Could Muhammad of been a prophet?

[dronald]

Al Qaeda is not a standard, but a violent sect that emerged from another violent sect Wahabism, which was created by colonialism. A group Muslims who not only enjoy killing Non-Muslims, but make muslims into non-Muslims in order to kill them, they have their origins in Saudi Arabia, they are a protestant sect of Islam. They protested against the establish form of Islam, because traditional Orthodox Sunni Islam was not aggressive enough for them.

In others words, I don’t adhere to that group, nor do I believe they are the standard.

In fact, they probably consider me an infidel, a non Muslim, simply because I see Sufism as a part of Islam. They would kill me quicker than they would kill you. I am pretty anti-Wahabi (Al Qaeda). They have done alot of horrible things in the Muslim world.

I certainly believe you and agree that your version of Sunni Islam is better than their version of Sunni Islam. My point wasn’t that Islam is bad, my point is that you can’t generalize the Mormon Religion if Mormons all claim it was never and is not a tenant of their faith that blacks are evil. They would simply disagree with you like how you disagree with the taliban.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Shia, friend,
. I’m with you on this, that Muhammad did CPR on the idolatrous tribes of Arabia and got them praying to the One God 5 times per day!

. You know that Abraham’s father made idols, and Abraham destroyed them.
. Jesus entered the Temple and kicked over the money-changer’s tables.
. Muhammad (PBUH) returned to the Ka’aba and again destroyed the idols…

. The Trinity is a difficult issue for Christians to discuss with Muslims. They take offense that Jesus is sent by God with God’s Words, even as He said: “These are not My words, but Him that sent Me.”

. Somehow they think that His station is diminished by the verses of the Quran which describe Him as a Messenger from God, no matter how exalted that station is. My understanding is that Muhammad is not “demoting” Jesus, but rather affirming that God is above all creation, including His Messengers, Who deliver His Message according to His Will.

.

Well Jesus being the word of God was of course sent by the father, so its not an issue for Christians that Jesus does teh will of his father in heaven (rather muslims will say God has no son). But muhammad did diminish the status of Jesus by claiming he was not God almighty as the new testament and church teach. The question is who should we trust, the universal tradition of the church since the time of the apostles? Or Muhammad six centuries later? You will no doubt say Muhammad because he is a prophet. I will say the new testament and hte church because that is what the apostles and Jesus Christ left us.

 

[TheSufi]

I certainly believe you and agree that your version of Sunni Islam is better than their version of Sunni Islam. My point wasn’t that Islam is bad, my point is that you can’t generalize the Mormon Religion if Mormons all claim it was never and is not a tenant of their faith that blacks are evil. They would simply disagree with you like how you disagree with the taliban.

Yes but it was officially part of their religion.

utlm.org/onlinebooks/curseofcain_part1.htm

It is in their scriptures. They officially changed their position in 1976 but they haven’t changed the book of Mormons, or their other scriptures.

Yes but it was officially part of their religion, while randomly killing non-Muslims was never officially part of Orthodox Sunni Islam, the four schools of Islam, which have represented Orthodox Sunni Law for over 1000 years. ** Again the analogy is flawed.** The Talibaan has never been officially a reference in the history of Islam for Orthodox Sunni Muslims.

 

[dronald]

Yes but it was officially part of their religion.

utlm.org/onlinebooks/curseofcain_part1.htm

It is in their scriptures. They officially changed their position in 1976 but they haven’t changed the book of Mormons, or their other scriptures.

Yes but it was officially part of their religion, while randomly killing non-Muslims was never officially part of Orthodox Sunni Islam, the four schools of Islam, which have represented Orthodox Sunni Law for over 1000 years. ** Again the analogy is flawed.** The Talibaan has never been officially a reference in the history of Islam for Orthodox Sunni Muslims.

I understand TheSufi, but what you’re not grasping is that any Mormon would say exactly what you’re saying. A Mormon would say, “True Mormonism never believed that.” I’m not saying they’re right, I’m just applying your standard back to you.

The further East one travels the more likely Muslims will say the death penalty is a proper punishment for apostasy and homosexuality. I’m not saying your sect or every Muslim believes this, I’m simply applying your standard back to you.

 

[nmgauss]

Dont tell all the black Mormons, they’ve really bought into the lie.

In 1997, there were approximately 500,000 black members of the LDS Church, accounting for about 5% of the total membership; most black members live in Africa, Brazil and the Caribbean.[8]

 

[daler]

Al Qaeda is not a standard, but a violent sect that emerged from another violent sect Wahabism, which was created by colonialism. A group Muslims who not only enjoy killing Non-Muslims, but make muslims into non-Muslims in order to kill them, they have their origins in Saudi Arabia, they are a protestant sect of Islam. They protested against the establish form of Islam, because traditional Orthodox Sunni Islam was not aggressive enough for them.

In others words, I don’t adhere to that group, nor do I believe they are the standard.

In fact, they probably consider me an infidel, a non Muslim, simply because I see Sufism as a part of Islam. They would kill me quicker than they would kill you. I am pretty anti-Wahabi (Al Qaeda). They have done alot of horrible things in the Muslim world.

Sufi,
Thanks for posting this. It is really tragic what happens under the guise of religion. In the US, the Ku Klux Klan went around burning crosses and hanging blacks for decades. At one time there were 25 million Klan members, but then the leader got caught with women and booze and most of the followers became disillusioned, for they still held to moral beliefs in their own eyes.

There is something about people that can become warped in a hurry when they get stirred up, usually by some charismatic type, of whatever religion. Its the same mechanism, in whatever sect of whatever faith. Almost like a mass hypnosis which makes people go kind of crazy and irrational, losing all perspective of reason. Its all downhill from there.
.

 

[daler]

Well Jesus being the word of God was of course sent by the father, so its not an issue for Christians that Jesus does teh will of his father in heaven (rather muslims will say God has no son). But muhammad did diminish the status of Jesus by claiming he was not God almighty as the new testament and church teach. The question is who should we trust, the universal tradition of the church since the time of the apostles? Or Muhammad six centuries later? You will no doubt say Muhammad because he is a prophet. I will say the new testament and hte church because that is what the apostles and Jesus Christ left us.

Ignatian,
. I respect your position from your perspective, and to a certain degree understand your reasoning, but to me, much of what was passed along which you point to is very much parallel to mere Hadith, which vary, and sometimes disagree. In other words, “what” we call authentic may have been authentic for this group or that, and became part of their accepted dogma.

. To simply say, “Who should we trust”, etc seems to say “Trust me, I know”, and that takes out the independent investigation of truth. I’ve studied this stuff for forty years and still keep learning, gaining more perspective. Maybe I cast a wider net, but its my net, and I’ve caught a lot of different kinds of fish with meaning that I didn’t have just sitting around drowning worms in the little lake I grew up with west of town, or the creeks running through the pasture down on the farm.

. I hung out with Indians and Hindus, Buddhists and Mormons, Yogis, Jews, and even a few Moonies. There’s all kinds of people stepping up to fill in the blanks on “Who should we trust”, and its always “them”.

. I’ve studied philosophy and have a pretty logical mind and am not swayed easily. I try on my own hats and shoes. If they fit, I wear them until I know if they’re right. I’ve investigated a number of churches and other systems of belief “from the inside”. I’m not what you’d call a “follower”, but very independent in my views and hardly naive. I can defend my position while open to others and take in new information.

. And I didn’t inherit my beliefs from anyone. Tradition doesn’t mean a hill of beans to me. What somebody says they saw or heard way back whenever is their story. I’ve got my own.

. God be with you, Ignatian

Daler

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Dont tell all the black Mormons, they’ve really bought into the lie.

Also, in Islamic texts there are numbers of quotes that show Muhammad in a rather confused light regarding colour and race. While there are indeed quotes that show him in a positive light there are equally others that show as negative and biased. But hey-ho, ‘we’ can always abrogate that which doesn’t suit, or alternatively employ dualistic ‘reasoning’.

 

[nmgauss]

Also, in Islamic texts there are numbers of quotes that show Muhammad in a rather confused light regarding colour and race. While there are indeed quotes that show him in a positive light there are equally others that show as negative and biased. But hey-ho, ‘we’ can always abrogate that which doesn’t suit, or alternatively employ dualistic ‘reasoning’.

Sure! The original Christians argued back-and-forth for centuries until Emperor Constantine got sick of it and held a conference of bishops. After quarrelsome bickering not unlike a political convention, voting occurred, some beliefs were thrown out, and only the ones held by the majority were held as true. That doesn’t mean that the those in the minority were untrue. Since nobody knew for sure what was true, they had to make a decision one way or the other, and they did. If your belief was not popular, it became heresy and you became an apostate if you persisted in teaching your belief. It’s sort of like Germany during the 1930’s.

 

[dronald]

Sure! The original Christians argued back-and-forth for centuries until Emperor Constantine got sick of it and held a conference of bishops. After quarrelsome bickering not unlike a political convention, voting occurred, some beliefs were thrown out, and only the ones held by the majority were held as true. That doesn’t mean that the those in the minority were untrue. Since nobody knew for sure what was true, they had to make a decision one way or the other, and they did. If your belief was not popular, it became heresy and you became an apostate if you persisted in teaching your belief. It’s sort of like Germany during the 1930’s.

This argument falls apart when you consider Carmel was speaking of the founder of Islam, not its members. I don’t know what evidence he has but you’re speaking of something completely different.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Sure! The original Christians argued back-and-forth for centuries until Emperor Constantine got sick of it and held a conference of bishops. After quarrelsome bickering not unlike a political convention, voting occurred, some beliefs were thrown out, and only the ones held by the majority were held as true. That doesn’t mean that the those in the minority were untrue. Since nobody knew for sure what was true, they had to make a decision one way or the other, and they did. If your belief was not popular, it became heresy and you became an apostate if you persisted in teaching your belief. It’s sort of like Germany during the 1930’s.

Alright, sure, let’s go with what you said, but where is the Holy Spirit’s hand in all this? You
have just kicked out the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church, denied God’s sovereignty over
the Church, and have declared, so it seems, that the Gates of Hell have not only prevailed,
but have been walking up and down the Church this whole time.

 

[Sooner87]

Hope everyone realizes my Mormon comment was a joke!

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Sure! The original Christians argued back-and-forth for centuries until Emperor Constantine got sick of it and held a conference of bishops. After quarrelsome bickering not unlike a political convention, voting occurred, some beliefs were thrown out, and only the ones held by the majority were held as true. That doesn’t mean that the those in the minority were untrue. Since nobody knew for sure what was true, they had to make a decision one way or the other, and they did. If your belief was not popular, it became heresy and you became an apostate if you persisted in teaching your belief. It’s sort of like Germany during the 1930’s.

There are heavyweight Islamic texts including Ishaq, Bukhari and Tabari that show Muhammad using racist remarks that are not seen from Jesus of the New Testament. Do YOU think it likely that Jesus was racist?

 

[nmgauss]

There are heavyweight Islamic texts including Ishaq, Bukhari and Tabari that show Muhammad using racist remarks that are not seen from Jesus of the New Testament. Do YOU think it likely that Jesus was racist?

Jesus was not a politician and not trying to stop intertribal warfare. I suppose that before Jesus could mount a strong enough group of supporters that could offer strong resistance against his detractors, politics was not on his mind.

Muhammad, on the other hand, was a politician. His main goal was to improve the lot of his fellow Arabs. If he experienced revelations in his quest, so much the better. Seeing how the Christians and Jews functioned made him realize that the Arabs could be doing a lot better. After he was invited by the leaders of Yathrib (Medina) to help them in their community troubles, anybody who opposed him was subject to his wrath. In Medina, a Jewish minority exerted considerable opposition to his leadership. That is why anti-Jewish remarks appear in the Quran. Some Jewish opposition erupted in violence in which case the opposition was killed. Other Jewish opposition was solved by them moving out of Medina. As long as people cooperated with Muhammad, he was able to do his work.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Response to Daler
I have not spent forty years studying this but I did ask the question, who do you trust? When we talk about someone like Jesus which sources should we go to? Which ones should we use as a basis of understanding of this figure? Should I go to the prophet 700 years later who had no knowledge of the life and times of Jesus except but a few stories, some of those stories being apocryphal in nature? Should I trust a 19th century Persian who claimed to be a prophet in line with those of Muhammad and Jesus and yet totally went against the religions they respectively established?

For me the answer is obvious, our best sources bar none are the New Testament and other sources which speak about Jesus a century later. There is simply no good reason to discount them wholly and if you are going to discount them or offer a major reinterpretation of them you should be prepared to defend any such belief. The thing is, bahai are never prepared to defend themselves, at least when it comes to the new testament. You tell me you think it is inspired (whatever that means to you I cannot fathom) then you will immediately go on to say “Well they were working with something incomplete,” as if you actually disagree with the text which I really think you do in the end. No bahai can say this for instance “3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” Jesus to you is not the sustainer of existence, that is to the bahai he does not continue to preserve the creation, yet to the author of Hebrews Jesus is the creator and sustainer of all things sitting at the right hand of God. Is this divinely inspired text mistaken? Or do you believe your manifestations (whatever they are for you refuse to define them) do this exact same thing?

Now, if tradition means nothing to you, why do you as a bahai believe the bible (which was given to us primarily by tradition) to be divine scripture? Theres no way you would have a bible without that tradition? How do you trust the life of Muhammad if you cannot know anything about him if you dismiss the hadith? How can you say Krishna served God when you don’t know anything about him? How can you say anything about Buhda when you don’t know anything about him?

Now you may cling to your independence but is that what Christ taught? Is that what Paul taught? What did Jesus establish? He established a community, not intellectual endeavour for individuals. I think you would fit in with a secularist crowd though.

 

[Shia_Muslim]

The differences between Christianity and Islam all boil down to this: do you believe in the Trinity or no?

 

[TheSufi]

The differences between Christianity and Islam all boil down to this: do you believe in the Trinity or no?

Well, I would say, the difference between Islam and Christianity, is rooted in the Christian belief of God incarnating as Jesus.

Orthodox Chrisitians and Catholics believe Jesus is God.

Muslims do not believe Jesus is God.

For both the Catholic and Orthodox, salvation is ultimately based on the incarnation of God as Jesus.

To me everything else is really secondary.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Well, I would say, the difference between Islam and Christianity, is rooted in the Christian belief of God incarnating as Jesus.
Orthodox Chrisitians and Catholics believe Jesus is God.
Muslims do not believe Jesus is God.
For both the Catholic and Orthodox, salvation is ultimately based on the incarnation of God as Jesus.
To me everything else is really secondary.

Now let’s get to the reasoning of both positions.

Christians have God’s word, The Bible, to justify our belief in Jesus being God.
Muslims have the Qur’an and Muhammad, which cannot be reconciled with either the Old or New Testament.

 

[TheSufi]

Now let’s get to the reasoning of both positions.

Christians have God’s word, The Bible, to justify our belief in Jesus being God.
Muslims have the Qur’an and Muhammad, which cannot be reconciled with either the Old or New Testament.

Jesus never said he was God, nor were the Jews looking for God incarnate, nor do they believe God would incarnate.

John 10:30-34 In which the Jews specifically were against the idea of God being a man, during the time of Jesus.

God being a man is against the Old Testament (Number 23:19)

 

[Shia_Muslim]

Now let’s get to the reasoning of both positions.

Christians have God’s word, The Bible, to justify our belief in Jesus being God.
Muslims have the Qur’an and Muhammad, which cannot be reconciled with either the Old or New Testament.

Tell the OT Prophets that God came on Earth as a man and see what happens to you…