Mohammed

[jlhargus]

It is not that difficult to believe that Prophet Mohammed was visited by an angel

JL: No it isn’t difficult to believe at all according to the Word of God. [2Cor11:14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. ] NIV

[Gal1:8 But **though we, OR AN ANGEL from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.] Paul is writing here.

[Mt24:11 And **many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. 12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. 13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. 14 And THIS GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM SHALL BE PREACHED in all the world for a witness UNTO ALL NATIONS; and THEN SHALL THE END COME.] Our Lord God Jesus is speaking here.

 

[Trebor135]

This study biblestudying.net/islam1.html claims that Mohammed admittedly performed no miracles:

…

Just for the sake of balance, it bears mentioning that Christ himself didn’t perform any/many miracles on some occasions:

From Mark chapter six:

[1] He went away from there and came to his own country; and his disciples followed him.
[2] And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands!
[3] Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
[4] And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.”
[5] And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them.
[6a] And he marveled because of their unbelief.

From Luke chapter eleven:

[29] When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation; it seeks a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah.
[30] For as Jonah became a sign to the men of Nin’eveh, so will the Son of man be to this generation.
[31] The queen of the South will arise at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them; for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.
[32] The men of Nin’eveh will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.”

I’m inclined to take explanations of Islam’s beliefs and practices with a grain of salt when provided by a potentially polemical Christian website. But the citation from a translator of the Qur’an which you provide, whose name implies that he himself is a Muslim, constitutes evidence which we certainly ought to bear in mind.

 

[arabic_catholic]

On a side point Usmani also quotes the Maharajah of India at the time recorded the event in his diary in the history book Tarikh-e-Farishtah!
.

Actually that is not reality , the story of mohammed meeting an Indian king is a story goes as far as the 17th century , and even the author of that book(Keralolpathi) made the king go to arabia 100 years before mohammed birth !

the indian historian sreedhara menon affirms this in survey of kerala history by A. sreedhara menon , pg 17, and History of travancore by the same writer page 63 , and 37 .

so the story is compelte fraud , and the Pakistani commentator ,(if he quote the story) fall in a huge error !

another commentator (al razi) said on the same verse , that historians didn’t affirm this story , and he mention that many muslim scholars didn’t believe the story is (mutwatir) . and he said that many believe that the quran is the only miracle, (he also said that some believe it did happen) .so again you see all this stuff in the islamic books,

 

[arabic_catholic]

by the razi I meant the story of the spliting of the moon not the indian story

 

[rinnie]

We believe that the spirit is a creation of God as well as Prophet Jesus, and we only worship the Creator and not His creations.

Oh, Okay thanks for being so honest and answering my question.

 

[rinnie]

Did one of the recent popes say Catholics and Muslims pray to the one true God?

Correct, And we do. But where people get confused is praying to the One True God is not the same as following the teaching’s of Mohammed.

If you read his teaching’s you will see many thing’s that are in conflict with the teaching’s of the One True God.

Christ said that he would be the last. He said that there would be no more. He said he would be back the same as he left.

Christ left us the Church. He told us the Church was the pilar of alll truth, not a false prophet.

Christ said HE would come again to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom would have no end. He said there would be false prophets who will come and claim to teach in his name. He said to stay away from them.

He said to stay to the teachings of the Church. The Church never taught us to follow a false teacher.

 

[rinnie]

plus Muhammed himself was thinking it might be a demon

Exactly. Look at the Blessed Mother, she never doubted it was from God. When God comes he comes with a peace and love.

Also God knows everything, what we will do before we do it, He knows who believes in him and trusts him completely.

God tells us those who are of me know my voice.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Also, Moh was so scared of this angel that apparently he almost killed himself in the desert. I do not think any angel would make you want to kill yourself.

And another thing… I’m not sure if this is true, but I read that as a little boy, Moh would steal from people? Is this correct?

 

[Marybeloved]

Just for the sake of balance, it bears mentioning that Christ himself didn’t perform any/many miracles on some occasions:

Right. But could you imagine ANYone asking him why he performed no miracles? Constantly pestering him about why he performed no signs if he really was a prophet? Impossible- What you find is people accusing Christ of performing signs through demons. There’s just no way a man will be repeatedly challenged on the fact that he performed no miracles if he was really performing the grand signs that some hadith speak of with Mohammed. You’d expect to find a denial of the signs by the pagans who rejected him, sure- Charges that they were fake/a fraud or demonic or something- Not that Mohammed was not performing them at all! This just makes no sense.

Even more, you’d expect to find an answer to these charges from God and Mohammed- Not mere “Oh, I’m just a messenger, I’m just a simple preacher” You’d expect God to be boasting of all the signs he performed through Mohammed, yet the unbelievers refused to believe them in pride. What you find instead is Allah explaining why no miracles have been granted to Mohammed! (That other generations had refused to believe them) Or saying that Mohammed’s miracle is the Qur’an.

What happened, rather, is that a couple of centuries after Mohammed died, Muslims were constantly getting challenged by Jews and Christians they met in their campaigns about proofs for Mohammed’s prophet-hood, like their own proofs and miracles for their own prophets. Then these stories about his miracles developed- most just look like they were borrowed directly from Christian stories and altered a bit. This is the only explanation as to why the Qur’an does not event hint at any such miracles at all which later were recorded two centuries after the compilation of the Qur’an and the death of Muhammad.

Also, why weren’t large crowds of the Quraish or Arabs following him due to the miracles? Would the Arabs or the Quraish be the exceptional human beings in history who would not form large obsessive crowds after people who did such things or even just claimed or were rumored to do such things? Just take a look at modern claimed-Apparition sites and the miracles of Christ and Apostles…Can you imagine them not resulting in large crowds of common folk following them hoping to see or benefit from a miracle?

 

[Trebor135]

Right.But could you imagine ANYone asking him why he performed no miracles? Constantly pestering him on why he performed no signs if he really was a prophet? Impossible- What you find is people accusing Christ of performing signs through demons. There’s just no way a man will be repeatedly challenged on the fact that he performed no miracles if he was really performing the grand signs that some hadith speak of with Mohammed. You’d expect to find a denial of the signs by the pagans who rejected him, sure- Charges that they are fake or demonic or something- Not that Mohammed is not performing them at all! This just makes no sense.

Even more, you’d expect to find an answer to these charges from God and Mohammed- Not mere “Oh, I’m just a messenger, I’m just a simple preacher” You’d expect God to be boasting of all the signs he performed through Mohammed, yet the unbelievers refused to believe them in pride. What you find instead is Allah explaining why no miracles have been granted to Mohammed! (That other generations had refused to believe them) Or saying that Mohammed’s miracle is the Quran.

What happend is that a couple of centuries after mohammed died, Muslims were constantly chalenged by Jews and Christians about proofs for Mohammed’s prophethood like their own proofs and miacles for their own prophets. Then these stories about his miracles developed- most just look like they were borrowed directly from Christian stories and altered a bit. This is the only explanation as to why the Quran does not event hint at any such miracles at all which later were recorded two centuries after the compilation of the Qur’an and the death of Muhammed.

Also, why weren’t large crowds of the Quraish following him due to the miracles? Would the Quraish be the exceptional human beings in history who would not form large obsessive crowds after people who did such things or even just “claimed” or were rumored to do such things? Just take a look at modern claimed-Apparition sites and the miracles of Christ and Apostles…Can you imagine them not resulting in large crowds of common folk following them?

Unless further investigation leads me to conclude otherwise, I must say that your argumentation is pretty decisive here.

Now, when is your multi-volume refutation of Islam from a Catholic perspective scheduled to come out?

 

[Peace_of_cake]

Actually that is not reality , the story of mohammed meeting an Indian king is a story goes as far as the 17th century , and even the author of that book(Keralolpathi) made the king go to arabia 100 years before mohammed birth !

the indian historian sreedhara menon affirms this in survey of kerala history by A. sreedhara menon , pg 17, and History of travancore by the same writer page 63 , and 37 .

so the story is compelte fraud , and the Pakistani commentator ,(if he quote the story) fall in a huge error !

another commentator (al razi) said on the same verse , that historians didn’t affirm this story , and he mention that many muslim scholars didn’t believe the story is (mutwatir) . and he said that many believe that the quran is the only miracle, (he also said that some believe it did happen) .so again you see all this stuff in the islamic books,

Obviously I don’t have a copy of the book cited by Usmani or the others you mentioned. It would take a huge amount of effort to check these claims. I do not possess the skills, time or inclination for these things are really complex for example mis-dating may well simply be to do with local time measurements peculiar to the area and so on. It is unfair to say so categorically it’s a fraud at this point, whether it is or not. However the truth/falsehood of This claim again was not my point, but merely they believe the splitting of the moon to be true and have even gone at length to bring ‘historical’ accounts.

Which al Razi do you mean? The great sunni commentator Fakir al din al Razi is unlikely to have said this as he uses the ‘miracle’ to make philosophical arguments for the nature of the moon being similar to the earth etc. There seems to be a modern movement to deny, what classically was always accepted, these miracles? I don’t know why, although it fits their wanting to put more emphasis on the Quranic text (because it’s the only miracle) and wishing to make Muhammed very human. Also the falaysuf thought it philosophically impossible therefore made efforts to deny it. These groups do not agree with traditional Sunni Islam, which at present makes up some 90% of Muslims, therefore it can’t generally be used. It would be a bit like a Muslim using anything by Jimmy Swaggart to disprove Church teaching.

I have no doubts the scholars of Islam differ over the validity of the sources. However it’s not over being sound or false but over whether the reports are rigorously sound (sahih) or mass transmitted (mutawatir) which means the argument of Sunni muslim scholars is whether denying the ‘miracle’ is disbelief or not.

I do not think you will get much luck with this. Sunni Muslims believe Muhammed had many miracles, that’s not contentious, there are multiple volumes on just these events. I think I have one such by Husayni and there is of course Qadi Iyad’s ash-Shifa. Whether these claims are in reality true is obviously a completely different matter. However all of this is academic and really not to do with my point. Interesting though

 

[Marybeloved]

Unless further investigation leads me to conclude otherwise, I must say that your argumentation is pretty decisive here.

Now, when is your multi-volume refutation of Islam from a Catholic perspective scheduled to come out?

Haha! One day, perhaps…Not today!

 

[arabic_catholic]

Obviously I don’t have a copy of the book cited by Usmani or the others you mentioned. It would take a huge amount of effort to check these claims. I do not possess the skills, time or inclination for these things are really complex for example mis-dating may well simply be to do with local time measurements peculiar to the area and so on. It is unfair to say so categorically it’s a fraud at this point, whether it is or not. However the truth/falsehood of This claim again was not my point, but merely they believe the splitting of the moon to be true and have even gone at length to bring ‘historical’ accounts.

Which al Razi do you mean? The great sunni commentator Fakir al din al Razi is unlikely to have said this as he uses the ‘miracle’ to make philosophical arguments for the nature of the moon being similar to the earth etc. There seems to be a modern movement to deny, what classically was always accepted, these miracles? I don’t know why, although it fits their wanting to put more emphasis on the Quranic text (because it’s the only miracle) and wishing to make Muhammed very human. Also the falaysuf thought it philosophically impossible therefore made efforts to deny it. These groups do not agree with traditional Sunni Islam, which at present makes up some 90% of Muslims, therefore it can’t generally be used. It would be a bit like a Muslim using anything by Jimmy Swaggart to disprove Church teaching.

I have no doubts the scholars of Islam differ over the validity of the sources. However it’s not over being sound or false but over whether the reports are rigorously sound (sahih) or mass transmitted (mutawatir) which means the argument of Sunni muslim scholars is whether denying the ‘miracle’ is disbelief or not.

I do not think you will get much luck with this. Sunni Muslims believe Muhammed had many miracles, that’s not contentious, there are multiple volumes on just these events. I think I have one such by Husayni and there is of course Qadi Iyad’s ash-Shifa. Whether these claims are in reality true is obviously a completely different matter. However all of this is academic and really not to do with my point. Interesting though

Unfair to say it’s fraud ! are you serious ! I am citing you an a historian Scholar and the book and page ! and you are telling me it’s unfair !Then don’t throw a weak argument and than say it’s unfair to call it fraud because you don’t have the time and location to explore the source!.sorry I don’t buy what you are saying nor what 20th century muslim mufasers are saying , since the early mention of the account of the indian king and the meeting with muhammed story goes to the 17th century !and as I said the meeting took place a century before muhammed birth !

the razi is not saying the miracle didn’t happen , he is saying historians and some commentators say it will happen in the future , and the fact that he saying that show us that there is controversy on the event ! not to mention that only 1 of the five wittiness saw it (and his testimony have contradiction on the place and the form of the splitting) .

and here is al qurtabi the one you only got one Vol of his book, I hope you can read arabic

وقال قوم: لم يقع ٱنشقاق القمر بعدُ وهو منتظر؛ أي ٱقترب قيام الساعة وٱنشقاق القمر؛ وأن الساعة إذا قامت ٱنشقت السماء بما فيها من القمر وغيره. وكذا قال القشيري. وذكر الماورديّ: أن هذا قول الجمهور، وقال: لأنه إذا ٱنشق ما بقي أحد إلا رآه؛ لأنه آية والناس في الآيات سواء.

here he is saying that many people , and he include to other muslims scholars who argue that this miracle didn’t happen yet , because of this happen all people will see it , and the maroudi (which al qurtabi is citing) is saying that this is the saying of the majority !

now if al qurtabi is fair enough to mention those who oppose it , than it’s fair enough to conclude with all this evidence (not to mention al manawi saying that it’s a poem from pre-islamic time) that it didn’t happen , since I don’t recall a single convert to islam because of that miracle .(and what’s the point of a miracle of it will not bring any convert!)

now of course there is another Islamic commentator al baydawi (البيضاوي), lived at the time of al Qurtabi , who also says that there is two opinions , one said this miracle happen , the other says it didn’t . and those are not modern scholars!

 

[Marybeloved]

You seem to miss the point I was trying to make. To be honest it has little to do with St Paul per se. I’m trying to say that the following argument is used by any prophet (and St Paul et al):
Person A claims to have status X
Person B believes person A to be truthful
Therefore person B accepts A has status X
It’s clearly a circular argument based on the ‘claim’ and perception of the claimant ‘to be truthful.’ Whilst what moves one into believing another is truthful is of interest, since it may be a miracle or whatever, nevertheless it is still based on a belief, hence why one has faith. The basic point I’m trying to make is that this ‘argument’ is true for any Prophet, true or otherwise, therefore it’s not sensible to raise an objection against Muhammed based upon it.

This claim is false. An attempt at glossing over the absolute lack of any evidence for Mohammed’s claim to prophet-hood. Mohammed claimed it, his followers, just like the followers of Joseph Smith, David Koresh and Jim Jones, believed him without ANY evidence other than their blind faith. Any one who pretends that this is the case with Christianity is very ignorant of Christian Apologetics- It’s a false equalization.

There is plenty of reasons why the testimony of the Apostles and the early Chrsitians is reasonably certain, unlike the solitary and totally uncorroborated claim of Mohammed. If their own inexplicable behavior after the claimed resurrection is not enough (their bizarre claims and willingness to embrace rejection, persecutions and death for this strange claim), there is the fact that no one could produce the body of Christ despite what the Christians were claiming, the fact that the Jews and Romans were unable (and did not even bother) to refute the claims of the miracles despite the trouble Christianity was causing in Palestine and their desire to suppress it. We should expect plenty of refutations from the Israelites, especially the religious elite that hated Christ, if the Christians were saying things about Christ that did not happen considering that there were hundreds and thousands of witnesses to Christ, his miracles, his suffering and death in Palestine and Jerusalem. This thread is not about Christianity, yes, but no-one can say that the claims of Islam stand on the same ground as Christianity as far as evidence and proof is concerned. :nope: Islam literally stands on the claim of Mohammed alone- One solitary witness- Not one of his followers can corroborate it, not even his wives. That’s why they have the claim that the Qur’an is proof.

 

[sedonaman]

Just for the sake of balance, it bears mentioning that Christ himself didn’t perform any/many miracles on some occasions:
…etc.

I don’t think balance is necessary in this case; in fact, I think it is undesirable. Whether Jesus performed miracles or not is irrelevant to whether Mohammed did. Mohammed either did or did not perform miracles. He should state his case and prove it on his own without any help or detraction from other religions, especially Christianity; for if Christianity is true, Islam makes no sense, and we only help Mohammed’s cause by constantly comparing it with Christianity.

 

[Trebor135]

I don’t think balance is necessary in this case; in fact, I think it is undesirable. Whether Jesus performed miracles or not is irrelevant to whether Mohammed did. Mohammed either did or did not perform miracles. He should state his case and prove it on his own without any help or detraction from other religions, especially Christianity; for if Christianity is true, Islam makes no sense, and we only help Mohammed’s cause by constantly comparing it with Christianity.

I was simply saying that we should make sure to hold our religion to the same standard as Islam. We want to do apologetics, not polemics.

MaryBeloved provided a good response on this question–see the previous page of this thread.

 

[sedonaman]

I was simply saying that we should make sure to hold our religion to the same standard as Islam. …

I didn’t get that out of your comment about Jesus’ miracles or lack thereof. But what you are saying here, I agree with. It goes back to a similar claim/counterclaim, “The Koran advocates violence” / “There is violence in the Bible, too.” The two claims are unrelated. Hypothetically, if we are going to hold both religions to the same standard, then that standard would have to be stated up front first, such as, “Advocating violence is bad.” But that’s only if we are going to hold both religions to the same standard, which I still don’t see as being relevant to whether or not Mohammed performed miracles.

 

[jlhargus]

Unless further investigation leads me to conclude otherwise, I must say that your argumentation is pretty decisive here.

JL: I think Mary has made some excellent points. It’s not clear to me whether your being sarcastic in you following remark or not.

Now, when is your multi-volume refutation of Islam from a Catholic perspective scheduled to come out?

JL: Jesus gave us all we need to refute Islam it’s called the Gospel.

 

[jlhargus]

This claim is false. An attempt at glossing over the absolute lack of any evidence for Mohammed’s claim to prophet-hood. Mohammed claimed it, his followers, just like the followers of Joseph Smith, David Koresh and Jim Jones, believed him without ANY evidence other than their blind faith. Any one who pretends that this is the case with Christianity is very ignorant of Christian Apologetics- It’s a false equalization.

There is plenty of reasons why the testimony of the Apostles and the early Chrsitians is reasonably certain, unlike the solitary and totally uncorroborated claim of Mohammed. If their own inexplicable behavior after the claimed resurrection is not enough (their bizarre claims and willingness to embrace rejection, persecutions and death for this strange claim), there is the fact that no one could produce the body of Christ despite what the Christians were claiming, the fact that the Jews and Romans were unable (and did not even bother) to refute the claims of the miracles despite the trouble Christianity was causing in Palestine and their desire to suppress it. We should expect plenty of refutations from the Israelites, especially the religious elite that hated Christ, if the Christians were saying things about Christ that did not happen considering that there were hundreds and thousands of witnesses to Christ, his miracles, his suffering and death in Palestine and Jerusalem. This thread is not about Christianity, yes, but no-one can say that the claims of Islam stand on the same ground as Christianity as far as evidence and proof is concerned. :nope: Islam literally stands on the claim of Mohammed alone- One solitary witness- Not one of his followers can corroborate it, not even his wives. That’s why they have the claim that the Qur’an is proof.

JL: You make excellent points in you posts:thumbsup:

 

[Peace_of_cake]

Unfair to say it’s fraud ! are you serious ! I am citing you an a historian Scholar and the book and page ! and you are telling me it’s unfair !Then don’t throw a weak argument and than say it’s unfair to call it fraud because you don’t have the time and location to explore the source!.sorry I don’t buy what you are saying nor what 20th century muslim mufasers are saying , since the early mention of the account of the indian king and the meeting with muhammed story goes to the 17th century !and as I said the meeting took place a century before muhammed birth !

the razi is not saying the miracle didn’t happen , he is saying historians and some commentators say it will happen in the future , and the fact that he saying that show us that there is controversy on the event ! not to mention that only 1 of the five wittiness saw it (and his testimony have contradiction on the place and the form of the splitting) .

and here is al qurtabi the one you only got one Vol of his book, I hope you can read arabic

وقال قوم: لم يقع ٱنشقاق القمر بعدُ وهو منتظر؛ أي ٱقترب قيام الساعة وٱنشقاق القمر؛ وأن الساعة إذا قامت ٱنشقت السماء بما فيها من القمر وغيره. وكذا قال القشيري. وذكر الماورديّ: أن هذا قول الجمهور، وقال: لأنه إذا ٱنشق ما بقي أحد إلا رآه؛ لأنه آية والناس في الآيات سواء.

here he is saying that many people , and he include to other muslims scholars who argue that this miracle didn’t happen yet , because of this happen all people will see it , and the maroudi (which al qurtabi is citing) is saying that this is the saying of the majority !

now if al qurtabi is fair enough to mention those who oppose it , than it’s fair enough to conclude with all this evidence (not to mention al manawi saying that it’s a poem from pre-islamic time) that it didn’t happen , since I don’t recall a single convert to islam because of that miracle .(and what’s the point of a miracle of it will not bring any convert!)

now of course there is another Islamic commentator al baydawi (البيضاوي), lived at the time of al Qurtabi , who also says that there is two opinions , one said this miracle happen , the other says it didn’t . and those are not modern scholars!

Sorry, I didn’t mean to sound a bit off at you I just meant that what we have at present is inconclusive. If one author says X and another author says Y then the logical possibilities of the truth are either X, Y or neither. Since I know neither author nor do I know how they came to their conclusions, I can’t comment, because it’s basically his word against the other. It would be very difficult to find out and come to a robust conclusion. Sure it’s more convenient to accept what you’ve cited, but this would not be balanced as Trebor rightly points out Again though none of this was really my point.

The translation, might go something like this:

Some say that the Splitting of the Moon has yet to occur, and is still awaited; that is, [the aya means] ‘The Hour and the Splitting of the Moon are nigh, and when the Hour comes, the sky and all in it (including the moon) will split.’ Al-Qushayri said this, and al-Mawardi said that it is the opinion of the majority, adding: ‘This is because when it splits, everyone still alive will see it, because it is a sign, and all people are equal when it comes to [witnessing] signs.’

So ok according to Mawardi (no quibbles he’s a big cheese) the majority opinion is the verse is saying it will happen. Fine ok. This means the minority opinion is ‘the miracle.’ Both are valid in Muslim eyes, just the former is given preference. However this still doesn’t deny the event. The argument would then go on to the Hadith… Which is arguably an even more complex field.

There are certainly differences in the scholars understand - welcome to Islamic scholarship However, it does seem more to do with details that they differ and not the event. Given the soundness of the Hadith given by Bukhari and Muslim and the fact major scholars like Tahawi think they’re mutawatir then I honestly couldn’t see a genuine Sunni scholar disagreeing over the moon being split in some way.

Anyway, it’s interesting although not to do with what I was saying really. Sorry if I’m sounding obtuse but it seems right that any argument we make against our Muslim friends should be as robust as we would wish - do unto others We all know how annoying being called tritheists is