Title: A Further Exchange on 'Authenticity of the Prophet's Experience of Revelation' Question/Comments: Thank you for your reply, Your answer however is somewhat subjective, and I find it incompatible with the aspect of Qur'anic teaching that obliges someone to bring "proof" of what they say. For if conviction of the Divine Voice lies merely in personal experience, what good is that person's "personal experience" to others? Your answer warrants two important considerations. Firstly, feelings of power/differentiation or truthfulness of the subject do not prove anything. Moreover, they cannot be held as proof of the divine origin of the phenomena to the subject simply because feelings can also be deceiving. For example they can be manufactured, controlled and tainted to produce "goodness and power". Drugs and hallucinogenics are prime examples. Because of this, even if the process of revelation was genuine in the subject, he still could not have had, as explained above, proof that the experience was authentic. He must have rather had a belief that it was, since there is always a possibility of deception. Secondly, since there is (apparently) no way to verify that the process of revelation of divine guidance of an individual to be authentic, not even at the personal level, then how is this conviction supposed to be passed on to others? Even if the subject was absolutely convinced, it is still his personal experience and therefore of no use to others. Thus in both cases nobody can prove the subject's process of revelation to be of divine origin. At best this would be a belief, on both the recipient of the actual revelation and the recipients of the message. How are we then to ascertain whether or not a person who claims to be a divinely guided prophet is truthful? What reason, for example did the people of Noah have to believe in him, as opposed to the reason Joseph Smith's followers had to believe in him? Can a liar who claims God is talking to him be in contradistinction with a sincere man who claims the same thing? Moreover, since it cannot be demonstrated that the sincere man (whoever he is) is not being deceived, then we need to ask two more questions: 1) what reason have we to believe in any individual who claims such a thing? 2) Even if we do believe in a particular individual's special connection with God then how would we distinguish a liar from one that is sincere? And if we manage that then how do we know the sincere one is not being deceived? Thus we have a circular argument. Please comment, Regards, United Kingdom Answer: You write: For if conviction of the Divine Voice lies merely in personal experience, what good is that person's "personal experience" to others? It should be kept in mind that the addressees of a prophet of God are not required to believe in the prophet on the basis of the 'authenticity' or the 'verifiability' of the prophet's experience of revelation. On the contrary, the addressees of a prophet are required to believe in the prophet on the basis of other phenomena. These phenomena may considerably vary from one prophet of God to another and may include such things as the direct introduction of that prophet by another already existing, established and accepted prophet of God, the content of the message being delivered and clear and undeniable signs shown by the prophet in the name of God etc. The reliability of the 'voice' of the source of revelation to the prophet is never presented as a basis for others to believe in that prophet, because of the precise reason that this 'reliability' relates to a person and internal experience of the prophet, which cannot be communicated to others. As for the basis upon which a prophet of God presents the authenticity of his message to his addressees, as has been stated earlier, this may vary considerably from one prophet to another. Nevertheless, these bases are, generally, different for the direct addressees of that prophet and for those, who come later. Taking the case, for instance, of Muhammad (pbuh), we see that the Qur'an has given three different kinds of evidence to prove the prophethood of Mohammad (pbuh) to its three different categories of direct addressees. The quality of the language and the content of the Qur'an are presented as evidence for the Qureish and the other local Arab groups of the time of the Prophet (pbuh). The Qur'an being void of all human deficiencies - like development and evolution in thought and in the presentation of that thought - is presented as a general evidence of the Divine origin of the Qur'an. Finally, for the Jews and the Christians of the time of the Prophet (pbuh) the Qur'an has evidenced the prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) and the Divine origin of the Qur'an on the basis of the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) is a clear manifestation of the prophecies and predictions of the Bible regarding the final prophet. As for the later people, the Qur'an has given a different set of criteria to establish the prophethood of Muhammad. I have explained these criteria in a couple of my earlier responses to related questions, titled " Evaluating Islam as a Religion Based on Divine Revelation " and " Why Islam - After Judaism and Christianity? ". I hope this helps. Regards, Moiz Amjad June 4, 2002