Why would anyone believe him?

islamispeace wrote: What "evidence"?  So far, you have claimed that you are not trying to "prove" anything on this thread.  You also took the time to compare the amount of words you and I have used, as if that is a matter of real importance!

I consider my time (and yours too) to be a matter of real importance.  Don't you?

Ron Webb wrote: Yes, and when I said that people did believe him, you responded by saying "why".  I gave the reasons.  Then you asked whether you needed to "define" what "anyone" means.  I interpreted that to mean that you were not referring to the people who did believe him, but rather to unbelievers such as yourself.

Why would you think that?  Here is how the exchange went:

Me:  "Why would anyone believe him?"
You: Well, people did believe him, Ron!
Me:  Yes, I know they believed him.  My question is, why?
You: That is not what you originally asked.  You asked why would "anyone" believe him?
Me:  Do I need to explain what "anyone" means?

I don't see anything in this that would suggest I am limiting the word "anyone".  Anyone means anyone: Why do you believe, why should I believe, why did they believe, why do others believe... I just want to hear a valid reason to believe that the Quran came from God, regardless of whose reason it is.

I already refuted your "warner" argument.

You established that other prophets were more than just warners.  You haven't established that Muhammad was more than a warner; and if you could, you would be contradicting the Quran.

Yeah, and he [Pooya] also stated: Firstly authentic traditions relate the cleaving asunder of the moon, secondly the observation "this is magic continuous" in verse 2 leaves no room for the speculation of the enemies of the Holy Prophet. Even the Qadiani commentators, who habitually deny miracles, accept the incident to have taken place. So unless you have some actual evidence to refute this, you are just grasping for straws.

1. If an apparently "authentic tradition" contradicts the Quran (13:7 among others), then that tradition is wrong.
2. Does that tradition include any eyewitnesses?  Or is it just hearsay, and/or people misquoting the Quran?
3. Since you and Pooya are making this assertion (in contradiction to the Quran), shouldn't you be the ones offering some "actual evidence"?

The word "nigh" can simply mean "closer".

No, it can't.  And if it could, then any event could indicate that the Hour of Judgement is "closer", and the sentence again becomes meaningless.  The only way it makes sense is as a prophecy of a future event.

It makes no sense that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) would have purposefully attacked the religion of the pagan Arabs in a vain effort to gain power and influence.

Whether or not it makes sense to you as a strategy, the fact is that it worked.

You can either respond to my entire post, or you can continue to make a fool out of yourself.  People who have no answers typically tend to ignore anything that makes them look foolish...or they make excuses for why they don't respond.

Much of your posts is not worth responding to.  The ad hominems in particular I let stand on their own.  They discredit you far more than anything I could say in response.

Um, if he accepted their offer, that would have meant that he would stop preaching against their religion.  That was their main gripe.  Hence, they would become his allies if he accepted their offer.  And they certainly would not be "strangers", right?

Would they be any less vile?  Surely you're not going to say that they would have made better companions than the ones he had.  "Allies" is not the same thing as friends; and I'm not so sure they wouldn't have ended up murdering him anyway.  They had no need for him; they only needed to shut him up.

Anyway, as anyone with even basic knowledge of pre-Islamic Arabia knows, conflicts between various factions were very common.  So if Satan wanted to incite further violence, he could have just exploited the many simmering disputes that already existed in those days.

Isn't that what he did?  Muhammad did not invent monotheism.  He simply introduced another variant to the pre-existing Abrahamic tradition, which already included Judaism, Christianity and various gnostic sects.

If your Satan argument is true, then it means that Satan exists and your disbelief in the supernatural is unfounded (and which might mean that Satan has tricked you into being an unbeliever ).

Of course I don't believe it's true.  I'm just saying it's at least as likely to have been Satan as to have been God.  You have no evidence either way, and no way of knowing for sure.

If Satan was playing a trick, he would have tricked Muhammad (peace be upon him) to believe that one of the lesser gods had chosen him.  That way, Satan could perpetuate the polytheistic religion.

But polytheism perpetuated anyway.  I'm not sure what more he could have achieved by picking a lesser god.

Besides, the thing about polytheists is that they are by definition tolerant of other gods.  They feel no particular need to go to war against a neighboring tribe of village just because they worship a different god.  No, for true intolerance you need monotheism.

No, the "ideal situation" for Satan would be produce as many unbelievers as possible.  You know, people like you.  The more people he tricks, the more he leads to Hell.   The best way to do that is not to start a religion founded upon monotheism and social justice as well as the rejection of polytheism and idol worship.  Rather, he would have wanted to perpetuate polytheism and idol worship.  Or, he could have endorsed atheism!

Personally, I think that if there is a god then he would have no problem with atheism.  After all, he is making no effort at all to convince me of his existence, so he apparently doesn't care one way or the other what I believe.

No, to send people to hell simply for believing in the wrong god, or no god, that requires a "jealous" god.  The Christian god, for instance.  If Christianity turns out to be the "true" religion, then Muhammad (or Satan working through Muhammad) may have led billions of Muslims to hell.  I'm not saying it is true, mind you -- only that even if you make the unlikely assumption that Muhammad's messages had a supernatural origin, you still don't know that they were from the "real" God.

Well that would include atheism, wouldn't it now?  Or your so-called "humanism"?  Certainly, atheists are capable of just as much violence as religious people.  History has proven that over and over.

I've never heard of a war started by humanists.  I guess it's possible, but I'm finding it hard to imagine.

Are you serious, Ron?  Do you think before you write?  How would Muhammad (peace be upon him) have known that his followers would become 1 billion strong?  And even if he did know, what kind of "power" are you referring to?  Obviously, if he is no longer with us, then what "power" does he have?

I'm sure he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams (then again, Muhammad had some seriously grandiose dreams!), but even during his lifetime he had immense power.  Certainly far more than he would have had as a successful merchant, or a turncoat for the pagans.

He possessed the means to provide himself with rich and ample gifts, yet he simply chose not to.  Would a supposed impostor do that?

Well, if you now agree that he had the means, then we are making progress.  Most likely he chose not to because a lavish lifestyle didn't appeal to him.  There are lots of us like that, you know.  He preferred the power, the prestige and the adulation of being the Prophet of God.  If he had translated that power into obvious wealth, people would have been suspicious.

Yeah, but I was specifically referring to Hazrat Sawdah, you nincompoop.

Of course you were, because she and Khadijah are the only ones who could remotely be described as "elderly".  So how old do you think Sawdah was when Muhammad married her in 620?  (Hint: she died in 674.  Do the math.)

I never said anything about how I "value women".

Fine, I'll take you at your word.

I was specifically referring to your theory that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was driven by lust, by pointing out that a man who is obsessed with sex would probably "value" virgins, not widows.

Why would you think that?  Do rapists preferentially choose virgins as victims, for instance?

Furthermore, there is nothing in Islam that states that women who have had sex are less "valuable" than virgins (unless of course, we are talking about fornicators or adulterers, but that would include both men and women).

In theory it probably does include men; but let's face it, there is no virginity test for men.  No bridegroom was ever rejected on his wedding night because he was found not to be a virgin.  So this is a women's issue.

The subject of how Islam and the other Abrahamic religions (mis)treat women is a topic in itself, and I don't want to get into it here.

Ron Webb wrote: I consider my time (and yours too) to be a matter of real importance.  Don't you?

Yeah right.  If that were the case, then why do you waste your time (and mine) on meaningless conversations?  You are a walking contradiction!

Ron Webb wrote: Why would you think that?  Here is how the exchange went: Me:  "Why would anyone believe him?" You: Well, people did believe him, Ron! Me:  Yes, I know they believed him.  My question is, why? You: That is not what you originally asked.  You asked why would "anyone" believe him? Me:  Do I need to explain what "anyone" means? I don't see anything in this that would suggest I am limiting the word "anyone".  Anyone means anyone: Why do you believe, why should I believe, why did they believe, why do others believe... I just want to hear a valid reason to believe that the Quran came from God, regardless of whose reason it is.

I already gave you the reasons, knucklehead.  Your only response has been to come to up with absurd theories with no proof or logical basis.   

Ron Webb wrote: You established that other prophets were more than just warners.  You haven't established that Muhammad was more than a warner; and if you could, you would be contradicting the Quran.

You are an ignoramus who has no business lecturing me on "contradicting the Quran".  We have already seen sufficient proof that you have no idea what the Quran actually says, so do yourself a favor and refrain from trying to teach the Quran to Muslims. 

It has already been shown that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did perform a miracle in response to the incessant demands of the pagans.  But when they were finally shown a miracle, they reacted exactly in the way the Quran had prophesied.  They still refused to believe and dismissed the miracle as "magic"! 

Ron Webb wrote: 1. If an apparently "authentic tradition" contradicts the Quran (13:7 among others), then that tradition is wrong. 2. Does that tradition include any eyewitnesses?  Or is it just hearsay, and/or people misquoting the Quran? 3. Since you and Pooya are making this assertion (in contradiction to the Quran), shouldn't you be the ones offering some "actual evidence"?

1.  You are an i-d-i-o-t.  By definition, an authentic tradition does NOT contradict the Quran. 
2.  You are an i-d-i-o-t.  By definition, an authentic tradition is based on eyewitness testimony.  If it wasn't, then it would not be an "authentic" tradition.  In fact, the tradition recounting the miracle is "mutawatir", meaning that it was reported by a large number of people. 
3.  You are an i-d-i-o-t.  Since you have absolutely no authority in appealing to the Quran, given your laughable ignorance of it, your request of "actual evidence" is also laughable.  In any case, the "actual evidence" is found in the context of the verse in Surah Al-Qamar as well as the authentic traditions.  They are in agreement.  Pseudo-scholars and ignoramuses such as yourself have absolutely no where to run.

Ron Webb wrote: No, it can't.  And if it could, then any event could indicate that the Hour of Judgement is "closer", and the sentence again becomes meaningless.  The only way it makes sense is as a prophecy of a future event.

Oh really, it can't?  Hmm, let's see:

"nigh adverb \ˈnī\

Greetings islamispeace,

David was simply stating a truth... that we are all born with a sin nature.
Have you ever raised children?  Have you not observed how naturally they lie when they are caught doing something wrong?  That is their first nature.  Have you not observed how it is that children must be taught to be truthful?
... to overcome their sinful nature.

I wonder if you will take the time to study and consider the following, and see the Truth in it:

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal,
...  I am all too human, a slave to sin.
15 I do that which I know not to do;
and what I know I should do, I don't do it;
but that which I hate, that I do

16 But if I know that what I am doing is wrong, this shows that I agree that the law is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: because while I have the will to do good, I find that I am unable to do it

19 for the good that I want to do, I don�t;
but the evil that I wish not to do, that I do anyway.

20 Now if I do what I don�t want to do, it is no more I that do it; it is sin living in me that does it.

21 I have discovered this principle of life�that when I want to do what is right, nevertheless, evil is present with me.

22 for I love God�s law with all my heart.

23 But I see that there is another force at work within me, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. [that is, in my flesh]

24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord [I am delivered].

[my paraphrase for clarity, using KJV and NLT]


God may have formed us in perfection, but God's original, perfect, creation was tampered with and is now 'shapen in iniquity' because of a deception perpetrated on it in the garden.
Look at the truths that are in front of your eyes... while children are innocent in what they do, they display from the very first their natural tendency toward sin... when they lie, when they defy and test limits, when they sneak, when they sass, when they hit, when they scream... you name it... it is very visible to see.  They must be taught not to do these behaviors... It is in teaching them about the Creator that they learn to purge these behaviors from their nature...

None of us will ever be able to purge all... we will always have our certain weak areas that cause us to fall short of the glory of God.
I am fine with the rest of what you said, in the other thread... about faith and works... and a sincere, repentant heart.

asalaam and blessings.


Edited by Caringheart - 21 July 2014 at 9:52pm

Ron Webb wrote: "People did believe him."  I don't even see why this qualifies as a "reason", unless you're too lazy to think for yourself.

Getting confused, are we?  That wasn't a "reason", genius.  That was just to point out the absurdity of your question "why would anyone believe him".  Get your head out of the ground, Ron!

Ron Webb wrote: "He had no motive."  Well, he wouldn't need a motive if he were experiencing genuine auditory hallucinations or confusing dreams with reality; but if he were an impostor, he had plenty of motivation.  Not money per se, I grant you; but: Power -- his followers were supposedly commanded by God to obey him.  They would literally die, or kill, for him.  You can't get more power than that. Prestige -- even today, you can't say his name without mumbling "peace be upon him". Women -- not "elderly" women, but women in their sexual prime or earlier, including at least two teenagers and one pre-teen.  Not bad for a guy in his fifties.

Still repeating the same m-o-r-o-n-i-c arguments, which have been refuted so many times already?  How many times does an atheist need to get embarrassed before he says to himself "hmmm, maybe I should just keep my mouth shut because I clearly don't have a clue"? 

Ron Webb wrote: "He was persecuted."  Sure, it comes with the territory.  But the rewards were clearly worth it.  Besides, once he was in, he couldn't back out without his companions turning nasty and possibly murderous.

So, apparently in your befuddled mind, a supposed impostor would have risked persecution and possibly death because "it comes with the territory", all for a less than guaranteed promise of "rewards".  Genius!  Absolutely brilliant Ron!    I can think of no better response to your idiocy than the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

Ron Webb wrote: "He was known to be truthful and trustworthy."  Actually, this "reason" is much like #1.  Some people considered him trustworthy (those who believed him), and some people obviously didn't.  What does that prove?

     

Every time you write something, you expose your ignorance more and more.  This is becoming a joke. 

Anyway, he was known to be truthful and trustworthy even to the people who would eventually become his enemies.  It was only after he began to preach Islam that his enemies accused him of being a "liar".  How convenient!

Ron Webb wrote: "His miracles."  Except that the Quran says in at least a couple of places that he was a warner only, not a miracle worker; and the one example you offer requires us to accept that the Hour of Judgement was "nigh" 1400 years ago, which makes no sense.

  

This is all according to Sheik Ron Webb.   Of course, pretending that you know what you are talking about does not actually mean that you know what you are talking about.  You have offered crackpot diagnoses and theories, as well as fatwas on what the Quran says.  Unfortunately, your fake attempts to explain what the Quran actually says have been refuted by clear facts.  We know for a fact that Muhammad (peace be upon him) did indeed perform a miracle in response to the incessant demands from the pagans to see a miracle.  When they were finally shown the miracle, they dismissed as "magic".  And when seen in context, it is clear that the verse is talking about an incident in the Prophet's life, because verse 5 states:

"Therefore, (O Prophet,) turn away from them. The Day that the Caller will call (them) to a terrible affair..."         

If the verses were referring to a future event, then why would the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) be told to "turn away" from the unbelievers?  Think, Ron, think? 

Ron Webb wrote: "His undeniable success against innumerable odds."  Congratulations to him then, but plenty of military leaders have beaten the odds.  Alexander the Great also had tremendous military success.  So what?

Alexander the Great had a professional army of tens of thousands of troops.  In the first battle the Muslims took part in, they had a little over 300 fighters (most of whom were not professional soldiers) and a few horses and camels.  And at the Battle of the Trench, they faced an all-out assault from the pagans, and held out for several weeks before a very well-timed sandstorm wiped out the pagan army!  Alhamdulillah!

Ron Webb wrote: Exactly, so if there is a contradiction, the tradition must be wrong.

 

Still confused, eh?  Let me go slower.  Your non-sequitur proves nothing, Sheik...I mean doctor...I mean...well, what are you anyway?  I can't keep track!

We have already seen that the verse is referring to an incident in the life of the Prophet, despite the protests of pseudo-scholars such as yourself.  The traditions that refer to the miracle have been authenticated using the science of hadith methodology, and they agree with the Quran.  If they had contradicted the Quran, they would have been proven to be unauthentic by using the science of hadith methodology.

Ron Webb wrote: So do we have the testimony of any eyewitnesses?

Still confused, or are you just blind?  What did I say before?  Come on, Ron.  Read.  Reading is fundamental.  Here is what I said:

In fact, the tradition recounting the miracle is "mutawatir", meaning that it was reported by a large number of people. 

The traditions of the miracle have been reported by the likes of Ibn Abbas, Anas ibn Malik, and Abdullah ibn Masud among others. 

Ron Webb wrote: You're right, I have no authority; but what has that to do with your inability to support your claims?

  

If you want to keep telling yourself that I have been unable to support my claims, go ahead.  Keep making a fool of yourself!  It's quite entertaining! 

Ron Webb wrote: Do you need help understanding the difference between "close" and "closer"?  Yes, every morning when I wake up, the Hour of Judgement is "closer"; but that's not the same thing as saying that it's "close".  And it certainly wasn't "close" in Muhammad's time.

 

Ah, semantics.  The last resort of a scoundrel with no where to go.  As I said before, the splitting of the moon was a major sign.  It was one of those events which was a prerequisite for the Day of Judgement.  Since it has now happened, the Day of Judgement is nigh/close/closer.  But there are still other major signs that have yet to happen.  When those happen, the Day of Judgement will be even closer.  Let us look at Yusuf Ali's commentary to help you further understand:

"Three explanations are given in the Mufradat, and perhaps all three apply here: (1) that the moon once appeared cleft asunder in the valley of Makkah within sight of the Prophet, his Companions, and some Unbelievers; (2) that the prophetic past tense indicates the future, the cleaving asunder of the moon being a Sign of the Judgement approaching; and (3) that the phrase is metaphorical, meaning that the matter has become clear as the moon. That the first was noticed by contemporaries, including Unbelievers, is clear from verse 2. The second is an incident of the disruption of the solar system at the New Creation: Cf. 75:8-9. And the third might well be implied as in eastern allegory, based on the other two."

Ron Webb wrote: Obviously not, because he didn't accept their offer, and he didn't die.

  

But would he have known that, you silly atheist?  The fact that he didn't die means that he was legitimate.  He was who he said he was.  If he was an impostor, then chances are that he would have been killed eventually.  But he was not.  Alhamdulillah!

Ron Webb wrote: So he should just trust that "his most vile detractors" would become his best buddies, and not stab him in the back (literally) at their first opportunity?  Yeah, sure.

    

Considering that rejecting their offer would have meant an eventual attempt on his life anyway, a supposed impostor would not have passed over the opportunity to get wealth and power and then use that to protect himself against any would-be assassins.  Accepting the offer would have been a better decision for an impostor than rejected the offer and guaranteeing further persecution and eventual death. But I know that your feeble mind cannot grasp the obvious.  Poor, silly atheist...

Ron Webb wrote: And equally, no reason to believe he wasn't.

Sure, sure.  We have already seen why this argument fails.

Ron Webb wrote: In Arabia, perhaps, but polytheism continues throughout the world and is in no danger of disappearing.

Brilliant Ron!  So Satan's plan was to allow millions of people in Arabia (and other places) to leave polytheism in favor of Islam so long as polytheism itself did not fully disappear from the world?!  Why wouldn't he simply have tried to expand polytheism further and keep it from losing ground to a monotheistic religion which shuns polytheism and idol worship? 

Ron Webb wrote: Not just for being monotheists.  They were persecuted for blaspheming against other religions.  Muslims of all groups should understand that.  Can you imagine what would happen to me if I criticized and mocked your religion incessantly and publicly for years in a Muslim-majority country?

 
 
Making excuses now, eh?  Your silly claim that polytheists are more "tolerant" has fallen by the wayside, so you attempt to save yourself more embarrassment by moving the goal post.  But in doing so, you expose your ignorance once again.  The fact is that Muslims were forbidden to insult the pagan gods:

"Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance. Thus have We made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end will they return to their Lord, and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did." (Surah Al-Anaam, 6:108) 

Furthermore, the Quran stated:

"Say: O ye that reject Faith!  I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship.  And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship.  To you be your Way, and to me mine." (Surah Al-Kafiroon, 109:1-6)

Where is your dignity, silly atheist?!

Ron Webb wrote: These were more for political reasons than religious.  Besides, nobody is saying that all polytheists are tolerant to all others all the time.  (Shall I list the many, many instances of Muslim persecution of minorities, contemporary and historical?)  I'm just saying that if Satan wanted to cause chaos and religious conflict, he would be better off backing monotheisms that insist on the supremacy of their own God and are hostile to all other gods, rather than religions that accept lots of different gods and a diversity of worship practices.

Backtracking again?  Well, who can blame you?  After all the embarrassment you have suffered due to your i-d-i-o-t-i-c ramblings, backtracking is all you can really do.  Shall I repeat what you wrote originally?  Here is what you stated:

Besides, the thing about polytheists is that they are by definition tolerant of other gods.  They feel no particular need to go to war against a neighboring tribe of village just because they worship a different god.  No, for true intolerance you need monotheism.

Awkward!!

Anyway, it is true that the Romans and Seleucids had political reasons to persecute both Jews and Christians.  But, the fact is that they also forced them to conform to the pagan religious system.  Pliny the Younger forced Christians to worship the gods and the emperor!  Antiochus IV forcefully desecrated the Temple and forced Jews to conform to the Hellenistic culture.  That is why it is referred to as "forced Hellenization".  So clearly, polytheists are just as capable of intolerance. 

Satan had no reason to start a monotheistic religion in order to promote religious violence.  In fact, as I already pointed out (and which you are now ignoring), Satan already had a chance to cause more violence.  If he had started Islam, he would have further exploited the tribal rivalries that were causing tremendous bloodshed in pre-Islamic Arabia.  Unfortunately for you, Islam preached against tribalism!  Why would Satan have done that?  It just doesn't line up, does it?

What all of this this shows is that you are a pathetic ignoramus who has no idea what he is talking about, but nevertheless pretend that you do...all to satisfy your atheistic worldview.  And when the facts are shown to you, instead of having the decency to admit that you are mistaken, you simply reformulate your argument but maintain the original premise.  For shame, Ron!  

Ron Webb wrote: Because he's smarter than you.  Obviously he would not gain respect or earn praise simply by demanding it; but the more humble and modest his behaviour (in stark contrast to the praise of Allah Himself in the Quran), the more he was admired.  And you can't deny that it worked.

Or maybe it's because you are too dumb to see the obvious.    Obviously, if he craved adulation and respect, he would have eventually allowed his followers to do the things that he had forbidden them.  Instead, he remained adamant throughout his life that they not show him excessive praise. 

Time after time, we see your crackpot theories being utterly ruined.  And then, you try to salvage your shattered theories by resorting to special pleading like the following:

1.  He was motivated by wealth.  Oh but wait, since he purposefully lived in poverty, "perhaps" he rejected wealth "because a lavish lifestyle didn't appeal to him."

Note: But if a "lavish lifestyle didn't appeal to him", then why would he risk his life by starting a religion for that purpose? 

2.  He wanted adulation and praise.  Oh but wait, since he purposefully forbid his followers from praising him, "perhaps" he rejected adulation and praise because "he would not gain respect or earn praise simply by demanding it". 

Note: He actually could have "demanded" it if he wanted.  His followers were willing to die for his cause, so why wouldn't they obey him if he told them to praise him and give him adulation? 

And since he did reject adulation and praise his entire prophetic life, then what benefits did he really enjoy by "pretending" to be a prophet in order to get praise and adulation?    

3.  He wanted power and influence.  Oh but wait, since he purposefully rejected the pagans' attempt to buy him out, "perhaps" he rejected power and influence because his poor and defenseless followers would try to kill him. 

Note: Rejecting the offer would have meant incurring the wrath of the powerful pagans.  By choosing to remain steadfast, the Prophet was inviting further persecution, which of course did come.

Let me know if I forgot any.  How embarrassing this must be for you!

Oh and by the way, I noticed that you once again ignored my request for evidence for your claim that Islam places more value on virgins than non-virgins.  You can run, but you can't hide, Ron!  Put where your money where you mouth is and get ready for some more embarrassment and humiliation!


Edited by islamispeace - 26 July 2014 at 1:44pm