Could Muhammad of been a prophet?

[dronald]

Really? But you are correct on one thing he started the reformation and started a Church not by the interpretation of the teachings of Christ and his Apostles. he started it on his own interpretations and ideas.

That is why he named it after himself.

And you’re certain of this, correct?

 

[nmgauss]

Really? But you are correct on one thing he started the reformation and started a Church not by the interpretation of the teachings of Christ and his Apostles. he started it on his own interpretations and ideas.

That is why he named it after himself.

The RCC was started by Christ and led by his Apostles.

Pretty much how Muhammad etc has seem to have followed.

Men who have self-proclaimed authority, None given to them by Christ.

When reading the biography of Martin Luther, there is the realization that the Bible was Luther’s authority, not the Catholics. When he grew frustrated with the way Catholics were proclaiming doctrines unsupported by the Bible, Luther rebelled. When he was excommunicated, he was accused of heresy, and in those days, this could mean the end of his mortal life.

 

[daler]

Certainly the selling of indulgences to enrich the Church was not in Christ’s teachings. Jesus was furious with the money changers in the Temple. So I doubt He would have approved of the selling of indulgences.

. Attempting to get back on topic here, my friends. A parallel which to me is quite striking is how Abraham destroyed the idols which even His own father was producing. This brought the wrath of his own father and the other idolators upon Him, forcing His migration away from Ur, which had the effect of spreading His religion to a wider audience.

. When Moses faced Pharaoh’s ministers, He destroyed their crooked ways with the Staff of Truth, for their own vain imaginings were the idols separating the people from God.

. When Jesus entered the Temple and kicked over the money changer’s tables, it is reminiscent of Abraham destroying the idols, refocussing people’s attention on God.

. When Muhammad returned to Mecca and entered the Ka’aba, He again destroyed the hundreds of idols, purifying once again the religion of the One God.

. What else is in common is that all of these Prophets suffered severe and extreme persecution from the religious and political leaders of the day. History keeps repeating these same patterns. The same personality types infest the hierarchy of religion and withhold the people from the Wellspring of Knowledge, rekindling the fire of faith through Their adherence to the Laws of God and principals of justice.

. What all of Them sacrificed is infinitely greater than any trace of earthly gain. Their Kingdom has never been of this world. That, too, They have in common.

.

 

[Contarini]

When reading the biography of Martin Luther, there is the realization that the Bible was Luther’s authority, not the Catholics.

But this assumes that the Bible wasn’t the authority for Catholics too. Luther himself said that his views on Scriptural authority were simply those he had been taught by his Catholic theology professors at university. Luther did not differ from Catholic theology in what he believed positively about the Bible, but in his rejection of the authority of the Church. (Note: there appears to have been a distinction between theologians and canon lawyers–the theologians typically maintained the “material sufficiency of Scripture,” treating it as the authoritative textbook for theology from whose principles all theology could be derived; the canon lawyers treated Scripture as just one of the sources for the Church’s authoritative pronouncements. At least that’s one influential theory about how late medieval Catholicism worked.)

When he grew frustrated with the way Catholics were proclaiming doctrines unsupported by the Bible, Luther rebelled.

By his reading of the Bible. Many Biblical scholars today, for instance, think that Luther got Paul wrong.

When he was excommunicated, he was accused of heresy, and in those days, this could mean the end of his mortal life.

Very true. However, he had a princely protector (Frederick the Wise), and mainstream Protestantism flourished in part because it appealed to rulers who wanted more independence from the Church and more control over it (the Middle Ages saw a long struggle between civil and ecclesiastical hierarchies, and the Protestants backed the “civil” side).

Luther was certainly courageous, but the Anabaptists and other radicals, as well as the “evangelical Catholics” who held some Protestant-like views but refused to break with the Church and seek the backing of anti-clerical civil rulers, were far more so.

Edwin

 

[daler]

Really? But you are correct on one thing he started the reformation and started a Church not by the interpretation of the teachings of Christ and his Apostles. he started it on his own interpretations and ideas.

That is why he named it after himself.

The RCC was started by Christ and led by his Apostles.

Pretty much how Muhammad etc has seem to have followed.

Men who have self-proclaimed authority, None given to them by Christ.

Rinnie,
. As a westerner, more or less ignorant on much about Islam, I gained much from watching something on You Tube called “How the Quran was revealed and compiled.”

youtube.com/watch?v=ICu3ITHnBoM

. The young man does a very fine job.

.

 

[tonyfish58]

. Attempting to get back on topic here, my friends. A parallel which to me is quite striking is how Abraham destroyed the idols which even His own father was producing. This brought the wrath of his own father and the other idolators upon Him, forcing His migration away from Ur, which had the effect of spreading His religion to a wider audience.

. When Moses faced Pharaoh’s ministers, He destroyed their crooked ways with the Staff of Truth, for their own vain imaginings were the idols separating the people from God.

. When Jesus entered the Temple and kicked over the money changer’s tables, it is reminiscent of Abraham destroying the idols, refocussing people’s attention on God.

. When Muhammad returned to Mecca and entered the Ka’aba, He again destroyed the hundreds of idols, purifying once again the religion of the One God.

. What else is in common is that all of these Prophets suffered severe and extreme persecution from the religious and political leaders of the day. History keeps repeating these same patterns. The same personality types infest the hierarchy of religion and withhold the people from the Wellspring of Knowledge, rekindling the fire of faith through Their adherence to the Laws of God and principals of justice.

. What all of Them sacrificed is infinitely greater than any trace of earthly gain. Their Kingdom has never been of this world. That, too, They have in common.

.

Dale - That needed to be posted again

Regards Tony

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Certainly the authority of many of the practices of the Catholic Church was not given by Christ.

Therefore what exactly?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

You cannot possibly say Muhammad had no earthy gain from his wars and the various wives he married. There are hadiths which mention the riches and the prominence of muhammad, he had comforts and such. I suspect however the criterion of “WHatever makes the prophet look good” as the ultimate standard of historical enquiry will be employed here both by muslims and bahais. Those sources which appear to be embarressing cannot be trusted because of a preconceived notion of the prophet’s perfection.

 

[tonyfish58]

preconceived notion of the prophet’s perfection.

Or it could also be said “preconceived notion of the prophet’s imperfection”.

Muhammad Stands upon His own Word to which one can only use to judge Him.

As the Truth of Christ also stands Upon His Word.

Mankind missed the boat when they rejected Muhammad, May we all see the error of that denial.

Regards Tony

 

[daler]

Or it could also be said “preconceived notion of the prophet’s imperfection”.

Muhammad Stands upon His own Word to which one can only use to judge Him.

As the Truth of Christ also stands Upon His Word.

Mankind missed the boat when they rejected Muhammad, May we all see the error of that denial.

Regards Tony

His generosity to the poor often left him without food in his own house. He was well known to care for widows and orphans, feeding others while leaving his own family with less. No more generous man was known in Mecca and Medina than Muhammad, known as the truthful, the trustworthy, long before His Revelations came to Him at 40 years of age, continuing for 23 more years.

He had never sought worldly leadership, had no ambitions in mind, was humble and spent much time meditating alone in the hills around Mecca until finally, at age 40, the Angel Gabriel visited Him, commanding Him to “Recite” “I cannot read or recite” Again: “Recite” “I cannot read or recite”, again, this time wrapping him tightly almost crushing Him, saying: Recite in the name of the Lord!"

It is a powerful story when read without the biased eyes and accounts of the early jealous opponents known for distorting truths to defame the wondrous trustworthy Prophet. Would that we could have known Him as He rearranged all life in His areas and times, unifying the nomadic tribes, leading them out of idol worship of 36o idols, destroying them as did Abraham before Him, insisting that there is only One God, Allah, the Unseen, to whom all should worship no less that 5 times per day, instilling honesty and reverence, justice and fairness. He was indeed a Holy Man, a Prophet equal to any in the Old or New Testament. Praise be unto Muhammad!

Please, friends, find the time to watch “The Messege”, 1976, starring Anthony Quinn. It is exceptional film, historical, very watchable. The finest film of the decade produced in Morocco. A true appreciation of His plight is gained for the unbiased viewer.

veoh.com/watch/v7029015heJ7KGAQ

Highly, very Highly recommend.

.

 

[Dave_B]

… He was indeed a Holy Man, a Prophet equal to any in the Old or New Testament. Praise be unto Muhammad!..

He was much more similar to a few of the old testament prophets. The new covenant of Jesus Christ seemed to by-passed him completely. I suggest you fully research the life of Muhammed, his actions, wives, concubines and military conquests before singing his praises.

 

[daler]

He was much more similar to a few of the old testament prophets. The new covenant of Jesus Christ seemed to by-passed him completely. I suggest you fully research the life of Muhammed, his actions, wives, concubines and military conquests before singing his praises.

I have researched over many years in the most objective unbiased fair treatment given, as opposed to gross misinformation and falsities prevalent in the early western accounts jealous of how he unified vast warring tribes. It took me time to overcome typical western prejudices, distortions, etc. I say this as a non-Muslim, fair in understanding things are not as easy as they seem to discern the matter. May I suggest “Muhammad and the Course of Islam” by HM Balyuzi, if ever you should get your hands on it. A fair study, very readable, historically accurate without bias, written by an exceptional non-Muslim scholar

Reserve judgement until gaining a fuller hearing of the other side from within, not merely without. It is true that the corruptors of Islam did their schismatic damage upon the death of the Prophet, destroying the unity He had enjoined upon His followers. The Ummayyads were in fact the “Beast of the bottomless Pit” of Revelation and the cause of the evil done in the name of a once pure religion, which corruption persists to this day. Its cycle ran 1260 years, until 1844, and which time it was essentially finished.

Meanwhile, the history of Christianity had destroyed the foundation of the teachings of Christ equally in its hypocrisy, slaughter, conquests, inquisitions, perpetual wars, far in excess of the sins of Islam, to be fair, oppressing and enslaving where ever it set foot.

One cannot be judged by His followers in either sad case, but by the purity of its origin after carefully discarding the lies fabricated for unsavory purposes. This is a most fair assessment in my study.

Please feel free to ask further specific questions as you may.

God bless, and please note the postscript. Thank you, friend
.

 

[Dave_B]

…One cannot be judged by His followers in either sad case, but by the purity of its origin after carefully discarding the lies fabricated for unsavory purposes…

I disagree. “A good tree can’t produce bad fruit; neither can a bad tree produce good fruit. You will know them by their fruits.”

Jesus tells us to beware of false prophets that come in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.

 

[TheSufi]

You cannot possibly say Muhammad had no earthy gain from his wars and the various wives he married. There are hadiths which mention the riches and the prominence of muhammad, he had comforts and such. I suspect however the criterion of “WHatever makes the prophet look good” as the ultimate standard of historical enquiry will be employed here both by muslims and bahais. Those sources which appear to be embarressing cannot be trusted because of a preconceived notion of the prophet’s perfection.

It is not unbiblical or unrighteous to have wars, wives, and comfort. Establishing an Earthy Kingdom will have earthly benefits. When Jesus returns he will establish an earthly Kingdom and will engage in wars and acquire wealth and riches, things needs to maintain an earthly Kingdom. And he will enjoy the comforts of his earthly gains. While Prophet Muhammad did acquire physical things, he did not live like a King, he did not have a palace (and could have), nor the finer things in life. One needs to look at not only his physical gains, but Prophet Muhammad’s spiritual legacy.

In regards to hadiths there are authentic hadiths and fabricated Hadith. Both Muslims and Christians have established particular standards by which statements and actions of Jesus and Prophet Muhammad are acceptable or unacceptable as proof. In this we are no different than Christians.

I understand why you don’t accept Prophet Muhammad as a prophet, but your logic is flawed.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Is it possible that Muhammad was a prophet of God? Can the belief in Jesus as our savoir and Muhammad as a prophet coincide? I don’t know much about Islam, but I’m quite curious about it.

No, Hebrews 1 already explains to us how God spoke to us through prophets in
times of old but in these latter days has spoken to us through his son Jesus.

Also, Muslims don’t exactly see Jesus as the savior, because they don’t believe
in Original Sin. Islam professes that we can get to Heaven by ourselves, that be-
ing very antithetical to what the Bible says.

Muslims also reject the writings of Paul.

On top of that, they reject the Deity of Jesus Christ, calling him simply
a created man like us. They don’t believe in the Trinity and so forth.

Now many will say that Muslims worship a different God for these reasons,
while I however take the position that no, they do believe (even worship ar-
guably) the same God, but they do not have the correct beliefs.

Also consider that story in the Gospels when Jesus takes a few of his Apostles up
on top of a mountain, where Moses and Elijah happen to appear. The Apostles got
excited, wanting to honor these past prophets with Jesus, then came the voice of
the Father, “This is My Beloved Son, HEAR HIM!” Apostles freak out, fall on the
ground, Jesus calls to them, they see no one else except Jesus alone.

There are no more Prophets, no more Revelations (safe it be personal), beyond that of
the Apostles. No Joseph Smith, no Baha’ullah, no John Newbrough, and especially no
Muhammad.

 

[TheSufi]

Islam professes that we can get to Heaven by ourselves, that be-
ing very antithetical to what the Bible says.

Wrong, Salvation is through God alone, not through our works.

Prophet Muhammad said, ‘Your actions alone will not save any of you.’ They asked, ‘Messenger of God, not even you?’, He replied,** 'Not even me, unless, God were to envelop me in His mercy.** Be firm; steadfast and balanced; and journey [to God] in the beginning of the day, the end of the day, and a portion of the latter part of the night. Moderation, moderation! Through this you will attain your goal!" He also recorded this hadith in another place with the wording, ‘This religion is easy, none makes it hard upon himself except that it overwhelms him; therefore be firm, steadfast, and balanced; upon which have glad tidings! Seek help in this by journeying [to Allah] at the beginning of the day, at the end of the day, and a portion of the latter part of night.’ (Sahih Bukhari)

Our works is a means, not an end. We acknowledge God first and foremost and then our works. As a Muslim I see my works as a blessing from God.

As a Muslim I am taught, that a believer will encounter four things in life, and with these four things there is a proper response and improper to these four things.

1. Trials and Tribulation - Proper Response, Patience and prayer, improper response, ingratitude and anger.
2. Blessings in Life (Wealth, Food, Shelter) - Proper Response, Gratitude of tongue and limbs (being obedient to God), improper response, ingratitude and disobedience.
3. Obedience to God - Proper Response, Realization that God has done one a favor, thankfulness and gratitude, improper response, arrogance and the belief that we are the actual reason for these deeds.
4. Disobedience - Proper Response, Repentance, and seeking help from God. Improper response, ingratitude and anger.

So Muslims believe there is a middle path between faith and works. Ultimately salvation is through God alone. Our works are but a reflection of our gratitude towards God.

Muslims also reject the writings of Paul.

Paul wasn’t Jesus.

On top of that, they reject the Deity of Jesus Christ, calling him simply
a created man like us. They don’t believe in the Trinity and so forth.
.

Both Jews and Muslims from the Abrahamic religions reject the concept that God becomes man, is man and so forth. So it is not alien to the way of the Abrahamic religions.

And God knows best.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Wrong, Salvation is through God alone, not through our works…

(I’m not addressing the above statement alone, I just shortened it).
But you don’t believe that you need the merits of Jesus Christ. Yes God is the Savior,
but Jesus is God too, and you don’t believe that salvation comes through Jesus alone.
Our works, our faith, mean nothing to God if it is not rested upon God who came in the
flesh and accomplished what we as mere creations can never do. Islam begs to differ.

Paul wasn’t Jesus.

Yes, you are absolutely right, Paul is not Jesus, but the words of Paul are from God.
When Paul was persecuting early Christians, Jesus came to him and said, “Why are you
persecuting me?” Paul then said to Jesus, “What do you me to do … Lord?” Jesus told
Paul to go to Damascus, and there he learned everything he was to do for God.

Both Jews and Muslims from the Abrahamic religions reject the concept that God becomes man, is man and so forth. So it is not alien to the way of the Abrahamic religions.

And God knows best.

God does knows best, Alhamdulillah, but God in the Old Testament did say that he would
come himself to be the Messiah. You, however, take the position that God could never en-
ter into his own creation to accomplish his own purposes. We Christians believe that God
came into the world in human flesh to accomplish, as I said before, that one thing that no
mere creature could ever ever do.

Study the Old and New Testament and find how both are perfectly consistent, then see if
the Qur’an matches up with either the Old or New Testament. Remember also, Jesus did
not leave this world without witnesses, and it is from these witnesses guided by the Holy
Spirit that we get the New Testament.

 

[nmgauss]

You cannot possibly say Muhammad had no earthy gain from his wars and the various wives he married. There are hadiths which mention the riches and the prominence of muhammad, he had comforts and such. I suspect however the criterion of “WHatever makes the prophet look good” as the ultimate standard of historical enquiry will be employed here both by muslims and bahais. Those sources which appear to be embarressing cannot be trusted because of a preconceived notion of the prophet’s perfection.

If a person takes on a position of leadership, his effectiveness is enhanced by appearances. Thus, if the standard of potentates in a society is to have opulence, then more people will be impressed if the leader shows opulence. The Catholic Church has not refrained from exhibiting its riches. St. Peter’s Basilica is certainly impressive. So is the apparel of the Vatican cardinals. I don’t think they would be as effective if they appeared in rags.

In Muhammad’s day, looking superior gained the respect of followers. I don’t think casting aspersions on Muhammad because of his lifestyle toward the end of his life achieves anything. When he was starting out in his work, he had only one wife. It was only when his followers expected him to be like the typical potentates of his day that he accumulated wives and other riches.

 

[TheSufi]

(I’m not addressing the above statement alone, I just shortened it).
But you don’t believe that you need the merits of Jesus Christ. Yes God is the Savior,
but Jesus is God too, and you don’t believe that salvation comes through Jesus alone.
Our works, our faith, mean nothing to God if it is not rested upon God who came in the
flesh and accomplished what we as mere creations can never do. Islam begs to differ.

Yes, you are absolutely right, Paul is not Jesus, but the words of Paul are from God.
When Paul was persecuting early Christians, Jesus came to him and said, “Why are you
persecuting me?” Paul then said to Jesus, “What do you me to do … Lord?” Jesus told
Paul to go to Damascus, and there he learned everything he was to do for God.

God does knows best, Alhamdulillah, but God in the Old Testament did say that he would
come himself to be the Messiah. You, however, take the position that God could never en-
ter into his own creation to accomplish his own purposes. We Christians believe that God
came into the world in human flesh to accomplish, as I said before, that one thing that no
mere creature could ever ever do.

Study the Old and New Testament and find how both are perfectly consistent, then see if
the Qur’an matches up with either the Old or New Testament. Remember also, Jesus did
not leave this world without witnesses, and it is from these witnesses guided by the Holy
Spirit that we get the New Testament.

You can summarize our difference to one point.

We do not see Jesus as God. And I personally have researched this issue, and I do not see God becoming man nor do I find it an acceptable belief within the context of the Abrahamic religions. Muslims and Jews reject this idea and belief. There were early Christians who also rejected this idea and belief.

**“God is not a man that He should Lie, nor the Son of man that He should repent.” **Numbers 23:19

I know Christians have their apologetics to this verse, but I am not personally convinced of their arguments.

 

[Reuben_J]

If a person takes on a position of leadership, his effectiveness is enhanced by appearances. Thus, if the standard of potentates in a society is to have opulence, then more people will be impressed if the leader shows opulence. The Catholic Church has not refrained from exhibiting its riches. St. Peter’s Basilica is certainly impressive. So is the apparel of the Vatican cardinals. I don’t think they would be as effective if they appeared in rags.

In Muhammad’s day, looking superior gained the respect of followers. I don’t think casting aspersions on Muhammad because of his lifestyle toward the end of his life achieves anything. When he was starting out in his work, he had only one wife. ** It was only when his followers expected him to be like the typical potentates of his day that he accumulated wives and other riches.**

If I would comment on Mohammad, it is mostly because I am disagreeing with his theology. I used to say this and I think it is wrong that the law should not apply equally to him about the number of wives that he could have.