My understanding of Mohammad

[Sister_Amy]

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.

Actually, you’re the one who just justified a lie. Abraham said that Sarah was his sister, meaning not his wife. He lied. And you think it’s okay.

According to your own logic, sometimes it’s actually okay to lie.

Do you see that?

 

[nablaise]

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

This would depend in what he was trustworthy into/about. It may not be the truth as such. Isn’t it true that he preached that lying can be justified?

 

[nablaise]

Actually, you’re the one who just justified a lie. Abraham said that Sarah was his sister, meaning not his wife. He lied. And you think it’s okay.

According to your own logic, sometimes it’s actually okay to lie.

Do you see that?

If you study the genealogies given in the Bible you will see that she was also his sister. For them, his sister did not mean ‘not his wife’.
So he did not lie by saying that she is his sister.

 

[gmcbroom]

Did Mohammed put away his first wife? Isn’t that like divorce? Jesus didn’t exactly condone divorce. So, why would Mohammed?
peace be with you
gmcbroom

 

[Sister_Amy]

This would depend in what he was trustworthy into/about. It may not be the truth as such. Isn’t it true that he preached that lying can be justified?

You just justified lying, didn’t you?

 

[Sister_Amy]

If you study the genealogies given in the Bible you will see that she was also his sister. For them, his sister did not mean ‘not his wife’.
So he did not lie by saying that she is his sister.

It was well known that the king liked to enjoy the company of beautiful women. Had Abraham admitted to being married to Sarah, then he would have been killed. So he lied. What the king understood was that Abraham was her brother, and thus (because it would be incest otherwise) he wasn’t married to her.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Did Mohammed put away his first wife? Isn’t that like divorce? Jesus didn’t exactly condone divorce. So, why would Mohammed?
peace be with you
gmcbroom

Huh? Put away?

He buried his first wife, when she died. The year she died is called the Year of Grief or Year of Sadness, and it happened during the years when Muhammad’s clan was sanctioned and living on the outskirts of the city, often without any food or supplies.

 

[nablaise]

You just justified lying, didn’t you?

How?

It was well known that the king liked to enjoy the company of beautiful women. Had Abraham admitted to being married to Sarah, then he would have been killed. So he lied. What the king understood was that Abraham was her brother, and thus (because it would be incest otherwise) he wasn’t married to her.

God does not held us responsible for other people’s understanding due to their wickedness. But he does held us to our truthfulness. We must trust God, be truthful, and let God deal with people’s wickedness.

I understand that Abraham trick truth is not a perfect truth. And it leads many to believing that lying is okay because it looks more like a lie especially to our crooked hearts (just as it appeared as a lying the the crooked hearts of that King and his people). This is why it is good to remember that Abraham was not perfect. This will protect us to hold all aspects of his life as example to be followed.

God bless

 

[Sister_Amy]

How?

God does not held us responsible for other people’s understanding due to their wickedness. But he does held us to our truthfulness. We must trust God, be truthful, and let God deal with people’s wickedness.

I understand that Abraham trick truth is not a perfect truth. And it leads many to believing that lying is okay because it looks more like a lie especially to our crooked hearts (just as it appeared as a lying the the crooked hearts of that King and his people). This is why it is good to remember that Abraham was not perfect. This will protect us to hold all aspects of his life as example to be followed.

God bless

Actually, it shows you that Abraham was not always truthful. And that seems to be your standard for prophethood.

And you proved yourself that sometimes a lie can be preferred over the truth, and not everything that can be called a lie is simply evil, or even wrong. In other words, sometimes lying might be okay.

 

[nablaise]

Actually, it shows you that Abraham was not always truthful. And that seems to be your standard for prophethood.

And you proved yourself that sometimes a lie can be preferred over the truth, and not everything that can be called a lie is simply evil, or even wrong. In other words, sometimes lying might be okay.

No, lying is never okay. If I have lied or somehow insinuate that lying can be good, I was wrong. Prophecy is telling the truth. Every time a person speaks or magnifying the truth, he is prophesying.There are great prophets who spoke great truths, they are known as such because of those great truth they revealed. Abraham for Christian is known more as a great patriarch rather than prophet.
Here is details of what I believe about telling the truth.

God bless

 

[MartinJordan]

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.

Thank you for you explanation.

However I think if the Quran “dodges” it, THAT is really surprising to me. All the years of scripture already inspired and written centuries before Islam, why would such a book avoid the issue.

MJ

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

It can be either or both, because at that time imperialism was the fashion. But the most pridominant and primary concern for him was to the restoration of what he understood to be the right way of living.
He was a Hanif (known then as the righteous ones), a minority group who were the only one left holding on to monotheism among descendants of Ismael. Considering that Jews were scattered and Christians were struggling with the Trinity while comfortable with statues, it is not hard to see how he can see his Hanif people as they only one practicing true Faith. I believe these Hanif are the ones refered to when he preached that Islam had always existed. He meant monotheism. And for him, monotheism was only clear and simple among the Hanif.

That can only be said by someone who has a Dan Brown understanding of Christianity.

They believed that the Kaaba was the place where the remains of Hagar and Ismael were, and together with all Arabs had great respect for this place.

Of all the Patriarchs and Prophets in the Bible, where they don’t know where they are buried how do you know for certain they were buried there?

They believed that Abraham had build it. I believe this is possible.

I thought the muslims said that the kabaal was built by Adam? By quite a few sources I came across states it is an impossibility that Abraham build the kabaal.

Abraham was an astrologer, we know that God spoke to him several times through the stars. But he was growing in Faith as St. Peter suggested, he was still in ignorance of most things. This Mohammad and Muslims don’t seem to notice. So when a piece of meteor fell from the sky, he must have associated some special meaning with it and tried to preserve the event. Unfortunately, this had translated into worship of the stone (Muslim still kiss this back-stone to this day) and devotions revolved around it.

Who do you mean by “…he must have associated some special meaning…” muhammed or Abraham? Anyway there is no proof that the black stone is a meteorite fall. The black stone was damaged in a siege before the muslims took control of mecca, I read they did it themselves.

By the time of Mohammad, there were about 360+ Idols having something to do with the days of the year (notice relationships with astrology). They were also yearly pilgrimage. Hanif detested this idolatry. The first things Mohammad did after taking Mecca over, was to destroy them and make the yearly pilgrimage a Muslim pilgrimage. And this for him was not a new thing, but a restoration of what Abraham, Hagar, and Ismael had started…that fountain where an angel caused water to flow when Ismael was thirsty was also venerated among the Arabs, Mohammad tried to gave a proper restoration of a pure practice.
As you can see, this is a restoration of Hagar’s values. At the end I see a deep relationship between the meaning of ‘Islam’ and the fact that Hagar was a slave woman. Is it a surprise then that Muslim consider themselves slaves of God ready to do ANYTHING if they are convinced that it is a command of God? Hagar had a slave respect for Abraham which translated as divine approval of ANYTHING Abraham were to ask of her. Islam was her personal devotion, her source of peace in accepting everything that happened to her as she served Abraham and Sarah. This form of Faith which incorporate slavery and concubinage as okay if it is the Will of Allah, was inherited by her faithful descendants down to Mohammad. He just restored it.
Sadly enough, Non-Arabic people have embraced it as being of a universal value without realizing that it is just a Hagar realm thing.

I think there is great hope though. Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar were imperfect human beings that God used for prophetic purpose. I just noticed a parallel between Hagar and Mary, I am quite surprised but it is beautiful, perhaps it will unite Catholics and Muslims.
Catholics are not used to meditating about Hagar and her greatness in the story, why would God help her, why would God make a great nation out of Ismael, etc…Muslims notice the greatness of Mary but don’t think much about it. If we go deep we see where we meet and at that point, God prefect his Holy Faith. For now, let’s just say that just as Hagar helped Abraham to have a child, so Mary helped God to have a child. They were both servants. Only one was serving an imperfect human being, the other was serving God directly. In both case, there is a sense of an abomination, yet also of greatness. In the Catholic language we say that God allows evil because he can derive a greater good out of it.

You are taking a character from the Bible and building some kind theory on it instead of trying to see the pov of the writer of that Bible story. I’m not saying everything you said is false but you’re all over the place, and there are certain things you are missing.

There are many people who make a connection between Ishmael and Hagar and islam, beside people making such claims, how do you know for certain? The influences on islam is not all base from the OT, (they are not like a Protestant movement, or some branch of Judaism.) If you are going to understand islam you have to understand the early history of the Church and what heresy is, and understand the problems the early Church faced with Gnosticism.

 

[gmcbroom]

St. John of Damascus per the THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS Vol. 37 CUA Press, is writings thought the Kabaa was an old statue to Aphroditie and atleast in his day you supposedly could still see the traces of her on the stone. Now he combated the Ishamealite movement saying Mohammed devised his own heresey. Now that is just is written opinion. could it be true sure. But he had to deal with its rise in his time so his view won’t be the muslim view.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

 

[nablaise]

@ Jean Paul Jones

I am sure what you are contributing. You seem only to be up in accusing me of a Don Brown and missing stuff. I think it is better to read what I wrote or ask me properly what I think about particular issues…But you are even attributing to me to believe what I am saying that I think ‘they’ believe. Please read calmly and carefully.

About the Kaaba, yes, they believe that Adam initially built it, and later Abraham and Ishmael restored it…

 

[nordskoven]

Abraham and Sarah were not, per Hebrew scholar Savinah Teubal, an incestuous couple because of the ramifications of Genesis 3:15. As Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen notes, ancient cultures and modern remnants did and do now hold Genesis teachings. Marriage, for example, is universal. It’s as if everybody was on the same page. And Genesis 3:15, God’s cursing of Lucifer and his seed with the Woman & Seed was a huge influence on universal culture. The Woman & Seed system was overthrown by a kind of lodge-type system or alliance of males who threw down the female figurine landmarks–land being inherited through one’s mother–and made Woman a temple prostitute; killed her children; after slaying her husband. The Hebrew remnant held on, and one’s lineage is accounted through the Woman, capitalized as a title.

Abraham and Sarah had different mothers even though they had the same dad so they were not considered related! Abraham and Sarah were “brother and sister” in the “other” cultures. Sarah’s handmaid, a different status than servant, was given to her husband to raise seed up to Sarah. This child of a handmaid would have had full sonship, and could not be cut off from the household. Sarah changed that status after incidents with Hagar and her son, Ishmael. Sarah demoted Hagar, turning her from handmaid to servant, and a servant and her child could be thrown out. God honored the seed of Abraham with generative abundance, but noted Ishmael’s people would be ever warlike, with “all men’s hands against them.” Hagar was an Egyptian princess and no mere scullery maid. Yet the elect coupling was Abraham and Sarah. If anything, the honoring of Abraham’s seed by Hagar was a promotion for men from a culture so attenuated that daddies didn’t count.

 

[nablaise]

St. John of Damascus per the THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS Vol. 37 CUA Press, is writings thought the Kabaa was an old statue to Aphroditie and atleast in his day you supposedly could still see the traces of her on the stone. Now he combated the Ishamealite movement saying Mohammed devised his own heresey. Now that is just is written opinion. could it be true sure. But he had to deal with its rise in his time so his view won’t be the muslim view.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

Thanks I am trying to read everything the Church Fathers may have said about the Arabs and Mohammad. What I have read in the Catholic Encyclopedia suggests that there is no much info because Arabian Christians were heretics and they disappeared with the rise of Islam. However I picked up one of two saints, one in north Arabia about Syria, an other in Yemen, but I am not yet sure if they are heretic saints or not yet. I will try to found out if their writings if there is any.

The way I see it, Mohammad grew up in a place full of idolatry and the Christians around him were heretical sects who could not agree themselves on much things. He probably picked up what they had in common, namely that Jesus is a Prophet, and adding his other historical and/or tribal understanding, he ended up with some understanding which ended up in the Koran. So in a way, Islam is just a form of early protestantism or heresy.
Today we have Christians sects who believe nearly the same think about Jesus, they just have a different Prophet other than Mohammad. Consider Mormons or Branhamists for example.

I would not be surprise if the Christians of the time of Mohammad considered him, just an Arab Christian who happen to be particularly very charismatic. In fact, for them, Islam was not known with that designation. It was Mohammedanism, and his followers were called Mohammedans. So Christians in the Roman Empire must have understood him in the line of other Christians dissenters like Arians, Nestorians. Only he was not a direct dissenters like they are. He was more like a secondary and third degree development of a heretical movement for them. Already by the third century Arabia was known as ‘mother of heresies’. The reason was because Arabia being free from the Roman Empire and the Persian Empire, it was the safe place to be any kind of Christian and get away with it. All Christians were persecuted in the Persian Empire. Dissenting bishops were discouraged in the Roman Empire. Arabia was a hiding place, and all dissenters would find their way there.

Apparently also, Mohammad incorporated other monotheistic idea outside Christianity and Judaism. Those who know Zoroastrianism apparently can see its influence on the Koran. This did not surprise me when I read what St. Peter apparently said in a report by St. Clement of Rome. St. Peter was explaining the history of the world, when he got to Abraham, this is what he said:

Chapter 33. Abraham: His Posterity.

“Therefore Abraham, when he was desirous to learn the causes of things, and was intently pondering upon what had been told him, the true Prophet appeared to him, who alone knows the hearts and purpose of men, and disclosed to him all things which he desired. He taught him the knowledge of the Divinity; intimated the origin of the world, and likewise its end; showed him the immortality of the soul, and the manner of life which was pleasing to God; declared also the resurrection of the dead, the future judgment, the reward of the good, the punishment of the evil,— all to be regulated by righteous judgment: and having given him all this information plainly and sufficiently, He departed again to the invisible abodes. But while Abraham was still in ignorance, as we said to you before, two sons were born to him, of whom the one was called Ismael, and the other Heliesdros. From the one are descended the barbarous nations, from the other the people of the Persians, some of whom have adopted the manner of living and the institutions of their neighbours, the Brachmans. Others settled in Arabia, of whose posterity some also have spread into Egypt. From them some of the Indians and of the Egyptians have learned to be circumcised, and to be of purer observance than others, although in process of time most of them have turned to impiety what was the proof and sign of purity.”

About the Kaaba. What is for sure I think is, there were many idols there. The sad thing is that someone had reportedly added statues of Jesus and Mary. The story was that a Christian King in Yemen had built a magnificent Church. When this Church started taking away from the pilgrimage of Kaaba, some Arab chief got frustrated. He attacked, destroyed the Church, and took the statues which were in there and took them to the Kaaba so that all pilgrimage can en up only to the Kaaba.
The story that they were even Christian statues at the Kaaba must have certainly contributed in enforcing the idea that Christians worship idols.

God bless

 

[FaithJoy]

My understanding of Mohammad is the encourager of lies. Christians believe Satan is the father of ALL lies. I don’t think Mohammad is Satan but how can Satan and Mohammad agree sometimes?

My understanding of Jesus from also what He said in the bible.:
I Am the Truth (John 14:6) - AL HAQ
I Am the Door/Guide (John 10:9) - AL HADI
I Am the Light (John 8:12) - AL NUR
I Am the Alpha and Omega (Rev 22) - AL AWAL - AL AKHER
I Am Resurrection and the Life (John 11) - AL BAETH
The King of Kings (Rev 17:14) - AL MALEK

Al Haq,AlHadi,Al Nur,Al Awal,Al Akher,Al Baeth,Al Malek are all equivalent names of God understood by Muslims.

 

[hamba2han]

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).

Actually, I had this discussion before about what the term “brethren” means in the context of Deuteronomy 18:18… but this is not the point that I was making in my previous post.

Again, let us look at the verse and in particular the part that I shall highlight, to explain why there is a humongous difference between the meeting that Angel Gabriel had with Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the cave and the meeting that he had with Mary when he brought her the news of the coming of her son Jesus (pbuh):

"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)

When the Angel Gabriel visited Mary, did Mary respond to him with the Words of the Lord?.. No, she responded with her own words, didn’t she?

By comparison, when the Angel Gabriel visited Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) for the first time in the cave, he brought with him the first revelation of the Qur’an i.e. the verbatim Speech of God:

**“Recite in the name of your Lord Who created, Created man from a clot. Recite and your Lord is most Generous, Who taught (to write) with the pen. Taught man what he knew not.” **… Al-Qur’an (96: 1-5)

When Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) recited these verses, he was not responding with his own words, he was in fact saying the verbatim Words of the Lord which were being put into his mouth through the Angel Gabriel… and this is where the term “I will put My words in his mouth” in Deuteronomy 18:18 comes into play.

No other Prophet, not Abraham, not Moses and not Jesus (peace be upon them all) claimed that the Lord was putting His words into their mouth.

The Qur’an on the other hand is indeed claimed to be the verbatim Speech of God and so Deuteronomy 18:18 is surely referring to no other Prophet but Muhammad (pbuh).

Once we understand this, then we can easily see why in the first meeting with Angel Gabriel in the cave, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was caught and pressed so hard that he had great difficulty to even breathe, such was this initial process of Angel Gabriel putting the Words of the Lord into the mouth of Muhammad (pbuh) and thereby bestowing upon him divine Prophet-hood.

And in case anyone should ask, the words of Prophet Jesus (pbuh) as recorded in the Bible is only very loosely equivalent to the words of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as recorded in the ahadith and definitely NOT as what is written in the Qur’an.

 

[KathleenGee]

How many fellows use the Hamba name???

Without Judeo Christianity, Islam would be very different. Sacred Scripture is to be understood in its whole context, not taking bits and parts out to make another religion, and distort the true intent of the Sacred Word of God Who is All Good and All Just, Who is the Loving Creator of this world.

We are to be extensions of God’s truth and goodness and serve one another as Christ taught.

Mohammed appears to have changed from the beginning to a warrior at the end.

I hate war and fighting. It only destroys and makes more enemies.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

After various researching, I am concluding that Mohammad was trying to be for the Arabs What Moses was for the Jews. I think he noted that Arabs are children of Abraham from Hagar, just as Israelis are children of Abraham from Sarah.
Just as Israelis had a great Prophet who helped them to keep their nation and built a prestige for them, so God too must be calling someone among the Arabs to do a similar task for the Arabs. And he did. He united the lost, barbarian, and idolatrous Arabs into one nation, one creed, and one law.
He seemed to be playing Moses and Joshua for the Arabs. Only he did not know where he was going beside that that he had to free his people from idolatry and unite them under one God.

To believe this then you must toss out a very basic Teaching of the Church. That of Divine Revelation being closed with the death of the last Apostle.

Mohammad claimed a new revelation which is contained within the Qur’an.