Could Muhammad of been a prophet?

[Reuben_J]

From the Christian paradigm, I don’t think Christians are looking for a prophet, in the Old Testament sense. What is interesting about Jesus is that he did NOT bring a new scripture, a new holy book.

This is interesting to me, if at all but the fact how it is viewed by a non-Christian. When you mention about a ‘book’, perhaps that shows how important a holy book is for you, a Muslim. One would see that the Quran that the Muslims have as a reason for this.

On the other hand, the Gospels which Jesus brought forth are equally important for Christians. They did not have to be words recorded verbatim from Jesus, but nevertheless there is never any doubt about the message.

So there is perhaps a different paradigm here. Jesus is not a book but the word itself. Jesus did not receive any message but he is the message. Tthat is why there is no book. The books were wriiten by his disciples.

 

[TheSufi]

Fair enough. Both religions are spread by the sword somewhere sometimes along their history. Some Christian posters here would not go along the line that Islam was spread by the sword and Christianity was not.

However, depending on how one sees it, perhaps there is a thin line but subjected to argument on how the role of the sword in spreading the religions respectively. Islam immediately went into war even during Mohammad’s time and continued by the caliphs. In a short period it had spread from the Arabian Peninsula to Northern Africa, Asia and Europe. Christianity was less fortunate. For about three hundred years after Jesus died, it was persecuted. It is because of this that non-Muslims argue that Islam by nature was violent and spread by the sword since Mohammad and the caliphs represented Islam.

The reality of God is that He is both a creator and destroyer. He both a love and justice.

The difference between Jesus and Muhammad is that Jesus didn’t complete his mission (don’t take this the wrong way, I am not saying it is a bad thing, but to bring prespective).

Muhammad had two phases, one when he was like Jesus (The Meccan Phase- no-fighting, no wars), At first Muhammad wanted to establish their spiritual principle, drawing closer to God, loving they enemy, while being persecuted. For 13 years.

And another phase when he was like Moses and Israelite prophets (Medinah phase). Muhammad established a nation, a kingdom here on earth, at which Muhammad would have to act as a judge and a protector of people. (Jesus will return and finish his mission, establish his kingdom, and be judge and a protector of people. He will engage in many wars when he returns.)

When Christians established a nation for themselves, is when they became violent. It is the nature of establishing a nation. When Jesus returns he will be violent. Not that Jesus is violent, he will be establishing justice. In arabic, justice adl. which literally mean, putting things in there proper place.

The same cannot be said of the Christians in the colonization by the West of the new world which Christians would quick to point out that the colonization was done by secular power while Christianity was spread by the missionaries.

Hmm. I don’t know. This might be partly true, but it is not 100% true.I would have to do more research on this.

Ultimately, there are good and bad people from the religions respectively and on that score, I agree. Beyond that, which is often the contention here, is a matter of which religion, vis-à-vis Islam and Christianity that inherently has a propensity to violence and killing.

I don’t think any religion is inherently violent. I am muslim and I am non-violent, and any verse or hadith which indicates violence, I understand it in its proper context. Sure can find a verses which say kill the disbeliever. Verse is specific in nature, and not to be taken in a general sense. Violent people can take any scripture and use it and interpret it in a violent way. Jesus said, “Think not that I comes to send peace, I come not to send peace but a sword.” Before the cruxifixion Jesus told his companions, to sell their sandals and to buy swords.

 

[TheSufi]

Again, an interesting perception by a non-Christian. However that perception simply stops before you complete the full picture. You did not mention the message of the Gospel. Jesus brought the Gospel primarily. The Holy Spirit helps, for Christians who are willing to surrender to him, to be able to live out the Gospel. The end result will be for that Christian to be holy. Yes, he can take the role of a prophet that is teaching the faith. He also would be a priest, offering sacrifice . And finally, he is king, to serve.

So a Christian is called to be a prophet, a priest and a king in the sense that he teaches the Christian faith, offering himself as a living sacrifice and always willing to serve like Jesus the King.

I often reflect on the what I’ve read from the bible. Why is there a correlation between being a Christian as understood by Jesus and being a prophet or priest? Because this gift of the Holy Spirit was only given to priest and prophets, it is the means by which one communicates with God, and experiencing God directly. Jesus didn’t bring a scripture, he brought the Holy spirit, because he wanted people to receive directly from God, (if we rely on the gospel).

What does it mean to be born again?

Many modern Christians understand this to mean, leave off sin. I will no longer gamble, drink, have sex out of wedlock etc etc.

But I was pondering the story of Nicodemus, he was a high priest, so from one perspective, he was sinless. So what made him sinful. My conclusion. He didn’t have the Holy Spirit. He didn’t have that direct connection to God. He was not one with God. Jesus came to make people prophets. He didn’t bring a scripture because he didn’t want people to have second hand information from God, but first hand information from God. Toward the end of Gospel, before he sent his disciples off, Jesus filled them with the Holy Spirit. Look at Paul’s conversion, he meet Jesus spiritualyl. He also traveled to the heavens, before he died. He said, i don’t if I was in the body or out of the body. Paul had that spiritual connection.

The early Christians taught from the Old Testament, not the new. Reflect on that.

It is not an easy task, which is why jesus said, many are called and few are chosen. Many are called to this way, but few actually connect to God directly.

Just one of my many reflection.

 

[Reuben_J]

The reality of God is that He is both a creator and destroyer. He both a love and justice.

I will need to check my fact before I can really answer this. I agree that God is a Creator. As for God being a destroyer, it perhaps need deeper explanation.

The difference between Jesus and Muhammad is that Jesus didn’t complete his mission (don’t take this the wrong way, I am not saying it is a bad thing, but to bring prespective).

I will only listen to this because it is spoken by a non-Christian and therefore from a person who does not believe in Christianity. As a Christian, of course I have to say you are wrong. Jesus definitely finished his mission. He said so himself. “It is finished”. He is not interested in the worldly kingdom because his Kingdom is not of this world. So to him, a Christian empire is of no interest to him but to the emperors, the colonizers, yes, of course.

Muhammad had two phases, one when he was like Jesus (The Meccan Phase- no-fighting, no wars), At first Muhammad wanted to establish their spiritual principle, drawing closer to God, loving they enemy, while being persecuted. For 13 years.

And another phase when he was like Moses and Israelite prophets (Medinah phase). Muhammad established a nation, a kingdom here on earth, at which Muhammad would have to act as a judge and a protector of people. (Jesus will return and finish his mission, establish his kingdom, and be judge and a protector of people. He will engage in many wars when he returns.)

But why did he went to war and conquered territories which were not his land?

When Christians established a nation for themselves, is when they became violent. It is the nature of establishing a nation.

Agree. The tendency for people in power is to be violent.

When Jesus returns he will be violent. Not that Jesus is violent, he will be establishing justice. In arabic, justice adl. which literally mean, putting things in their proper place.

You need to elaborate here before I can comment impartially.

Hmm. I don’t know. This might be partly true, but it is not 100% true.I would have to do more research on this.

Fair enough.

I don’t think any religion is inherently violent. I am muslim and I am non-violent, and any verse or hadith which indicates violence, I understand it in its proper context. Sure can find a verses which say kill the disbeliever. Verse is specific in nature, and not to be taken in a general sense. Violent people can take any scripture and use it and interpret it in a violent way. Jesus said, “Think not that I comes to send peace, I come not to send peace but a sword.” Before the cruxifixion Jesus told his companions, to sell their sandals and to buy swords.

I agree with you when you say you are not violent. I have been taken to task here by my fellow Christian for saying Muslims are not all violent.

Having said that, Islam has more of a violent streak that Christianity, thus the reason for my statement in my earlier post. For one, Mohammad went to war and when one participates in war, violent is the nature of the day. Now, Muslims have been saying that the example of Mohammad is for them to follow. So there you have it.

Likewise, the example of Jesus is for Christians to follow. Fortunately for us, Jesus did not kill and maybe because of that we can get away as a peaceful religion.

I would not take all of Jesus sayings literally. Sometimes metaphors are better understood by the action of the person saying them.

 

[TheSufi]

But why did he went to war and conquered territories which were not his land?

.

It is my understanding that most of the wars that he engage in was do to people starting wars with him, because of his message. There were a number of things that Muhammad tried to stop ignorant arabs from doing, one, was mistreating women (I know it might sound strange), but what Muhammad brought was revolutionary for his time in terms of women’s rights. Women were literally treated as property. If they had to many girls, they would bury them when they were 2 or younger. They would bury them alive. One women’s right that he brought, is that he gave them partial voice in a court of law, two witnesses equals one man, while in Jewish law, a woman had no voice in the court system.

Also I was taught that many times people other neighboring tribes were being presecuted, and sought the protection of the muslims. And that is also how other wars were started.

this is what I understand. I will galdly look into anything specific if you have something that opposes what I am saying.

 

[TheSufi]

I will only listen to this because it is spoken by a non-Christian and therefore from a person who does not believe in Christianity. As a Christian, of course I have to say you are wrong. Jesus definitely finished his mission. He said so himself. “It is finished”. He is not interested in the worldly kingdom because his Kingdom is not of this world. So to him, a Christian empire is of no interest to him but to the emperors, the colonizers, yes, of course.

.

Didn’t Jesus say, I have many things to say unto you but you cannot bear them yet. I understood from that he have many things to teach them but they were not ready.

Also Jesus performed miracles and then said, greater works will you do.

So I am thinking he will teach these things when he comes back. We muslims also believe he will come back. So his mission was not complete.

 

[Reuben_J]

I often reflect on the what I’ve read from the bible. Why is there a correlation between being a Christian as understood by Jesus and being a prophet or priest? Because this gift of the Holy Spirit was only given to priest and prophets, it is the means by which one communicates with God, and experiencing God directly. Jesus didn’t bring a scripture, he brought the Holy spirit, because he wanted people to receive directly from God, (if we rely on the gospel).

A fuller explanation of Christians being prophet, priest and king perhaps is necessary. My typing is rather slow. Maybe I can lead you to a link if I found one or maybe others can take this up.

As for the Holy Spirit, He is God. Of course Jesus brings God to the people. He is the Emmanuel, God with us. So I am not too sure what you are trying to say.

What does it mean to be born again?

It simply means to be changed to a new person who rejects sin.

Many modern Christians understand this to mean, leave off sin. I will no longer gamble, drink, have sex out of wedlock etc etc.

Yes, you are right. It is more of a Protestant thing.

But I was pondering the story of Nicodemus, he was a high priest, so from one perspective, he was sinless.

He was not a high priest but a member of the Sanhedrin. And he was not sinless. He sinned but by atonement that sin can be forgiven.

So what made him sinful. My conclusion. He didn’t have the Holy Spirit. He didn’t have that direct connection to God. He was not one with God. Jesus came to make people prophets. He didn’t bring a scripture because he didn’t want people to have second hand information from God, but first hand information from God. Toward the end of Gospel, before he sent his disciples off, Jesus filled them with the Holy Spirit. Look at Paul’s conversion, he meet Jesus spiritualyl. He also traveled to the heavens, before he died. He said, i don’t if I was in the body or out of the body. Paul had that spiritual connection.

You are talking like a Christian. Credit must go to that. Not all of that are correct but never mind, it a good try.

The early Christians taught from the Old Testament, not the new. Reflect on that.

It is not an easy task, which is why jesus said, many are called and few are chosen. Many are called to this way, but few actually connect to God directly.

Just one of my many reflection.

Okay. Thanks for the reflection.

 

[Reuben_J]

Didn’t Jesus say, I have many things to say unto you but you cannot bear them yet. I understood from that he have many things to teach them but they were not ready.

Also Jesus performed miracles and then said, greater works will you do.

So I am thinking he will teach these things when he comes back. We muslims also believe he will come back. So his mission was not complete.

Okay. He was trying to tell them that he would die and what does that mean.

His apostles will perform miracles just like Jesus and which they did. Greater work can be done by them in many ways. Jesus was restricted physically. He could only reach out to the people in Galilee but the apostles by their number could do more. When people believed as a result of them being witnesses to Jesus that were great things.

When Jesus came back he will be a judge (of the living and the dead). He will not teach them anymore. The era of teaching is over. If one does not believe now there is no amount of teaching that will make a person to believe.

Of course Muslims believe that Jesus will come back as a man, get married and die. I am not too sure but that what I heard from some of you.

 

[Reuben_J]

It is my understanding that most of the wars that he engage in was do to people starting wars with him, because of his message.

That is why we see Islam as a violent religion. For a message he went to war. True, it may be because he was attacked first but, come on, it was just a message. When you went to war, it will involve killing and capture of territories.

There were a number of things that Muhammad tried to stop ignorant arabs from doing, one, was mistreating women (I know it might sound strange), but what Muhammad brought was revolutionary for his time in terms of women’s rights. Women were literally treated as property. If they had to many girls, they would bury them when they were 2 or younger. They would bury them alive. One women’s right that he brought, is that he gave them partial voice in a court of law, two witnesses equals one man, while in Jewish law, a woman had no voice in the court system.

You may be surprised but I do agree with you as far as this is concerned. This is true especially of the Semitic people and what Mohammad did was relatively better than the ongoing practice of the tribal people concerning their women.

Also I was taught that many times people other neighboring tribes were being presecuted, and sought the protection of the muslims. And that is also how other wars were started.

this is what I understand. I will galdly look into anything specific if you have something that opposes what I am saying.

The principle here is that Mohammad went to war. It was a policy that he took and it was his choice. As I mentioned earlier, the outcome of all this was a kingdom, an empire. You are in effect trying to defend that choice. I did not say that was wrong as humanly speaking, if one is interested in expansion and power, this is the thing one would do. I can only say that Islam has resulted in wars being fought and territories being conquered and governed.

 

[TheSufi]

That is why we see Islam as a violent religion. For a message he went to war. True, it may be because he was attacked first but, come on, it was just a message. When you went to war, it will involve killing and capture of territories.
.

He didn’t fight back because of the message but to protect the lives of his companions and their families. The essence of Islam isn’t violence. We have no acts of worships or rituals that emphasize and indicate violence as a core belief There for it is wrong and unjust to say it is a violent religion.

 

[Reuben_J]

He didn’t fight back because of the message but to protect the lives of his companions and their families.

That is reasonable enough. But why the expansion of territories?

The essence of Islam isn’t violence. We have no acts of worships or rituals that emphasize and indicate violence as a core belief.

Perhaps. And if you say so, I tend to agree. I believe that most major religions are not violent, Islam included. The thing is some religions has easier route to violent than the others. In Islam, if Muslims must espouse Mohammad’s action, then war and killing are not totally excluded albeit with good reasons. Besides, there is a doctrine in Islam where war needs to be fought for a cause. When there is war, there is killing, rightly or wrongly.

 

[TheSufi]

That is reasonable enough. But why the expansion of territories?

It only happened in the Middle East and Africa, and it is my understanding that, the people of those lands invited muslims there to protect them from the tyranny of oppressive rulers.

Toward Afghanistan toward Far East Asia, it was spread by merely through message and good conduct of the muslims. In, Malaysia, Islam spread because of trading, Muslims were just traders, they never diluted the milk with water and other bad practices that traders had back than, and people of that region were amazed that a religion would teach them to be just and so it spread. And in India, at one time Islam ruled India without a sword, they were merely voted into power, and ruled India as a minority. The hatred that you see today between the Hindus and Muslims today was created by the British.

You must realize that the Renaissance of Europe happened because of Islam. Islam allowed the Europeans to rise out of the dark ages. The Muslims brought hygiene, cleanliness, education (modern education came from muslims) and many other things.

In the Quran, it says Muhammad was sent as a mercy to the world. And in this case, Islam was indeed a mercy to Europe. Chivalry and romance came from the muslims. Study it. What Europe did, is they took all the non-religious information from the muslims and then they Europe conquered the world.

 

[Reuben_J]

It only happened in the Middle East and Africa, and it is my understanding that, the people of those lands invited muslims there to protect them from the tyranny of oppressive rulers.

Toward Afghanistan toward Far East Asia, it was spread by merely through message and good conduct of the muslims. In, Malaysia, Islam spread because of trading, Muslims were just traders, they never diluted the milk with water and other bad practices that traders had back than, and people of that region were amazed that a religion would teach them to be just and so it spread. And in India, at one time Islam ruled India without a sword, they were merely voted into power, and ruled India as a minority. The hatred that you see today between the Hindus and Muslims today was created by the British.

You must realize that the Renaissance of Europe happened because of Islam. Islam allowed the Europeans to rise out of the dark ages. The Muslims brought hygiene, cleanliness, education (modern education came from muslims) and many other things.

In the Quran, it says Muhammad was sent as a mercy to the world. And in this case, Islam was indeed a mercy to Europe. Chivalry and romance came from the muslims. Study it. What Europe did, is they took all the non-religious information from the muslims and then they Europe conquered the world.

My point was Islam was spread by the sword in so much when wars were made in its name. These were during Mohammad and the caliphs’ time. Maybe some were by invitation but most were purely a matter of conquest.

It must be acknowledged that Islam spread to places like South East Asia through the influence of Muslim traders. So these were not by the sword.

Well, credit to Islam for the Renaissance. We cannot deny history. Some of the most important inventions were from Islamic civilization.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

It only happened in the Middle East and Africa, and it is my understanding that, the people of those lands invited muslims there to protect them from the tyranny of oppressive rulers.

Toward Afghanistan toward Far East Asia, it was spread by merely through message and good conduct of the muslims. In, Malaysia, Islam spread because of trading, Muslims were just traders, they never diluted the milk with water and other bad practices that traders had back than, and people of that region were amazed that a religion would teach them to be just and so it spread. And in India, at one time Islam ruled India without a sword, they were merely voted into power, and ruled India as a minority. The hatred that you see today between the Hindus and Muslims today was created by the British.

You must realize that the Renaissance of Europe happened because of Islam. Islam allowed the Europeans to rise out of the dark ages. The Muslims brought hygiene, cleanliness, education (modern education came from muslims) and many other things.

In the Quran, it says Muhammad was sent as a mercy to the world. And in this case, Islam was indeed a mercy to Europe. Chivalry and romance came from the muslims. Study it. What Europe did, is they took all the non-religious information from the muslims and then they Europe conquered the world.

Well I agree with you on all of this except the expansion west. I was reading on the Arab conquest awhile ago and found these articles.

Persia. cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/Post-Sasanian/zoroastrians_after_arab_invasion.htm

Palestine. ziontruth.blogspot.com/2007/06/arab-conquest-massacre-enslavement.html?m=1

Sicily(very emotional) diavolineri.net/ospitalieri/jihad-2/the-arab-occupation-of-sicily/

Spain ( bitter) newenglishreview.org/Norman_Berdichevsky/The_Myth_of_the_Golden_Age_of_Tolerance_in_Medieval_Muslim_Spain/

I am not saying islam is a violent religion (I tryed to find one, the only ones I could find we’re minor pagan cults) just that it has a violent history.

 

[nmgauss]

I am not saying islam is a violent religion (I tryed to find one, the only ones I could find we’re minor pagan cults) just that it has a violent history.

Judaism has an even more violent history. The Old Testament has accounts of many wars between the Israelites and their enemies.

Between the armies raised to establish and defend the Papal States, the armies sponsored by Pope Urban III to conduct the Crusades against the Muslims and Christian Byzantium, the Spanish Inquisition, the fights between Catholics and Protestants in Britain and France, the invasion of Orthodox Russia by Lutheran Swedes, and the Irish Protestant-Catholic conflict, I would say that there is plenty of violent history in Christianity. Even Joan of Arc was beatified for her military achievements.

 

[expounder]

Although this may be some reiteration it addresses the subject well,

islamicanswer.org/wordpress/?p=365

Prove that Islam was not spread by the sword
The noted historian De Lacy O’Leary wrote,

“History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.”

The facts speak for themselves:
· Indonesia is the country that has the largest number of Muslims in the world, and the majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. But, no Muslim army ever went to Indonesia or Malaysia. Same thing about China, Africa, the Indian subcontinent, etc.

Despite the disappearance of Islamic government from many regions once ruled by it, their original inhabitants have remained Muslims.

· Muslims ruled Spain (Andalusia) for about 800 years and India for about a 1000. During this long period, they could have forced the citizens to become Muslims, but they didn’t. Spanish Christians and Jews enjoyed freedom to practice their respective religions, as well as India’s Hindus. Ironically, it was Spanish Christians who, when they gained power, gave Muslims and Jews three choices: become Catholic, leave the country or die!

· An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, yearbook 1986, gives the statistics of the increase of the percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in The Plain Truth magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, while Christianity had increased by 47%. During this fifty-year period, there was no “Islamic conquest” anywhere in the world – the Ottoman Empire had just been terminated by the West – yet Islam spread at an extraordinary rate.

· Today the fastest growing religion in America and Europe is Islam. The Muslims in these lands are a minority. What sword do they have?

 

[FireFromHeaven]

Judaism has an even more violent history. The Old Testament has accounts of many wars between the Israelites and their enemies.

Between the armies raised to establish and defend the Papal States, the armies sponsored by Pope Urban III to conduct the Crusades against the Muslims and Christian Byzantium, the Spanish Inquisition, the fights between Catholics and Protestants in Britain and France, the invasion of Orthodox Russia by Lutheran Swedes, and the Irish Protestant-Catholic conflict, I would say that there is plenty of violent history in Christianity. Even Joan of Arc was beatified for her military achievements.

Yes but this is many centuries after Jesus. The point is that Islam’s starts earlier. I don’t claim to know why. Judaism is a lot like Islam in that regard though modern Judaism is very different from historical Judaism.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

Although this may be some reiteration it addresses the subject well,

islamicanswer.org/wordpress/?p=365

Prove that Islam was not spread by the sword
The noted historian De Lacy O’Leary wrote,

“History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.”

The facts speak for themselves:
· Indonesia is the country that has the largest number of Muslims in the world, and the majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. But, no Muslim army ever went to Indonesia or Malaysia. Same thing about China, Africa, the Indian subcontinent, etc.

Despite the disappearance of Islamic government from many regions once ruled by it, their original inhabitants have remained Muslims.

· Muslims ruled Spain (Andalusia) for about 800 years and India for about a 1000. During this long period, they could have forced the citizens to become Muslims, but they didn’t. Spanish Christians and Jews enjoyed freedom to practice their respective religions, as well as India’s Hindus. Ironically, it was Spanish Christians who, when they gained power, gave Muslims and Jews three choices: become Catholic, leave the country or die!

· An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, yearbook 1986, gives the statistics of the increase of the percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in The Plain Truth magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, while Christianity had increased by 47%. During this fifty-year period, there was no “Islamic conquest” anywhere in the world – the Ottoman Empire had just been terminated by the West – yet Islam spread at an extraordinary rate.

· Today the fastest growing religion in America and Europe is Islam. The Muslims in these lands are a minority. What sword do they have?

Exactly. All I am saying is that in its early days Islam spread like any imperial power of the time.

 

[kimg901]

Why is it said the anyone that leaves islam will die? Why would you kill someone for leaving? Trully not the church of God or was muhammed a real prophet.

 

[nmgauss]

Yes but this is many centuries after Jesus. The point is that Islam’s starts earlier. I don’t claim to know why. Judaism is a lot like Islam in that regard though modern Judaism is very different from historical Judaism.

Modern Israel is every bit as warlike as the ancient Israelites. Are they wrong in not changing their attitudes. Also, are you prepared to say that Yahweh and the current God worshipped by Jews are the same?

Also, is the God worshipped by Abraham (Yahweh) the same God worshipped by Catholics?