• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Criteria for proof of the Station of Prophet

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
"In general Prophets (true Prophets) satisfy 5 conditions that other humans never satisfy:
1. Revered in society as honest and truthful before making claim.
2. Making a claim to Prophethood.
3. For no logical reason Prophet faces strong opposition from society at large after making claim.
4. While suffering from such opposition Prophet claims eventual victory.
5. Despite strong opposition victory actually comes to pass."

I like that I think it deserves a thread where other Prophets are measured by that criteria. Do you wnat to do it or shall I?

Regards,
Scott

So, defend your favorite prophet by a definite criteria.

Jesus?
Krshna?
Moses?
Muhammed?
Baha`u'llah?
<insertfavoriteprophet here>?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
So, defend your favorite prophet by a definite criteria.

Jesus?
Krshna?
Moses?
Muhammed?
Baha`u'llah?
<insertfavoriteprophet here>?
They're definitely not my favourite prophets (or favourite people in general), but I notice that David Koresh meets criteria 1 through 4, and from the point of view of his followers, so would have Jim Jones (though I personally think there was plenty of reason for the opposition to him in criteria #3). Whether they meet #5 depends on your point of view, I think.

Also, I think that a very valid case can be made and supported that Joseph Smith meets all five criteria.
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
They're definitely not my favourite prophets (or favourite people in general), but I notice that David Koresh meets criteria 1 through 4, and from the point of view of his followers, so would have Jim Jones (though I personally think there was plenty of reason for the opposition to him in criteria #3). Whether they meet #5 depends on your point of view, I think.

Also, I think that a very valid case can be made and supported that Joseph Smith meets all five criteria.

So, Mani?

Does he fulfill the fifth criteria? At the end of his life His faith was fairly established, Fifty years later it was a dead letter. St. Augustine is reputed to have been a Manichean Priest who converted to Christianity.

Regards,
Scott
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
They're definitely not my favourite prophets (or favourite people in general), but I notice that David Koresh meets criteria 1 through 4, and from the point of view of his followers, so would have Jim Jones (though I personally think there was plenty of reason for the opposition to him in criteria #3). Whether they meet #5 depends on your point of view, I think.

Also, I think that a very valid case can be made and supported that Joseph Smith meets all five criteria.

I don't think David Koresh had any reputaqtion benign or malignant before he started recruiting.

Baha`u'llah was widely known as "the father to the poor", for instance. The Bab was renowned as that rarest of all gems, an honest merchant who actually gave a client money when He discovered that He had not sold a consignment fore the best price.

Regards,
Scott
 

Scott C.

Just one guy
"In general Prophets (true Prophets) satisfy 5 conditions that other humans never satisfy:
1. Revered in society as honest and truthful before making claim.
2. Making a claim to Prophethood.
3. For no logical reason Prophet faces strong opposition from society at large after making claim.
4. While suffering from such opposition Prophet claims eventual victory.
5. Despite strong opposition victory actually comes to pass."

I like that I think it deserves a thread where other Prophets are measured by that criteria. Do you wnat to do it or shall I?

I agree with much of what you say. When God calls a true prophet...

Those who believe in that prophet perceive his honesty and integrity before and after the claim. Those who don't believe, accuse him of being a liar, before and after the claim.

Prophets are almost always persecuted for false reasons. Those who do the persecuting are convinced they are in the right and are doing God a favor.

Prophets usually teach things that are hard to accept. It requires a change of lifestyle and/or a change in previously held beliefs.

People tend to accept the dead prophets and reject the living prophets. For example, those who rejected Jesus, claimed to believe in Moses. Jesus taught them that if they truly believed Moses, they would believe in him also.
 

UnityNow101

Well-Known Member
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sounds an awful lot like Bahaullah, except the fact that he kept his teachings centered within the Islamic foundation and fundamentals, whereas Bahaullah branched off and started a whole new religion...Why not follow him instead of Bahaullah? Why does one hold the key to the truth at the expense of the other? Are some led by Satan or do they all hold some truth within their cause?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
So, Mani?

Does he fulfill the fifth criteria? At the end of his life His faith was fairly established, Fifty years later it was a dead letter. St. Augustine is reputed to have been a Manichean Priest who converted to Christianity.
Yes, I know that's what Confessions of a Sinner implies. I don't know enough about Mani to say.

I think #5 is kind of a non-criterion. It can always be explained away by saying that the potential prophet in question acheived victory by ascending to Heaven or something like that.
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Yes, I know that's what Confessions of a Sinner implies. I don't know enough about Mani to say.

I think #5 is kind of a non-criterion. It can always be explained away by saying that the potential prophet in question acheived victory by ascending to Heaven or something like that.

No, I think it demands victgory of the Prophet's cause, and that cannot be the same as the individuals' victory over the physical state.

Measure the Prophet by the victory of His Cause. Abraham, Moses, Noah, Lot, Saleh, Hud, Muhammed, Buddha, Krshna, Jesus, The Bab, Baha`u'llah. They all went from nobody, to millions of followers in a hundred years or less.

God appearsto be kind of like an old-style Soviet General in that respect. He NEVER reinforces failure.

So how do you decide if an individual is a Prophet or not? The cause of God is always upheld.

Regards,
Scott
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
"In general Prophets (true Prophets) satisfy 5 conditions that other humans never satisfy:
1. Revered in society as honest and truthful before making claim.
2. Making a claim to Prophethood.
3. For no logical reason Prophet faces strong opposition from society at large after making claim.
4. While suffering from such opposition Prophet claims eventual victory.
5. Despite strong opposition victory actually comes to pass."

Biblically (if that makes a difference), prophets are tested by whether their predictions come to pass. Your list makes no mention of that.
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Biblically (if that makes a difference), prophets are tested by whether their predictions come to pass. Your list makes no mention of that.

Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, the lady on Montell Williams all make prophecies and whether they come tru or not is up to the beholder.

We are actually speaking of the Great Prophets who found a religion. Micah, Isaiah, Paul, Ali are 'prophets' while Moses, Jesus, Muhammed are 'Prophets'.

Regards,
Scott
 

tariqkhwaja

Jihad Against Terrorism
Those who don't believe, accuse him of being a liar, before and after the claim.
Sorry but I disagree with that. Those who don't believe usually do not accuse the claiment to be a liar before the claim. If anything, they consider the claiment an honest person.
 

tariqkhwaja

Jihad Against Terrorism
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sounds an awful lot like Bahaullah, except the fact that he kept his teachings centered within the Islamic foundation and fundamentals, whereas Bahaullah branched off and started a whole new religion...Why not follow him instead of Bahaullah? Why does one hold the key to the truth at the expense of the other? Are some led by Satan or do they all hold some truth within their cause?
Some day (very soon) Scott and I will go head to head. It has happened once already but not as directly as saying "Yours is a liar and mine is not so". Not yet but soon ... so stay tuned.
 

.lava

Veteran Member
Sorry but I disagree with that. Those who don't believe usually do not accuse the claiment to be a liar before the claim. If anything, they consider the claiment an honest person.

exactly, for Mohammed(PBUH). El-Emin...:) everyone knew him as someone never told lie.



.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
I think the criterion for a prophet is as much up for debate as whether or not someone is a prophet at all. If it's as simple as creating a religion that has many followers, than anyone whose created a new branch of a particular religion could be considered a prophet.
 

Ilias Ahmad

Member
In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful

Jesus (alaihi salam) is quoted in Bible as saying: "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor" (Mark 6:4)

This seems to be a general trend with most if not all prophets of Allah. Especially the last and final prophet, Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam), who was bitterly persecuted by some of his own relatives, like his uncle Abu Lahab, and his own community, the people of Makka. His (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) enemies persecuted and boycotted him that he had to undertake an exodus with most of his companions to another city, Madinah.

UnityNow101 said:
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sounds an awful lot like Bahaullah, except the fact that he kept his teachings centered within the Islamic foundation and fundamentals, whereas Bahaullah branched off and started a whole new religion...Why not follow him instead of Bahaullah? Why does one hold the key to the truth at the expense of the other? Are some led by Satan or do they all hold some truth within their cause?

This is entirely incorrect. Mirza Qadiani, like the so called "Bahaullah" (Mirza Hussein Ali) was a liar and false prophet. He went against many of the most fundamental and foundational teachings of Islam. For example, he claimed to be a prophet and divinely appointed messenger of Allah, even though our master Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) said La Nabiyya Ba'dee which means "there is no prophet after me". Allah calls Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam) Khatam an Nabiyeen in the Holy Qur'an, an expression which means he is the last of the prophets. The second fundamental teaching of Islam which Mirza Qadiani denied was the second coming of Jesus (alaihi salam). Instead Mirza argued that Jesus (alaihi salam) is dead and buried, so he could justify claiming to be the Promised Messiah.

Qadianism, like Baha'ism, is a completely separate and parallel religion which has nothing to do with Islam. Qadianis have replaced many Islamic concepts and symbols with completely foreign ones. For example, Qadianis pay 10% "Chanda" to their Jama'at (organization), whereas Muslims pay Zakat instead, Qadianis hold annual conventions known as "Jalsa Salana", whereas Muslims go for Hajj, a pilgrimage to Makka, Qadianis consider Qadian and Rabwah to be holy cities, while this honor is reserved for Makka and Madinah by Muslims, Qadianis consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as their prophet, whereas Muslims only recognize one prophet for their ummah, namely Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa salam), and the list goes on. Qadianis have even replaced the Jannatul Baqi cemetery in Madinah with their own cemetery known as "Beheshti Maqbara".

Therefore, there is no real difference between Qadianis and Baha'is. Both have deviated from Islam by following their respective false prophets.
 

tariqkhwaja

Jihad Against Terrorism
Mr. Ilias. If you wish to debate "Qadianism" please go to this link in this forum:
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...islaamic-ruling-regarding-qaadiyaaniyyah.html
where we discussed this topic.

You are also welcome to post, one by one, all your concern regarding Ahmadis in new threads, if you wish. Unfortunately, that is not the matter under discussion here and I must request you to stay on topic and discuss the criterion presented in the Opening Thread. Thank you.
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
I think the criterion for a prophet is as much up for debate as whether or not someone is a prophet at all. If it's as simple as creating a religion that has many followers, than anyone whose created a new branch of a particular religion could be considered a prophet.

WEe're speaking of the Great Prophets--Abraham, Moses, Zarathustra, Buddha, Krshna, Jesus, Muhammed, Baha`u'llah--they speak with Their own authority.

What you suggest would be like Lot, or Isaiah, Paul, Ali, or Abdu'l Baha. They speak with the authority of the FOund-Prophet and make no claim for themselves.

So David Koresh for an example would be a failed minor prophet, since he spoke (or pretended to speak) with the authority of Jesus, not himself.

Regards,
Scott
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Suffice it to say,"Khatam an Nabiyeen" does not mean what you say it means.

I wonder if Ilias Ahmad is just a 'one post wonder', or if he's around for the long haul. Welcome to the forums if you are, Ahmad.

Regards,
Scott
 
Last edited:

Ilias Ahmad

Member
tariqkhwaja said:
Mr. Ilias. If you wish to debate "Qadianism" please go to this link in this forum where we discussed this topic.You are also welcome to post, one by one, all your concern regarding Ahmadis in new threads, if you wish. Unfortunately, that is not the matter under discussion here and I must request you to stay on topic and discuss the criterion presented in the Opening Thread. Thank you.

Actually, I am a new person on the forum, in fact I just joined today. I have already opened a thread where we can debate Qadianism and all subjects related to it, please enter the "Same Faith Debates" section and you will see a thread entitled "Challenge to tariqkhwaja (the Qadiani)".
 
Top