Could Muhammad of been a prophet?

[tonyfish58]

Somebody told me that Muhammad never teach vengeance. And I am willing to believe that, if somebody can convince me. But, the way I read the Jihadist verse as well as the Medina verses is the other way around. So, I am confused? Was it really Muhammad conveyed those Jihadist verses or an enemy of him successfully made fool of him, making Muhammad believe that those verses came from God? Surely I am looking for an adult way of answering question.

I have always like this document, when you read this you wonder why the followers of Muhammad did what they did! But lets face it so did the Christians not turn the other cheek

The Achtiname of Muhammad, also known as the Covenant or (Holy) Testament (Testamentum) of the Prophet Muhammad, is a document or ahdname which is a charter or writ ratified by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad granting protection and other privileges to the monks of Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Mount Sinai. It is sealed with an imprint representing Muhammad’s hand.

Link to details - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achtiname_of_Muhammad

It is worth a read, it show that Religion does not always represent the Prophets wishes

It starts like this

Muhammad the son of ‘Abd Allah, the Messenger of Allah, and careful guardian of the whole world; has wrote the present instrument to all those who are in his national people, and of his own religion, as a secure and positive promise to be accomplished to the Christian nation, and relations of the Nazarene, whosoever they may be, whether they be the noble or the vulgar, the honorable or otherwise, saying thus.

I. Whosoever of my nation shall presume to break my promise and oath, which is contained in this present agreement, destroys the promise of God, acts contrary to the oath, and will be a resister of the faith, (which God forbid) for he becomes worthy of the curse, whether he be the King himself, or a poor man, or whatever person he may be.

II. That whenever any of the monks in his travels shall happen to settle upon any mountain, hill, village, or other habitable place, on the sea, or in deserts, or in any convent, church, or house of prayer, I shall be in the midst of them, as the preserver and protector of them, their goods and effects, with my soul, aid, and protection, jointly with all my national people; because they are a part of my own people, and an honor to me.

Regards Tony

 

[MartinJordan]

I have always like this document, when you read this you wonder why the followers of Muhammad did what they did! But lets face it so did the Christians not turn the other cheek

When did Mohammed face Christians?

MJ

 

[tonyfish58]

When did Mohammed face Christians?

MJ

Mohammed and the Holy Monastery of Sinai - sinaimonastery.com/en/index.php?lid=68

According to the tradition preserved at Sinai, Mohammed both knew and visited the monastery and the Sinai fathers. The Koran makes mention of the Sinai holy sites. In the second year of the Hegira, corresponding to AD 626, a delegation from Sinai requested a letter of protection from Mohammed. This was granted, and authorized by him when he placed his hand upon the document. In AD 1517, Sultan Selim I confirmed the monastery’s prerogatives, but took the original letter of protection for safekeeping to the royal treasury in Constantinople. At the same time, he gave the monastery certified copies of this document, each depicting the hand print of Mohammed in token of his having touched the original.

Regards Tony

 

[MartinJordan]

Mohammed and the Holy Monastery of Sinai - sinaimonastery.com/en/index.php?lid=68

According to the tradition preserved at Sinai, Mohammed both knew and visited the monastery and the Sinai fathers. The Koran makes mention of the Sinai holy sites. In the second year of the Hegira, corresponding to AD 626, a delegation from Sinai requested a letter of protection from Mohammed. This was granted, and authorized by him when he placed his hand upon the document. In AD 1517, Sultan Selim I confirmed the monastery’s prerogatives, but took the original letter of protection for safekeeping to the royal treasury in Constantinople. At the same time, he gave the monastery certified copies of this document, each depicting the hand print of Mohammed in token of his having touched the original.

Regards Tony

I know of this. But Im asking when did Mohammed face Christians and they retaliated?

BTW, did Mohammed know that the Monks at Catherine’s Monastery were praying to Jesus (who Mohammed claim is just a prophet)?

And if he did, do you think Mohammed would have allowed them to continue worshiping Christ?

MJ

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Somebody told me that Muhammad never teach vengeance. And I am willing to believe that, if somebody can convince me. But, the way I read the Jihadist verse as well as the Medina verses is the other way around. So, I am confused? Was it really Muhammad conveyed those Jihadist verses or an enemy of him successfully made fool of him, making Muhammad believe that those verses came from God? Surely I am looking for an adult way of answering question.

Yes, in the early days in Medina it seems by Islam’s own writings that Muhammad was very much involved in the ordering and consent of assassinations, often [according to those same writings] out of personal revenge. He did not take kindly to criticism! Death fatwas to this day often cite Muhammad’s own actions and instructions as their authority.

There is the story of Um Qirfa [an old Arab lady tribal leader] who was put to death after her tribe lost a battle with Muhammad and his ‘holy warriors’. Ibn Ishaq [one of Muhammad’s cousins] narrates that she was put to death cruelly. Al-Tabari [Vol.8 Page 96] puts the bones of detail on the nature of this ‘cruel death’, it was a method of entertainment, spectacle and lesson indulged in on a number of occasions. “By putting a rope into her two legs and to two camels and driving them until they rent her in two …”.

Indeed, ‘the prophet’ is merciful?

Tony - It was an Abyssinian Christian king who gave shelter to Muhammad and his followers when first fleeing from Mecca. It is interesting how Muhammad later claims ‘ownership’ to most things he approves of, that in effect everything comes under his auspices [including people] and becomes ‘Muslim’.

 

[daler]

Daler, my friend. Not because I am ignorant of islamic history. The way I receive the answer is no different whether I began to engage in this forum 5 years ago and now. You mentioned that all you really have to go on with Muhammad is the verses of Quran. How do we know that the verses of Quran is credible, the answer is because of Muhammad said so. We called it as circular reasoning, my friend. Surely, arguing in this forum does not mean that I hate Islam nor the muslims. I do have many muslim friends, whom I trust very much.

I did read Quran, definitely in a translated one since I do not read Arabic. I do find the Meccan Verse are beautiful and I have no question about it. But, the Medina verses to me is a different story. To me, it is just like an “enemy of God or enemy of Muhammad” (I apologize for my definition) had put them along with the beautiful Meccan verses in order to destroy the credibility.

Swariffin, my friend,
. I’m still learning what I can of Islamic history, setting aside my prejudices still, those that naturally jump up now and then, mostly from just plain ignorance and because it all sounds foreign, but from what I can tell, there is a very beautiful flow, much more tangible in Arabic, where the sounds roll off in melodic beauty with a magic of their own as though, really, from a realm above this world. When it gets watered down into English, we get the black and white TV show with static and not the full living color, so to speak. Still, enough of the Words coming down from the Heaven of Revelation becomes apparent, at least it does to me now, that I recognize it on its own merit. Not intellectually, but somehow spiritually loud and clear.

The Meccan verses are pure and beautiful. You know that when the persecution became so violent and extreme against them that they finally had to leave for Medina, their very survival as a movement was at stake and things took another turn. They had been completely passive for thirteen years, and then the idolators of Mecca pursued them with their warring armies, outnumbering them 3 or 4 or 10 to one, hell bent to exterminate the Muslim community and assassinate Muhammad.

So, yes, the verses changed accordingly. When they say infidels, think of Nazis attacking the Jews. Only these infidels were so rabid and evil that they buried their own daughters alive. Talk about perverse idolators. Abraham destroyed the idols his own father made, got run out of town. Jesus kicked over the money changers tables in His Father’s House. Muhammad returned to Mecca and destroyed the 360 man made idols at the Ka’aba, teaching these barbaric Arabic war-mongering tribes that there is only the One God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, and that they should pray to Him 5 times a day, fast, and give to the poor and orphans. He completely transformed a savage society into a civilized one, and it naturally grew as it spread.

The corruption of Islam began the very day of His death, when the deceitful pretenders, who at the end declared themselves to be Muslims, returned to their old tricks, murdered Ali and all His descendants for a couple of hundred years to secure for themselves a hold over the population, spreading Islam by the sword, lies, and deceit - pretty much leaving in the shambles it is today. This was prophesied in Revelation. The Ummayyads are in fact the Beast. The year 1260 from Daniel and Revelation is the entire duration of the Cycle of Islam, which ended in 1844 AD, or 1260 AH. Its heavy stuff but makes sense, and theres much more on it I could tell.

but this is a good start.

Peace, friend,
Dale

 

[daler]

Somebody told me that Muhammad never teach vengeance. And I am willing to believe that, if somebody can convince me. But, the way I read the Jihadist verse as well as the Medina verses is the other way around. So, I am confused? Was it really Muhammad conveyed those Jihadist verses or an enemy of him successfully made fool of him, making Muhammad believe that those verses came from God? Surely I am looking for an adult way of answering question.

Swariffin,
All accounts of Muhammad prior to receiving Revelation testify to the purity of his heart. He was know as “the Trustworthy one” respected by all, never seeking leadership or any of that. After thirteen years of increasing severe persecution they were starving and had to leave Mecca. At some point, for the first time in all this time, the Angel Gabriel commanded Muhammad to “take up the sword and defend the faithful” All of His battles were defensive in nature. The greatest Jihad was the inner struggle within one’s self to overcome the lower nature, but this was also expressed against evil and aggression in others. We are thus tested, one with another, even as the early wars of the Jews were assisted by the power of God and His will, which we accept. So its the same, as I see it.

His Revelation always came through the Angel Gabriel, who also appeared to Daniel. Nothing originated from the Prophet in the verses of the Quran. Read it, and you will see this is more than some mere creative human mind making up poetry. There is a power coming down, but it fits its day more so than today, and should be viewed in the time and context where it was revealed, under exceedingly brutal conditions amidst the most savage tribes of Arabia. Perhaps compare to Leviticus, etc. It does have an Old Testament flare to it.

God bless, and keep an open mind. Islam never fully blossomed due to the Ummayyads and the Caliphs, who gutted the Spirit of the religion, leaving only the form, fasting, prayer, etc - the outward appearances, while the most sacred part was crushed. This was in fact prophesied in the Bible, i.e., the Beast of the bottomless pit (of error), who were the Ummayyads.

.

 

[swariffin]

It is worth a read, it show that Religion does not always represent the Prophets wishes

Regards Tony

Indeed you are correct my friend. A religion does not always represent what the Prophet wishes. The way that Sallahudin converted the Hagia Sophia in Constantinopel to become a mosque, building the Al Aqsa mosque on top on the ancient ruin of the Jewish temple which was destroyed by the Roman, really says that you are correct. We the Christians also made such mistakes in the past too. So, you seem to me saying that religion is actually man-made, and I am in agreement with you. A pure muslim would deny such statement.

 

[swariffin]

Dear Daler, my friend. You remind me of my old friend in this forum called Paarsurrey. He is an Ahmadian, anyway. The way you express your idea is almost just like him. Surely me and Paar, are in the opposite site of the discussion. I will read your posting in more relax later on. It is midnight at home now.

 

[jakasaki]

Awe - I remember Paars - miss him!! He always gave me a giggle…!!!

 

[TheSufi]

Somebody told me that Muhammad never teach vengeance. And I am willing to believe that, if somebody can convince me. But, the way I read the Jihadist verse as well as the Medina verses is the other way around. So, I am confused? Was it really Muhammad conveyed those Jihadist verses or an enemy of him successfully made fool of him, making Muhammad believe that those verses came from God? Surely I am looking for an adult way of answering question.

Actually, I don’t think you are looking for an adult answer.
You make it seem like warfare or war is something that negates a person being a prophet?
What is this based on?

 

[Shia_Muslim]

Actually, I don’t think you are looking for an adult answer.
You make it seem like warfare or war is something that negates a person being a prophet?
What is this based on?

Sluring Islam instead of discussion stuff like the Trinity.
And they don’t remark that by their standards, Moses is not a Prophet.

 

[jakasaki]

Sluring Islam instead of discussion stuff like the Trinity.
And they don’t remark that by their standards, Moses is not a Prophet.

You can discuss the Trinity all you want in another thread. Please feel free to start one.

This thread is about Muhammad.

What do you mean “Moses is **not **a prophet”

 

[Shia_Muslim]

You can discuss the Trinity all you want in another thread. Please feel free to start one.

This thread is about Muhammad.

What do you mean “Moses is **not **a prophet”

You guys say Muhammad is too violent to be a Prophet, well, Moses was more “violent” yet you consider him a Prophet.
Oh! And every discussion between Christians and Muslims turn into Christians insulting our Prophet’s character, instead of discussing stuff like the Trinity.

 

[dronald]

You guys say Muhammad is too violent to be a Prophet, well, Moses was more “violent” yet you consider him a Prophet.
Oh! And every discussion between Christians and Muslims turn into Christians insulting our Prophet’s character, instead of discussing stuff like the Trinity.

Why would a discussion about Muhammad ever involve the Trinity anyways?

 

[FrankLJ]

Many people think because Mohammed came after Jesus, and because Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam that somehow the natural thought is that the truths of Islam supersede the truths of Christianity. If that kind of chronology is what inspires the notion, then Joseph Smith’s truths would wipe out Islamic truths, and Mary Baker Eddy would wipe out Joseph Smith, and then Jim Jones would wipe out Mary Baker Eddy, and Sun Myung Moon would wipe out Jim Jones, and David Koresh and the Rajneesh and L. Ron Hubbard…

Well, I hope you get the picture. And the chaos of that kind of thinking! There is no logical chronology here. And let’s just add some logic here: If Jesus was the "prophet for Islam, then His words would have prepared us for Mohammed and Jesus would have diminished and never stated that He was the Son of God, the Messiah, and He would never have died on that cross for those allegations that He was claiming to be the Messiah. Further Mohammed’s words would have been truer to the Scriptures, not just mouthing them in convenient sections and ignoring the Scriptures elsewhere, and there would have been more unity rather than opposition to the words of their “prophets”.

I think of Mohammed’s “prophecies” and “revelations” in the same way I think of Joseph Smith’s: these were semi-educated young men with mystical, erroneous visions; they could have been psychotic, demonic, epileptic, or outright consciously deceptive. The two men were able to rally a large group around their ideas and visions, and they both enjoyed the “perks”: honor, multiple wives, earthly power. They were shiny rhinestones, not the true diamond that Jesus was. The story of their lives simply does not stand up to His story, the greatest story ever told.

Interesting parallels you draw between Smith and Mohammed. It explains a reference to Moslems I heard once that puzzled me: “sand Mormons”.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

You guys say Muhammad is too violent to be a Prophet, well, Moses was more “violent” yet you consider him a Prophet.
Oh! And every discussion between Christians and Muslims turn into Christians insulting our Prophet’s character, instead of discussing stuff like the Trinity.

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY FAIR!
Not to take Islam’s side on this, but let’s discuss more important issues.
No ad hominems against Muhammad, just say where he’s wrong and why.

Now my two cents on the Trinity vs Oneness on God:
When God says that he DOES NOT change, that he is the same yesterday,
today, and forever more, then God CAN’T CHANGE. Such is part of being an
Eternal Being. A unitarian god would therefore be impossible on a metaphys-
ical level, and would thus have to comprise of three persons in One Being.
When I say “person”, I mean that which has mind, intellect, emotion, and
will, ability to say “I”, etc.

Such a tripersonal being is described in the New Testament and even the
Old Testament, being now able to interpret the Old with the New, the New
being the revelation and fulfillment of the Old.

The Qur’an attempts to undo this revelation, strip away the deity of Jesus
Christ, remove the need of a Savior, and totally render the meaning of the
Messiah as null and void.

(Sorry, that was three)

 

[nmgauss]

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY FAIR!
Not to take Islam’s side on this, but let’s discuss more important issues.
No ad hominems against Muhammad, just say where he’s wrong and why.

Now my two cents on the Trinity vs Oneness on God:
When God says that he DOES NOT change, that he is the same yesterday,
today, and forever more, then God CAN’T CHANGE. Such is part of being an
Eternal Being. A unitarian god would therefore be impossible on a metaphys-
ical level, and would thus have to comprise of three persons in One Being.
When I say “person”, I mean that which has mind, intellect, emotion, and
will, ability to say “I”, etc.

Such a tripersonal being is described in the New Testament and even the
Old Testament, being now able to interpret the Old with the New, the New
being the revelation and fulfillment of the Old.

The Qur’an attempts to undo this revelation, strip away the deity of Jesus
Christ, remove the need of a Savior, and totally render the meaning of the
Messiah as null and void.

(Sorry, that was three)

If different stories about GOD portray different beings, how can we possibly be comfortable with an eternal GOD that never changes especially when His deeds and portrayal changes from one revelation to the next.

 

[Servant19]

If different stories about GOD portray different beings, how can we possibly be comfortable with an eternal GOD that never changes especially when His deeds and portrayal changes from one revelation to the next.

I think if we stick to the EXACT words of the Holy Books we would see a lot more agreement.

Humans insert meaning into words which are not there. Often the incorrect meaning…

 

[swariffin]

Actually, I don’t think you are looking for an adult answer.
You make it seem like warfare or war is something that negates a person being a prophet?
What is this based on?

My question comes because somebody declare that Muhammad never teach revenge. And, I ask some question? Do you mean that I must swallow such statement without having any right for consideration? Why do you think that I am making a warfare. Does it means that Islam is a one-sided religion that no question can be asked with respect to the prophets? Sorry, I just found it out from you.