Parallellism between Mani and Muhammad

[exoflare]

That beauty of the original (among 1000 ugly) will last forever.

It’s “beauty” only according your your subjective opinion. When you find a concrete measure of beauty, please let us know.

You are believing in something, you don’t know where you got from. Thats make it important to know who and when wrote it.

Its verification came from the Church. Jesus’ appointed successors. You’re nitpicking the little detail that you don’t know who originally put pen to paper (which, ironically, applies to the Quran as well). As if this would prove anything… anyone can write words on paper, but you talk as if it were some kind of supernatural wonder.

 

[Booklover]

God didn’t stop Prophet (pbuh) from marrying the fifth and more because God knew, it was not for sexual pleasure. If it was, he wouldn’t do it 50 and 60 year old widows. There was political reasons for those marriages.

Really!

You don’t have to stop stripping. But until you know it is wrong. Once you learn it is wrong you should stop it. If you continue, no one gonna stop either. But you will be responsible for your acts. If prophet (pbuh) did marry anyone after the command of maximum 4, he would be answerable for that act. So he didn’t.

He married more than 4! See here.

A honest study of the life of Prophet (pbuh) and Khadeeja (ra) will not make you to say prophet (pbuh) was a womeniser.

See above link.

She wasn’t six at the time of marrieage. She was nine at the time marriage. The age 9 is accepted by Islamic tradition because of two reasons. 1) Ayesha (ra) was already engaged with another man long before she was proposed to prophet (pbuh). 2) That one point and many other incidents proves, marrying at young age wasn’t immoral or unlawful at that time. Her life proves she was never raped. More than 1000 hadeeses reported from her. She was the teacher of womens that time. She used to do nursing during war.

A nine year old is not mentally or physically ready for sex! Muhammad was a pedophile! He lusted after a child! He was disgusting.

 

[Booklover]

It can be proved in many ways from your scripture. For example,

Moses (pbuh) said ‘God is one and only’ (Not one in three or three in one). –Duet 6:4.

Jesus (pbuh) said the same ‘God is one and only’ (Not one in three or three in one). –Mark 12:29.

Mohamed (pbuh) been told to preach the same in Quran ‘God is one and only’ (Not one in three or three in one). –112:1.

Jesus said: "Go and make disciples of ALL the nations and baptize them in the **NAME **of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit!

All the prophets, including Jesus used to “fall on their faces” like we Muslims do, while praying. See; Abraham (Genesis 17:3); Job (Job 1:20); Moses and Aaron (Numbers 16:22); Jesus (Mathew 26:39).

So what does that prove?

My dear, are out of your mind? Your imposing an invalid claim on me. And then you want to argue on that?

No, I am not out of my mind! I asked a valid question: IF MUHAMMAD HAD DECLARED THAT INCEST IS “HALAL” WOULD MUSLIMS HAVE SEX WITH THEIR CHILDREN? You refuse to answer.

You are correct in one point. We love, copy, follow, imitate Prophet (pbuh) as much as possible. We do what he asked us to do. We avoid what he prohibited. No other man ever could make influence in human life as much as this man did in the life muslims. And that is why he is the number one in the book of 'M.H. Hart, THE 100: A RANKING OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSONS IN HISTORY, New York, 1978. The writer (He wasn’t a Muslim) commented,

As for his being the most influential person, I’d say he’s one of the most evil men this world has ever seen! He certainly knew how to manipulate people through fear and violence.

You’ve basically answered my question here. So that means that if had declared it “halal” you would do it.

"**Right and wrong, good and bad are not appraised based on their own merits. Right is what Muhammad said or did and wrong is what he prohibited. In other words Muslims are not to judge Muhammad by norms of morality and commonsense but rather the standards of morality and commonsense are to be measured by Muhammad’s deeds and words. **

This attitude exonerates Muslims from thinking. By following a uniform behavioral and thinking pattern the individual finds safety and comfort in the group.". See here.

 

[famdigy]

Hi Booklover,

You failed to mention one important thing. What was Mani’s message aside from his prophethood. He must have had a set of core beliefs. Do you know what they are?

I’m curious to know how similar mani’s core teachings are to the prophet Muhammad (pbuh&hf)

 

[Verisimilitude]

Not at all. It is the same God Jesus (pbuh) mentioned,

John 20:17Jesus said, …'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."

The author of the message is God. Gabriel (as) was the carrier only. God claimed the authorship many times.

055.001 Most Gracious!

055.002 It is He Who has taught the Qur’an.

That too is already done. (1.2) billion already accepted. Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europian countries.

None of that suggests allah is the same as the God of Abraham, or God the Father Jesus spoke about. Since the Qur’an does not say specifically that the spirit giving these revelations to Muhammad is Gabriel, what tradition does identify the speaker as Gabriel?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Simply, that he probably borrowed his “prophethood” from Mani since his claims are just about identical.

Do you believe that Muhammad was a real prophet??

Vickie.

I don’t know - I don’t want to exclude the possibility that God used him on behalf of the Arabs; but that said, I’ll take Jesus Christ instead, TY v. much I know He is, & that He is more than that - but as to Muhammad - ​

The argument criticised, if valid, leaves the door wide open to claims such as “Pagans used incense, & Catholics use incense - therefore, Catholicism is pagan”.

It’s not the claim itself that I’m bothered with, but the internal structure of the logic of the argument which is being used: that is, the fact that it is a form of refutation of genuineness by alleging similarity with a religion we don’t accept; because if we can use that type of reasoning, against another religion, then that form of refutation is an equally valid type of argument when used against our religion. If it not valid against Catholicism - then it not valid against any other religion either.

It’s the same kind of argument as is used when people try to dismiss the significance of the Crucifixion by pointing to various “dying gods” - Christ (so the argument goes)is just another “dying god”; they are fictions, so He is. We are not going to believe that of course - but neither are Muslims likely to be impressed by our alleging similarities between their Prophet, & Mani.

Even if the objection is valid, it is not clear that it is a damaging one: Muhammad is not regarded as a prophet on the (negative) ground that he is in no respect like Mani - but for positive reasons, reasons which are convincing to Muslims because they are consistent with, by coming from within, a Muslim world view.

It’s an argument about **significance **- if the significance of the alleged parallels is zero, or is not great from a Muslim POV, then the parallels may be real, taken as historical data, but they won’t have any force as an objection

 

[famdigy]

None of that suggests allah is the same as the God of Abraham, or God the Father Jesus spoke about. Since the Qur’an does not say specifically that the spirit giving these revelations to Muhammad is Gabriel, what tradition does identify the speaker as Gabriel?

Allah is the same as the God of Abraham
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2398875#post2398875

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It has been disproven though you fail to recognize the proofs.

See above, and God will indeed rise to the challenge.

The identity of the god of the Qur’an is in question.

How does this prove it is of God. Muhammedans also believe in other spirits such as the Jinn and Satan.

I agree, Muhammad was sincere, but if he was fooled by a demon, being sincere about it does not make it sacred.

Who is the author: allah, Gabriel, or Muhammad? Show me where in the Qur’an where the spirit speaking to Muhammad says he is Gabriel.

The are many more reputable studies that conclude very differnet that Koranic history and science is wrong.

A demon possibly, Satan most likely.

The weakest argument by far.

Oops, spoke too soon. This is the weakest argument by far.

Another weak argument. Read the first 50 pages the Silmarillion. It is even better than the Koran in all your stated attributes of beauty, eloquence and wisdom. The biggest difference is it is found in the fantasy section of a library where the Qur’an should be.

You have yet to prove the god of Islam, Allah, is the God of Abraham.

The Ainulindale is much better than anything in the Koran - & infinitely better than the Book of Mormon. It​

• is more elevated in tone
• makes explicit the unity of God
• m. e. the dependence of even the very highest of creatures upon Him
• shows the reader His Wisdom, Goodness, Power, & moral character
• contains no error of any kind whatever
• explains many facts of the natural world, often in great detail
• is clear to the understanding
• is morally edifying
• is inexhaustible in wealth of meaning
• contains nothing low, ignoble, debasing, immoral
• is consistent with all that follows it
• contains nothing repugnant to Christian faith
  What more can be asked of a Divinely inspired text ?

Answer: it’s not canonical - not* yet*…(& never will be )

The works of Tolkien are very useful for debate about theological matters - for example, they can be quoted against various creationist arguments, because they are equally good at accounting for the phenomena discussed. As for inerrancy, their own inerrancy can be “proved” by the same arguments as are used for that of holy books.

 

[famdigy]

It’s not the claim itself that I’m bothered with, but the internal structure of the logic of the argument which is being used: that is, the fact that it is a form of refutation of genuineness by alleging similarity with a religion we don’t accept; because if we can use that type of reasoning, against another religion, then that form of refutation is an equally valid type of argument when used against our religion. If it not valid against Catholicism - then it not valid against any other religion either.

Gottle, you’ve hit the nail on the coffin with that reply. Thank you very much.

 

[Verisimilitude]

The Ainulindale is much better than anything in the Koran - & infinitely better than the Book of Mormon.​

…Answer: it’s not canonical - not* yet*…(& never will be )

I once read something to the effect that he never intended to write anything as allegory like CS Lewis did. He was a linguist that loved language, and an inspired imagination. It is not to deny the influence of his Catholic faith, but rather tell his own tale of a world he imagined. That also doesn’t mean it couldn’t be close to the truth.

He describes Creation with words much like Michelangelo did with paint. For some things we will never truly know they are sound imaginative representations to ponder.

 

[Khalfan]

It’s “beauty” only according your your subjective opinion. When you find a concrete measure of beauty, please let us know.

I will.

Its verification came from the Church. Jesus’ appointed successors. You’re nitpicking the little detail that you don’t know who originally put pen to paper (which, ironically, applies to the Quran as well). As if this would prove anything… anyone can write words on paper, but you talk as if it were some kind of supernatural wonder.

And who was that successors? Jesus (pbuh) doesn’t know any book in NT. You don’t know who wrote it, but you claim Spiritual inspration in writer. Amazing!!

As I have already said, memorizing Quran was the habit at the time prophet (pbuh). We still continue the habit of memorizing Quran. The idea of making quran into a book is came later. Who was supposed to authorize that book was the people who memorized Quran from Prophet (pbuh) and they did that.

The reportings of the companians are Hadees. You can compare the reportings in gospels (which is written many years later Jesus (pbuh)) and other NT books with Hadees, not with Quran. Even the reportings have two category, Saheeh (with clear list of narrators) and non-Saheeh (with an unclear list of narrators. May be a name and time of person missed in the chain of narrators). Since you don’t know the name and time of many writers of NT, you can compare it with those non-Saheeh hadeeses. Non-Saheeh hadeeses are not accepted in Islam.

 

[Khalfan]

Really!

Yaa.

He married more than 4! See here.

He did. But not after the prohibiting it.

A nine year old is not mentally or physically ready for sex! Muhammad was a pedophile! He lusted after a child! He was disgusting.

But that time it was. 9 year was morethan enough. That is why she was engaged with another guy long before prophet (pbuh) even engaged with her. She and her father Abu bakar (ra) converted to Islam. That guy that she was engaged, was not ready to convert to Islam. That is the reason that marriage never happened. This one incident is enough for us to understand the culture and age of marriage of that time. If you are living a 1000 years, you may understand, the values you see today will not be there after 1000 years.

 

[Khalfan]

Jesus said: "Go and make disciples of ALL the nations and baptize them in the **NAME **of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit!

The study on this verse is still going on. It is a later interpollation as per many Christian scholars. Check the link.

glitteringspear.googlepages.com/Mathew2819FraudExposed.htm
Another interpolation throwne out from KJV.

1 john 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Check the same verse in NIV.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Matthew 28:19 also may not be there in the next REVISION of Bible.

So what does that prove?

All the prophets and we Muslims praying in the same way. We all (Including Jesus (pbuh)) worshiping the same God.

No, I am not out of my mind! I asked a valid question: IF MUHAMMAD HAD DECLARED THAT INCEST IS “HALAL” WOULD MUSLIMS HAVE SEX WITH THEIR CHILDREN? You refuse to answer.

The question is nonsence for two reason.

1. Prophet (pbuh) never allowed it. So we don’t have to worry, if it was allowed will we be doing it. He knew family values more than anyone.
2. A man that believes in a story says, his God is offspring of an incest, is saying incest is wrong.

As for his being the most influential person, I’d say he’s one of the most evil men this world has ever seen! He certainly knew how to manipulate people through fear and violence.

You’ve basically answered my question here. So that means that if had declared it “halal” you would do it.

Stupid answer for an impossible question.

If you were a chicken, how would you escape the farm? Definitly, you will have an answer.

You may wear a helmet, because you have a reason -Any UFO may fall on head. I call it stupid reasoning.

"**Right and wrong, good and bad are not appraised based on their own merits. Right is what Muhammad said or did and wrong is what he prohibited. In other words Muslims are not to judge Muhammad by norms of morality and commonsense but rather the standards of morality and commonsense are to be measured by Muhammad’s deeds and words. **

This attitude exonerates Muslims from thinking. By following a uniform behavioral and thinking pattern the individual finds safety and comfort in the group.". See here.

That is why GEORGE BERNARD SHAW said,

“If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam.”

I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion, which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence,which can make itself appeal to every age.

I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity."

"I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness:
I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”

(Sir George Bernard Shaw in ‘The Genuine Islam,’ Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.)

Continues.

 

[Khalfan]

Continues.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA confirms:

“… A mass of detail in the early sources show that he was an honest andupright man who had gained the respect and loyalty of others who werelike-wise honest and upright men." (Vol. 12)

LAMAR TINE, the renowned historian, speaking on the essentials of humangreatness wonders:

"If greatness of purpose, smallness of means and astounding results are thethree criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad?

The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes.

This man moved not only armies, legislation, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls…

His forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire;
His endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death;

All these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma.

This dogma was two-fold, the unity of God and the immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with the words.

"Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images,
the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is MUHAMMAD.

As regards all the standards by which Human Greatness may be measured, we may well ask,

IS THERE ANY MAN GREATER THAN HE?"

(Alphonse de Lamar tine, HISTOIRE DE LA TURQUIE, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp 276-277)

 

[Khalfan]

None of that suggests allah is the same as the God of Abraham, or God the Father Jesus spoke about. Since the Qur’an does not say specifically that the spirit giving these revelations to Muhammad is Gabriel, what tradition does identify the speaker as Gabriel?

Tradition? The word of Mohamed (pbuh).

 

[Verisimilitude]

Tradition? The word of Mohamed (pbuh).

What word? It is not in the Qur’an.

 

[Booklover]

I don’t know - I don’t want to exclude the possibility that God used him on behalf of the Arabs; but that said, I’ll take Jesus Christ instead, TY v. much I know He is, & that He is more than that - but as to Muhammad - ​

Really, and the same God that told us to love our enemies and pray for them, gave Muhammad these teachings??

The argument criticised, if valid, leaves the door wide open to claims such as “Pagans used incense, & Catholics use incense - therefore, Catholicism is pagan”.

It’s not the claim itself that I’m bothered with, but the internal structure of the logic of the argument which is being used: that is, the fact that it is a form of refutation of genuineness by alleging similarity with a religion we don’t accept; because if we can use that type of reasoning, against another religion, then that form of refutation is an equally valid type of argument when used against our religion. If it not valid against Catholicism - then it not valid against any other religion either.

It’s the same kind of argument as is used when people try to dismiss the significance of the Crucifixion by pointing to various “dying gods” - Christ (so the argument goes)is just another “dying god”; they are fictions, so He is. We are not going to believe that of course - but neither are Muslims likely to be impressed by our alleging similarities between their Prophet, & Mani.

Even if the objection is valid, it is not clear that it is a damaging one: Muhammad is not regarded as a prophet on the (negative) ground that he is in no respect like Mani - but for positive reasons, reasons which are convincing to Muslims because they are consistent with, by coming from within, a Muslim world view.

It’s an argument about **significance **- if the significance of the alleged parallels is zero, or is not great from a Muslim POV, then the parallels may be real, taken as historical data, but they won’t have any force as an objection

I fail to see what you mean here at all! Muhammad proclaimed himself a prophet and his so-called claims are exactly the same as those of the Persian “prophet” Mani, and you don’t think that’s where he could have got his inspiration from??

Well, considering that you state that God could have used Muhammad on “behalf” of the Arabs and to the detriment of everyone else they’ve come in contact with since then, I have nothing more to say!

I’ve considered many of your posts enlightening, but with this one IMHO your credibility has flown out the window!.

Vickie

 

[Booklover]

Tradition? The word of Mohamed (pbuh).

To use your favorite word, this is “stupid” reasoning!

Vickie

 

[Booklover]

.

All the prophets and we Muslims praying in the same way. We all (Including Jesus (pbuh)) worshiping the same God.

What does praying in the same way have to do with anything?

The question is nonsence for two reason.

1. Prophet (pbuh) never allowed it. So we don’t have to worry, if it was allowed will we be doing it. He knew family values more than anyone.
2. A man that believes in a story says, his God is offspring of an incest, is saying incest is wrong.

So he knew family values more than anyone?? I’m sure you believe it because he said so!

The question I asked is not nonsense! I’m just trying to prove that you follow Muhammad so blindly, that I’m sure that if he had approved of incest, Muslims would be committing it to this day!

You approve of everything he approved of, and never even question whether the things he considered “halal” were moral or not! You just simply do them because he did them.

You even give up your own personality and individuality to become a projection of Muhammad! Since he could not accept any criticism and had anyone who insulted him eliminated, you all do the same! That’s why Muslims act like barbarians just like he was!

That is why GEORGE BERNARD SHAW said,

“If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam.”

I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion, which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence, which can make itself appeal to every age.

I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity."

"I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness:
I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”

(Sir George Bernard Shaw in ‘The Genuine Islam,’ Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.)

Continues.

IMHO George Bernard Shaw needed to have his head examined!

Notice the use of the word “dictatorship” in the above statement. No dictatorship has ever been good!

Vickie

 

[Khalfan]

What word? It is not in the Qur’an.

And how do you expect it to be in the Quran? Quran is the words of God.