Unbelievers contended that the Quran was
Muhammad’s own fabrication and not the revelation of God. How then would these
dissenters explain the fact that Muhammad had been the only person who was
aware of the expanding universe long before the 1920s.
Could it be that in the 600s he had invented a telescope similar to the one contrived in the 1900s? Could it be that he had been familiar with the handling of such a telescope and acquainted with the motion of stars and that he had concealed it from his fellow men? If those who accused the Prophet of lunacy and alleged that in his delusional states he imagined himself the messenger of God were justified in their claims, how would they account for the fact that he knew facts not known to his contemporaries, facts that were to be discovered 1300 years after his revelation of them? If those people assert that the Prophet had devised a religion to serve his own ends, how can they explain that his so-called delusions materialized after a lapse of 1300 years? His pronouncements at the time did not promote his interests in any way; quite the reverse was the case, since he unwittingly gave his enemies a hint they might take advantage of. Can a person whose own interests prevail over the interests of others declare something not to his own advantage that was sure to be bitterly censured and much derided by those whose naked eyes failed to observe the expansion of the universe? If, despite this, a person came up with the contention that Muhammad was an intelligent man who might have perceived this truth, what sort of an intelligence might this have been?
And, instead of boasting of having been the depository of such knowledge, why would he have preferred to tell an untruth and claim that this was not his own discovery but the revelation by God? While the inventor or discoverer of a pin is inclined to brag about his breakthrough, why on earth would Muhammad choose to be modest and categorically declare that the Quran was not his own production, but the revelation of God? Was this due to humility? Would these people - who had denied his prophethood and accused him of having been an impostor - have dared qualify him with the laudable attribute of “humility?”
Could it be that in the 600s he had invented a telescope similar to the one contrived in the 1900s? Could it be that he had been familiar with the handling of such a telescope and acquainted with the motion of stars and that he had concealed it from his fellow men? If those who accused the Prophet of lunacy and alleged that in his delusional states he imagined himself the messenger of God were justified in their claims, how would they account for the fact that he knew facts not known to his contemporaries, facts that were to be discovered 1300 years after his revelation of them? If those people assert that the Prophet had devised a religion to serve his own ends, how can they explain that his so-called delusions materialized after a lapse of 1300 years? His pronouncements at the time did not promote his interests in any way; quite the reverse was the case, since he unwittingly gave his enemies a hint they might take advantage of. Can a person whose own interests prevail over the interests of others declare something not to his own advantage that was sure to be bitterly censured and much derided by those whose naked eyes failed to observe the expansion of the universe? If, despite this, a person came up with the contention that Muhammad was an intelligent man who might have perceived this truth, what sort of an intelligence might this have been?
And, instead of boasting of having been the depository of such knowledge, why would he have preferred to tell an untruth and claim that this was not his own discovery but the revelation by God? While the inventor or discoverer of a pin is inclined to brag about his breakthrough, why on earth would Muhammad choose to be modest and categorically declare that the Quran was not his own production, but the revelation of God? Was this due to humility? Would these people - who had denied his prophethood and accused him of having been an impostor - have dared qualify him with the laudable attribute of “humility?”
No comments:
Post a Comment