Was Mohammad an example for all Muslims to follow?

[jakasaki]

Funny it says he’s a mercy to all mankind, because it also says anyone who won’t accept him as God’s apostle should be killed, or at best taxed and subdued. Not much of a mercy there.

The above poster never stated that it is written in their Quran.

We know and can post ahadith regarding clarifying the above statement.

Corvinae just summed up some sayings about the prophet of Islam.

Never saw that ayat, what surah is that in?

If you do not even know what a surah or ayat is… ~ snip

BTW - we do know what ayat and surah mean…

 

[vgskipp]

Going after Islam half hazardously is not going to help anything. Facts are facts and strewing them for your own devices is dishonorable and will help no one.

If it was a hadeeth then it is best to cite the chain and then it can be determined where the information came from as there are weak and strong hadeeths. By no means do I still agree with Islam, but I do believe that Muslims seek after God as much as we.

And when I asked what ayat and surah it was in the reply was the Angel Gabriel with a shrug smiley… the indication.

 

[Jesse1968]

Going after Islam half hazardously is not going to help anything. Facts are facts and strewing them for your own devices is dishonorable and will help no one.

If it was a hadeeth then it is best to cite the chain and then it can be determined where the information came from as there are weak and strong hadeeths. By no means do I still agree with Islam, but I do believe that Muslims seek after God as much as we.

And when I asked what ayat and surah it was in the reply was the Angel Gabriel with a shrug smiley… the indication.

There is no reason to cite the so-called ‘chain of narration’ within the hadith literature. None at all. Zero. Just stick to the Sahih writers that are considered to have collected the *allegedly *reliable traditions of Muhammad and his companions. To suggest that the ‘isnad’ has any relevance is simply obsolete. Use Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Muslims will have nowhere to run.

 

[jakasaki]

~ snip

Use Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Muslims will have nowhere to run.

We’ve done that many times and muslim members on here or “trolls” will tell us that not all of Bukhari is true - they claim that there are weak hadith written in there as well…

 

[Jesse1968]

We’ve done that many times and muslim members on here or “trolls” will tell us that not all of Bukhari is true - they claim that there are weak hadith written in there as well…

Those Muslims are merely covering for the ‘prophet’ and the life he lived. Don’t let them require rules that they themselves would not follow. Always point out the double standards and never back down. Muslims haven’t won a debate in years.

 

[jakasaki]

Those Muslims are merely covering for the ‘prophet’ and the life he lived. Don’t let them require rules that they themselves would not follow. Always point out the double standards and never back down. Muslims haven’t won a debate in years.

Have no fear my dear -

I for one do not back down

 

[dronald]

Funny it says he’s a mercy to all mankind, because it also says anyone who won’t accept him as God’s apostle should be killed, or at best taxed and subdued. Not much of a mercy there.

Never saw that ayat, what surah is that in?

9:29 is the answer.

 

[Jesse1968]

9:29 is the answer.

An Islamic apologist would respond to a flippant reference to Surah 9:29 with a reference to Luke 19:27, where Jesus is quoted as saying, “Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me” [NAB:1991]. Both the Greek and Latin convey the same command and the image is not pretty [Lt.Vul. ‘interficite ante me’]. Those who reject Jesus as king are to be brought to him and killed. How would a Catholic contrast the two verses and come away without egg on his face? Exegete the verse in Lk 19;27 in English, Greek or Latin and compare the results to Surah 9:29.

 

[dronald]

An Islamic apologist would respond to a flippant reference to Surah 9:29 with a reference to Luke 19:27, where Jesus is quoted as saying, “Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me” [NAB:1991]. Both the Greek and Latin convey the same command and the image is not pretty [Lt.Vul. ‘interficite ante me’]. Those who reject Jesus as king are to be brought to him and killed. How would a Catholic contrast the two verses and come away without egg on his face? Exegete the verse in Lk 19;27 in English, Greek or Latin and compare the results to Surah 9:29.

Then an Islamic apologist has done a terrible job being an apologist. I highly doubt any apologist who understands the Qur’an and the Gospels would appeal to Luke 19:27. Jesus was telling a parable… What was the Qur’an doing? It was giving it’s moral lecture on how to live, that’s it. If one quotes Surah 9:5 only then they are quoting the Qur’an out of context, however Surah 9:29 is given no context. Luke 19:27 is given plenty of context.

25Assuredly Allah did help you in many battle-fields and on the day of Hunain: Behold! your great numbers elated you, but they availed you naught: the land, for all that it is wide, did constrain you, and ye turned back in retreat.

26but Allah did pour His calm on the Apostle and on the Believers, and sent down forces which ye saw not: He punished the Unbelievers; thus doth He reward those without Faith.

27Again will Allah, after this, turn (in mercy) to whom He will: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

28O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

29Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

30The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

31They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).

32Fain would they extinguish Allah’s light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).

33It is He Who hath sent His Apostle with guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it).

I was wondering if I should continue just to prove that no context is given besides that of a moral context. At least with the parable we know that Jesus was giving a parable and any Christian apologist would call you mad for saying Jesus ever said anything that calls us to fight.

The only reason a Muslim would appeal to a Christian with Luke 19:27 is if they were trying to deceive you, just like the devil did when he twisted Scripture right in the presence of or Lord.

 

[Jesse1968]

Then an Islamic apologist has done a terrible job being an apologist. I highly doubt any apologist who understands the Qur’an and the Gospels would appeal to Luke 19:27. Jesus was telling a parable… What was the Qur’an doing? It was giving it’s moral lecture on how to live, that’s it. If one quotes Surah 9:5 only then they are quoting the Qur’an out of context, however Surah 9:29 is given no context. Luke 19:27 is given plenty of context. QUOTE].

So, it is your contention that the Parable of the Minas is **not **Jesus referring to his right to eventually rule? Then, who is the nobleman in the parable who is he speaking to? Most of Jesus’ parables are illustrations of the coming kingdom of God and the errors of the Jews with respect to its coming and description [see, Luke 19:11; cf. Mt 25:14ff]. Jesus is obviously the referent in the Parable of the Minas in both Luke and the parallel in Matthew. Are you suggesting that the parables in the Gospels are **not **‘giving moral lectures’ while the Quran is?

 

[GaryTaylor]

622 AD The town elders of Mecca initially opposed the teachings of Mohammed. They forced him to flee to Medina. His flight became known as the Hegira.

630 AD Mecca Falls - Muhammad- Muhammad organized the commonwealth of Islam in and around Mecca. A series of battles was fought between Mecca and Medina. Under the Treaty of Hudaybiya, Muhammad’s followers were finally given the right to undertake pilgrimages to Mecca. But when this right was denied them, they took control of the city.

632 AD First Islamic Caliphate- Muhammed died in 632 A.D. Abu Bakr became the first Caliph or ‘agent of the prophet’. He brings rebellious Arab tribes under control.

634 AD Omar I- Sword Of God- Abu Bakr dies after ruling as Caliph for only two years. He is succeeded by Omar, who is given the name ‘sword of God’ for his many military exploits in expanding Muslim rule. His first target will be Syria.

635 AD Persians Defeated- Under Omar, the Arabs begin a series of campaigns against the Persian Empire. They first lose to the Persians at the Battle of the Bridge, only to defeat the Persians in 635 at Tel Buwayb. Omar goes on to win a series of battles. The Battle of Nehawand in central Persia completed his conquest of the Persian Empire in 642.

637 AD Jerusalem Surrendered- Omar began a campaign against the Byzantines. The Arab forces defeated the Byzantines at the Battle of Yarmuk. The Arabs took Damascus and Emessa. In 638 Jerusalem surrendered to Omar’s forces. Ceasaria and Aleppo were soon taken as well.

642 AD Arabs Conquer Egypt- Arab forces under the command of Amir ibn al-As attacked Egypt. In 642, under terms arranged by Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt surrendered. Terms of the agreement included guaranteed security for people and property, as well as freedom of religion. All this was to be obtained in return for the payment of tribute.

644 AD Omar I Assassinated- Omar I was assassinated in a mosque of Medina.

656 AD Battle Of The Camels- Othman was assassinated in Medina. He was succeeded by Muhammed’s nephew and son-in-law, Ali ibn Abi Talib. The succession is disputed by Aisha, Muhammmad’s widow, on behalf of the Omayyad clan. Ali defeats the rebels at the Battle of the Camels.

661 AD Ali Assassinated- Ali was assassinated in a mosque in Kufah. His assassin was a former supporter who became a Kharajite critic of Ali. Ali was succeeded by Muawiya who founded the Omayyad caliphate.

673 - 678 AD Arab Forces Fail To Capture Constantinople- From 673-678 A.D., Arab forces besieged Constantinople. The siege failed due to both the strength of the city walls and a new invention- “the Greek Fire” which caused havoc among the Arab fleet. In 678 A.D., a 30-year peace treaty was negotiated.

680 AD Battle Of Karbala- The Caliph Muawiya died in Damascus after an 18-year reign. His son Yazid succeeded him. Yazid’s succession is contested by the Kufans, who invited al-Husain, the son of Ali, to be the new caliph. When al-Husain arrived from Mecca, a battle took place at Karbala. Al-Husain was killed, becoming a martyr for Shi’ite Muslims.

First 100- years.

historycentral.com/dates/600ad.html

 

[dronald]

dronald;10834657:

So, it is your contention that the Parable of the Minas is **not **

Jesus referring to his right to eventually rule? Then, who is the nobleman in the parable who is he speaking to? Most of Jesus’ parables are illustrations of the coming kingdom of God and the errors of the Jews with respect to its coming and description [see, Luke 19:11; cf. Mt 25:14ff]. Jesus is obviously the referent in the Parable of the Minas in both Luke and the parallel in Matthew. Are you suggesting that the parables in the Gospels are **not **‘giving moral lectures’ while the Quran is?

So you believe that Jesus literally wants us to go out and collect mina’s for Him and not bury them in the ground? You believe that He wants us to at least take one mina and put it away in the bank to gain interest?

If this is the case then one of you Christians should come over here and slay me at their feet right now.

 

[Jesse1968]

Jesse1968;10834732:

So you believe that Jesus literally wants us to go out and collect mina’s for Him and not bury them in the ground? You believe that He wants us to at least take one mina and put it away in the bank to gain interest?

If this is the case then one of you Christians should come over here and slay me at their feet right now.

I am comparing the similarities between some verses in the NT and those you find offensive in the Quran. So far, we have only looked at one verse in the Gospel of Luke and the parallel in Matthew. I won’t list the OT verses that begin with ‘put to death…’. All I am asking is for is the bare minimum in consistency and methodology. So, if Jesus truly thought if himself as the Messiah and a descendent of David, his calls to violence in the Parable of the Minas could very well have been meant to be taken literally, as a Messianic privilege. It could easily be argued that Jesus and his *collegia *had every intention of using brute force against Rome once the Sanhedrin had anointed his mission.

 

[dronald]

dronald;10834759:

I am comparing the similarities between some verses in the NT and those you find offensive in the Quran. So far, we have only looked at one verse in the Gospel of Luke and the parallel in Matthew. I won’t list the OT verses that begin with ‘put to death…’. All I am asking is for is the bare minimum in consistency and methodology. So, if Jesus truly thought if himself as the Messiah and a descendent of David, his calls to violence in the Parable of the Minas could very well have been meant to be taken literally, as a Messianic privilege. It could easily be argued that Jesus and his *collegia *

had every intention of using brute force against Rome once the Sanhedrin had anointed his mission.

Well, each passage is evaluated on a case by case basis. We have examined the parable of the mina and have concluded that Jesus does not call for slaying of others. This is extremely evident when Jesus later states, “Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.”

I could take this another direction I suppose and say that if a Muslim says 9:29 is violent and then claims that Jesus was violent then the interpretation of how followers should act in Islam is inherently violent. However, Christians are in no way quoting the mina parable and killing people while doing so… I think it’s because we’re literate and can read the entire thing in context. Therefore, if a Muslim is trying to claim that the OT, NT and Qur’an are all violent then Christianity to Christians is morally superior to Islam for Muslims.

I think it’s fun too, to take things out of context and twist it for my own meaning. I suppose I could say that Jesus isn’t really a Prophet on the Son of God based on the following verse: Luke 22:64They blindfolded him and demanded, “Prophesy! Who hit you?”

Why couldn’t Jesus answer them? Perhaps then Jesus is not a Prophet? Do you see how easy that is? So, to say that Christians could interpret the mina parable as a call to literally kill is silly, no one interprets it this way because we can all read.

So what I do with Surah 9:29 is I quote the entire thing, I ask you where I took it out of context and you give me no answer. I ask you if Jesus is speaking of literal mina’s and you give me no answer. I ask you if Jesus wants us to literally put a mina in the bank and not bury it in the ground… These things must be ignored if you’re a Muslim in order to prove a point. One has to quote one passage of the parable and ignore vs 11 which states" While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once."

Context, context, context.

 

[Jesse1968]

Jesse1968;10834880:

Well, each passage is evaluated on a case by case basis. We have examined the parable of the mina and have concluded that Jesus does not call for slaying of others. This is extremely evident when Jesus later states, “Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.”

I could take this another direction I suppose and say that if a Muslim says 9:29 is violent and then claims that Jesus was violent then the interpretation of how followers should act in Islam is inherently violent. However, Christians are in no way quoting the mina parable and killing people while doing so… I think it’s because we’re literate and can read the entire thing in context. Therefore, if a Muslim is trying to claim that the OT, NT and Qur’an are all violent then Christianity to Christians is morally superior to Islam for Muslims.

I think it’s fun too, to take things out of context and twist it for my own meaning. I suppose I could say that Jesus isn’t really a Prophet on the Son of God based on the following verse: Luke 22:64They blindfolded him and demanded, “Prophesy! Who hit you?”

Why couldn’t Jesus answer them? Perhaps then Jesus is not a Prophet? Do you see how easy that is? So, to say that Christians could interpret the mina parable as a call to literally kill is silly, no one interprets it this way because we can all read.

So what I do with Surah 9:29 is I quote the entire thing, I ask you where I took it out of context and you give me no answer. I ask you if Jesus is speaking of literal mina’s and you give me no answer. I ask you if Jesus wants us to literally put a mina in the bank and not bury it in the ground… These things must be ignored if you’re a Muslim in order to prove a point. One has to quote one passage of the parable and ignore vs 11 which states" While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once."

Context, context, context.

Actually, I gave you answers. You turn Jesus’ Messianic privilege on its head and insist that the parable has nothing to do with Jesus as the nobleman entering into Jerusalem to lay claim to the throne of David. The nobleman in Luke 19:1ff goes away to receive a kingdom; his suitability for the role is challenged by his citizens, who hated him; the faithful servants are rewarded with delegated authority over cities; the parable concludes with the slaughter of the king’s enemies; and the parable is followed by the account of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem as a Davidic king (Lk. 19:29-40). Not only are you having trouble interacting with the Bible and the Quran, you are seemingly unwilling to defend your own remarks.

Yes, context, context, context; not, pretext, pretext, pretext.

 

[dronald]

Actually, I gave you answers.

No, actually, you didn’t.

you are seemingly unwilling to defend your own remarks.

I’m pretty sure I wrote you an essay, which I’m not going to do again.

Jesus never called for a literal slaying of enemies, the entire parable is symbolic. The reason for His parable was that they thought the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. The mina’s are symbolic, the burying them in the sand is symbolic, the interest is symbolic and the slaying is symbolic.

You want to think that only the end is not symbolic but that’s just ignoring logic. The parable is about the coming of the kingdom of God as explained in verse 11 therefore we can conclude that the slaying is symbolic of judgement. Not literal.

 

[MissyB786]

I’d like to comment on the above hadith - only because it bugs me…

I states that Mohammad said… " there is NO prophet whom Allah sent to any nation before me…"



Islamic books state that Allah had sent 124,000 prophets to the world. How could Mohammad make the claim which I stated above…???

It doesn’t mean there were NO prophets sent before him, it means there were No prophets sent that their followers didn’t go astray but each prophet had their ‘sunnah’ so even Moses(PBUH) had his ‘sunnah’ so they each had their ‘sunnah’ because who would know best how to worship God other than a prophet, but eventually people lost this ‘sunnah’

 

[MissyB786]

I’m confused… Doesn’t this go against the belief that all Prophets of Islam were actually Muslims or am I reading this wrong…

Surah 3:52 but when Jesus felt persistence in disbelief from among them he said, “who are my supporters for the cause of Allah?” The disciples said, “we are supporters for Allah. We have believed in Allah and testify that we are Muslims.”

Surah 5:111 And remember when I inspired to the disciples, “believe in me and my messenger Jesus” They said "we have believed, so bear witness that we are indeed Muslims.

They are called Mumin (Believers) whilst after Prophet Muhammed(PBUH) we are called Muslims. But as they believe in Allah and submitted to Allah then they are Muslims to.

 

[MissyB786]

If people want to know If Muhammed(PBUH) was an example for all Muslims to follow, yes i believe he was. He was the best of mankind, both a spiritual and political leader. I suggest reading a seerah which is a book about the life of Prophet(PBUH) then u can judge for uself. There are short concise versions or long versions but when I read about it the hardships he went thru, the trials he had, the patience he had make me love him even more.

Seerah worth reading for anyone interested. I read one by Martin Ling the author but there are lots available some longer than others.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Well, there is so much that can be said that contrasts Muhammad as an exemplar with Jesus. Suffice to point out that ‘Allah’ supposedly permitted his number one ‘prophet’ {I don’t believe he actually prophesied anything of note] to be bamboozled/fooled by Satan {the ‘Satanic Verses’].

Sura 113, a short one, revealed in Mecca, says in its entirety:

1 Say [Prophet], “I seek refuge with the Lord of daybreak 2 against the evil in what He has created, 3 the evil in the night when darkness gathers, 4 the evil in witches when they blow on knots, 5 the evil in the envier when he envies.” (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004, his insertion; cf. Suras 7:200-201; 16:98; 41:36; and Sura 114, a short one, in its entirety)

The hadith is the record of Muhammad words and actions outside of the Quran. Bukhari is considered a highly reliable collector and editor. The following hadith indicates that Muhammad believes that some sort of knots on the head is the result of Satan and witchcraft.

Allah’s Apostle said, “Satan puts three knots at the back of the head of any of you if he is asleep”

This next hadith demonstrates that Muhammad was so deeply influenced by magic that he believed that he was having sex with his wives, but in reality he was not.

Narrated Aisha: Magic was worked on Allah’s Apostle so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not. (Bukhari)

The highly respected conservative commentator, Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi (d. 1979), says that the hadiths on Muhammad’s bewitchment are sound. “As far as the historical aspect is concerned, the incident of the Holy Prophet’s being affected by magic is absolutely confirmed” … (Maududi and scroll down to “Question of Holy Prophet being affected by magic”). Maududi is right. Muhammad was bewitched. And this is not part of true Prophethood.

Muhammad confirmed [for a while] that it was still OK to worship some of the old [male and female] deities - then later when down in Medina and with a bigger following, changed his mind.

Contrast this carry-on with Jesus authority and confidence when confronted by Satan and his fellow demons.