Could Muhammad of been a prophet?

[openmind77]

I think Jesus was pretty straight forward when He said to recognize false prophets by their fruits.

Jesus was beaten, whipped, spit on and crucified, and what did He have to say about all of this?

“Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” Luke 23:34 (On the cross)

While laying in the arms of Aisha, Muhammad stated in his dying words:

“May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of the prophets.” Bukhari, Vol. 1, #427

Why didn’t Muhammad pray for guidance to us misguided unbelievers? I just can’t wrap my mind around some of the things stated in the Hadith.

You are comparing Muhammad to a divine being like Jesus - a Son of God. That is not a fair comparison. If you compare Muhammad to OT prophets he will appear much better. He preached a just, merciful God, not a vengeful, angry God described in the Old Testament.

Hadiths were not written by Muhammad, some are authentic some are not.

 

[openmind77]

From a Christian point of view, a prophet should fulfill certain criteria and there is usually a pattern that they do and don’t. Mohammad would not fulfill this and thus his qualification for a prophet would be found quite wanting.

His personal action in dealing with his enemies, his greed and his lust which were unabated did not bode well for him to be a true prophet of God. But this is of course merely a personal view who happens to be a Christian.

I am not completely sure if you are responding to my post (there were no quotes), but you probably were. My main point in the post was that whatever criteria (‘from a Christian point of view’) you apply to evaluate Muhammad as a prophet, you should apply the same criteria to Old Testament prophets. And as you can see from my post, he does well compared to OT prophets who did not even preach of a loving, merciful God - their’s was a violent, vengeful God - a revelation of such a God can not be a true one. I am including my previous post below for reference.

I don’t see any issue considering Muhammad a prophet of God if you compare him with some of the OT Biblical prophets. He was after all sent to reform the religious and moral beliefs of illiterate, uncultured, unsophisticated Arab nomads and he did a good job of that, Islam and the Koran is a relatively clean (ie few inconsistencies) and well structured religion with reasonable beliefs - a good accomplishment for that time and for that uncultured region. The Sharia and the Hadiths could use a lot of reform and modernization but that is not an issue for considering Muhammad to not be an authentic prophet.

Some of the issues brought up in this thread:

• Muhammad did not bring a new revelation beyond that brought to the world by Jesus. This is true, but the Christians had not succeeded in bringing the faith (and frankly civilization) to the Arab tribes, so God may have felt it best to send someone local who they may listen to (instead of foreign missionaries). But the message he brought (specifically the Koran) seems well suited and authentic for the locals.
• Muhammad did not recognize the divinity of Jesus. Maybe so, but he did say Jesus was a prophet. The OT Biblical prophets also did not know the God could have a son and would have probably killed anybody who suggested such a thing.
• Muhammad had many wives. So what? If it was legal and socially acceptable at that time, why shouldn’t he, as long as he took care of them. At least he did not dump some woman with his son in the desert like some other well known prophet.
• He conducted many wars. I don’t know all the details, but most of them appear to have been in self-defense and an attempt to consolidate his faith. OT prophets have also engaged in wars (and some Popes have led armies).
• He did not know the Trinitarian nature of God. Even some Christians today have a problem with this concept. Also maybe he knew, but decided not to teach it? (Jesus did not tell his apostles everything because they were not ready yet). Maybe three Gods in one would have been too confusing for the uneducated Arabs? One God has the simplicity that is best for an unsophisticated people.

The main point is that Muhammad taught a religion that was appropriate and acceptable to the Arabic nomadic tribes. Even if he did not produce a new revelation for Christians, he did so for the Arabs. Most important of all, he talked about a just, merciful and kind God - quite unlike a hateful, angry, bloody-thirsty, vengeful God of the Old Testament.

 

[Reuben_J]

When there is not enough food to support your community, and you have to resort to raids on caravans to obtain enough to eat, this makes sense, especially when the prisoners of war are a pain in the neck. The same sort of strategy was practiced by the North American native nomad tribes.

Wars between Arab tribes, and between Jewish tribes, as well as between Arabs and Jews was the order of the day in the seventh century. During the Hajj, enemy tribes would agree not to fight each other. This was encouraged by the ruling Quraysh in Mecca, because it meant more visits, hence more money.

The Quran authorizes justified killing, especially for defense. If you declare a group as your enemy and you believe that they are about to attack you, whoever attacks first has the edge.

I can understand that. Looking back from the twenty-first century may not be quite fair.

Some few thousand years earlier though, a big portion of Jewish population was transported to the Babylon where they worked nearly slave-like for the sustaining of the Babylonians. Could the vanquished be treated similarly by Mohammad? It made no difference to them though, all their able-bodied were killed. If I were the Jews, this kind of treatment they would probably know. That’s the reason for wanting to surrender and to submit to Sa’ad to make the judgment.

They would serve him better as slaves rather than confiscating their properties and killed all the men. That would be merely short term gain but the long term would be to use your enemy for your advantage and sustenance. And besides, of course that would avoid the killing.

I am not against the killing in a war. I just find it hard to accept that Mohammad could not find an alternative to the killing.

 

[MartinJordan]

I am not completely sure if you are responding to my post (there were no quotes), but you probably were. My main point in the post was that whatever criteria (‘from a Christian point of view’) you apply to evaluate Muhammad as a prophet, you should apply the same criteria to Old Testament prophets. And as you can see from my post, he does well compared to OT prophets who did not even preach of a loving, merciful God - their’s was a violent, vengeful God - a revelation of such a God can not be a true one. I am including my previous post below for reference.

The problem is Islam preaches another Jesus. That’s all there is to it.

MJ

 

[Reuben_J]

I am not completely sure if you are responding to my post (there were no quotes), but you probably were. My main point in the post was that whatever criteria (‘from a Christian point of view’) you apply to evaluate Muhammad as a prophet, you should apply the same criteria to Old Testament prophets. And as you can see from my post, he does well compared to OT prophets who did not even preach of a loving, merciful God - their’s was a violent, vengeful God - a revelation of such a God can not be a true one. I am including my previous post below for reference.

My post was a general response to the title of the thread. Usually I would quote if I respond to a particular post. But thanks anyway for your response.

Looking at it on the surface, you probably have a point there when you equalizing him to the OT prophets. I seldom do this in my argument when possible because it can be used in many ways and sometimes to my disadvantage. The more important thing is to see the context. That is quite difficult to most posters I believe, including me, because we do not often see the context, especially if we do not have sufficient knowledge of what we are talking about.

I don’t say I have deep knowledge in Islam and what I have is usually feedback from the Muslims themselves and of course from some other sources to obtain a balance.

As for the OT prophets, especially in the book of Judges or Joshua, some of the prophets like Joshua were given specific instruction from God to kill in a specific mission in a specific time. The battle of Ai was one such example. However, those who disobeyed God would be punished accordingly, again in the Ai experience for example where an Israelite was punished for keeping some of the spoils for himself instead of destroying them.

I am trying to research about whether the massacre of the Battle of the Trench was an explicit instruction by Allah or whether it was a convenient action of Mohammad. So far it points to the latter and I am not making judgment since probably there is much more to know.

The criteria that I was keen to point out were the making of a prophet. Usually he would be foretold and his message would be consistent with God’s message before him. He may need to do a miracle not that this would prove him a prophet but that as a prophet sent by God, he would be inbued with certain power. A miracle often was the case.

Mohammad was not foretold unless you believe latter day Muslims quoting of the Exodus or the Holy Spirit which of course is plain silly. He contradicted the message of Jesus unless of course if you go along with Muslims counter argument that the Bible was corrupted which is the only way that can be solved. He did not perform any miracle unless you believe the Quran itself is a miracle. If you are not a Muslim, that claim is of course subjective. A miracle is something be better seen and specific like parting the sea into two or raising the dead.

 

[Reuben_J]

The problem is Islam preaches another Jesus. That’s all there is to it.

MJ

In the main picture of thing, this is what I see too. The central message of Jesus is denied by Islam.

 

[MartinJordan]

In the main picture of thing, this is what I see too. The central message of Jesus is denied by Islam.

Another thing is (atleast I think of it now) to Islam is Jesus a New Testament Prophet? If Muslims say he is, then what New Testament does Islam use? New Testament would mean depending on the Christian Bible would it not?

Then would be the matter of exactly where (and this must be p(name removed by moderator)ointed by authentic Islamic literature at the very least), the Christian corrupt verses are. What we have so far is modern Muslims saying this and that, not traditional Islam.

MJ

 

[FireFromHeaven]

My post was a general response to the title of the thread. Usually I would quote if I respond to a particular post. But thanks anyway for your response.

Looking at it on the surface, you probably have a point there when you equalizing him to the OT prophets. I seldom do this in my argument when possible because it can be used in many ways and sometimes to my disadvantage. The more important thing is to see the context. That is quite difficult to most posters I believe, including me, because we do not often see the context, especially if we do not have sufficient knowledge of what we are talking about.

I don’t say I have deep knowledge in Islam and what I have is usually feedback from the Muslims themselves and of course from some other sources to obtain a balance.

As for the OT prophets, especially in the book of Judges or Joshua, some of the prophets like Joshua were given specific instruction from God to kill in a specific mission in a specific time. The battle of Ai was one such example. However, those who disobeyed God would be punished accordingly, again in the Ai experience for example where an Israelite was punished for keeping some of the spoils for himself instead of destroying them.

I am trying to research about whether the massacre of the Battle of the Trench was an explicit instruction by Allah or whether it was a convenient action of Mohammad. So far it points to the latter and I am not making judgment since probably there is much more to know.

The criteria that I was keen to point out were the making of a prophet. Usually he would be foretold and his message would be consistent with God’s message before him. He may need to do a miracle not that this would prove him a prophet but that as a prophet sent by God, he would be inbued with certain power. A miracle often was the case.

Mohammad was not foretold unless you believe latter day Muslims quoting of the Exodus or the Holy Spirit which of course is plain silly. He contradicted the message of Jesus unless of course if you go along with Muslims counter argument that the Bible was corrupted which is the only way that can be solved. He did not perform any miracle unless you believe the Quran itself is a miracle. If you are not a Muslim, that claim is of course subjective. A miracle is something be better seen and specific like parting the sea into two or raising the dead.

Based on this article wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Genocide_of_Banu_Qurayza the battle was ordered by Gabriel but the massacre was not. However this is a biased source so if anyone has a better one please post it.

 

[Reuben_J]

"Reuben J:

The Medinan locals hated his gut too.

In 622 AD/1 AH, Muhammad and around 70 Meccan Muhajirun believers left Mecca for sanctuary in Yathrib (Medina), an event that transformed the religious and political landscape of the city completely; the longstanding enmity between the Arab Aus and Arab Khazraj tribes was dampened as many of the two Arab tribes and some local Jews embraced Islam. Muhammad, linked to the Khazraj through his great-grandmother, was agreed on as civic leader. The Muslim converts native to Yathrib of whatever background—pagan Arab or Jewish—were called Ansar (“the Patrons” or “the Helpers”).According to Ibn Ishaq, the local pagan Arab tribes, the Muslim Muhajirun from Mecca, the local Muslims (Ansar), and the Jews of the area signed an agreement, the so-called Constitution of Medina,

This post of yours was addressing my respond to Jakasaki’s post. Earlier in my post, I did not directly address this with you because I did not want to be petty. I said the Medinans dislike Mohammad and that was the truth. You can put up what Mohammad did there and the Muslim converts, the alliance and the treachery but these were beside the point - he was not exactly loved at least by certain portion of the Medinans.

Having said that I want to apologize for the tone of that post because it was a kind of summary personally written and a bit satirical. Knowing how Pam styled her posts, my post was something in kind. But then this is a public forum and you are right to intervene.

When I said the locals in Medina hated his gut, it was a sort of compliment to Mohammad but an assertion that the dislike was nevertheless exist against him. And for that I stand factually correct notwithstanding those who converted to Muslims there.

The thing is - no locals would really appreciate outsiders who made ground in your local turf.

As for the alliance with the Jews and their treachery later, unfortunately most of the narratives for this were from Muslim themselves and that should be taken with a grain of salt. From what we can see in retrospect, the alliance was not exactly a true marriage. The Jews could not accept that Mohammad was a prophet and we know how sensitive they were about their religion. Prophets were serious matter to the Jews. Jesus a few hundred years earlier learned the hard way about this. Mohammad on the other hand tried to bring in new ideas which definitely was in conflict with Jewish belief.

In between, tell-tale signs of disagreement between the Jews and Mohammad were there waiting for an explosion. Mohammad has one of them killed for writing a satirical poem for example. Relationship was not that good and so-called Jewish treachery cannot be unexpected. A question that need to be asked: was Mohammad not guilty of trying to proselytize the Jews? If he was indeed, one can certainly count on Jewish retaliation.

 

[Reuben_J]

Based on this article wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Genocide_of_Banu_Qurayza the battle was ordered by Gabriel but the massacre was not. However this is a biased source so if anyone has a better one please post it.

Thanks for the link, Fire. Probably most of us know what is in there. Since you brought that up, it is interesting to note that angel Gabriel was again involved here. Western film makers do not have high regard for this angel and quite often do not portray him as angel of the light. I am not surprised if they are more influenced by Muslims depiction of it.

I have yet to get a categorical confirmation that Allah ordered the massacre and am willing to say for now that it was not.

So sometimes, there are things that can be orange and apple. Mohammad and the OT prophets may be one such example.

 

[openmind77]

Based on this article wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Genocide_of_Banu_Qurayza the battle was ordered by Gabriel but the massacre was not. However this is a biased source so if anyone has a better one please post it.

This claim of God or Gabriel ordering a massacre is completely unacceptable. There does not need to be another source or debate about this.

The Old Testament idea that a loving, merciful God could ever order a massacre (women, children, babies included) is reprehensible, This is no different from people today who kill because they heard voices in their heads, I can not understand how people in this day and age can even think that God could do such a thing.

God has never ordered and will never order a massacre, whatever some book says.

 

[Reuben_J]

Another thing is (atleast I think of it now) to Islam is Jesus a New Testament Prophet? If Muslims say he is, then what New Testament does Islam use? New Testament would mean depending on the Christian Bible would it not?

Then would be the matter of exactly where (and this must be p(name removed by moderator)ointed by authentic Islamic literature at the very least), the Christian corrupt verses are. What we have so far is modern Muslims saying this and that, not traditional Islam.

MJ

Jesus as a New Testament prophet would certainly make the least sense to a Christian. I am forced to say here therefore that when Muslims say that Jesus was sent only to the people of Isreal, they do not have the full fact about Jesus.

But of course, if they speak of New testament, what an irony then.

I have a source that says that it was about in the ninth to tenth century, a good three hundred years after Mohammad, when Muslims became more educated and exposed that the idea that the Bible might be corrupted after all was floated around. AFAIK Mohammad did not say so and none of the Hadith does too.

Mohammad simply said that when the Bible disagrees with him, it simply meant the Christians were deceived or unable to see the real message, not that the Bible was corrupted. That is why they have something like the Quran 4:157-158 “but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow”.

 

[Reuben_J]

The Old Testament idea that a loving, merciful God could ever order a massacre (women, children, babies included) is reprehensible, This is no different from people today who kill because they heard voices in their heads, I can not understand how people in this day and age can even think that God could do such a thing.

God has never ordered and will never order a massacre, whatever some book says.

While you can understandably think that way, as Christians we certainly have some basis for the killing to really have happened. Again, as I said this is all in context and the facts that lay before us. To non-believers, that facts can be merely equal to belief. Well, that is what going around here afterall, it is all about belief. And therefore we must have ‘fact’ to support that belief.

Simple Christian theology would say that the consequence of sin is death. You sin you die. You don’t sin you stay with God forever. (in a nutshell). Thus the people of Sodom and gemorrah died because of sin. Out of the whole cities, not even five were righteous. Thus God had no choice but they had to face the consequenceof sin. Then there were other towns - Jericho , Ai, which were synonymous with sins and therfore must die.

Was God cruel? In a human sense, yes. In God sense, no. Death or alive makes no difference to God because he is not governed by time and space. It is better if sinners die so as not to spread sin.

Does God love? Yes. Does God forgives? Yes. Is God merciful? Yes. So what did God do? He made a plan of slavation for mankind so that they do not have to die anymore even if they sin. Thus Jesus came.

What about those who have died before Jesus, would they have a chance to go to heaven? Of course, they would be judged on individual merit.

Now people of other religions who do not believe this would be erroneous to judge Christianity but without its context.

 

[Reuben_J]

Christians believe in the great flood as well. Just a dessert for my earlier post.

 

[jakasaki]

Found this from Jewish documents:

622 MOHAMMED (Arabia)

Fled Mecca. (This journey is known to Moslems as the Hejira.)

624 - 627 JEWISH ARABIAN TRIBES

Were attacked by Mohammed. These were some twenty Jewish tribes had living in the Hijaz (western) Arabia for centuries. Legend has it that they were sent by Joshua to fight the Amalakites. Other claim that any of them settle at Yatrib (Yathrib) later known as Medina after the destruction of the first temple . The majority immigrated to Arabia after the Roman persecutions in Eretz Israel. Some of the tribes worked in agriculture others in crafts like goldsmithing. Two of the tribes (Qurayza and Nadir) considered themselves al kahinan )kohanim) One by one they were either expelled or destroyed for refusing to convert to Mohammedanism. Three of the strongest tribes are known as Banu Nadir (Nadhir), Banu Qaynuqa (Kainuka) and Banu Qurayza (Eruzia).

624 March, BANU QAYNUQA (Yathrib)

Surrendered to Mohammed after 14 day siege. The Banu Qaynuqa (Kainuka) were traders and goldsmiths. Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy one of the chiefs of the Khazraj tribe which was aligned (for the most part) with Mohammed convinced him to expel them rather then kill them. They were forced to leave their belongings and property behind. Eventually they settled in Dera in present day Syria joining the local Jewish community there. Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy is known to Islamists as a Munafiq (hypocrite).

625 BANU NADIR EXPELLED

Mohammed demanded that the Jewish tribe contribute ‘blood money’ for two people that were killed by his own (Muslim) troops, the Banu Nadir refused. Consequently Mohammed accused them of plotting against him and besieged them. After 14 days when no promised help arrived, they surrendered to the Moslem army. The Banu Nadir were known for owning some of the most fertile land in the area. They were only allowed to take what they could on their camels. Everything else was confiscated with a significant portion going directly to Mohammed.

625 THEODOSIUS (Eretz Israel)

Commander of the returning Byzantinian army. He promised amnesty to Jews who joined the Persians. He too was greeted by Benjamin of Tiberias.

627 COUNCIL OF CLICHY (France)

Decreed that Jews accepting public office had to convert.

627 SEFER (PEREK) ELIYAHU

An aggadic midrash (written between the 4th and 6th century) appeared predicting that the Messiah would soon appear to free the Jews from their misery.It is extant in two versions a Hebrew one and a Christian (Coptic) one. It also known and the “Apocalypse of Elijah”.

627 April, MASSACRE OF THE BANU QURAYZA ( Yathrib/Medina)

After Mohammed’s conquest of the Banu-Nadir Jewish tribe, he attacked the Banu- Qurayza (Eruzia). During what was known as the Battle of the Trench at Yathrib, the Jewish tribe had refused to take up sides. Mohammed enraged, ordered Sa’d bin Muadh a devoted follower and one of the chiefs of the Banu Aus (a former alley of the Qurayza), to decided on their fate. Bin Muadh had been mortally wounded in the battle and advised Mohammed to order their conversion or death. The next morning all males 6-800) who had attained puberty were taken out and beheaded . Only 3 or 4 agreed to convert. The women and children were sold into slavery or taken as concubines, many of which were redeemed by the Banu Nadir. One woman, Rayhana bint Zayd was taken personally by Mohammed. According to most sources she refused to convert and as such remained his slave. Years later (c. 1830) Husayn-`Ali Nuri, later known as Bahá’u’lláh cites the story of the massacre as one of his reasons for leaving Islam and founding the Bahai religion.

629 DEATH OF MARHAB AL-YAHUDI (Saudi Arabia)

A Jewish warrior from a family of renowned warriors and opponent of Mohammed. According to Arab historians, he died in a duel during an attack on Khaybar.

629 ARABIA-KHAIBAR

Despite the surrender of its Arab allies, the Jewish Khaibar ( Khaybar) tribe defended themselves. After a bitter battle a deal was negotiated whereby half their produce would go to Mohammed and they would be left in peace. Other Jewish tribes, e.g. Fadattr, Tedma, and Magna, concluded similar deals. The Khaibar community continued at least to the 10th century. One young woman, Safiyya bint Huyayy, whose father (a chief of the tribe) and husband were killed, was captured and taken by Mohammed. She converted and became his wife.

jewishhistory.org.il/history.php?startyear=620&endyear=629

 

[jakasaki]

Here is another article from PBS regarding the Jews of Medina.

pbs.org/muhammad/ma_jews.shtml

 

[jakasaki]

Approximate timeline of Muhammad’s life

569 Death of Muhammad’s father, `Abdallah

570 Birth of Muhammad in April

576 Death of Muhammad’s mother

578 Death of Muhammad’s grandfather

595 Muhammad’s marries Khadijah

610 First reports of Qur’anic revelation

613 Begins spreading message of Islam publicly

614 Begins to gather following in Mecca

615 Emigration of Muslims to Ethiopia

616 Start of Banu Hashim clan boycott

618 Civil war in Medina

619 End of Banu Hashim clan boycott

619 Death of Khadijah, Muhamad’s wife.

620 Isra and Miraj journeys

622 The Hijra: Muhammad and his followers emigrate to Medina

624 The battle of Badr: Muslims defeat Meccans; expulsion of Banu Qaynuqa Jews

625 Battle of Uhud: Meccans defeat Muslims; expulsion of Banu Nadir Jews

626 Attack on Dumat al-Jandal (Syria)

627 Battle of the Trench; destruction of Banu Qurayza Hews

627 Subjugation of Dumat al-Jandal

628 Treaty of Hudaybiyya; Muhammad and the Muslims are permitted to visit Mecca and the Kaaba shrine

628 Capture of the Jewish town of Khaybar

629 First hajj pilgrimage to Mecca

629 Attack on Byzantine empire fails: Battle of Mu’tah

630 Muslims attack and capture Mecca

630 Battle of Hunayn

630 Siege of Taif

632 Muslims attack the Ghassanids: Tabuk

632 Muhammad dies about June 8 in Medina

---

mideastweb.org/Middle-East-Encyclopedia/muhammad.htm

Just like we’ve said all along - he’s more of a warlord

 

[robwar]

I’ve heard many people say Muhammad was the greatest role model to follow. This role model spread Islam by the sword, many people were killed.

Christians that manipulated the bible in order to justify slavery have been denounced. I don’t see any Muslims denouncing the acts of Muhammad. You need to be fair.

Role model? Someone who marries a six year old, marries his daughter in law, rapes captive women. Seriously, I think I will pass on this role model. Yes and it is this role model which Islamic countries follow in forcing nine year olds to be married and raped. Sorry, we need to pass this one by.

 

[jakasaki]

**I’ve heard many people say Muhammad was the greatest role model to follow. **
~ snip

Not “many” people - ONLY muslims say this.

 

[Cider]

How could Christian’s consider Muhammed to have been a prophet when Islam denies Christ’s divinity.