Could Muhammad of been a prophet?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YosefYosep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
looks like a simplified judaism…
I have read the Quran cover to cover three times in the past ten or twelve years. The last time was this spring, and very carefully. Honestly, I am not really offended in it. There are only a few references to Holy Wars, a fraction of the old Testament, really, and all defensive against some really bad people.
Yes, there is a reference or two to fighting with some Christians who were not really Christians, but for the most part tolerance is very much stressed, along with feeding the orphans, caring for widows, and exhorting men to do good.
Keep in mind, these Arab tribes were a wild and bloodthirsty lot, always at war with each other, and Muhammad gathered these tribes into a unified nation, although things kind of went to hell after he died because the Meccan Idolators who posed as believers were only interested in temporal power and corrupting the teachings for their own benefit.
Also, many of the Hadiths were constructed by people being paid to spread lies and distortions, while some are reliable. Its a mix, with the truth of Muhammad’s life somewhere in the middle.
If we can accept that Daniel was given his revelations from the Angel Gabriel, what reason is there to automatically discard the same where the Quran is concerned? Out side of prejudice, we cannot so quickly say, especially since about 90% of the Quran is a reiteration of the Old Testament and a little of the New.
Thats my take, folks, God bless everyone and protect us with the Truth and integrity required to discover it.
 
I have read the Quran cover to cover three times in the past ten or twelve years. The last time was this spring, and very carefully. Honestly, I am not really offended in it. There are only a few references to Holy Wars, a fraction of the old Testament, really, and all defensive against some really bad people.
Yes, there is a reference or two to fighting with some Christians who were not really Christians, but for the most part tolerance is very much stressed, along with feeding the orphans, caring for widows, and exhorting men to do good.
Keep in mind, these Arab tribes were a wild and bloodthirsty lot, always at war with each other, and Muhammad gathered these tribes into a unified nation, although things kind of went to hell after he died because the Meccan Idolators who posed as believers were only interested in temporal power and corrupting the teachings for their own benefit.
Also, many of the Hadiths were constructed by people being paid to spread lies and distortions, while some are reliable. Its a mix, with the truth of Muhammad’s life somewhere in the middle.
If we can accept that Daniel was given his revelations from the Angel Gabriel, what reason is there to automatically discard the same where the Quran is concerned? Out side of prejudice, we cannot so quickly say, especially since about 90% of the Quran is a reiteration of the Old Testament and a little of the New.
Thats my take, folks, God bless everyone and protect us with the Truth and integrity required to discover it.
Do you believe that Christ taught His disciples accurately? As in, we could sit down with St. Peter, or St. John, or St. Matthias and what they taught would be identical to what Jesus Himself taught?
 
“If we can accept that Daniel was given his revelations from the Angel Gabriel, what reason is there to automatically discard the same where the Quran is concerned?”

St Thomas Aquinas answers this, have you ever reflected on his thoughts?
 
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.
The Last Prophet I believe was John the Baptist.
 
There are only a few references to Holy Wars, a fraction of the old Testament, really, and all defensive against some really bad people.
Yes, there is a reference or two to fighting with some Christians who were not really Christians, but for the most part tolerance is very much stressed, along with feeding the orphans, caring for widows, and exhorting men to do good.
Keep in mind, these Arab tribes were a wild and bloodthirsty lot, always at war with each other, and Muhammad gathered these tribes into a unified nation, although things kind of went to hell after he died because the Meccan Idolators who posed as believers were only interested in temporal power and corrupting the teachings for their own benefit.
Also, many of the Hadiths were constructed by people being paid to spread lies and distortions, while some are reliable. Its a mix, with the truth of Muhammad’s life somewhere in the middle.
There is reference to hostile Jews in Yathrib (Medina) who resented Mohammad’s leadership. Since he had been invited by the powers-that-be in Yathrib to come in and establish a harmonious community, he did that, and except for a few diehards who were a pain in the neck, he was accepted and successful. Practicing the customs of the day, he was harsh with these opponents. Some moved away or were expelled to form their separate community, and others stayed to suffer the consequences of their opposition. Once Yathrib was settled down, Muhammad commenced to spread his ummah idea and Islam to the wandering tribes in Arabia, which necessitated the destruction of paganism. Because tribal leaders were often warlords, egos got in the way. So Muhammad had to deal with them harshly. He died before he could complete his conquest of all the Arabian tribes. The second caliph Umar finally completed the job.

Umar’s successor was caliph Uthman, who was not a Quraysh, but an Umayyad, whose loyalties were in Damascus. Now departures from Islam as it appears in the Quran started happening. The Umayyads were interested in enhanced political power, so conquests of non-Arab peoples started. This was not sanctioned by the Quran, so now differences of opinion started becoming a problem.
 
If we can accept that Daniel was given his revelations from the Angel Gabriel, what reason is there to automatically discard the same where the Quran is concerned? Out side of prejudice, we cannot so quickly say, especially since about 90% of the Quran is a reiteration of the Old Testament and a little of the New.
Thats my take, folks, God bless everyone and protect us with the Truth and integrity required to discover it
The quran says the true followers of Jesus would be “victorius” to the day of ressurection. Who were these true Christians? They could not have been the orthodox/catholic party that Mirza Hussain implies was the true branch of Christendom with his agreement with the authority of Peter/Immaculate conception and etc.
 
Do you believe that Christ taught His disciples accurately? As in, we could sit down with St. Peter, or St. John, or St. Matthias and what they taught would be identical to what Jesus Himself taught?
This is an interesting question. One that seems worth considering in depth. There is no doubt that each of the disciples had their own individuality and I would suspect that each, according to their own understanding, took from Him somewhat according to their own perspective. This is only my opinion.
Peter denied Christ three times. What was his understanding at that time, and then later? I don’t know how to answer even that one question within a single individual.
Judas turned against Jesus, betraying Him, in fact, this lead to His crucifixion. Then afterwards, Judas went out and hanged himself. What was his understanding, both before and afterwards?
There are slight differences in the four Gospels, and my understanding also is the Paul and Peter had disagreements. This does not mean that they differed in the essential Message of Jesus or what He taught, but even as today, many people read the same Gospels and draw different conclusions. I think it is good that we are not all robots simply parroting each other.
 
Muhammad was not a prophet of God. PERIOD. He did take much from Christianity and Judaism.

I believe the supposed angel that appeared to him was indeed an angel; however, his name would have been Lucifer. Therefore, I see Islam as a heresy and bad mix of two good religions.

I cannot condone anyone getting too interested in Islam; however knowing more Islam would be helpful as it’s becoming a serious problem in the world today.

In short, taking all the radical notions of Islam away would make it very similar to Catholicism. However, it’s still far from being in union with the church on alot of things. That’s why I believe it’s more of a demonically created heresy than a legitimate religion.
 
This is an interesting question. One that seems worth considering in depth. There is no doubt that each of the disciples had their own individuality and I would suspect that each, according to their own understanding, took from Him somewhat according to their own perspective. This is only my opinion.
Peter denied Christ three times. What was his understanding at that time, and then later? I don’t know how to answer even that one question within a single individual.
Judas turned against Jesus, betraying Him, in fact, this lead to His crucifixion. Then afterwards, Judas went out and hanged himself. What was his understanding, both before and afterwards?
There are slight differences in the four Gospels, and my understanding also is the Paul and Peter had disagreements. This does not mean that they differed in the essential Message of Jesus or what He taught, but even as today, many people read the same Gospels and draw different conclusions. I think it is good that we are not all robots simply parroting each other.
Then let’s narrow it down to a single point: Do you believe that the disciples would have seen Jesus as God the Son?
 
“If we can accept that Daniel was given his revelations from the Angel Gabriel, what reason is there to automatically discard the same where the Quran is concerned?”

St Thomas Aquinas answers this, have you ever reflected on his thoughts?
While I have read some of his works, nothing has come to me regarding the appearance of the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad.

I think what is difficult to rise above is the particular cultural/religious bias which we happen to be born into. For example (and not to pick on them… ) the Mormon kids going door to door teaching what they teach have never considered the probability that had they been born in Egypt, for example, they would likely be going door to door, or tent to tent, proclaiming another message. Maybe they would be “Allah’s Witnesses” or something.

Had you and I been born in India to Hindu parents, our perspective would be taken from that, and perhaps neither of us would have a thought about the Angel Gabriel appearing to either Daniel or Muhammad.

So we are, initially, products of our upbringing and the pure chance of having been born into this or that family, in this or that country, and tend to “believe” what those around us believe, and to overcome this bias and find real objectivity is what searching for the truth is all about, and particularly difficult where religion is concerned because of the emotion in evokes, triggering territorial responses, defensive postures, etc.
 
Then let’s narrow it down to a single point: Do you believe that the disciples would have seen Jesus as God the Son?
Well that is the terminology which has been used, so that would seem to be the case. There would, in my mind, remain some question as to the meaning of the term “Son”, as I understand the culture, for it is the son who stands in place of the father, doing his bidding, representing him, etc.
Code:
The difficulty stemming from the Quran seems to be centered around the word "beget" and "begotten",  That God does not beget, etc.   This would be more in agreement with the meaning of the "Son" being in the station of a Messenger of God.
It might be considered in the context of Abraham being called the “Friend” of God, Moses being the Intercolator Lawgiver of God, then Jesus as the Son of God, and Muhammad as the Apostle of God. Each of these distinctions indicates a closeness of relationship between Them and God, which is infinitely more intimate than mere mortal, or human relationship, with Him.
 
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.
The Qur’an seems pretty clearly to reject the divinity of Jesus. Also, Muslims don’t really believe in the need for a Savior, and they claim that the Bible as we have it has been corrupted, so that when the Qur’an gives a different version the Qur’an’s version is superior.

One former Episcopal priest, Ann Redding, has converted to Islam while still considering herself a Christian. Her bishop defrocked her for doing this, by the way (giving the lie to the common assumption that the Episcopal Church simply doesn’t care about Christian orthodoxy and never disciplines anyone). It turns out that Redding didn’t believe in Jesus’ divinity in any orthodox sense anyway, so one can see why this wasn’t a problem for her (I would hope, in fact, that this was the reason why she was defrocked). If a Christian were to say, “I think Muhammad is a prophet and that his teachings can be interpreted to agree with orthodox Christianity,” I’d be skeptical about whether the person’s interpretation of Muhammad was historically plausible or had anything to do with historic, mainstream Islam, but in a sense it wouldn’t be my business as a Christian.

One could argue that on a mystical level the two religions are compatible, because ultimate truth surpasses words. The best case for this is made by James Cutsinger, I think. I respect Prof. Cutsinger’s work highly, and he certainly steers clear of the usual facile “pluralism.” But I’m not convinced that Islam isn’t still to be regarded primarily as a Christian heresy.

Edwin
 
daler - The Qur’an by itself is insufficient to support/explain Islam, or indeed the ‘prophet’ Muhammad.

In the Qur’an for instance, Jesus is mentioned over 20 times albeit in a very skewed way, while Muhammad is only briefly mentioned about 4 times. Everything in the Qur’an is supposed to be the literal expression of ‘Allah’/God as transmitted by Gabriel to Muhammad alone. In effect we are expected to just take the word of Muhammad, and yet by reading only the Qur’an we have no clear picture of the nature and veracity of ‘the messenger’ as a person.

In order to glean a picture of Muhammad you need to read and study the Sira, Hadith, Tabari etc., in doing that things become even more problematic and disturbing for many of us.

In narrative terms the Qur’an seems rather chaotic, particularly chronologically. ‘Dualistic reasoning’ needs to be employed, so it appears - with conflicting ‘truths’ popping up from time to time. The practice of ‘abrogation’ seems to further muddy the ‘message’. Study about the history of the Qur’an also throws up many further questions as to its real ‘bona fide’.
 
Mt Carmel,
. Thank you for your constructive dialogue here. From my reading of different translations, there has been far too much latitude to interpret certain verses according to the whims of the translators. While I am no scholar, nor have I ever studied Arabic, my understanding is that part of the enormous appreciation for the Quran is in the transformative melody of its verses, the cadence, and the means by which verses appear.

. Why the Surahs do not appear chronologically, I do not know, but from what I understand there was a gradual application of stronger prohibition on alcohol, for example, such that some tolerance was initially expressed, and later firmly forbidden.

. In looking at some of the harsh treatment of the infidels, from today’s standards, it seems hard to reconcile that this or that punishment could truly be from God until you set it next to what appears in Leviticus, for example. This brings to mind the question of whether essentially the same extreme punishments which we tend to accept under the implementation of the Laws of the Torah were being brought in similar fashion to the wild tribes of Arabia out of simple necessity to curb their carnal appetites.

. That there was a great transformation of the warring tribes is historically apparent, although the divisions which took place upon the death of Muhammad which caused immediate schism in the power struggle were sadly horrendous. There is a point of view that this was the fulfillment of the coming of “the Beast” in reference to the Ummayyads who were in fact insincere in their beliefs and devoted only outwardly to the principals of Islam and the teachings of Muhammad for their personal gain.

. Their desire for temporal power was evident, not only in their rejection of Ali, but His murder and the execution of all of the Imams over the course of 260 years. Thus, the path of Islam was tainted by the caustic influence and domination of those who followed their corrupt inclinations.

. The religion of God works in this way. Outwardly, for example, the evil ones triumph over good. In reality, this world is a testing ground of the soul in a spiritual journey which cannot be seen by outward eyes only. There is a wisdom even in the crucifixion of Christ, which “appeared” to put an end to His religion. In reality, He Who proclaimed Himself to be the Voice of “Before Abraham was, I am” can never be crucified, though the physical body hanging on the cross makes it appear otherwise. This underlies the misunderstanding of the Quranic verse regarding Jesus’ death, and even many (most?) Muslims fail to appreciate its significance.

. In reading the hadiths, there are credibility issues, rumors, and agendas to be considered. Whether some gained by exaggerating or fabricating events is more than merely probable, it is the only rational way to approach such things. Historically, the moon has never been “cleft asunder”, that we know. So what does this imply other than that the moon of understanding appears on the side of spiritual illumination, whereas darkness exists for all those who are hidden from the light of the Muhammadan Sun.

. This spiritual Sun is itself the appearance, or reappearance, of the Sun of Truth which appears in each Dispensation, as there is, and has ever been, but One Sun on the horizon of Revelation from age to age. Whether that Image appeared in the Mirror of Adam, Noah, Moses, or Jesus, these reflections are an outpouring of the same Single Source of Illumination.

. People prefer the confines of literal understanding, but in truth, such things are traps for those of superficial understanding. The depths must be probed to yield divine pearls of meaning hidden, in plain view, within the Verses of the Quran, and from this one gains an infinite appreciation of the true value ingeniously invested therein.
 
There are slight differences in the four Gospels, and my understanding also is the Paul and Peter had disagreements. This does not mean that they differed in the essential Message of Jesus or what He taught, but even as today, many people read the same Gospels and draw different conclusions. I think it is good that we are not all robots simply parroting each other.
So what are you suggesting from this? I get the hint you want to deny the apostles their authority to teach (something Jesus obviously entrusted to them) but you do not want to deny it at the same time. Should we trust the desciples? If not, why should we trust the desciples of your prophet?
 
daler - May I recommend you read ‘The Great Pilgrimage of Islam’ - it can be sourced online. It is an eye-opener to those who have perceptual eyes. It is very academic in its approach, with many references. It also in effect confirms why Islam is so ‘twitchy’/‘sensitive’ about Muhammad’s early declarations that clearly show him still tied to some of the pagan ways and beliefs [for instance ‘the Satanic verses’]. Even the Hajj today has many ceremonial ties to those pre-Islamic pilgrimages.
 
There is a legend in the Islamic hadiths which claims there was a Levi Jewish Rabi living in Medina. In Islam his name is Ibn Salam.

He had heard rumors regarding this Mohamad person claiming to be a prophet.

He had studied all of the Jewish scriptures and was certain that a prophet would come.

to test Mohamad claim to prophethood, he met up with Mohamad and asked him 3 questions which only a prophet of God would be able to answer correctly.

Now, it is also claimed that Ibn Salam already knew the answers to these questions.

So Ibn Salam asked the Islamic prophet the 3 questions and Mohamad answered them by claiming Gabriel had already given him the answers.

When Mohamad answered Salams 3 questions, it is then claimed that Salam declared Mohamad to be a true prophet of God.

Since Ibn Salam already knew the answers to the 3 questions, didn’t that make Salam a prophet of God… ???

It is also claimed that Salam informed Mohamad and his followers that Jews hate Gabriel, at which point Mohamad said any hater of Gabriel will be a hater in Allah’s eye… or something like that -

I’ve been searching the net and have not found any claims that the Jews hated the Angel Gabriel. Did Salam really make this claim. He too was a Jew… did he hate Gabriel as well…???

None of these tales make any sense.

Here is the link from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/190-abdallah-ibn-salam

And here is the link from the hadith:

sacred-texts.com/isl/bukhari/bh4/bh4_549.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top