Why would anyone believe him?

When the prophets were considered liars, as the ancients (of Islam) teach, Allah responded with miracles, thereby proving the veracity of the prophets. This is why people follow prophets.

Ron Webb wrote: Actually, I mentioned it back on July 13: " At this point, 1400 years later and based solely on anecdotal information filtered through fanatical believers, there is no hope in getting to the real story."  You didn't respond at the time, so I let it go.  I'm only bringing it up again because you are trying to make the case that Muhammad was universally trusted -- and for that you obviously need sources other than his own followers.

This is just yet another attempt to move the goal post.  When you have nothing to argue for, you resort to the "uncertainty" principle and question the veracity of the so-called "fanatical believers". 

Ron Webb wrote: Yes, we know all that; but Sebeos says nothing about the pagans and their motives, nor even mention Abu Lahab.  It's a complete non sequitor to your previous claims.

      

It confirms some basic elements of the Islamic narrative.  Until you can provide some contradictory information from your so-called "independent sources", the non-sequitur is yours and yours alone!  You're the one who has been making up crackpot theories and providing only your own conclusions to back them up instead of "independent sources".

The other problem with you request of "independent sources" is that it is a slippery slope.  Who is to say that you simply will not reject those sources as well if they happened to agree with the Islamic traditions?  Conversely, who is to say that if these sources happened to disagree with the Islamic traditions, you would jump on that bandwagon and simply blindly accept those sources due to your obvious bias.   

Ron Webb wrote: Of course not.  My whole thesis is that we don't know what happened 1400 years ago.

You're more than welcome to hold on to this view.  For the rest of us, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the traditional narrative.  You simply choose to disregard it because it does not agree with your view, but you also don't present any evidence which directly contradicts the traditional narrative.  You want to have your cake and eat it too.  Well, it doesn't work that way!

Ron Webb wrote: Which proves nothing, of course.  No doubt Muhammad spoke other languages besides Arabic and could translate.

Oh really?!  So what proof do you have for this latest crackpot theory?  After all, you have "no doubt"! 

Ron Webb wrote: But anyway, I don't see why you bothered to quote this verse.  Surely you're not saying that such a person actually existed!  I'm certainly not saying that.  I'm saying that if he or someone like him existed, any credible evidence in his favour would disappear from the oral history.  All that would remain would be a few verses such as this one which discredit him.

This person did exist, dummy.  The pagans were trying to discredit Muhammad (peace be upon him) anyway they could.  So they suggested that he was being taught by this person.  But the Quran laid this myth to rest by making a logical argument against it.

Ron Webb wrote: The Day of Judgement is for all, the the signs are only for believers.  Yes, the unbelievers may ask for a sign, but as the Quran says, if they see a sign, they dismiss it as magic.  That is why the last prophet was a warner only, not a miracle worker.  His only (alleged) miracle was the Quran.

What a laughable circular argument!  "Signs" are for all people, including unbelievers.  They were the ones who asked for them!  Just because they don't accept them does not change the fact that it is meant for them as well. 

One of the final signs of the Day of Judgment will be the rising of the sun from the west.  According to the hadith, the unbelievers will look upon this sign and then realize that judgment is imminent.  Of course, it will be too late to believe at that point.  A good example of this principle is the Pharaoh's downfall.  When his army was drowned in the sea while chasing after Moses (peace be upon him) and the Israelites, he tried to affirm his belief in God, but it was rejected.  This was his final sign, after all the others that he had rejected, and it was too late to believe now.  The same will happen to all unbelievers, whether they live to see the final signs or not. 

Ron Webb wrote: Sure, but did they witness it?

Yes, because Ibn Masud actually described how the moon split!

Ron Webb wrote: Sure, but did they witness it?

Yes, because Ibn Masud actually described how the moon split!

Ron Webb wrote: Sure, but did he witness it?  Or did he just repeat what others told him?

Yes, because Ibn Masud actually described how the moon split!

Besides, we have much more eyewitness testimony for other miracles the Prophet performed.  For example, at Hudaybiyah, it is well attested that the Prophet miraculously provided water for all of his followers even when there was only a few drops left:

"Narrated Al-Bara: We were one-thousand-and-four-hundred persons on the day of Al-Hudaibiya (Treaty), and (at) Al-Hudaibiya (there) was a well. We drew out its water not leaving even a single drop. The Prophet sat at the edge of the well and asked for some water with which he rinsed his mouth and then he threw it out into the well. We stayed for a short while and then drew water from the well and quenched our thirst, and even our riding animals drank water to their satisfaction." (Sahih Bukhari, Book 56, Nunber 777)

So, Al-Bara was one of the 1400 people present at the time and he describes how he and everyone else drank their fill even after all the water had been used up.  Alhamdulillah! 

Ron Webb wrote: By the way, are you sure it was Abdullah ibn Masud?  Because Bukhari quotes him as saying, "Narrated Abdullah bin Masud: During the lifetime of the Prophet the moon was split into two parts and on that the Prophet said, "Bear witness (to thus)."  (Book #56, Hadith #830)  Surely if he was an eyewitness he could do better than "during the lifetime of the Prophet."

Oh, you silly, poor clown.  I know, I know.  It's hard to admit that you have been wrong all this time.  It's hard to admit that you have been deceived.  But, the time eventually comes to grow up and accept the facts. 

I already showed that it was Abdullah ibn Masud.  Hadiths would have been mentioned multiple times by the same person to different people for different reasons.  The purpose of the hadith you mentioned clarifies that the splitting of the moon was an event that was contemporaneous with the Prophet; hence the statement "during the lifetime of the Prophet". 

Ron Webb wrote: The other odd thing about all of these so-called descriptions is that they really don't describe it.  What did it look like?  How long did it last?  Were they round pieces, or jagged?  Did it begin and end abruptly, or slowly?  Surely anyone who actually saw a miracle would have more to say than just "the moon split".

 
I know, I know.  You just can't bring yourself around to face the facts, so you naturally resort to special pleading once again.  The fact is that they did describe the event itself, as the hadith from Sahih Muslim I previously mentioned attests:

"This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Abdullah b. Mas'ud (who said): We were along with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) at Mina, that moon was split up into two. One of its parts was behind the mountain and the other one was on this side of the mountain. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upbn him) said to us: Bear witness to this." 

Ron Webb wrote: Even such descriptions as we have are inconsistent.  The hadith you quoted says "the moon split in two halves between which they saw the Hiram' mountain."  But the one just before it (Bukhari, Book 58, Hadith 208) says "a piece of the moon went towards the mountain."  So which is it?

See that's another thing with clowns who first deny that there is any evidence but still remain stubborn when the evidence is shown: they nit pick! 

Isn't it obvious that the hadith from Bukhari is providing more detail?  The moon was situated away from the mountain.  Then it split into two pieces, and one piece went towards the mountain, until the mountain itself was situated between the two pieces.  This is not rocket science!

Ron Webb wrote: I'm not the one running out of arguments.  Take away the Muslim sources with their obvious bias, and you've got nothing.

 

"Obvious bias"!  That's rich!  But atheist clowns such as yourself "obviously" have no "bias"...

Ron Webb wrote: Right, and if Muhammad had given his uncle special powers or benefits, they would have been seen as just another family dynasty, rather than a Prophet of God.

 

So what?  If his ultimate goal was power and prestige, who cares if he had a family dynasty instead of being a Prophet? 

Ron Webb wrote: So, no substantive response, eh?  Just pure ad hominem?

 

I already gave you a response, dummy.  I told you to read the book.  The answers are there!  Seek and you shall find...

Ron Webb wrote: By the way, are you aware that just about every one of you posts on this discussion has flagrantly violated the terms of use of this board?  You might want to reread the Guidelines for Discussions, specifically Rules 15 and 16. Personally, I don't mind -- I prefer to let your rudeness and sarcasm speak for themselves -- but even if you have no respect for me and no concern for your own reputation, you ought to have some consideration to the moderators, who are being remarkably patient with you.

 

Oh, here we go.  Here comes the melodrama! 

Are you aware that, according to the rules:

"4. When discussing issues dealing with Islam, please support your comments with the Quran or Sunnah. Mocking any Quranic reference, Hadith, scholar, or member will not be tolerated. If you are stating something about a religion, please list your source. If it is an opinion, please state this fact. [...]

15. We will not tolerate personal attacks on participants from ANY Community (personal attacks are defined as comments that reflect upon the person instead of their opinion). Furthermore, any insults intended to ANY religion, ANY prophet of God, or ANY holy scripture shall be removed."

You have been spreading all sorts of lies against Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), suggesting, among other things, that he was an impostor, a sexual deviant, a liar, a war monger etc.  Well, earth to Ron!  You have violated the rules!  But, do you think that bothers me?  Do you think I care what you think?  Do you think that I am going to whine and groan and be all melodramatic?  Hell no!  But maybe you should take your own advice and "have some consideration to the moderators", because they surely must be being very patient with an arrogant atheist clown who attacks the integrity of the blessed Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

So, let's not waste each other's time with childish melodrama.  If you can't take the heat, then don't participate in the discussion!

Ron Webb wrote: Nobody is saying otherwise.  It's just that as I look around the world today, I find it hard to see how Islam, or monotheism for that matter, has been a net benefit to humanity.

Well, besides providing a pathway to salvation, Islam has provided many benefits to humanity.  Read Mark Graham's book "How Islam Created the Modern World".  Clearly, Islam has had a positive impact on the world, regardless of your childish misconceptions. 

Ron Webb wrote: Some of them perhaps, but certainly not all.  You claim that Allah raised a sandstorm to prevent the pagan army from defeating the early Muslims.  Could He not have done the same to keep the planes grounded on Sept 11, 2001?  Or at least to have prevented them from reaching their targets?

Of course He could have.  But everything happens for a reason.  Bad things happen in this world and good things happen in this world.  They all have a reason.  As I said, dark times were inevitable.  And as we get closer and closer to the Day of Judgment, it will only get worse before it gets better. 

Ron Webb wrote: For which he was praised all the more.

  

See?  Again with the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" argument!  There is just no pleasing some people.  That's what I have been saying all this time.  I could care less what you think, because I know that no matter what, you will never change your mind. 

In your diseased mind, no matter what Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did, he must have had some other ulterior motive for personal gain. 

1.  So, if he rejected wealth (even if that was his alleged motive), you think that it must have been because he wanted to gain the people's favor (while choosing to live in abject poverty himself).  But, if he had taken the wealth, then you would think that it was his motivation the whole time.

2.  If he rejected power (even if that was his alleged motive), you think that it must have been because he was afraid of his weak followers (instead of the more powerful pagans).  But, if he had taken the offer, then you would think that it was his motivation the whole time. 

3.  If he rejected "praise and adulation" (even if that was his alleged motive), you think that it must have been because he actually wanted to make people think that he was humble and hence gain their respect.  But, if he had not rejected the "praise and adulation", then you would think that it was his motivation from the start.

"Damned if you.  Damned if you don't."

Ron Webb wrote: On balance, I think Muhammad had a pretty good life, at least compared to most of his contemporaries.  Wouldn't you agree?

   

I think you are just a fool.  Those with eyes to see and who are not blinded by atheistic bias, would see that Muhammad (peace be upon him) lived a very difficult life after he declared his prophethood.  Before he declared himself a prophet, you could argue that he had a "pretty good life", although he was clearly disturbed by the injustice of the time.  But after he announced his prophetic mission, his life was turned upside down.  He was hounded from that point on.  He suffered abuse and war for years.  And he lived in self-imposed poverty.  He didn't have the luxuries that kings had.  In fact, I would say that most of his followers lived much more luxuriously, at least when compared to Muhammad himself.  He slept on a simple bed.  He stitched his own clothes.  He fasted long hours.  He prayed long into the night.  He took every difficulty upon himself.  He suffered abuse and violence from his enemies, even to the point of being stoned on at least one occasion. 

No.  I would say that he lived a very difficult life.  A lesser man (like an atheist clown such as yourself ) would have failed.  But he succeeded.  Alhamdulillah!   

Ron Webb wrote: That would be according to your heavily biased Muslim sources, I presume?  Any independent verification?

How typical!  Every time you get cornered, you try to weasel your way out by moving the goal post.  All this time, you never questioned the "heavily biased Muslim sources", but now that you have run out of hiding places, now you try to question those sources.  It's pretty obvious that no amount of proof will set you straight. 

Interestingly, according to the Armenian Christian historian Sebeos:

"In that period a certain one of them, a man of the sons of Ishmael named Muhammad, a merchant, became prominent. A sermon about the Way of Truth, supposedly at God's command, was revealed to them, and [Muhammad] taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially since he was informed and knowledgeable about Mosaic history. Because the command had come from On High, he ordered them all to assemble together and to unite in faith. Abandoning the reverence of vain things, they turned toward the living God, who had appeared to their father, Abraham. Muhammad legislated that they were not to [123] eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsehoods, and not to commit adultery. He said: "God promised that country to Abraham and to his son after him, for eternity. And what had been promised was fulfilled during that time when [God] loved Israel. Now, however, you are the sons of Abraham, and God shall fulfill the promise made to Abraham and his son on you. Only love the God of Abraham, and go and take the country which God gave to your father, Abraham. No one can successfully resist you in war, since God is with you."" (http://rbedrosian.com/seb9.htm)

So Sebeos confirms much of what the so-called "heavily biased" Muslim sources say.  He confirms that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a merchant who then brought God's revelation to the Arabs.  He also confirms that they abandoned their previous religion and followed him.    

Speaking of "independent verification", do you have any for your *****ic theories?  Oh right...I forgot...You have none!

Ron Webb wrote: Incidents of (baseless) criticism and overcoming adversity only improve the story.  Far from being expunged, one would expect such incidents to be manufactured if they didn't exist. Does the oral history actually name this human teacher?  Do we have a confession from him, or from anyone who overheard him teaching the Quran to Muhammad?  Of course not.  If there really were such a person, we would have no solid evidence of it in the oral history.  He would have been murdered and never heard from again -- just like he never existed. Hmmm...

Bravo! Your clownish idiocy just keeps getting more and more ridiculous.  We see more and more how you concoct theories and then using circular reasoning, convince yourself of their accuracy.

First, let us look at what the Quran actually says in response to the unbelievers' accusation:

"We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear." (Surah An-Nahl, 16:103)

So, the fact was that this individual was a foreigner who did not speak Arabic, whereas the Quran was in the Arabic language. 

As far as the identity of this person, Maududi states:

"In this connection, traditions mention the names of several persons, one of whom (Jabar), according to the disbelievers of Makkah taught the Holy Prophet; however, one thing particularly noteworthy about all these persons is that they were non-Arab slaves. Whosoever he might be, the fact that he used to recite the Torah and the Gospel and had an acquaintance with the Holy Prophet, gave an opportunity to the disbelievers for spreading this false report that it was the particular slave who was the real author of the Holy Qur'an, but Muhammad (Allah's peace be upon him) presented it as the Word of God. This not only shows that his opponents were very impudent in spreading false accusations against the Holy Prophet but also that, in general, people are not just in judging the worth of their contemporaries. They were ill-treating like this that great personality who has had no parallel in history. Nevertheless, these people who had become blind in their opposition, preferred to attribute the authorship of the matchless Arabic Qur'an to a non-Arab slave who had a smattering of the Torah and the Gospel. Instead of accepting the claim of the Holy Prophet, who was an embodiment of truth, they attributed its authorship to an insignificant foreign slave." (http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/16/index.html#sdfootnote108sym)

Ron Webb wrote: Prophetic signs are for believers, not for unbelievers.  I'm sure you know that.

Dummy, dummy...wait a minute.  Think.  It was the unbelievers who asked for a "sign", remember?  Hence, they were shown the "sign" of the splitting of the moon, which was also given as a sign of the Day of Judgment.  The Day of Judgment applies to all people, believers and unbelievers, because all will face judgment.       

Ron Webb wrote: If it's not a prophetic sign, then what kind of sign is it?  If it heralds the Day/Hour of Judgement, isn't that a prophetic sign?  And if so, then how is it that more than 500,000 days later, still no Day of Judgement??

It was a sign for the unbelievers.  Remember?  They had been demanding to see a miracle for a while, and now they got it...and still refused to believe.  Doesn't that remind you of someone? 

Ron Webb wrote: It says he was in Mina, along with Muhammad.  It doesn't say he was standing beside Muhammad when the (alleged) miracle occurred, and it doesn't say he saw it.  Why didn't he see it?  I don't know.  Maybe because it was an optical illusion (e.g. due to atmospheric refraction) that was only visible if you stood in the right spot.  Maybe because he was indoors, or praying, or asleep. Or maybe because it didn't happen.

Oh, you make me laugh too much!  Since you obviously have trouble reading, let's look at the hadith again:

"Narrated 'Abdullah: The moon was split ( into two pieces ) while we were with the Prophet in Mina. He said, "Be witnesses." Then a Piece of the moon went towards the mountain."

So, it says that:

1.  They were at Mina with the Prophet when the moon split.

2.  The Prophet told them to "be witnesses". 

3.  Abdullah described how the moon split, stating that a piece "went towards the mountain".

All of this indicates that Abdullah ibn Masud and others witnessed the miracle.  Otherwise, he wouldn't have what he saw! 

You can deny this all you want.  I could care less.  You are a just a modern example of an tongue-tied unbeliever who just doesn't know what to do with the evidence, so he settles for pathetic denial.

Ron Webb wrote: This is all according to the Muslim oral history, of course.  Do we have any independent evidence?

Running out of arguments, huh?  Poor, poor Bozo.

Ron Webb wrote: Assuming he had anything to fear in the first place.  But bow could he justify giving special power and authority to his uncle?  It would reek of nepotism and the whole enterprise would fall apart.  Besides, it's pretty clear that Muhammad just didn't like Abu Lahab.

More ignorance!  Nepotism was a common occurrence, dummy.  It would not have been unusual.  Family dynasties often had all the power.  This was true in many cultures. 

Ron Webb wrote: Were they calculated by Allah?  If Allah is omniscient, then He would have known that His religion would result in all these terrible events.  So either that was part of His plan, or he made a mistake, or He couldn't help it.  Take your pick.  But if it was part of His plan, it looks a lot like an evil plan to me.  Something more like what Satan might come up with.

  

Your idiocy just has no limits.  Read the book I previously recommended.  You need some education.  

In any case, who said that there couldn't be bad Muslims?  People have free will.  They can choose to be good or bad.  Just because some Muslims choose to use violence (due to legitimate complaints), doesn't mean that the majority do. 

Furthermore, dark times were inevitable.  The hadith are full of prophecies of the end times, when the Muslim world would suffer from great calamities.  There were even prophecies about certain groups of people who would claim to be Muslims, but whose actions would show that they are not.  It is even stated that it would be in the midst of these people that the Dajjal would arise. 

Ron Webb wrote: But he did receive it.  He just didn't ask for it -- at least not directly.  He got Allah to ask/demand it on his behalf.  If he had asked for it directly, he would not have received it.

  

More theorizing!  If his followers were willing to die for him, then I don't see why he couldn't ask them for praise and adulation.   

But we actually see that he refused to accept any praise or adulation which kings received.  He was humble and rejected such things. 

Also, it is rather hard to believe that an impostor would go to such lengths and suffering just for "praise and adulation".  Only the befuddled mind of an atheist clown could suggest such a possibility!  

Oh and before I close:

Prove your claim that Islam places more value on virgins than non-virgins.  Put your money where you mouth is.


Edited by islamispeace - 02 August 2014 at 8:44pm

Abu Loren wrote: Ron I think you should stop right here and don't say another word!

Too late!