Requirements of Prophethood and recognising true Revelation

[MPat]

Historical-witness data.

That does not really explain anything. That’s just all data we have. What exactly are you going to look for, if you want to establish “truthful and upright character”?

The Asharis say that prior to being commissioned to Prophethood, it is possible for the would be Prophet to commit both major and minor sin, because obligation comes solely from revelation, but nonetheless he must have an upright character among his own people, so in the case of would be Prophets among the children of Israel, they must observe the Torah even prior to being commissioned to Prophethood.

And how do you know what counts as “upright character” before you know which prophets are true and which are false? After all, “candidate prophets” did say various things about that.

For example, “Historical-witness data” tells us that Muhammad had many wives. Is that evidence of lack of “upright character”? Presumably, you will say that having many wives is permitted, since Muhammed said so, and you think he was a prophet. But then that’s circular.

Or are you looking not for specifics, but for respect, popularity, good reputation in general?

With all due respect, but you must be really uninformed Islam. Nevermind some of his most famous miracles, such as splitting the moon, there are hundreds of reports which narrate his miracles.

So, are you modifying or clarifying your original claim and saying that miracles are a second requirement?

If you are, is that the final list, or do you have more requirements?

 

[Gorgias]

Kei:

it is not at all similar

"Last night I gave birth to a son.

I’m a virgin, though, so don’t accuse me of adultery, of course not, that’s silly, You’ve never witnessed me committing adultery."

To be fair, the claim of the Jews wasn’t that Jesus was the product of adultery – it was that he was the natural son of Joseph.

Joseph alone could make the claim that adultery was involved. And, if we’re to believe the Scriptural account, he was unwilling to formally make that claim (although he knew that he was not the natural father of Jesus). He became convinced that Mary was still a virgin, however, so the question of adultery is moot.

 

[SalamKhan]

Or are you looking not for specifics, but for respect, popularity, good reputation in general?

Yes, you’d have seen that too if you had read it carefully.

So, are you modifying or clarifying your original claim and saying that miracles are a second requirement?

I didn’t modify anything, I said in my opening post that I’ve discussed this topic on this forum here before, and have mentioned miracles as a requirement. But miracles would mean nothing without the other requirements, i.e. Monotheism, truthfulness, upright character, etc.

 

[MPat]

MPat:

Or are you looking not for specifics, but for respect, popularity, good reputation in general?

Yes, you’d have seen that too if you had read it carefully.

I see. Yes, that avoids the problem with circularity.

But now we have an argument that shows Muhammad was a false prophet:

1. A true prophet would have “respect, popularity, good reputation in general”. (Premise, by your agreement)
2. Muhammad was thrown out (or had to escape) from Mecca. (Premise, by your presumed agreement)
3. Someone who is thrown out from a city (or has to escape it) is not popular and is unlikely to be respected and to have a good reputation. (Premise)
4. Therefore, Muhammad was not popular (and probably didn’t have respect and good reputation in general). (from 2 and 3)
5. Therefore Muhammad was not a real prophet. (from 1 and 4)

Presumably, that means that the requirement you gave should be clarified, and not that you consider Muhammad to be a false prophet.

I didn’t modify anything, I said in my opening post that I’ve discussed this topic on this forum here before, and have mentioned miracles as a requirement.

Perhaps you should link to the threads in question.

But miracles would mean nothing without the other requirements, i.e. Monotheism, truthfulness, upright character, etc.

OK, is there a full list of such requirements?

 

[STT]

I see. Yes, that avoids the problem with circularity.

But now we have an argument that shows Muhammad was a false prophet:

A true prophet would have “respect, popularity, good reputation in general”. (Premise, by your agreement)
Muhammad was thrown out (or had to escape) from Mecca. (Premise, by your presumed agreement)
Someone who is thrown out from a city (or has to escape it) is not popular and is unlikely to be respected and to have a good reputation. (Premise)
Therefore, Muhammad was not popular (and probably didn’t have respect and good reputation in general). (from 2 and 3)
Therefore Muhammad was not a real prophet. (from 1 and 4)

Presumably, that means that the requirement you gave should be clarified, and not that you consider Muhammad to be a false prophet.

Following your argument one can also argue that Jesus was not famous and was false God.

 

[MPat]

Following your argument one can also argue that Jesus was not famous and was false God.

In fact I am not sure if any true prophets could be described as popular. False prophets would seem to be far more popular than true ones.

Which is why I’m pointing out that this requirement looks very suspicious. And that it is not all that useful for Muslims (who seem to use it), as Muhammad was not universally admired either. It looks like he reached popularity normal for a false prophet, not universal admiration.

 

[anon65111186]

Prophets must know something God knows.
Prophets must tell that to someone.
This knowledge can be of the future, of events, of what God or others will do.
This knowledge is the for the good of others.
It can be communicated in either signs or words.

For example, the result of the battle of Lepanto revealed to St. Pius V.

 

[SalamKhan]

But now we have an argument that shows Muhammad was a false prophet

That’s a misrepresentation of his biography, he was driven out of Makkah after he began to publicly preach against the idolatry of the pagan Arabs; prior to being commissioned to Prophethood, he was already known among his people as being honest, and upright.

 

[MPat]

That’s a misrepresentation of his biography, he was driven out of Makkah after he began to publicly preach against the idolatry of the pagan Arabs; prior to being commissioned to Prophethood, he was already known among his people as being honest, and upright.

So, instead of clarifying the requirements, you’d rather end up claiming Muhammad was popular among the idolaters and other people who wanted to kill him or throw him out of town…

Thus, once again: did anyone prepare an actual list of requirements for prophets accepted by Muslims? If so, can you present it here? If not (or you are not aware of one), can you prepare one?

 

[SalamKhan]

Thus, once again: did anyone prepare an actual list of requirements for prophets accepted by Muslims? If so, can you present it here? If not (or you are not aware of one), can you prepare one?

What do you mean, I’ve pretty much covered it, haven’t I?

 

[MPat]

What do you mean, I’ve pretty much covered it, haven’t I?

I am asking not to “cover” it, but to give a list. Preferably, an exhaustive list. And with precisely formulated requirements. Perhaps with some further explanation in some longer work.

Thus:

1. “Candidate prophet” must be a monotheist [while being a prophet / the whole life].
2. ???

Can you give us such a list?

 

[SalamKhan]

1. Candidate Prophet must have been a monotheist prior to being commissioned to Prophethood, and must have taught monotheism after being commissioned to Prophethood; the doctrine he teaches cannot contain intellectual impossibilities.
2. Candidate Prophet must have a reputation among his own people as having a truthful and upright character prior to being commissioned to Prophethood, and must be truthful after being commissioned to Prophethood, as well as practicing what he preaches; he must also not have any repulsive characteristics or traits (in the case of Prophet Ayyub/Job, his illnesses were only short term and not long term).
3. A Prophet must affirm his Prophethood via an inimitable miracle, that is, an extraordinary break in nature which cannot be reproduced by those who are not Prophets, and must be performed in the name of God.

 

[Kei]

Defining prophet is important.

Muslims tend to call a lot of people prophets that Christianity wouldn’t necessarily say is a prophet.
For instance, I don’t think I’d call Job a prophet.

But, essentially.
I’d say a prophet must:
A) Only EVER prophecy in the Name of the LORD
B) NEVER be wrong, for God is never wrong
C) NEVER reveal information that contradicts already established revelation
D) Should probably do some miracles.

Now, a false prophet (ie one who is not a prophet or is a prophet, but for a false god/devil) probably fails one of these.
If it is questionable, then: say he prophecied something (say, he said you can only eat 4 pieces of bread on Fridays) and then goes against his own prophecy (say, he eats like 9 pieces of bread on a Friday), then that is a red alarm.
Or, say he uses his prophecy to gain status (i.e., the prophet says that he should get the property of his followers or something) it is also suspicious.
Or, say he uses his prophecy to excuse immoral behaviour (say, it is common morals to not do x, but according to his prophecy he can do x, or its now lawful to do x), then it is also suspicious.
Or if he teaches something known to be false (like, say he hears a folk tale but teaches on it as though it were true), then it is also suspicious.

That’d be my personal list if we had to guess without the Church looking into it.

 

[MPat]

1. Candidate Prophet must have been a monotheist prior to being commissioned to Prophethood, and must have taught monotheism after being commissioned to Prophethood; the doctrine he teaches cannot contain intellectual impossibilities.
2. Candidate Prophet must have a reputation among his own people as having a truthful and upright character prior to being commissioned to Prophethood, and must be truthful after being commissioned to Prophethood, as well as practicing what he preaches; he must also not have any repulsive characteristics or traits (in the case of Prophet Ayyub/Job, his illnesses were only short term and not long term).
3. A Prophet must affirm his Prophethood via an inimitable miracle, that is, an extraordinary break in nature which cannot be reproduced by those who are not Prophets, and must be performed in the name of God.

Thank you, that’s what I was looking for.

Now, is this list based on some specific authority, school, scholar? Is there some longer work about those requirements? Is any part of them derived from what you consider to be revelation, or are they only based on Philosophy or common sense?

Looking at those requirements I do see some possible oversights - for example, there is no demand for prophet to actually say or write something, nor to be “compatible” with other prophets. Are they really oversights?

There are obviously some strange parts, for example, “he must also not have any repulsive characteristics or traits”, leading to the difficulty you mentioned, but, well, I suppose if you have claimed revelation to support it, we can skip that part for now…

But then, with verifying that, and with “upright character”…

We know that claims that let’s say, David or Solomon did something evil could have reached us, because they actually did.

But would the claims that Muhammad did something evil (that is, understood as evil by his followers) have reached us?

 

[SalamKhan]

Now, is this list based on some specific authority, school, scholar?

Yes, the Asha`ri and Maturidi schools of theology.

Is there some longer work about those requirements?

I believe there is a body of classical literature known as Dala’il al Nubuwwa (proof of Prophethood), but unfortunately I’m not aware of any that have been translated.

Is any part of them derived from what you consider to be revelation, or are they only based on Philosophy or common sense?

When it comes to ilm al kalam (science of theology), the vast majority of Ashari theologians and even modern Maturidi theologians, believe in the primacy and autonomy of both the Qur’an and Hadith as sources of knowledge, whereas the aql (intellect) is secondary. However, Imam Mansur al Maturidi himself (the founder of the Maturidi school), Imam Fakhr ad-Din Razi (the great Ashari philosopher and theologian), and a few others believed in the primacy and autonomy of the Qur’an and the `aql as sources of knowledge, both lead to truths where the other may not reach, but cross paths in the most fundamental matters; Hadith is considered secondary.

for example, there is no demand for prophet to actually say or write something

A Prophet is not required to convey to the public what Allah has revealed, any Prophet who is ordered to convey to the public what Allah has revealed is called a Rasul (Messenger or Apostle). All Messengers are Prophets but not all Prophets are Messengers.

nor to be “compatible” with other prophets

Of course this is a requirement. Their doctrines must share a common goal, which is to lead people to the worship of Allah alone. I didn’t mention this because I thought it would be self evident. I admit however that I had forgotten to mention the intelligence of the candidate Prophet, because an imbecile wouldn’t be able to grasp what is being revealed to him, let alone convey it to others.

But would the claims that Muhammad did something evil (that is, understood as evil by his followers) have reached us?

There is no mutawatir (mass transmitted) evidence for it. Only mutawatir evidence is acceptable in Aqeedah (creed/doctrine) because certainty is required, not merely assent. Ahad (linguistically meaning single transmitted) evidence doesn’t impart certainty, because it is possible for Ahad evidence to be authentic, weak, fabricated, etc. And so Ahad evidence is acceptable in Fiqh (Jurisprudence), where only assent rather than certainty is required, and a difference of opinion is permissable. As for Prophets committing deeds which seem to be unfavourable, I have already answered this.

 

[daverod]

um… I can see where you might be coming from and to where you are leading to with this argument, but have you taken into consideration the ‘false prophets’?

And also did you take into consideration the verse of:

Romans 9:14-18
“What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.”

And to discuss the Truth of how God hardens whom He wills to have them destroyed, you must needs start a new thread.

 

[MPat]

Yes, the Asha`ri and Maturidi schools of theology.

I believe there is a body of classical literature known as Dala’il al Nubuwwa (proof of Prophethood), but unfortunately I’m not aware of any that have been translated.

A Prophet is not required to convey to the public what Allah has revealed, any Prophet who is ordered to convey to the public what Allah has revealed is called a Rasul (Messenger or Apostle). All Messengers are Prophets but not all Prophets are Messengers.

Of course this is a requirement. Their doctrines must share a common goal, which is to lead people to the worship of Allah alone.

Thank you, your position is much clearer now.

When it comes to ilm al kalam (science of theology), the vast majority of Ashari theologians and even modern Maturidi theologians, believe in the primacy and autonomy of both the Qur’an and Hadith as sources of knowledge, whereas the aql (intellect) is secondary.

That might be interesting, but that is not what I was asking. I asked you if you base those specific requirements on revelation, or on empirical evidence and (or?) philosophical arguments. That is, if you wanted to demonstrate that having a repulsive trait disqualifies a prophet, would you point to some sacred text, or to some study of believability in general?

There is no mutawatir (mass transmitted) evidence for it.

I know that’s your position.

But I am asking for something different. That is, would we be aware of contrary evidence, if it did exist?

Let’s take an example. As far, as an average inhabitant of USSR was concerned, all available evidence was showing that Lenin and Stalin have never done anything evil. But we know that is not evidence of their “sainthood” (none of us is going to claim “There is no god but Marx, and Lenin is his prophet!” or “There is no god but Lenin, and Stalin is his prophet!”).

Instead, that resulted from a double approach:

1. Sometimes Soviet propaganda just proclaimed evil deeds to be good (so, disbanding the Constituent assembly was praised).
2. Sometimes Soviet censorship prevented contrary evidence from being mentioned.

So, contrary evidence did exist (sometimes “elsewhere”, sometimes “previously”), but average inhabitant of USSR was not in position to know about it. Thus, Lenin and Stalin had “good reputation”, but it was “artificial”.

And I’m asking, if you can show that things couldn’t be like that with Muhammad. That is, would claiming that he was not trustworthy have been somehow discouraged by government or society - to the extent that that would also be a sufficient explanation of good reputation?