Mohammed the Prophet?

[smaneck]

Thank you.
I’ll leave this with the readers in this thread to conclude whether or not these credentials are enough to believe if Muhammad is a prophet.

Obviously for the Qur’an to be a credential, one would have to read it.

 

[MartinJordan]

Thank you.

I’ll leave this with the readers in this thread to conclude whether or not these credentials are enough to believe if Muhammad is a prophet.

If one uses any Christian book (especially the NT) to convince others that he was a Prophet is building a house on foundation of sand.

Thus is my last word here.

MJ

 

[smaneck]

Question – when was the earliest strong hadith recorded testifying to Muhammad’s miracle/s?

The categories are weak, good and sound, not strong.

I believe the earliest written collection was made by Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri (d. 741.) I think Sunni Muslims regard him as reliable but given his support of the Umayyads, I’m not sure I trust him. I don’t personally have a copy of his collection so I can’t tell you about any miracles recorded there. The most popular collection is that of al-Bukhari who died in 870 A.D. Shi’ite collections are not written down until somewhat later, primarily because as long as they had a living Imam they had no need for any other sources of authority.

Personally, I don’t pay much attention to miraculous accounts. As I said, they are proof only to those who witness them directly.

 

[Augustine3]

The categories are weak, good and sound, not strong.

I believe the earliest written collection was made by Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri (d. 741.) I think Sunni Muslims regard him as reliable but given his support of the Umayyads, I’m not sure I trust him. I don’t personally have a copy of his collection so I can’t tell you about any miracles recorded there. The most popular collection is that of al-Bukhari who died in 870 A.D. Shi’ite collections are not written down until somewhat later, primarily because as long as they had a living Imam they had no need for any other sources of authority.

Personally, I don’t pay much attention to miraculous accounts. As I said, they are proof only to those who witness them directly.

That’s interesting – so the earliest reliable accounts testifying to the miracles of Muhammad began somewhat over 200 years after he died. Very Interesting :ehh:

 

[smaneck]

That’s interesting – so the earliest reliable accounts testifying to the miracles of Muhammad began somewhat over 200 years after he died. Very Interesting :ehh:

No, you misunderstand me. The earliest written accounts of Muhammad’s miracles are recorded about 200 years ago. There was an oral tradition before that and Muslims developed a whole science around ascertaining the reliability of those accounts.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

No, you misunderstand me. The earliest written accounts of Muhammad’s miracles are recorded about 200 years ago. There was an oral tradition before that and Muslims developed a whole science around ascertaining the reliability of those accounts.

The science of hadith verifcation for most muslims seems to be arbitrary and in nature always makes the prophet look good. There are countless embarressing Hadiths to the prophet that no western Muslim would respect, or even bahai, like him marrying a young girl at 6 and consuming that marriage at 9. Then there is the claim of chains of narration, the greater the chain we are told the greater witness and credibility to the hadith. The problem with this is that these chains are only found within the hadiths themselves, that is they claim such and such said to such and such from the words of the prophet Muhammad. Without any sort of inbetween to verify these, we are left with a bare picture, yet muslims and I would argue bahai must accept alot of the hadiths out of neccessity. You can;'t be a quran onlyist, the quran often too vague and depends on a context.

The science of hadith isn’t an objective science. Modern history practices and criitisms are what is needed in studying the hadith as it has been done with the bible and church history.

 

[Augustine3]

No, you misunderstand me. The earliest written accounts of Muhammad’s miracles are recorded about 200 years ago. There was an oral tradition before that and Muslims developed a whole science around ascertaining the reliability of those accounts.

Is this oral tradition you mentioned reliable i.e. considered strong evidence?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Apparently smaneck it seems you are unable to understand my argument. That is the use of the term comforter in the epistles of John in regaurds to Jesus a universal standard of the word, that therefore we might apply this to Jesus in the gospels? Or is there a context in the gospel that explains who the comforter is? Read carefully smack. I would suggest since Jesus says in order for the comforter to come (you are apparently arguing the comforter is Jesus or you are making a useless point), he must Go. Are they therefore the same? Clearly no, unless you would to believe in Sabealinism.
Now I don’t think it is a misinterpretation and we have to examine history and I think it can shown that even if a metaphorical victory is given to the true followers of Jesus instead of what we might expect God to give them in surah:

Behold! Allah said: “O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee SUPERIOR to those who reject faith, TO THE DAY OF RESURRECTION: Then shall ye all return unto Me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.” S. 3:55

O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, “Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?” Said the Disciples, “We are Allah’s helpers!” then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, AND THEY BECAME THE ONES THAT PREVAILED. S. 61:14

Now I think the indication of giving power is clear, unless it’s a merely a symbol in which case they had no real power. Certaintly any such group that could have possibly been in line with Muhammad and his revelation had died out long before he come into existence. That is we would expect a group (if the bahai is true) to say certain things.

1. Jesus did not rise from the dead but only his spirit and message lives one.
2. He was actually crucified
3. He was the pre-existent manifestation of Allah

No such group exists within history. The true followers of Jesus apparently did not prevail in anyway, they were apparently routed and had no influence or they simply hid themselves, not obeying the gospel which commands to proselytise.
Am I misinterpreting it? Certaintly muslims have tried to answer this, some have suggested it was the roman empire which became Chrisitan, of course the problem is manifold in that in the eyes of Bahai and Muslims the Christians of the roman empire were heretics and the worst of all people for associating partners with allah (which is an unforgivable sin, unless in bahai that promise has been revoked).

Now, can you give any evidence for the positive existence of the collyridians? I don’t think you can, its speculation based on very tenuous sources. Who is Muhammad speaking to? If he is speaking to the collyridians he is addressing a people so minor that they would not exist soon or shortly thereafter. But My point in brinigng up Christians in the middle east was in direct response to your cliam Christians didn’t have a place there. There were Christian tribes. Small but even if I agree with your statement, Muhammad had most of the Christian empire to respond and talk to. He didn’t. Muahmmad shows no comprehensive understanding of the Orthodox theology of the roman empire, both eastern and western, at all.

 

[smaneck]

The science of hadith verifcation for most muslims seems to be arbitrary and in nature always makes the prophet look good.

LOL. Me thinks you know next to nothing about the science of hadith. I suspect you are saying this because things like the Satanic Verses hadith have always been considered weak. It wouldn’t occur to you that this might be because the hadith in question isn’t reliable. No, they must be hiding something!

There are countless embarressing Hadiths to the prophet that no western Muslim would respect, or even bahai, like him marrying a young girl at 6 and consuming that marriage at 9.

And using Sunni Muslim methodologies those hadith would be considered sound. (They would not be considered sound by the Shi’ites.) Personally, I think they are fabricated because they don’t fit with what we otherwise know about the chronology of the Prophet’s life. Aisha is said to have converted to Islam before Umar ibn al-Khattab, during the first few years of Islam around 610 CE. In order to accept Islam she must have been walking and talking, hence at least three years of age, which would make her at least fifteen in 622 CE, the year of the Hijra. Her marriage to Muhammad isn’t consummated until two years later.

Then there is the claim of chains of narration, the greater the chain we are told the greater witness and credibility to the hadith.

No, no, no, no. The more trustworthy the people within the chain of transmission the more reliable the hadith. It has nothing to do with the length of the chain, though obviously the further away we get from Muhammad, the longer the chain becomes. Another criteria is that there should be more than one hadith containing virtually the same narration. It is not the length of the chain which counts.

The real problem is that if one is going to fabricate a hadith, one will likely fabricate a good isnad (chain of transmission) to go with it. Also, if you have ever played telephone . . .

yet muslims and I would argue bahai must accept alot of the hadiths

Actually Baha’is don’t consider any hadith authoritative unless they have been repeated by Baha’u’llah.

You can;'t be a quran onlyist, the quran often too vague and depends on a context.

Actually, there are sola scriptura Muslims, the most famous being the movement led by the late Rashad Khalifa. There are some problems with this approach just as there are in Christianity, but it is certainly there.

The science of hadith isn’t an objective science.

Neither are the methods whereby the church determined the biblical canon but it was remarkably sophisticated for the time.

Modern history practices and criitisms are what is needed in studying the hadith as it has been done with the bible and church history.

I would agree, but not because I think medieval Muslims scholars did a bad job with what they had.

 

[smaneck]

Is this oral tradition you mentioned reliable i.e. considered strong evidence?

Muslims have developed a science for evaluating the relative reliability of these oral accounts. They classify them as either sound, good or weak, mostly by evaluating the chain of transmitters who have conveyed this oral account. I think there are some problems with their methods, but I also think they were pretty good for the time.
Academic scholars no longer say, as they once did, that Muhammad was the first prophet born in the full light of history, but at the end of the day I think we know more about the historical Muhammad than we do about the historical Jesus. I’m just not sure how much more despite the many volumes of hadith.

 

[vskipper]

perhaps what I am seeking has not been made clear so I will try to clarify here.

for information on Muhammad try this to start: www.islamreligion.com

Now with that starting point, seeing as how this topic is named Mohammad (btw, its Muhammad not Mohammad) the prophet? I would like to see what credentials are being used to qualify one as a legitimate prophet and how Muhammad does not qualify.

to me personally a prophet is truly determined by their message and considering the overall message of the Qur’an and many of the proofs found within it is hard to discard it. If any of this is unclear let me know so I can better qualify.

 

[smaneck]

Apparently smaneck it seems you are unable to understand my argument. That is the use of the term comforter in the epistles of John in regaurds to Jesus a universal standard of the word, that therefore we might apply this to Jesus in the gospels?

If indeed the same author wrote both works is a good indication of how he understood this term.

I would suggest since Jesus says in order for the comforter to come (you are apparently arguing the comforter is Jesus or you are making a useless point), he must Go. Are they therefore the same?

What I’m saying is that there is a strong indication that for John the term ‘comforter’ referred to a person, not simply the Holy Spirit.

Clearly no, unless you would to believe in Sabealinism.

No, I’m a strict monotheist.

Now I don’t think it is a misinterpretation and we have to examine history and I think it can shown that even if a metaphorical victory is given to the true followers of Jesus instead of what we might expect God to give them in surah:

And I don’t think you are really in any position to offer accurate interpretations of the Qur’an. How’s your Arabic?

Behold! Allah said: “O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee SUPERIOR to those who reject faith, TO THE DAY OF RESURRECTION: Then shall ye all return unto Me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.” S. 3:55

That has nothing to do with the Qur’an taking sides in sectarian Christian disputes. It is about making a distinction between those who accept Christ and those who reject him. What the Qur’an does do is rejection sectarianism itself, condemning “those who have split their religion, and have become sects, where every party rejoices in what is their own.” (Qur’an 30: 31).

O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, “Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?” Said the Disciples, “We are Allah’s helpers!” then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, AND THEY BECAME THE ONES THAT PREVAILED. S. 61:14

Yes, in the end Christianity prevailed over Judaism. We are still not talking about a specific form of Christianity.

Now I think the indication of giving power is clear, unless it’s a merely a symbol in which case they had no real power. Certaintly any such group that could have possibly been in line with Muhammad and his revelation had died out long before he come into existence.

Sorry, you’re not making any sense here.

The true followers of Jesus apparently did not prevail in anyway, they were apparently routed and had no influence or they simply hid themselves, not obeying the gospel which commands to proselytise.
Am I misinterpreting it?

Yeah you are. The Qur’an is merely talking about Christianity in general prevailing over its enemies. It is not suggesting that any particular church has preserved the teachings in their pure form.

Certaintly muslims have tried to answer this, some have suggested it was the roman empire which became Chrisitan, of course the problem is manifold in that in the eyes of Bahai and Muslims the Christians of the roman empire were heretics and the worst of all people for associating partners with allah (which is an unforgivable sin, unless in bahai that promise has been revoked).

Shirk or joining partners with God, is when we place anything in our lives ahead of God. The Trinity, in itself, is just a concept. I happen to believe it is an inaccurate way of thinking about God’s activities, but no, one does not become the ‘worst of all people’ for believing in it. The Qur’an states that the worst of creatures among the People of the Book are the ungrateful (Kafaroon.) It goes on to say that the best of creatures are the ones who have faith and do good deeds.

Now, can you give any evidence for the positive existence of the collyridians?

You already did. You cited references to them.

If he is speaking to the collyridians he is addressing a people so minor that they would not exist soon or shortly thereafter.

If so, that might have been because of Islam itself.

But My point in brinigng up Christians in the middle east was in direct response to your cliam Christians didn’t have a place there.

Who said anything about the Middle East? Of course, there were Christians in the Middle East. The Byzantines controlled half of it! We were talking specifically about the Arabian Peninsula.

even if I agree with your statement, Muhammad had most of the Christian empire to respond and talk to.

No, he didn’t. The only time he addresses Christians within the Roman Empire is when he supposedly sends out letters to the Emperor, the Patriarch of Egypt, etc. towards the end of his life.

Muahmmad shows no comprehensive understanding of the Orthodox theology of the roman empire, both eastern and western, at all.

So what if he didn’t?

 

[smaneck]

Now with that starting point, seeing as how this topic is named Mohammad (btw, its Muhammad not Mohammad) the prophet?

That’s just a variation in systems of transliteration.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Smaneck I don’t think you are understanding the criticism. That is you assume that because he uses the same term and once applies it to Christ, therefore that should necessarily indicate it applies to Christ within the context of the gospels? You understand you are ignoring my argument that the context from John excludes Jesus being the comforter? Therefore you can’t simply point out that he uses the terms and doesn’t distinguish between the two in the context of his epistles. Jesus is a comforter, but is Jesus the comforter sent to the apostles after Jesus leaves? No, that’s absurd, and you don’t believe that Jesus was with the apostles in any meaningful sense. Only that his message lived on in the apostles.

Sabealianism is monotheism by the way, one substance of divinity, though God apparently can’t decide on who he wants to be.

Now it seems it to me, that this cannot be referring to the Nicene Christians, it must be referring to a group of followers who believed in jesus yet held to his teachings. We are heretics according tot eh quran, there a lot of unforgivable shirk in us. So I think the quran necessarily excludes this but if you want to say I can’t argue from the quran because I don’t speak Arabic, don’t argue from the bible, don’t argue from anything. Be consistent.

Now as for Surah 61, it says they prevailed against their enemies, period. Theres qualifier that it must have only been the jews and I might argue that since the jews still exist and the true bahai followers of Jesus have no reference in history, none of the earliest patristics or earliest heretics match the beliefs of the bahai or muslims that the quran is wrong. The enemies of Christ, those who committed shirk are the ones who prevailed. And whats not to make sense in what I am saying? The quran promises a group of followers of Jesus that they would exist till the day of resurrection which the bahai religion says is impossible because resurrection does not happen and there will be an eternal influx of Manifestations from Allah for all eternity, assuming allah doesn’t stop the sun from blowing up. The lack of any kind of existence for such a group is very much against the quran’s claims. The true followers of Jesus died immediately after the apostles it seems, and Evil men like Ignatius and clement of rome drove the church into shirk.

Now, the trinity is not just a concept, it is who God is. It doesn’t just describe how God works, it describes who God is, three persons. But we are in the words of Surah 98, the worst of all creatures for disbelieving in allah and his messenger, we are heretics for committing shirk as the quran says so clearly in other places. We have placed a mere created creature, Jesus Christ as God, this is unforgivable. We are blasphemers to the God of islam. But maybe the God of Bahai has forgiven us for associating a creature with him, well Jesus is eternal so the mistake is pretty easy to make I guess.

Now in so far as the collyridians are concerned, I gave the references for their existence, though I cannot for the life of me find any online edition of Epiphanius’s Panarion. But I suppose of relevant interest that you would consider semi proof is John of Damascus who in his book, against heresies mentions not only the collyridians but Islam, he seems as the footnotes would mention to be borrowing from the Panarion of Epiphanius.

This is the only reference after Muhammad I think we have of the collyridians. Theres no reason to suppose that the collyridians still existed at such a time. And I think given the Christian presence and veneration to the theotokos, and Muhammads early life as a travelling merchant, my htoery as to what this surah is responding is more sound. Its simply more credible. There were more Christians then than there were ever collyridians. Plus it should be noted, John of Damascus only references them giving cakes to the virgin mary, whatever significance that means. It doesn’t necessarily mean they had her in a trinity, as a replacement for the holy spirit.
As for Muhammad showing no comprehensive understanding of Christianity, then I would suggest then I don’t have to take the Qurans inditements against me and other Christians all that seriously. Allah needed to go to seminary, that’s all there Is to it. No Muhammad did as he wrote it, not God.

 

[smaneck]

Smaneck I don’t think you are understanding the criticism.

I don’t suppose it occurs to you that we might just disagree?

You understand you are ignoring my argument

No, I am disagreeing with it and repeating it ad naseum won’t change that.

Jesus is a comforter, but is Jesus the comforter sent to the apostles after Jesus leaves? No, that’s absurd,

Apparently you are not understanding my argument which is that Comforter refers to a person, not that this person always has to be Jesus.

We are heretics according tot eh quran,

Heresy is not an Islamic concept. The word cannot be found in the Qur’an.

if you want to say I can’t argue from the quran because I don’t speak Arabic,

No, I am saying it is absurd for you to come up with weird interpretations that no one who knows the Arabic would agree with.

Now as for Surah 61, it says they prevailed against their enemies, period.

Yep. Has nothing to do with doctrine.

Theres qualifier that it must have only been the jews and I might argue that since the jews still exist and the true bahai followers of Jesus have no reference in history, none of the earliest patristics or earliest heretics match the beliefs of the bahai or muslims that the quran is wrong.

That sentence makes absolutely no sense at all.

The enemies of Christ, those who committed shirk are the ones who prevailed. And whats not to make sense in what I am saying?

Oh, just your long run-on sentences that follow no particular logic.

The quran promises a group of followers of Jesus that they would exist till the day of resurrection which the bahai religion says is impossible because resurrection does not happen

Apparently you know less about the Baha’i Faith than you do about Islam. You have no idea what we believe about the Resurrection.

and there will be an eternal influx of Manifestations from Allah for all eternity

And the Resurrection occurs with each appearance.

The lack of any kind of existence for such a group is very much against the quran’s claims. The true followers of Jesus died immediately after the apostles it seems, and Evil men like Ignatius and clement of rome drove the church into shirk.

Funny, I don’t recall the Qur’an saying anything about Ignatius or Clement. But go ahead and read all the nonsense you want into the Qur’an. One day you may actually read the book.

Now, the trinity is not just a concept, it is who God is. It doesn’t just describe how God works, it describes who God is, three persons.

Nothing can describe who God is. God is exalted above all words, names, attributes and concepts.

But we are in the words of Surah 98, the worst of all creatures for disbelieving in allah and his messenger,

It says disbelieving, literally ingratitude. You are adding the words Allah and His Messenger to the text. But then you add all kinds of things to the Qur’an including Ignatius and Clement!

we are heretics for committing shirk as the quran says so clearly in other places.

Show me where the word “heretic” occurs in the Qur’an.

As for Muhammad showing no comprehensive understanding of Christianity, then I would suggest then I don’t have to take the Qurans inditements against me and other Christians all that seriously.

The Qur’an isn’t about Christianity, so it is irrelevant whether its representation of it is comprehensive or not. But if you feel ‘indicted’ by it, maybe there is a reason.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Now with that starting point, seeing as how this topic is named Mohammad (btw, its Muhammad not Mohammad) the prophet? I would like to see what credentials are being used to qualify one as a legitimate prophet and how Muhammad does not qualify.

to me personally a prophet is truly determined by their message and considering the overall message of the Qur’an and many of the proofs found within it is hard to discard it. If any of this is unclear let me know so I can better qualify.

The key is that Mohammad claims to be a prophet in line with the Jews and Christians. Speaking as a Christian, the problem here, therefore, is that the teachings of Mohammad contradict clear Christian theology. Some of his teachings, found in the Quran itself:

• The Trinity is a damnable heresy (S. 5:73)
• The Trinity is a lie (S. 5:74)
• Christ is not divine, and any one who says so, according to the own words of “Jesus”, is lying (S. 5:116-117)
• Christ was merely a prophet (S. 5:75)
• Christ did not die on the cross (S. 4:157)

This doesn’t cover the contradictions between the Bible and the Quran, which I’ve outlined before. Mohammad’s god, in fact, is a god completely different than the God of Christianity (consider Unitarianism versus Trinitarianism). Here, in scripture, we have a clear teaching regarding those who teach other gods:

“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him.” [Deuteronomy 13:1-4]

So we can talk about what Mohammad did or said in his lifetime, but the dividing line is theology, and especially in regards to what god he claims to follow.

 

[smaneck]

What is new in Islam is a refutation of the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the central message of the Gospel.

Actually the Qur’an doesn’t even speak to that, let alone refute. Unlike Christianity, Islam is not about individual salvation. It is about redeeming the world through action in the world.

 

[smaneck]

The key is that Mohammad claims to be a prophet in line with the Jews and Christians. Speaking as a Christian, the problem here, therefore, is that the teachings of Mohammad contradict clear Christian theology.

 

[vskipper]

Okay prove the concept of the trinity.

I know the concept of the trinity & the trinitarian belief (btw, not all Christians are trinitarians so that alone would almost negate your entire basis for lack of belief in Muhammad)

But, if this is your premise then perhaps you can prove this concept of trinity through the Old Testament. If a blood sacrifice was needed for forgiveness why were there other means of atonement in the Old Testament such as the burning of incense?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The trinitarian doctrine is not predicated upon the doctrine being formally defined in scripture with the term and the like already laid out for us. The term Tawheed isn’t in the quran either (the term trinity isn’t in the quran either, although it does forbid muslims to say the number three Har har) but its still accepted because its predicated on other verses which make it clear that allah is a unitarian entity. A Unitarian entity with alot problems associated with him but a unitarian entity nontheless.

We don’t rely on Tertullian for our belief in the trinity, the divinity of the son is found int he earliest fathers and the concept did develop in terms of how it was explained over the centuries till about the fifth century when it bacame the standard norm. Some might think its was the fourth century, though after Nicea there were still disputes between different parties, IE Homoousians (Nicenes), Heteroousians (Basically arrians) and Homoiousians (Said the son was like the father, had more in common with the Nicenes than the arrians).

So did this doctrine simply get made up by impious fathers(who were victorius over the ture Christians according to the quran)? Does it have no biblical basis? I must beg to differ we have plenty of indications of the deity of the son. Need I quote John 1? John directly alludes to genesis making the word the author of all creation (something bahai and muslims deny) and telling us the word caused everything that was caused, that the word is God and was with God. There is an understanding between different persons here, an idea which simply doesn’t fit into any sort of unitarian box. As for the deity of the holy spirit I think that is fleshed out more so in the baptismal formula as well as the references of the apostles calling to the holy spirit God and the holy spirit speaking in the book of acts. the Holy spirit directly speaks which is an act of personhood.

Now I anticipate the standard verses indicating Jesus has a lack of knowledge and therefore cannot be God. That Jesus depends solely on his father and acts by the will of the father. by the way, the quran denies God as a father, yet Jesus calls his God father and teaches us to pray in such a manner.

I also want to clarify the matter of the quran in terms of the true Christians. Something Smaneck will not really address. We are told there will be a group of true Christians who would be jesus’s followers who will exist to the day of ressurection (not days), Smaneck show me the true followers of Jesus after the apostles.