Basis for Trusting Muhammad?

[Tumah]

Muhammad was sent by the same God as Jesus and all the Prophets. He had the same Holy Spirit that Christ had. Just like I recognise the Holy Spirit in Christ I can see that same light in Muhammad.

There is no difference between Them except the time and people They appeared to.

This is a statement of faith, not a proof.

 

[FearGod]

There is no basis for trusting Muhammad, or Abraham, or Jesus. None of us can personally verify their existence or their acts.

At this point, you might be ask me why I trust the Buddha. His existence or acts do not ultimately matter, as early Buddhism is not based on the true historicity of the Buddha. It is instead based on those teachings attributed to his name, which we can (and are called to) verify in the here and now. Even if the Buddha never existed, it's not him but "his" teachings which ultimately count.

On the other hand, the true existence and acts of Muhammad, Abraham, Jesus, etc. do count, because the religions built upon them depend on the truth regarding their historical personalities.

That is one of the major differences between Buddhism and most other religions.

Be yourself than following any man on earth, why do you think the teachings of a person
lived thousands of years ago is better than your own way of life, still you are following a man
and his name was Buddha.

Islam is the teachings itself, it isn't a person name to follow.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unlike Christian and Muslims with regards to Jesus and Muhammad, not taking Moses' word for it on his say so, was a key feature of Jewish interaction with him. Moses tells G-d that the Jews would (rightfully) not believe him on his say so and charisma. Even with the signs that G-d gave him to present to them, the Torah doesn't say they believed him until they personally experienced divine revelation themselves.

I think it's a mischaracterization to say that Christians and Muslims took Jesus or Muhammad's word for it. If the scriptures can be believed, then Muhammad and Jesus both had the truth of their claims attested to with miracles.

And if the scriptures are questionable (a position I wouldn't dispute, BTW), then we need to talk about textual criticism way before we take as given that the scriptures are accurate about what eyewitnesses and colleagues of Muhammad may or may not have seen.

This thread is dedicated to Muhammad though. So I'll be discussing that rather than Moses or (l'havdil) Jesus here.

I think the contrast is useful. If Muhammad meets the same bar of credibility as Moses, then wouldn't you say that Muhammad is credible enough to be believed?

Focus on Muhammad, sure, but keeping Moses in the discussion is a good way to make sure your arguments about Muhammad aren't based on a double standard.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Aren't you forgetting that the people also heard the voice and saw the cloud? Also, the people saw the cloud lead them by day and the pillar of fire by night.

Also, there was mannah on the ground for them each day.

This isn't a good comparison at all.

There are miracle claims about Muhammad, too:

http://sunnah.org/history/miracles_of_Prophet.htm

The comparison works just fine.

 

[Tumah]

I think it's a mischaracterization to say that Christians and Muslims took Jesus or Muhammad's word for it. If the scriptures can be believed, then Muhammad and Jesus both had the truth of their claims attested to with miracles.

And if the scriptures are questionable (a position I wouldn't dispute, BTW), then we need to talk about textual criticism way before we take as given that the scriptures are accurate about what eyewitnesses and colleagues if Muhammad may or may not have seen.

I don't think that necessarily true. Textual criticism is only as good as the belief or lack thereof behind it. Meaning to say, if the person behind the text is somehow a legitimate divine messenger, we can always chalk up criticisms in the text to human understanding errors and not errors in the text. On the other hand, if the person behind the text is not a divine messenger, then even if the text is the most beautiful prose to grace mankind, its not going to transcend its human nature.
So what I'd like to look at here, is the reason to believe the messenger.

I think the contrast is useful. If Muhammad meets the same bar of credibility as Moses, then wouldn't you say that Muhammad is credible enough to be believed?

Focus on Muhammad, sure, but keeping Moses in the discussion is a good way to make sure your arguments about Muhammad aren't based on a double standard.

I don't disagree with that, although as this thread isn't a contrast of various alleged prophets, its hard to say that a claim might be a double standard.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

A man comes out of a cave and claims he recieved a prophecy. Why do you believe him?

Yes, I understand he was successful in his wars. But does that make him more heaven-sent than any other successful general?

If you were around in the time of Muhammad, on what basis would you believe he's telling the truth?

Same reason we should trust anyone who heard voices, I guess, including from bushes.

There is no way I would believe anyone who comes out a cave and blasphemes the Bible by claiming it is all wrong and that hey, he has a new Bible! Please. Take that crap elsewhere, I will not hear it.

Do you think Jews felt the same way when Jesus showed up?

Would you continue to listen to him after he told you that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, did not die on the cross and did not rise again? Surely you would not!

None of his audience would have been alive long enough to know for sure Jesus DID do any of those things, either.

Well, yeah. Lol. I'd love to talk to all the prophets and founders of religions. Abraham, Jesus, Mohammad, the Buddha, etc.

I had a dream I met him, like I went back in time or something. It was a pleasant conversation that angels had to translate in paraphrase because the entire dream was in Arabic, a language I don't know.

Why? Why on Earth would you turn from Him who gave His life for you? Did Mohammed die for you?

Jesus died because Romans crucified all manner of criminals. When there were angry mobs, Jesus ran and hid. When people were angry at Muhammad, he fought back, risking his life far more often than Jesus ever did.

I mean, if you want to do some nitpicking....

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Muhammad was sent by the same God as Jesus and all the Prophets. He had the same Holy Spirit that Christ had. Just like I recognise the Holy Spirit in Christ I can see that same light in Muhammad.

There is no difference between Them except the time and people They appeared to.

Aside from the small fact that Muhammad forced his faith on others and used the slightest wrongs as an excuse to invade a place and conquer it.

 

[Tumah]

Same reason we should trust anyone who heard voices, I guess, including from bushes.

I agree. Which is why Moses is never recorded as saying, "believe me because I heard it in a bush".

 

[FearGod]

A man comes out of a cave and claims he recieved a prophecy. Why do you believe him?

Yes, I understand he was successful in his wars. But does that make him more heaven-sent than any other successful general?

If you were around in the time of Muhammad, on what basis would you believe he's telling the truth?

No, i won't believe him just because he came out from the cave telling that he received a message,
but things about him as a person would affect me, such as being known among his people that he
never lied and a very decent person that even he was named by such names as the honest, the sincere
and that was before the message, when he warned the people, he used to remind them by telling them
"you know me, did i ever lie, what I'm telling you is very serious and you should listen to me".

The final sermon of the prophet will also affect me even more as when he delivered the message he was
knowing it'll be the last and it was.

He said that he may never meet them again and they should listen to him carefully, he warned them
that it's very serious and every person will be questioned including himself on the day of judgement,
he said that people should deliver the message after him generation after generation, why a person
should care about that while knowing he'll die so soon.

 

[Tumah]

No, i won't believe him just because he came out from the cave telling that he received a message,
but things about him as a person would affect me, such as being known among his people that he
never lied and a very decent person that even he was named by such names as the honest, the sincere
and that was before the message, when he warned the people, he used to remind them by telling them
"you know me, did i ever lie, what I'm telling you is very serious and you should listen to me".

The final sermon of the prophet will also affect me even more as when he delivered the message he was
knowing it'll be the last and it was.

He said that he may never meet them again and they should listen to him carefully, he warned them
that it's very serious and every person will be questioned including himself on the day of judgement,
he said that people should deliver the message after him generation after generation, why a person
should care about that while knowing he'll die so soon.

So you wouldn't believe him as a prophet, but as a really nice, authentic guy?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think that necessarily true. Textual criticism is only as good as the belief or lack thereof behind it. Meaning to say, if the person behind the text is somehow a legitimate divine messenger, we can always chalk up criticisms in the text to human understanding errors and not errors in the text. On the other hand, if the person behind the text is not a divine messenger, then even if the text is the most beautiful prose to grace mankind, its not going to transcend its human nature.
So what I'd like to look at here, is the reason to believe the messenger.

But what did the messenger actually say? We have to know this before we can decide whether to believe what the messenger said. That's what I'm getting at: the mere fact that a text said that something happened a particular way doesn't necessarily mean that things happened that way... or that the text tells the whole story.

You suggested before that you're interested in the beliefs of Muhammad's followers before the Qur'an are what interest you. Well, while the Qur'an might be useful in figuring out what these people believed and why, it would be very strange if you as a Jew or me as an atheist assumed that every word of the Qur'an is literally true.

I don't disagree with that, although as this thread isn't a contrast of various alleged prophets, its hard to say that a claim might be a double standard.

What was getting at is that it would be hypocritical for you to demand a standard for Muhammad that's higher than your own standard for Moses. I haven't seen you do this yet, but I think it's a good test to keep in the back of our minds in case things get carried away.

 

[FearGod]

So you wouldn't believe him as a prophet, but as a really nice, authentic guy?

If that would make you feel happy.

 

[Tumah]

But what did the messenger actually say? We have to know this before we can decide whether to believe what the messenger said. That's what I'm getting at: the mere fact that a text said that something happened a particular way doesn't necessarily mean that things happened that way... or that the text tells the whole story.

You suggested before that you're interested in the beliefs of Muhammad's followers before the Qur'an are what interest you. Well, while the Qur'an might be useful in figuring out what these people believed and why, it would be very strange if you as a Jew or me as an atheist assumed that every word of the Qur'an is literally true.

It is impossible to know what really happened. But I'm interested in knowing why people today believe that Muhammad was believable. Whether its true or not isn't as relevant to me. I just want to know why and if that belief is reasonable (or would be reasonable provided it were true).

What was getting at is that it would be hypocritical for you to demand a standard for Muhammad that's higher than your own standard for Moses. I haven't seen you do this yet, but I think it's a good test to keep in the back of our minds in case things get carried away.

Well, let's deal with problems as the come up instead of divining them...

 

[Tumah]

If that would make you feel happy.

If its the truth for you, then yes.
Although that would be weird...

 

[FearGod]

If its the truth for you, then yes.
Although that would be weird...

If someone you know is honest and sincere, and that he has a message to deliver
and not asking for anything except for this message to stay alive, generation after
generation, will you believe him as only a nice person.

I don't know actually how you concluded that I'll believe him as a nice person and not
believing that his message is real and hence a messenger.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is no proof of existence of any God, therefore, all claims of representing a God also are false, no exceptions. No further proof is required.

 

[FearGod]

There is no proof of existence of any God, therefore, all claims of representing a God also are false, no exceptions. No further proof is required.

Not seeing or no evidence doesn't mean not existing.

 

[LuisDantas]

I figure Muhammad appealed to the sense of community union, Human beings rarely lack the desire to feel like a part of something greater.

 

[Tumah]

If someone you know is honest and sincere, and that he has a message to deliver
and not asking for anything except for this message to stay alive, generation after
generation, will you believe him as only a nice person.

I don't know actually how you concluded that I'll believe him as a nice person and not
believing that his message is real and hence a messenger.

Maybe, but there are plenty of other altruistic leaders claiming to be prophets that I assume you wouldn't believe. The Bab seemed like a genuine guy and the people that knew him speak very highly of him as well. Is that enough to believe in him as a messenger of All-h?

 

[Tumah]

There is no proof of existence of any God, therefore, all claims of representing a God also are false, no exceptions. No further proof is required.

Ok well thank you for your not so helpful thoughts.