually see that he refused to accept any praise or adulation which kings received.  He was humble and rejected such things.

For which he was praised all the more.

Also, it is rather hard to believe that an impostor would go to such lengths and suffering just for "praise and adulation".

On balance, I think Muhammad had a pretty good life, at least compared to most of his contemporaries.  Wouldn't you agree?

Edited by Ron Webb - 04 August 2014 at 8:23pm
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 08 August 2014 at 9:53pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Actually, I mentioned it back on July 13: " At this point, 1400 years later and based solely on anecdotal information filtered through fanatical believers, there is no hope in getting to the real story."  You didn't respond at the time, so I let it go.  I'm only bringing it up again because you are trying to make the case that Muhammad was universally trusted -- and for that you obviously need sources other than his own followers.


This is just yet another attempt to move the goal post.  When you have nothing to argue for, you resort to the "uncertainty" principle and question the veracity of the so-called "fanatical believers". 

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Yes, we know all that; but Sebeos says nothing about the pagans and their motives, nor even mention Abu Lahab.  It's a complete non sequitor to your previous claims.
      

It confirms some basic elements of the Islamic narrative.  Until you can provide some contradictory information from your so-called "independent sources", the non-sequitur is yours and yours alone!  You're the one who has been making up crackpot theories and providing only your own conclusions to back them up instead of "independent sources". LOL

The other problem with you request of "independent sources" is that it is a slippery slope.  Who is to say that you simply will not reject those sources as well if they happened to agree with the Islamic traditions?  Conversely, who is to say that if these sources happened to disagree with the Islamic traditions, you would jump on that bandwagon and simply blindly accept those sources due to your obvious bias.   

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Of course not.  My whole thesis is that we don't know what happened 1400 years ago.


You're more than welcome to hold on to this view.  For the rest of us, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the traditional narrative.  You simply choose to disregard it because it does not agree with your view, but you also don't present any evidence which directly contradicts the traditional narrative.  You want to have your cake and eat it too.  Well, it doesn't work that way! Wink

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Which proves nothing, of course.  No doubt Muhammad spoke other languages besides Arabic and could translate.


Oh really?!  So what proof do you have for this latest crackpot theory?  After all, you have "no doubt"! 

Originally posted by Ron Webb

But anyway, I don't see why you bothered to quote this verse.  Surely you're not saying that such a person actually existed!  I'm certainly not saying that.  I'm saying that if he or someone like him existed, any credible evidence in his favour would disappear from the oral history.  All that would remain would be a few verses such as this one which discredit him.


This person did exist, dummy.  The pagans were trying to discredit Muhammad (peace be upon him) anyway they could.  So they suggested that he was being taught by this person.  But the Quran laid this myth to rest by making a logical argument against it.

Originally posted by Ron Webb

The Day of Judgement is for all, the the signs are only for believers.  Yes, the unbelievers may ask for a sign, but as the Quran says, if they see a sign, they dismiss it as magic.  That is why the last prophet was a warner only, not a miracle worker.  His only (alleged) miracle was the Quran.


LOL What a laughable circular argument!  "Signs" are for all people, including unbelievers.  They were the ones who asked for them!  Just because they don't accept them does not change the fact that it is meant for them as well. 

One of the final signs of the Day of Judgment will be the rising of the sun from the west.  According to the hadith, the unbelievers will look upon this sign and then realize that judgment is imminent.  Of course, it will be too late to believe at that point.  A good example of this principle is the Pharaoh's downfall.  When his army was drowned in the sea while chasing after Moses (peace be upon him) and the Israelites, he tried to affirm his belief in God, but it was rejected.  This was his final sign, after all the others that he had rejected, and it was too late to believe now.  The same will happen to all unbelievers, whether they live to see the final signs or not. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Sure, but did they witness it?


Yes, because Ibn Masud actually described how the moon split! Big%20smile

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Sure, but did they witness it?


Yes, because Ibn Masud actually described how the moon split! Big%20smile

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Sure, but did he witness it?  Or did he just repeat what others told him?


Yes, because Ibn Masud actually described how the moon split! Big%20smile

Besides, we have much more eyewitness testimony for other miracles the Prophet performed.  For example, at Hudaybiyah, it is well attested that the Prophet miraculously provided water for all of his followers even when there was only a few drops left:

"Narrated Al-Bara: We were one-thousand-and-four-hundred persons on the day of Al-Hudaibiya (Treaty), and (at) Al-Hudaibiya (there) was a well. We drew out its water not leaving even a single drop. The Prophet sat at the edge of the well and asked for some water with which he rinsed his mouth and then he threw it out into the well. We stayed for a short while and then drew water from the well and quenched our thirst, and even our riding animals drank water to their satisfaction." (Sahih Bukhari, Book 56, Nunber 777)

So, Al-Bara was one of the 1400 people present at the time and he describes how he and everyone else drank their fill even after all the water had been used up.  Alhamdulillah! 

Originally posted by Ron Webb

By the way, are you sure it was Abdullah ibn Masud?  Because Bukhari quotes him as saying, "Narrated Abdullah bin Masud: During the lifetime of the Prophet the moon was split into two parts and on that the Prophet said, "Bear witness (to thus)."  (Book #56, Hadith #830)  Surely if he was an eyewitness he could do better than "during the lifetime of the Prophet."


LOL Oh, you silly, poor clown.  I know, I know.  It's hard to admit that you have been wrong all this time.  It's hard to admit that you have been deceived.  But, the time eventually comes to grow up and accept the facts. 

I already showed that it was Abdullah ibn Masud.  Hadiths would have been mentioned multiple times by the same person to different people for different reasons.  The purpose of the hadith you mentioned clarifies that the splitting of the moon was an event that was contemporaneous with the Prophet; hence the statement "during the lifetime of the Prophet". 

Originally posted by Ron Webb

The other odd thing about all of these so-called descriptions is that they really don't describe it.  What did it look like?  How long did it last?  Were they round pieces, or jagged?  Did it begin and end abruptly, or slowly?  Surely anyone who actually saw a miracle would have more to say than just "the moon split".

 
LOL I know, I know.  You just can't bring yourself around to face the facts, so you naturally resort to special pleading once again.  The fact is that they did describe the event itself, as the hadith from Sahih Muslim I previously mentioned attests:

"This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Abdullah b. Mas'ud (who said): We were along with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) at Mina, that moon was split up into two. One of its parts was behind the mountain and the other one was on this side of the mountain. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upbn him) said to us: Bear witness to this." 

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Even such descriptions as we have are inconsistent.  The hadith you quoted says "the moon split in two halves between which they saw the Hiram' mountain."  But the one just before it (Bukhari, Book 58, Hadith 208) says "a piece of the moon went towards the mountain."  So which is it?


See that's another thing with clowns who first deny that there is any evidence but still remain stubborn when the evidence is shown: they nit pick! 

Isn't it obvious that the hadith from Bukhari is providing more detail?  The moon was situated away from the mountain.  Then it split into two pieces, and one piece went towards the mountain, until the mountain itself was situated between the two pieces.  This is not rocket science!

Originally posted by Ron Webb

I'm not the one running out of arguments.  Take away the Muslim sources with their obvious bias, and you've got nothing.
 

LOL "Obvious bias"!  That's rich!  But atheist clowns such as yourself "obviously" have no "bias"...Tongue

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Right, and if Muhammad had given his uncle special powers or benefits, they would have been seen as just another family dynasty, rather than a Prophet of God.
 

So what?  If his ultimate goal was power and prestige, who cares if he had a family dynasty instead of being a Prophet? 

Originally posted by Ron Webb

So, no substantive response, eh?  Just pure ad hominem?
 

I already gave you a response, dummy.  I told you to read the book.  The answers are there!  Seek and you shall find...Big%20smile

Originally posted by Ron Webb

By the way, are you aware that just about every one of you posts on this discussion has flagrantly violated the terms of use of this board?  You might want to reread the Guidelines for Discussions, specifically Rules 15 and 16.

Personally, I don't mind -- I prefer to let your rudeness and sarcasm speak for themselves -- but even if you have no respect for me and no concern for your own reputation, you ought to have some consideration to the moderators, who are being remarkably patient with you.
 

LOL Oh, here we go.  Here comes the melodrama! 

Are you aware that, according to the rules:

"4. When discussing issues dealing with Islam, please support your comments with the Quran or Sunnah. Mocking any Quranic reference, Hadith, scholar, or member will not be tolerated. If you are stating something about a religion, please list your source. If it is an opinion, please state this fact. [...]

15. We will not tolerate personal attacks on participants from ANY Community (personal attacks are defined as comments that reflect upon the person instead of their opinion). Furthermore, any insults intended to ANY religion, ANY prophet of God, or ANY holy scripture shall be removed."


You have been spreading all sorts of lies against Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), suggesting, among other things, that he was an impostor, a sexual deviant, a liar, a war monger etc.  Well, earth to Ron!  You have violated the rules!  But, do you think that bothers me?  Do you think I care what you think?  Do you think that I am going to whine and groan and be all melodramatic?  Hell no!  But maybe you should take your own advice and "have some consideration to the moderators", because they surely must be being very patient with an arrogant atheist clown who attacks the integrity of the blessed Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

So, let's not waste each other's time with childish melodrama.  If you can't take the heat, then don't participate in the discussion!

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Nobody is saying otherwise.  It's just that as I look around the world today, I find it hard to see how Islam, or monotheism for that matter, has been a net benefit to humanity.


Well, besides providing a pathway to salvation, Islam has provided many benefits to humanity.  Read Mark Graham's book "How Islam Created the Modern World".  Clearly, Islam has had a positive impact on the world, regardless of your childish misconceptions. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Some of them perhaps, but certainly not all.  You claim that Allah raised a sandstorm to prevent the pagan army from defeating the early Muslims.  Could He not have done the same to keep the planes grounded on Sept 11, 2001?  Or at least to have prevented them from reaching their targets?


Of course He could have.  But everything happens for a reason.  Bad things happen in this world and good things happen in this world.  They all have a reason.  As I said, dark times were inevitable.  And as we get closer and closer to the Day of Judgment, it will only get worse before it gets better. 

Originally posted by Ron Webb

For which he was praised all the more.
  

LOL See?  Again with the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" argument!  There is just no pleasing some people.  That's what I have been saying all this time.  I could care less what you think, because I know that no matter what, you will never change your mind. 

In your diseased mind, no matter what Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did, he must have had some other ulterior motive for personal gain. 

1.  So, if he rejected wealth (even if that was his alleged motive), you think that it must have been because he wanted to gain the people's favor (while choosing to live in abject poverty himself).  But, if he had taken the wealth, then you would think that it was his motivation the whole time.

2.  If he rejected power (even if that was his alleged motive), you think that it must have been because he was afraid of his weak followers (instead of the more powerful pagans).  But, if he had taken the offer, then you would think that it was his motivation the whole time. 

3.  If he rejected "praise and adulation" (even if that was his alleged motive), you think that it must have been because he actually wanted to make people think that he was humble and hence gain their respect.  But, if he had not rejected the "praise and adulation", then you would think that it was his motivation from the start.

"Damned if you.  Damned if you don't."

Originally posted by Ron Webb

On balance, I think Muhammad had a pretty good life, at least compared to most of his contemporaries.  Wouldn't you agree?
   

I think you are just a fool.  Those with eyes to see and who are not blinded by atheistic bias, would see that Muhammad (peace be upon him) lived a very difficult life after he declared his prophethood.  Before he declared himself a prophet, you could argue that he had a "pretty good life", although he was clearly disturbed by the injustice of the time.  But after he announced his prophetic mission, his life was turned upside down.  He was hounded from that point on.  He suffered abuse and war for years.  And he lived in self-imposed poverty.  He didn't have the luxuries that kings had.  In fact, I would say that most of his followers lived much more luxuriously, at least when compared to Muhammad himself.  He slept on a simple bed.  He stitched his own clothes.  He fasted long hours.  He prayed long into the night.  He took every difficulty upon himself.  He suffered abuse and violence from his enemies, even to the point of being stoned on at least one occasion. 

No.  I would say that he lived a very difficult life.  A lesser man (like an atheist clown such as yourself Wink) would have failed.  But he succeeded.  Alhamdulillah!   
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1790
Quote Ron Webb Replybullet Posted: 11 August 2014 at 11:19am
Originally posted by islamispeace

This is just yet another attempt to move the goal post.  When you have nothing to argue for, you resort to the "uncertainty" principle and question the veracity of the so-called "fanatical believers".

The "goalpost" remains the same: to give a valid and compelling reason why anyone should believe that Muhammad received the Quran from Allah.  Failing that, all we are left with is uncertainty.

Part of that uncertainty is the lack of unbiased sources.  Frankly, I'm surprised that that even needs to be pointed out.  Surely "because Abdullah said so" is scarcely more compelling than "because Muhammad said so".  If you believe things simply because people tell you so, you shouldn't really be on the Internet without adult supervision.

It confirms some basic elements of the Islamic narrative.

The basic elements are not in question.  We know that Muhammad existed, and we know what he claimed.  What we need is some independent support for those claims.  And there is none, nor can there be.

The other problem with you request of "independent sources" is that it is a slippery slope.  Who is to say that you simply will not reject those sources as well if they happened to agree with the Islamic traditions?  Conversely, who is to say that if these sources happened to disagree with the Islamic traditions, you would jump on that bandwagon and simply blindly accept those sources due to your obvious bias.

To some extent you're right.  In general, whenever we have contradictory sources, it's hard to know which to believe.  All we have is uncertainty.

In this case, however, we don't have contradictory sources, nor should we expect any -- which leads to a different kind of uncertainty.  We know that contrary opinions were actively suppressed.  We don't know their content and therefore can't assess their validity.

You're more than welcome to hold on to this view.  For the rest of us, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the traditional narrative.  You simply choose to disregard it because it does not agree with your view, but you also don't present any evidence which directly contradicts the traditional narrative.  You want to have your cake and eat it too.  Well, it doesn't work that way!

What evidence?  All you have is stories: stories about how trustworthy Muhammad was, stories about alleged miracles, stories about unlikely military victories aided by fortuitous sandstorms.  But every religious tradition has such stories, all of them told by allegedly trustworthy sources.  Why should the Muslim stories be regarded as credible, while all the others are not?

Oh really?!  So what proof do you have for this latest crackpot theory?  After all, you have "no doubt"!

Well, maybe "no doubt" is too strong, but Muhammad was a trader and traveled with trading caravans to other countries.  It wouldn't be surprising if he picked other languages along the way.  And there are hadith alleging that he understood the language of animals, so a foreign human language shouldn't be a challenge.

This person did exist, dummy.  The pagans were trying to discredit Muhammad (peace be upon him) anyway they could.  So they suggested that he was being taught by this person.  But the Quran laid this myth to rest by making a logical argument against it.

You assume he exists because of one line in the Quran.  You have no corroborating evidence and no information about this person beyond the fact that he spoke a foreign language.

But think about it for a moment.  Why would the pagans have made this allegation, about this particular guy, if they knew that he didn't even speak the same language as Muhammad?  If they just made this up out of nothing, surely they would have picked a more likely prospect.

There must have been some incident that formed the basis of the claim, whether it was true or not.  He must have been seen speaking with Muhammad, or bragging that he had helped Muhammad with a verse, or reciting the verse before it was "revealed", or something.  Perhaps he spoke a foreign language, but that doesn't mean that he didn't also speak Arabic.

We'll never know, of course.  All we have is the rebuttal to the claim, not the claim itself.

LOL What a laughable circular argument!  "Signs" are for all people, including unbelievers.  They were the ones who asked for them!  Just because they don't accept them does not change the fact that it is meant for them as well.

I'm glad you find it amusing, but that's what the Quran says.  Muhammad was asked for signs, and Allah refused to give them.

One of the final signs of the Day of Judgment will be the rising of the sun from the west.  According to the hadith, the unbelievers will look upon this sign and then realize that judgment is imminent.

So is "imminent" like "nigh", i.e. at least 1400 years away? LOL

Besides, we have much more eyewitness testimony for other miracles the Prophet performed.  For example, at Hudaybiyah, it is well attested that the Prophet miraculously provided water for all of his followers even when there was only a few drops left:

"Narrated Al-Bara: We were one-thousand-and-four-hundred persons on the day of Al-Hudaibiya (Treaty), and (at) Al-Hudaibiya (there) was a well. We drew out its water not leaving even a single drop. The Prophet sat at the edge of the well and asked for some water with which he rinsed his mouth and then he threw it out into the well. We stayed for a short while and then drew water from the well and quenched our thirst, and even our riding animals drank water to their satisfaction." (Sahih Bukhari, Book 56, Nunber 777)

So, Al-Bara was one of the 1400 people present at the time and he describes how he and everyone else drank their fill even after all the water had been used up.  Alhamdulillah!

It is impossible to empty a well with a pail "not leaving even a single drop", so already we know that this is an exaggeration.  And the thing about wells is that they constantly refill themselves from the surrounding water table.  I'm not familiar with wells myself so I can't say how quickly this normally happens, but there is no miracle about it that can't also be explained by exaggeration.

By the way, do you condone spitting into a well where people draw their drinking water?

I already showed that it was Abdullah ibn Masud.  Hadiths would have been mentioned multiple times by the same person to different people for different reasons.  The purpose of the hadith you mentioned clarifies that the splitting of the moon was an event that was contemporaneous with the Prophet; hence the statement "during the lifetime of the Prophet".

Nobody would make the vague statement "during the lifetime of the Prophet" if he was an actual witness and could name the specific place and time of the event.  Vagueness does not clarify anything.  It only reduces credibility.

LOL I know, I know.  You just can't bring yourself around to face the facts, so you naturally resort to special pleading once again.  The fact is that they did describe the event itself, as the hadith from Sahih Muslim I previously mentioned attests:

"This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Abdullah b. Mas'ud (who said): We were along with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) at Mina, that moon was split up into two. One of its parts was behind the mountain and the other one was on this side of the mountain. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upbn him) said to us: Bear witness to this."

Now it's behind the mountain?  So what does "on this side of the mountain" mean?  Was the other piece in front of the mountain?

Isn't it obvious that the hadith from Bukhari is providing more detail?  The moon was situated away from the mountain.  Then it split into two pieces, and one piece went towards the mountain, until the mountain itself was situated between the two pieces.  This is not rocket science!

It's also not what any of the hadiths say.  If it happened as you described, then why didn't anybody report it that way?  Did the ones who reported it moving toward the mountain just stop watching it at that point?  Did the ones who reported seeing it on the other side of the mountain not think it relevant to mention that it passed behind the mountain -- or in front of it?  And why did nobody report what happened next?  Did the two pieces merge again?  Surely that would have been an amazing sight in itself!

Face it: these are three different descriptions.  At best they are incomplete, at worst they are contradictory.  And as eyewitness accounts (of an alleged miracle, no less!), they are flat and unconvincing.

So what?  If his ultimate goal was power and prestige, who cares if he had a family dynasty instead of being a Prophet?

Because it would never have happened.  People would have seen through it immediately.

LOL Oh, here we go.  Here comes the melodrama!

No melodrama.  Like I said, I don't mind.  I just thought it was worth reminding you that nobody with solid arguments to make for their position resorts to ad hominems.  It really says more about you than about me.

Are you aware that, according to the rules:

"4. When discussing issues dealing with Islam, please support your comments with the Quran or Sunnah. Mocking any Quranic reference, Hadith, scholar, or member will not be tolerated. If you are stating something about a religion, please list your source. If it is an opinion, please state this fact. [...]

15. We will not tolerate personal attacks on participants from ANY Community (personal attacks are defined as comments that reflect upon the person instead of their opinion). Furthermore, any insults intended to ANY religion, ANY prophet of God, or ANY holy scripture shall be removed."

You have been spreading all sorts of lies against Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), suggesting, among other things, that he was an impostor, a sexual deviant, a liar, a war monger etc.  Well, earth to Ron!  You have violated the rules!

I have not mocked or insulted any religion.  I have not said that Muhammad was an impostor, a liar, or anything else.  I honestly don't know if he was any of those things.  I'm only saying that there are any number of more plausible explanations for his alleged revelations from God than the naive assumption that he really was talking to God.  And I'm saying that at this point, 1400 years later, we cannot know the true explanation.

In any case, I say only what is necessary to explain my position.  Your insults, on the other hand, are gratuitous and irrelevant.  They only show how weak you must know your arguments to be, if they cannot stand on their own.

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Some of them perhaps, but certainly not all.  You claim that Allah raised a sandstorm to prevent the pagan army from defeating the early Muslims.  Could He not have done the same to keep the planes grounded on Sept 11, 2001?  Or at least to have prevented them from reaching their targets?

Of course He could have.  But everything happens for a reason.  Bad things happen in this world and good things happen in this world.  They all have a reason.  As I said, dark times were inevitable.  And as we get closer and closer to the Day of Judgment, it will only get worse before it gets better.

If He could have stopped it, then it was not inevitable.  It happened because Allah wanted it to happen.  A loving and merciful god certainly could have and would have stopped it.  On the other hand, Satan would have been cheering them on.

In your diseased mind, no matter what Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did, he must have had some other ulterior motive for personal gain.

I'm not saying that he must have had an ulterior motive.  As I said, I honestly don't know.  What I'm saying is that if he had such goals, he went about achieving those goals the right way -- not by demanding power or adulation himself (which would not have worked), but by letting Allah demand it on his behalf.  It is a possible explanation, though not one that could be proven, nor even one that I necessarily believe myself.
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.
IP IP Logged
Muslim75
Male Islam
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 06 August 2014
Location: Senegal
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 350
Quote Muslim75 Replybullet Posted: 17 August 2014 at 12:55pm
When the prophets were considered liars, as the ancients (of Islam) teach, Allah responded with miracles, thereby proving the veracity of the prophets. This is why people follow prophets.
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 13
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com