Could Muhammad of been a prophet?

[arthra]

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’.

I think that approaching the Qur’an you do find a different order and text than the Bible… It’s not chronological ordered. The reason is that Qur’an was a series of revelations over a twenty year year period dealing with a variety of issues facing the early believers as well as stories from the previous dispensations illustrating spiritual lessons.

The various histories and traditions that built up around Prophet Muhammad and the Companions and so on vary in their messages… from Shiah to Sunni views and so on.

Another aspect is the build up prejudices and antagonisms that have mounted up over centuries of time…thus providing negative preconditioning.

A good grasp of the history of the times is essential to better understand it.

 

[nmgauss]

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?

There is a way of reading scripture called “sola scriptura”, which means that religious teaching is taken verbatim out of scripture. This often leads to pastors quoting certain passages out of the Bible in teaching lesson(s) and assuming that the lesson(s) of those passages are consistent with the rest of the Bible. If there are differences between the four Gospels, which Gospel will the pastor choose to support his lesson?

If it is assumed that each Gospel is the word of God, and the Gospels differ, the conclusion is that the authors interpreted the word of God differently. God was not inconsistent, only the interpreters were. Another possibility is that the Gospels were written many decades after Jesus’ ministry during times of great unrest and revolutionary sentiments, and recollections of Jesus speeches and lessons were not as accurate as if they were recorded exactly at the time of delivery . Each of the Gospel writers was supposed to have written his Gospel during different phases in this extended period of disputes and quarrels. At least one was written after the Romans defeated the Jews in about 70 CE.

 

[Contarini]

There is a way of reading scripture called “sola scriptura”, which means that religious teaching is taken verbatim out of scripture.

No, that is not what sola scriptura historically means. This is an extreme version of sola scriptura, prevalent in fundamentalist circles.

Sola scriptura means that only Scripture is infallible and that all binding doctrine must be found in Scripture.

If it is assumed that each Gospel is the word of God, and the Gospels differ, the conclusion is that the authors interpreted the word of God differently. God was not inconsistent, only the interpreters were.

The more orthodox interpretation would be that God wanted to tell us different things through each Gospel.

Edwin

 

[tommydude2112]

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.

Catholics aren’t allowed to believe that Muhammad was a true prophet. To Christianity, Muhammad is seen as a false prophet of a false religion.

 

[Contarini]

Catholics aren’t allowed to believe that Muhammad was a true prophet. To Christianity, Muhammad is seen as a false prophet of a false religion.

It is not my understanding that Catholicism has any official teaching about the nature of Islam at all. Perhaps you can share evidence to the contrary.

Clearly, from a Christian perspective a true prophet would not contradict the teaching that Jesus is divine. In that sense I agree with you.

Edwin

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Catholics aren’t allowed to believe that Muhammad was a true prophet. To Christianity, Muhammad is seen as a false prophet of a false religion.

Matthew 5:17-20 speaks of Jesus saying He had come to fulfil ‘The Law’ and the messages of the prophets. Ergo sum, what purpose would be served by sending yet another one in the shape of Muhammad or anyone else?

 

[Contarini]

Matthew 5:17-20 speaks of Jesus saying He had come to fulfil ‘The Law’ and the messages of the prophets. Ergo sum, what purpose would be served by sending yet another one in the shape of Muhammad or anyone else?

The New Testament definitely refers to prophets existing after the resurrection of Jesus. Whether Muhammad fits that category is another matter.

I think a case could be made that anyone who brings polytheists to the worship of the One True God is in some sense a prophet.

But at the same time, someone who teaches people not to believe in the divinity of Jesus would appear to fit the definition of a false prophet.

It does not seem wise to me for Christians to commit themselves to one or the other label. Can’t we simply say that he was a religious teacher who taught some good things, some indifferent, and some bad (assuming that Islamic records of what he taught are accurate)?

Edwin

 

[jakasaki]

The New Testament definitely refers to prophets existing after the resurrection of Jesus. Whether Muhammad fits that category is another matter.

Where…???

Please list…

 

[MartinJordan]

The New Testament definitely refers to prophets existing after the resurrection of Jesus. Whether Muhammad fits that category is another matter.

I think a case could be made that anyone who brings polytheists to the worship of the One True God is in some sense a prophet.

But at the same time, someone who teaches people not to believe in the divinity of Jesus would appear to fit the definition of a false prophet.

It does not seem wise to me for Christians to commit themselves to one or the other label. Can’t we simply say that he was a religious teacher who taught some good things, some indifferent, and some bad (assuming that Islamic records of what he taught are accurate)?

Edwin

It’s a nice sentiment that Mohammed was a prophet bearing God’s message. Unfortunately Islam promotes he was THE Prophet for Mankind (the whole of the world) but then that itself critically waters down Jesus’ instruction to " Go out to the Whole World to proclaim the Good News of God’s Kingdom".

In other words there no need of this kind of prophet Mohammed.

MJ

 

[nmgauss]

It’s a nice sentiment that Mohammed was a prophet bearing God’s message. Unfortunately Islam promotes he was THE Prophet for Mankind (the whole of the world) but then that itself critically waters down Jesus’ instruction to " Go out to the Whole World to proclaim the Good News of God’s Kingdom".

In other words there no need of this kind of prophet Mohammed.

MJ

The Arabs felt that God (Allah) had not included them in the scriptures. There was no scriptural text written in Arabic, and Jews and Christians were reported as mocking Arabs because of this lack of Arabic scripture. In fact, Muhammad honored the Jews and Christians by calling them “People of the Book”. So he remedied the situation by producing a truly Arabic text that recognized the god of Abraham, the same god as revered by Jews and Christians.

 

[Contarini]

Where…???

Please list…

Acts 13:1
Acts 15:32
1 Cor. 12:28-29, 14:29, 14:32
Eph. 4:11
Rev. 11:10

I am not claiming that these references describe what Muslims are talking about when they call Muhammad a “prophet.” And one could even argue that these “prophets” are quite different from OT prophets in their nature and function, although I am not convinced that this is the case in any way relevant to the present discussion. But it’s clear that, linguistically, the same Greek word used in the NT for OT prophets is repeatedly used for people who ministered after the resurrection of Jesus, including the apocalyptic “two witnesses” referred to in Rev. 11 (I suppose some preterist interpretations of Rev. 11 might locate these prophets before the resurrection of Jesus, but I’m pretty sure that this is not the traditional Christian interpretation).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It’s a nice sentiment that Mohammed was a prophet bearing God’s message. Unfortunately Islam promotes he was THE Prophet for Mankind (the whole of the world) but then that itself critically waters down Jesus’ instruction to " Go out to the Whole World to proclaim the Good News of God’s Kingdom".

In other words there no need of this kind of prophet Mohammed.

MJ

Certainly the sense in which a Christian might conceivably say that Muhammad was a prophet is much weaker than the sense in which Muslims believe him to be a prophet. Similarly, Jews are sometimes willing to grant that Jesus was a kind of “messiah” in the sense that he was God’s way of bringing the Gentiles to the worship of the true God, but of course Christians claim much more for Jesus.

Still, I would rather that Jews grant as much as they can to us rather than treat us and our Messiah with unremitting hostility. And by the Golden Rule I am required to treat Muslims the same way, going as far as I can without compromising my own faith. Hence I don’t think this kind of conversation is pointless.

Edwin

 

[MartinJordan]

Certainly the sense in which a Christian might conceivably say that Muhammad was a prophet is much weaker than the sense in which Muslims believe him to be a prophet. Similarly, Jews are sometimes willing to grant that Jesus was a kind of “messiah” in the sense that he was God’s way of bringing the Gentiles to the worship of the true God, but of course Christians claim much more for Jesus.

Still, I would rather that Jews grant as much as they can to us rather than treat us and our Messiah with unremitting hostility. And by the Golden Rule I am required to treat Muslims the same way, going as far as I can without compromising my own faith. Hence I don’t think this kind of conversation is pointless.

Edwin

Do the Jews accept Mohammed as a prophet? Do Jews accept that Abraham Moses etc were Muslims?

MJ

 

[Contarini]

Do the Jews accept Mohammed as a prophet?

Not in the sense Muslims claim him to be. I think that many Jews are open to the idea that he was God’s instrument to bring people to monotheism. There are fewer problems in this regard between Judaism and Islam than between Christianity and either of the other two religions.

Do Jews accept that Abraham Moses etc were Muslims?

MJ

By “Muslims” Muslims seem to mean in this context that they were people who submitted to the One God. In that sense, probably Jews don’t have a problem with the claim. But perhaps Jews should speak for themselves!

Edwin

 

[MartinJordan]

Not in the sense Muslims claim him to be. I think that many Jews are open to the idea that he was God’s instrument to bring people to monotheism. There are fewer problems in this regard between Judaism and Islam than between Christianity and either of the other two religions.

By “Muslims” Muslims seem to mean in this context that they were people who submitted to the One God. In that sense, probably Jews don’t have a problem with the claim. But perhaps Jews should speak for themselves!

Edwin

Yes, I’ll wait till the Jews speak for themselves. Personally I think Judaism and Islam although seemingly less problematic, they are having a very difficult time adhering to peace.

While Jesus we claim is THE Prince Of Peace!

MJ

 

[daler]

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.

My friend,
. Thank you for the courteous reply and recommendation. My richest source of unbiased historical analysis comes from a book called “Muhammad and the Course of Islam”, It does not hold a bias against Muhammad, but an objective study by a non-Muslim who provides very readable history as to the actual history prior to, during, and after the appearance of the Prophet of Islam, dispelling myths of conjecture ad bias of enemies, delving deeply into the evil machinations of the Ummayyads who usurped power for personal gain immediately upon the death of the Prophet, resulting in the great and tragic division into the Sunni Shi’ite split, murdering the Imams over the course of 260 years, beginning with Ali, the appointed Successor to the Prophet.
. The Ummayyads fulfilled the prophecy of the “Beast” in Revelation and after their reign of terror for 260 years left only to be fulfilled the day of a thousand years, or 1260 lunar years, to conclude the Prophetic Cycle of which Muhammad was the “Seal”.
. . This Cycle began with Ahdam and ended with Ahmad, with the appearance of the Bab, or the Promised Qaim, in 1844 AD, which is 1260 AH, who prepared for the coming of Baha’u’llah in 1863 AD, or 1280 AH, which is also 1290 from the declaration of Muhammad in 623 AD to the declaration of Baha’u’llah in 1863, thus fulfilling the prophecies found specifically in Daniel and Revelation beyond the shadow of a doubt.
. Hence, the ending of the Cycle of the Furqan in 1260 AH, or 1844 AD, brought together the prophetic visions of the Old and New Testaments, as well as the Quran, in the very land where Daniel had his visions in Elam, which is where Jeremiah so clearly stated that the Lord shall set His throne.

. So tired, my friend. Will assist further if desired, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

.

 

[nmgauss]

No, that is not what sola scriptura historically means. This is an extreme version of sola scriptura, prevalent in fundamentalist circles.

Sola scriptura means that only Scripture is infallible and that all binding doctrine must be found in Scripture.
Edwin

To be more accurate, when Martin Luther realized that the Catholic Church was inventing beliefs and performing ceremonies on ideas that were not in the Bible, he started the Reformation.

 

[rinnie]

To be more accurate, when Martin Luther realized that the Catholic Church was inventing beliefs and performing ceremonies on ideas that were not in the Bible, he started the Reformation.

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.

 

[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.

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.

How do we know who named the Lutheran Church?

Do I detect a hint of hostility toward Martin Luther and the Reformation?

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

 

[Contarini]

To be more accurate, when Martin Luther realized that the Catholic Church was inventing beliefs and performing ceremonies on ideas that were not in the Bible, he started the Reformation.

Not sure how this is more accurate. It’s more loaded and biased, not more accurate.

The Catholic Church wasn’t “inventing” beliefs. That’s a hopelessly biased and unfair description of what was happening.

Rinnie, one problem with your response is that Luther did not name any church after himself. His opponents referred to those who agreed with him as “Lutherans.” Lutherans eventually accepted the title, but from the beginning they have preferred the term “evangelical” and have claimed to be the true Catholics.

Edwin