My understanding of Mohammad

[Sister_Amy]

I sometimes think that Muhammed was deceived by his his 4 caliphs and the people around him to gain political power, money , and lands, some examples are when caliph Uthman burnt all copies of Quran and kept only his version, and when Muhammed was in his death bed he wanted to write something for his companions but was denied by caliph Umar:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 70, Number 573:
When Allah’s Apostle was on his death-bed and in the house there were some people among whom was 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, the Prophet said, “Come, let me write for you a statement after which you will not go astray.” 'Umar said, “The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Qur’an; so the Book of Allah is enough for us.” The people present in the house differed and quarrelled. Some said “Go near so that the Prophet may write for you a statement after which you will not go astray,” while the others said as Umar said. When they caused a hue and cry before the Prophet, Allah’s Apostle said, “Go away!” Narrated 'Ubaidullah: Ibn 'Abbas used to say, “It was very unfortunate that Allah’s Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise.” (E)

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510:
“Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to 'Uthman, “O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before.” So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, “Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.” Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.” They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): ‘Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.’ (33.23)” (E)

His version?

Really, once again you’ve shown you don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[MartinJordan]

The Qur’an doesn’t say the name of the child to be sacrificed but contextually leads one to draw such a conclusion.

Now i appreciate you admitting this. A Muslim who I know insisted that the Quran does mention Ishmael’s name point blank, and when I said why don’t you read your Quran to make sure, he says “I can’t read Arabic”.

As for your contextually concluding that it was Isaac, it is my understanding that the “Child” in question was argued upon by Islamic scholars for many years and eventually decided it was Ishmael. I am wondering if it was truly clear (contextually) why was it argued for so long?

As mentioned the Pentateuch or Torah (if one is a Jew will call it) was already set in stone.

MJ

 

[Sister_Amy]

Now i appreciate you admitting this. A Muslim who I know insisted that the Quran does mention Ishmael’s name point blank, and when I said why don’t you read your Quran to make sure, he says “I can’t read Arabic”.

As for your contextually concluding that it was Isaac, it is my understanding that the “Child” in question was argued upon by Islamic scholars for many years and eventually decided it was Ishmael. I am wondering if it was truly clear (contextually) why was it argued for so long?

As mentioned the Pentateuch or Torah (if one is a Jew will call it) was already set in stone.

MJ

I think that contextually it leads to the conclusion that the son was Ishmael, actually. And that’s because it mentions tidings of a son to Abraham who is حليم or forbearing, then it goes on to describe the event of being called for a sacrifice, then the son being replaced with a ram, and then it gives good tidings again of a son, who is mentioned to be Isaac (specifically named, after the sacrifice.) So it seems to be a discussion first about Ishmael, which concludes, and then a discussion about Isaac. That’s why I say contextually it leads to the conclusion that the son to be sacrificed was Ishmael.

However, you’re right that there was a debate on the issue and there were/are two different opinions.

Which is why I, for one, won’t be arguing the point with you as to which son it actually was. If the Qur’an dodges the debate, then so shall I. You can read the passage yourself, in chapter 37, starting with ayah 101.

 

[nablaise]

So if God picked the prophets, why aren’t they good enough to do the job He picked them for? If their job is to speak the truth–part of which, I think, is telling us how to live, and showing us how to live–then why shouldn’t we listen to them?

But God did not pick every one who claim to be picked by him. God also gave us reason so we can recognize the truth when we hear it. This way we can tell a true prophet from a false one when we are honest in our hearts. If a prophet is truly from God, then we can listen to him, the truth that he transmits to us from God.
However, if a prophet says that it’s okay to lie sometimes, how can this be from God?

 

[dzheremi]

I didn’t use it by accident. I actually replaced a different word, figuring “deen” to be more appropriate.

Yeah…

But many many many Arabs really do think that they’re just better than non-Arabs. Usually the religious ones don’t think so, it’s more the casual observers of deen and the secular ones who share the attitude of superiority.

I dunno one way or another about that. Most of the Arabs I know are Christian, but even the ones that aren’t (even the bearded, constantly unhappy-looking guys from Saudi) have never given any indication that they think that.

When I said your theory conflicted with prophetic biography, I was referring not so much to the revelation of Qur’an, but really the fact that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh was persecuted in Makkah–that is to say, by his own people, his own FAMILY–for over a decade, despite their offering to make him their king.

Okay. I didn’t mention the Qur’an in my post, but yeah, okay.

Really, if he just wanted to unite the Arabs, then why not do it according to the religion of Makkah, the idolatry?

I think you might be reading something into my post that isn’t there. It’s not about what Muhammad wanted to do or what Muhammad thought or what Muhammad gained by his supposed prophethood. It’s about the actual effect of Islam on the Arabs and maybe, if you are right about Arab attitudes about themselves vs. what Islam actually commands of them, the effect of the Arabs on Islam.

Islam, in fact, would be the least likely choice to bring him any kind of success except for the fact that it is actually from God.

A very, very odd conclusion to draw, but alright…as you see it, Sister Amy.

 

[nablaise]

Really, if he just wanted to unite the Arabs, then why not do it according to the religion of Makkah, the idolatry? Especially since that’s what his city was known for in its time, and why it was distinguished among the Arabs. Why would he try to come up with a religion that the Arabs hated, since it basically took away all their idols?

This is a good question.
For me, I believe he actually realized that the very reason they were divided was these idols and idolatry. So he could not use it. He certainly learned that one God, one creed, one law, one culture is what can unite his people.
About the Arabs hating monotheism. First they did not understand the advantage of monotheism, second, they did not embrace Mohammad all. He forced Islam on them whenever he could until the took over all Arabia. It was after they were conquered that they realized that it is better for them than what they had before and kept and loved it. This is how I see it so far.

 

[Sister_Amy]

But God did not pick every one who claim to be picked by him. God also gave us reason so we can recognize the truth when we hear it. This way we can tell a true prophet from a false one when we are honest in our hearts. If a prophet is truly from God, then we can listen to him, the truth that he transmits to us from God.
However, if a prophet says that it’s okay to lie sometimes, how can this be from God?

So how exactly can we tell if a prophet is true or false?

 

[Sister_Amy]

This is a good question.
For me, I believe he actually realized that the very reason they were divided was these idols and idolatry. So he could not use it. He certainly learned that one God, one creed, one law, one culture is what can unite his people.
About the Arabs hating monotheism. First they did not understand the advantage of monotheism, second, they did not embrace Mohammad all. He forced Islam on them whenever he could until the took over all Arabia. It was after they were conquered that they realized that it is better for them than what they had before and kept and loved it. This is how I see it so far.

Actually, Muhammad didn’t force Islam on anyone. He preached it for years and years and it just made his neighbors hate him, his family hate him. His entire clan was boycotted for a while, even. Seriously–not the route to success.

Monotheism had absolutely no advantage to the Arabs of the time. They made their money off idolatry. So Muhammad preached and preached and eventually they planned to kill him. So basically, if it were just Muhammad’s “plan” to take over the Arabs, it was foolish. It would’ve gotten him killed.

But actually, it was God’s plan, and so God saved him. And he went to another city that already accepted his message, and over the next 10 years continued preaching, despite being besieged by the Arabs of his hometown for another few years.

Eventually, the city of Makkah surrenderred after violating a treaty.

 

[nablaise]

So how exactly can we tell if a prophet is true or false?

The basic test is the test of truth itself. How much respect of truth does this man have.
Truth is the test of Faith. If I really believe that God is almighty, then relying on a lie is not a sign of faith but of loss of faith or no faith.

 

[Sister_Amy]

The basic test is the test of truth itself. How much respect of truth does this man have.
Truth is the test of Faith. If I really believe that God is almighty, then relying on a lie is not a sign of faith but of loss of faith or no faith.

So what would you think of a man who was known by his contemporaries, since his youth, as the Trustworthy One? Would you say that he respects the truth?

Or what would you say of a man who lied to his people, twice, and also to a king? Would you say he has respect of the truth?

 

[nablaise]

Actually, Muhammad didn’t force Islam on anyone. He preached it for years and years and it just made his neighbors hate him, his family hate him. His entire clan was boycotted for a while, even. Seriously–not the route to success.

Monotheism had absolutely no advantage to the Arabs of the time. They made their money off idolatry. So Muhammad preached and preached and eventually they planned to kill him. So basically, if it were just Muhammad’s “plan” to take over the Arabs, it was foolish. It would’ve gotten him killed.

But actually, it was God’s plan, and so God saved him. And he went to another city that already accepted his message, and over the next 10 years continued preaching, despite being besieged by the Arabs of his hometown for another few years.

Eventually, the city of Makkah surrenderred after violating a treaty.

Yes, he was persecuted when he was weak.
But as you can see, once strong, others needed to surrender before him.
God does not force himself on anyone, so there is no need to surrender. If anything, one can surrender to his love, not to threat of death. This is an other way to tell if a prophet is really from God or from himself.

 

[nablaise]

So what would you think of a man who was known by his contemporaries, since his youth, as the Trustworthy One? Would you say that he respects the truth?

Or what would you say of a man who lied to his people, twice, and also to a king? Would you say he has respect of the truth?

It is simple. When a man speaks truth, he shows respect to it and glorifies God.
When a man lies, he shows disrespect to truth, and lack of faith in God.

 

[FightingFat]

To those who keep asking this question of why Angel Gabriel caught and pressed the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the cave, I would say that the answer to your question is really in the Old Testament:

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." … (Deuteronomy 18:18)

There is a very, very notable difference between this first meeting of Angel Gabriel with Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) with what the New Testament says about the visit of Angel Gabriel to deliver to Mary the news of the coming of her son Jesus (pbuh).

The difference is just so obvious and self-explanatory to me that I wonder why Christians do not see it… or perhaps it is more likely that they do not WANT to see it!

Anyhow, do let me know if you require help spotting this HUMONGOUS difference.

Dude, there’s NO WAY this verse in Deuteronomy refers to Muhammed!!

It clearly refers to bretheren, you know, fellow Israelites? The Jewish Levites are told in the same passage that “they shall have no inheritance among their bretheren” (v.2).

Since the term bretheren refers to Israel, not to their Arab antagonists, why would God raise up for Israel a prophet from their enemies???

This is better demonstrated by looking earlier in Deuteronomy, where God tells the Jews to chose a king from their bretheren “not a foreigner” (Deut 17:15). Israel never chose a non Jewish king!

Also, as you would assert, Muhammed came from Ishmael, heirs to the Jewish throne came from Isaac. The Torah says Abraham prayed “Oh that Ishmael might live before you!” God answered emphatically: “My covenant I will establish with Isaac” (Gen 17:21). God repeats this in Gen 21:12 “In Isaac your seed shall be called”.

Even the Qur’an itself states that the prophetic line came from Isaac, not Ishmael: “And we bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and ordained Among his progeny Prophethood and revelation.” By adding Abraham, the father of Ishmael, he can include Muhammed, a descendent of Ishmael, in the prophetic line! But Abraham’s name is not found in the Arabic text of the Qur’an, which Muslims consider perfectly preserved do they not?

No, it is clearly—CLEARLY—Jesus NOT Muhammed, who fulfils this verse of Scripture. It was Jesus who came from Jewish bretheren (Cf. Gal 4:4). He also fulfilled Deuteronomy 18:18 perfectly “He shall speak to them all that I [God] command Him.” Jesus said “I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things” (Jn 8:28).

“I have not spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak” (Jn 12:49). He called Himself a “prophet” (Luke 13:33), and the people considered Him a prophet (Matt 21:11, Lk 7:16; 24:19; Jn 4:19; 6:14; 7:40; 9:17). As the Son of God, Jesus was a prophet (speaking to men for God), priest (Heb 7:10, speaking to God for men), and king (Rev 19:20 reigning over men for God).

 

[Sister_Amy]

Yes, he was persecuted when he was weak.
But as you can see, once strong, others needed to surrender before him.
God does not force himself on anyone, so there is no need to surrender. If anything, one can surrender to his love, not to threat of death. This is an other way to tell if a prophet is really from God or from himself.

That’s why he gave everyone in the city a pardon.

 

[Sister_Amy]

It is simple. When a man speaks truth, he shows respect to it and glorifies God.
When a man lies, he shows disrespect to truth, and lack of faith in God.

I’d really like you to address the two men.

Both are prophets.

 

[gmcbroom]

Sister Amy,
Who were the two men in your estimation?
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

 

[nablaise]

I’d really like you to address the two men.

Both are prophets.

I am sure none of them is Jesus.
And whoever they are, if they are of the Bible, they have repaired their lies somewhere in the Bible, so it has been acknowledged that lying is always wrong.
Tell me their names and lets chat about them if you want.

God bless

 

[Sister_Amy]

Sister Amy,
Who were the two men in your estimation?
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

The first was Muhammad–even before prophethood he was known as الامين–the trustworthy one.

And the second was Abraham–he told three lies; the first was saying he was sick to avoid attending a celebration of idolatry, the second to his people was claiming that he didn’t destroy their idols, when he did. And the third was claiming that his wife, Sarah, was actually his sister, so the king of Egypt wouldn’t kill him in order to woo her.

 

[gmcbroom]

Weren’t these two men human? Here’s a question. Who told Abraham to smash the idols? As for the lying to save his wife, well most men would probably do the same.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

 

[nablaise]

I don’t know that Abraham said that his wife is his sister, but I was not aware about the other two lies. I don’t know if they are in the Bible.

About Abraham, he actually did not lie. Sarah was somewhere between his half-sister and his cousin. So he just hid the plain truth but did not say a lie. A half-sister or cousin is a sister.

About Mohamed, there was a point where I was considering that he may have been a true Prophet perhaps just a private one for the Arabs, but when I learned that not only he lied but thought that lie can be justified, I realized that he is a false Prophet.

Truth is closely associated with Faith. Faith concerns precisely believing in truth. Drifting from truth may be out of faith but this is not faith from the true God, it is faith in oneself, the power of one’s schemes or one’s wisdom or foresight, but this is not faith in God almighty.