Could Muhammad of been a prophet?

[doormouse73]

The history of Muhammad reveals that he was influenced heavily by the problems he saw in his own people. The main problem was that tribes would conduct vendettas against each other. Muhammad put a stop to this by uniting the tribes into worshipping Allah and following the Quran. If they all had a single purpose, the hope was that they would stop killing each other. Thus the idea of the ummah (community) became paramount.

But when Muslims started experiencing violent attacks by the Quraysh of Mecca, Muhammad saw a need to defend his people by military force. Thus the approval of violence in defense became established and is still advocated today.

Promoting the ummah is paramount in Muslim thinking. It was the basis for expansion of Islam with the idea that uniting people into one belief system would lead to eliminating violence between the various peoples. However, raids on caravans were still practiced, because this was tradition for hundreds of years. But no killing was supposed to happen. Just confiscation of goods was permitted.

does that make him a prophet/? i dont think so,more like a politician in my eyes…

 

[doormouse73]

The truth is that his preaching was rejected by his own tribe. He then attacked his own people to force conversions and the rest is history.

 

[nmgauss]

does that make him a prophet/? i dont think so,more like a politician in my eyes…

In actuality, he was both. He had revelations sent to him via Gabriel, thus being the basis for his being a prophet. He also engaged in political action which enhanced the people’s well being.

Unlike Christianity, which plays a small role in politics, one of the main thrusts of furthering Islam was to unite as many people as possible through conquest. The first conquests emphasized uniting Arabs into one nation. This was Muhammad’s chief goal. However, his successors, including the Rashidun and the Umayyads, expanded the conquests into non-Arab areas with the idea of forming an Islamic Empire. The Rashidun did not try to convert Christians and Jews to Islam. They were not infidels. Their faiths were respected. Here the initial tolerance of other faiths was admirable. This contrasts with the exclusionary attitude of Christians.

 

[jakasaki]

does that make him a prophet/? i dont think so,more like a politician in my eyes…

Here’s how I see things:

During Mohammads time, there were Christians & Jews living in Medina.

The Jews had their own scriptures, prophets, religion and practices

The Christians had their own scriptures, prophets, religion and practices

The pagans had their religion & practices, perhaps scriptures and prophets.

The native Arabs had nothing like this.

The Arabs had no prophets, no religion, no scripture to call their own

Great opportunity for Mohammad to create a prophet to represent the Arabs and create his own religious book.

Now, the Arabs were merchants, goat/animal herders, poets and perhaps other types of business existed.

But education was not on their list. Most of them could not read/write.

Mohammad disliked the Pagans very much. They worshiped way too many idols.

The Jews however worshiped one God

The Christians worshiped one God, but believed in The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

Although Mohammad was fond to learn about Jesus Christ, elevated him to a great prophet from stories he heard from the Christians, but could not stand the fact that He was the Son of God.

Why ~ because Mohammad believed that would be in believing in 2 Gods and that is what he was trying to avoid.

The book of Islam is not a book inspired or revealed by God.

Gabriel has never been sent by God to contradict God’s prior message(s)

Gabriel said to Mary in Luke 1:

31And, behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name JESUS.

32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give to him the throne of his father David:

33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

And in Luke 8: Demons cast into the pigs:

28When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with you, Jesus, you Son of God most high? I beseech you, torment me not.

The Gabriel Islam speaks of is not God’s Archangel Gabriel.

Also, when you read the stories about the Biblical prophets, the majority of the stories are twisted and not found in the OT.

Mohammad got pieces of info from here & there and that is what he taught his Arab followers. Why question him. Mohammad was a clever man.

Everyone was amazed by him. Islam is born

What we don’t have today are the writings from the early scribes of Mohammad. The bones, parchment, stones, the skins in which parts of his sayings were written on.

 

[jakasaki]

In actuality, he was both. He had revelations sent to him via Gabriel, thus being the basis for his being a prophet.

. snip

.

God has never sent the Archangel Gabriel to send down a thousand of revelations.

God has used Gabriel to send a message and return back to God.

 

[aemcpa]

He had revelations sent to him via Gabriel, thus being the basis for his being a prophet.

Or so he claims.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

For me the big problem for Islam is the lack of a historical trace between islam and Christianity. Naturally if Jesus did not teach that he was God then the apostles wouldn’t have taught it. So there would be at least a good sized group of people who remained tre to Jesus’ teachings. However this is not the case. I’ve had Muslims pull up the judaizers movement but from the letters of Paul we know the apostle were against them. Then they say Paul lied about his association with the apostles. But if that were the case, why didn’t the apostles write a letter denouncing Paul? As far as I know no such letter has been found. Another problem is apostolic succession. Christians in India can trace their bishops back to Thomas. Christians in Egypt and Ethiopia can trace their bishops back to Mark(correct me if I’m wrong). This is the Achilles heel, if you will, of Islam.

 

[jakasaki]

There was no reason for Mohammad to create Islam.

Since he was displeased with the Christians whom he thought worshiped more than one God and he despised the Pagans he could have joined the Jews.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

Here’s how I see things:

During Mohammads time, there were Christians & Jews living in Medina.

The Jews had their own scriptures, prophets, religion and practices

The Christians had their own scriptures, prophets, religion and practices

The pagans had their religion & practices, perhaps scriptures and prophets.

The native Arabs had nothing like this.

The Arabs had no prophets, no religion, no scripture to call their own

Great opportunity for Mohammad to create a prophet to represent the Arabs and create his own religious book.

Now, the Arabs were merchants, goat/animal herders, poets and perhaps other types of business existed.

But education was not on their list. Most of them could not read/write.

Mohammad disliked the Pagans very much. They worshiped way too many idols.

I don’t know much about pagan scripture but I’m pretty sure that they don’t have prophets.
BTW I love how you summed up the religions of Arabia.

 

[jakasaki]

I don’t know much about pagan scripture but I’m pretty sure that they don’t have prophets.
BTW I love how you summed up the religions of Arabia.

Yeah - not sure about Pagans if they had any prophets.

There’s another thing I want to point out.

Mohammad wanted to coin himself as a “prophet” of God, that he made sure that he created this saying which is the Shahada, the Islamic creed, to testify that

There is no god but Allah, Mohammad is the messenger of God

No such thing exists in Judaism nor Christianity where we place a name of prophet within the religion.

 

[Augustine3]

Gospel of John chapter 16 verse 7:

“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not
come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you”.

Gospel of John chapter 15 verse 26:
“But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which
proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.”

Lol - I have yet to hear the claim the apostles lived another 600 years for Muhammed the alleged comforter, fulfilling the prophecy of Christ guiding the apostles to all truth :whacky:

 

[joe371]

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.

A prophet that denies the Trinity. Well, not likely…Of course, that is just viewing it from the Christian perspective…

 

[FireFromHeaven]

In actuality, he was both. He had revelations sent to him via Gabriel, thus being the basis for his being a prophet. He also engaged in political action which enhanced the people’s well being.

Unlike Christianity, which plays a small role in politics, one of the main thrusts of furthering Islam was to unite as many people as possible through conquest. The first conquests emphasized uniting Arabs into one nation. This was Muhammad’s chief goal. However, his successors, including the Rashidun and the Umayyads, expanded the conquests into non-Arab areas with the idea of forming an Islamic Empire. The Rashidun did not try to convert Christians and Jews to Islam. They were not infidels. Their faiths were respected. Here the initial tolerance of other faiths was admirable. This contrasts with the exclusionary attitude of Christians.

Excuse me are we in the same religion? Christianity has had a massive effect on politics in Christian countries. Example include the crusades inquisition witch trials excommunication religous wars of France and Germany te list goes on. Now the general view seems to be that religion and politics don’t mix well and I have to agree looking at that list.

 

[kimg901]

I would say no way. The OT prophets talked about the coming of Jesus, the NT prophets spoke of Jesus. Muhammed and islam deny Christ.

 

[Augustine3]

Unlike Christianity, which plays a small role in politics, one of the main thrusts of furthering Islam was to unite as many people as possible through conquest. The first conquests emphasized uniting Arabs into one nation. This was Muhammad’s chief goal. However, his successors, including the Rashidun and the Umayyads, expanded the conquests into non-Arab areas with the idea of forming an Islamic Empire. The Rashidun did not try to convert Christians and Jews to Islam. They were not infidels. Their faiths were respected. Here the initial tolerance of other faiths was admirable. This contrasts with the exclusionary attitude of Christians.

The difference is Christianity was spread through word of mouth and acts of charity. Islam was spread by the sword.

There’s nothing noble or admirable about Muslim conquests.

Perhaps you may be unaware but when using phrases like “Unlike Christianity…” it appears as though you are debunking us Christians. It almost seems like you’re on your way to becoming a Muslim yourself.

 

[nmgauss]

Excuse me are we in the same religion? Christianity has had a massive effect on politics in Christian countries. Example include the crusades inquisition witch trials excommunication religous wars of France and Germany te list goes on. Now the general view seems to be that religion and politics don’t mix well and I have to agree looking at that list.

The primary purpose of the Christian Churches was to increase the number of Christians, teach the Gospel, and enhance the wealth and prestige of the Church. Empire building was not on their agenda. Except for the Vatican and the old Papal States, no country was formed nor an empire built with the purpose of establishing a Christian State. The fact that most New World countries are primarily Catholic today is after the fact, not because the Church sponsored the establishment of these countries.

This contrasts with the Islamic Empire, whose establishment was mainly for political purposes.

The Crusades were fought at the behest of Pope Urban III, not to establish a Catholic Empire, but to eject the Muslims from the Holy Land. This was religious in motive, not political.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

Okay then I misunderstood you. I thought you meant Christianity played no part in politics. My bad.

 

[nmgauss]

The difference is Christianity was spread through word of mouth and acts of charity. Islam was spread by the sword.

There’s nothing noble or admirable about Muslim conquests.

Perhaps you may be unaware but when using phrases like “Unlike Christianity…” it appears as though you are debunking us Christians. It almost seems like you’re on your way to becoming a Muslim yourself.

Are you taking sides? I certainly am not. I am trying to understand the motives of the Muslims.

The establishment of an empire was more important than spreading Islam. I agree that violence is not an appropriate way to build an empire but the Romans, Greeks, Persians, and Assyrians led the way. The Muslims just learned by example.

It is informative to look at the lifestyle of the Arabian tribes at the time of Muhammad. There was not enough pasturage nor water in western Arabia to support all the people who wanted to live there. It was a tough hardscrabble existence for the nomads. If you are starving and you see food, you grab it. Otherwise you die. Like many of the plains Indians of America, stealing from neighboring clans was part of the culture. It was also part of the culture of Muhammad. He could not radically change the lifestyle of his followers and succeed in his goals.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

You are a very interesting fellow nmgauss. I guess Augustine is taking sides because we believe christianity is absolutely true. Thus when Islam stands against Christianity it stands against truth. Thus we attempt to refute it. Seeing a fellow Christian doing otherwise gives us pause.

 

[Augustine3]

The establishment of an empire was more important than spreading Islam.

Establishing the empire was done through the spread of Islam, hence by the sword. They were not exclusive to each other.

It is informative to look at the lifestyle of the Arabian tribes at the time of Muhammad. There was not enough pasturage nor water in western Arabia to support all the people who wanted to live there. It was a tough hardscrabble existence for the nomads. If you are starving and you see food, you grab it. Otherwise you die. Like many of the plains Indians of America, stealing from neighboring clans was part of the culture. It was also part of the culture of Muhammad. He could not radically change the lifestyle of his followers and succeed in his goals.

Stealing for food is one thing. Killing people for food is another and is certainly unethical and unchristian.