Many Eastern Christians do prostrations during prayer. Oddly enough this doesn’t help them believe that Mohammed is a prophet. So that’s obviously incorrect, what else do you have?
Indeed. The priests prostrate before God during liturgy in imitation of the angels, yet when they sit up they don’t suddenly magically think Mohammad is a prophet. That has to be one of the silliest arguments I’ve heard in a long time.
It’d be like if I said Muslims would believe Jesus was divine by doing the sign of the cross when they pray
And to answer your question,I accept the prophet Mohammed because I accept the message that he received, The Quran.
The question is…why
should you accept it? We do not believe every man who comes down from a mountain with a revelation, so why should we follow Mohammad?
As staffsgt7 rightly points out, part of what made a prophet a prophet was the signs they gave. They did things that let the people know who they were. This is why God performed many miracles through Moses such as the rod turning into snakes, the ten plagues, and the parting of the sea - to show who Moses was. The prophecies of men like Isaiah are known to be valid because
they all came true - according to OT law, if one single prophesy didn’t come true, that made the person a false prophet and they were to be stoned.
Similarly, the Koran and NT make reference to what came before, but they treat them differently. The NT, for example, is constantly quoting what came before it - Romans 9 alone has 12 OT citations from five different OT books. The Koran, on the other hand,
has none. I have heard some Muslims point to one single verse that might vaguely quote the Psalms, but this pales in comparison to the wealth of quotations found through the NT to verify Christ. The Koran, on the other hand, mentions the Gospel and Torah by name, but
never once quotes from it. In fact, it accuses the Jews and Christians of changing it or hiding it. Why the sudden change? Why did “God” change His tactics? Why would God always use what came before to give His people strength, and then suddenly basically say, “Just forget that, read this new book.” (in fact, many of Mohammad’s companions taught this way).
The fact is that to believe in Mohammad and the Koran is to enter a world of circular reasoning. You must accept Mohammad at face value and see everything that came before him through the lens of the Koran. This is the purest form of circular logic. The apostles did not hold themselves to a new standard, and they most certainly never accused the Jews of tarnishing their scripture - instead, they used that scripture to prove who they were. Mohammad, on the other hand, cannot do it, and while Muslims try to use a few Bible verses to prove their point, when something contradictory comes along they have to fall back on the “Must be tarnished” excuse. Again, that is circular reasoning. Mohammad cannot be held to standards he himself invented - he must be held to standards of that which came before him.
And in that regard, he fails miserably.
