Was mohammed Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter eigerhar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

eigerhar

Guest
The quoran is written by Uthman. One of the biggest ennemies of mohammed (friend of Hakan, friend of Abu Safyan [the Judas Iscariote of Islam], friend of Marwan, he took the two dauthers of Kadhisha’s sister that were married to polytheists, …)
Uthman hated the followers of mohammed and protected the ennemies of mohammed. He was deserteur in all important battles.

I think that the koran is written AGAINST mohammed. Mohammed believed in the Son of God and also his daughter Fatima was catholic.

Uthman uses the power of the authority of mohammed. He tells that mohammed is great only because he wants his power. Uthman says that everyone that doesn’t follow mohammed will be killed.
But Uthman says that he is the only authority who really knows mohammeds thinking.

He hates mohammed and uses only the authority of mohammed.

Look also at some hadiths. They HATE mohammed:
  • mohammed masturbated
  • mohammed abused Aisha against the will of Abu Bakr
  • mohammed committed war crimes (400-900 jews by his own hand)
  • mohammed used women as sex slaves.
  • …
This are LIES against mohammed!!!
Nobody tells such things about a holy prophet.

They HATED mohammed.
But they said that they would follow him.
They killed everybody how didn’t follow.
But they were the only one to know his “true” teaching.

Mohammed was a good catholic.

The caliphs hated him and wanted only his power!!!
 
It is true that some ahadith are scandalous. Sunni believe without a doubt they are authentic while Shia reject them only because they show Muhammad as an immoral man. Likewise, the Sunni refuse some ahadith held by Shia because they show Muhammad as an immoral man, among other things that is why some reject ahadith all together for obvious reasons.

No Muhammad was no Catholic nor even knew anything of orthodoxy. He knew Waraqa Ben Nawfal, Mecca’s religious leader for too many years, was tutored by him, and ended up marrying Waraqa’s cousin Khadija. How did he marry her? a la Islam? no his “mission” hadn’t started yet . He married her according to her and her cousin’s religion. so he converted to her religion and fact says It was Waraqa who pronounced them husband and wife. Waraqa was probably a Gnostic Judaizer because some of the heretical Christian teachings in the Quran can be traced to this group. Actually it would be difficult to say to which exact heretical Christian sect did Waraqa belong to because heretical sects were not unified in teachings or dogmas. So no he was anything but Catholic.
 
There is evidence that Mahomet (pblt) was a Nestorian clergyman.
 
bpbasilphx said:
There is evidence that Mahomet (pblt) was a Nestorian clergyman.
Click to expand...
it is difficult to say which heretical sect he joined since these sects were divided among themselves. The best book i read about this topic in Arabic draws back almost every teaching of Muhammad to Judaizers ,who opposed the apostles and apostolic churches , and who, after many centuries of alienation from orthodoxy, ended up in Arabia and adopted with time different heresies like Gnosticism and were called either Ebionites or Nasara since they were divided in teachings…this is a hint why Muhammad fails to call Christians by the historical title Masihiyyeen in Arabic and called us rather Nasara…by the time Muhammad was born, the Nasara were a heretical Christian sect in Arabia, not orthodox Masihiyyeen of the East or West of all the apostolic chuches… yet Muhammad lumped orthodox Christians and heretic ones with the same term.

the book i read is a historical one with historical references…you will never understand the Quran more unless you understand where Muhammad was coming from and from where he drew all his teachings…very few Muslims know that the majority of teachings of the Quran regarding Christianity, are traced back to these heretical groups in Arabia, even their rituals…no surprise that Islamic rituals resemble Jewish ones since these people Muhammad adopted from where Jewish-Christians not in communion with any apostolic church in the East or West but were a sect of Arabia.
 
Nestorian clergyman.

Evidence?
I know only Holy John Damascene.
Sometimes he says that mohammed was arian, sometimes he says that he was nestorian.

But he thinks, that the qoran is expression of the thinking of mamed (called mohammed).

But Uthman is ENNEMY of mamed.

So why should the koran polemize against the Son of God, if mamed didn’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

Another thing:
The qoran reports sayings of mamed, where he says to tolerate jews and “nazareens”. No mention of catholics!
(Nazareens don’t believe in the Son of God, like ariens).

If this saying is authentic:
Why doesn’t he mention catholics?

Because he IS catholic!
You do only tolerate OTHERS!!!

And what are YOUR proves?
 
Eigerhar,

you forget about the hadith, the historical documentation of his life and teachings…you will find the same heresies and antCatholic teachings in these works…a Catholic would never utter such heresies or teachings and be called Catholic. Waraqa Ben Nawfal was NO Catholic.
 
Waraqa Ben Nawfal was NO Catholic.
Click to expand...
I agree! But mohammed was!
He had a vision of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

I repeat: the Hadiths HATE mohammed

They call him masturbator, child molester, source of war crimes …

They hate him because he was catholic.
All anticatholic polemics in the hadiths are against mohammed.

Some sayings of the qoran (Mekka) are authentic, other not (Medina).
All violence is the voice of Uthman.
All tolerance is from mohammed.
Mohammed considered Nazareens as heretics, because he was catholic,

Luxenberg says that the islamic translation of the qoran is false concerning the cross:
The qoran says really:
The jews have thought that they had killed Jesus definitively.
But they were wrong, because Jesus has resurrected.

This is a catholic sense!!!
 
How is any of that evidence of Mohammed’s supposed Catholicism?

Also, I don’t know Arabic, but according to this list of Christian terms in Arabic, “Nazarene” is a generic Arabic term for “Christian”, unrelated to the Nazarene sect.

With such severe misunderstandings of even the basics of Christian theology and thought, I’d be suprised if Mohammad even recognized any given sect of Christianity as being different than any other. Most Muslims I have met do not, so I’m willing to bet their prophet did not either, since that’s where most of them get their distorted views of Christianity.
 
A catholic living in a pagan state, whos father worshipped idols, who’s head voices said that Jesus was an ordinary man, no deity and never died on the cross.

Yes. Of course. He was quite obviously a catholic.
 
With such severe misunderstandings of even the basics of Christian theology and thought, I’d be suprised if Mohammad even recognized any given sect of Christianity as being different than any other.
Click to expand...
The term nazareen is clear.
There is no doubt, that there are very big missunderstandings of christianity in the qoran.
This are missunderstandings of Uthman not of Mohammed.

Uthman is inspired by apocryphes and jewish targums (like we know today).

But Mohammed is inspired by the Thora and the Gospel (like it is written in the qoran). He is inspired by the true sources. He knew catholicism by trips and he saw that it was a lightful religion.

So you can’t put them together.

Mohammed was capable to distinguish between nazareens and catholics, Uthman not.
So those quotations are authentic.
 
Eigerhar,

why don’t you start by giving some proof? Muhammad saw a vision of the Son of God? where did you even read that? that would be a good start.
 
but to say that all are written by ennemies of Islam is historically impossible…what were the “correct” belivers doing? smoking hashish?
Click to expand...
The hadiths and the quoran are very clever.
They say that they follow mohammed. And as sign of their “believe” they add, that they kill everybody who doesn’t follow mohammed.

In the qoran there are still some elements of Jesus. A neutralized Jesus.

But Uthman preferred Al-Uzza, Al-Lath and Manath.

When true believers saw that the text was not conform to mohammed the text was corrected, as a satanic inspiration.

Other believers were killed.

The followers of mohammed didn’t know very much about christianity. The intelligent mohammed was the only one who unterstood catholic faith, and perhaps Ali.
 
why don’t you start by giving some proof? Muhammad saw a vision of the Son of God? where did you even read that? that would be a good start.
Click to expand...
O.K. that’s a detail that I’ve introduced as a conjunction.
It is clear that mohammed didn’t get a revelation of a book that didn’t exist at that time.
This is an invention of Uthman to authorize his qoran.

The question is: What did he really see?

There are many people in those countries that have visions of the Son of God. Why not mohammed?

Why did he change his life?
Why was he so proud that his daughter followed this religion?

He KNEW that it was a very good thing.
This must have been a vision.
 
But when you want to assert something so powerfully, bring a proof. Every presented argument so far proves he knew nothing about orthodoxy be it the content of both Quran and Hadith, the heretics surrounding him including his tutor Ben Nawfal who married him according to Nawfal’s sect of Arabia, the apocrypha he quoted, the gnostic interpretations he presented, the myth he incorporated in his book, the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of basic orthodox Christianity…there is nothing that proves the man had any clue of what is orthodox Christianity …he was surrounded by divided Gnostics and thought that the divided gnostic sects of Arabia represent Christianity and this is clearly seen in the crucifixion verse where he says that Christians are divided about it…Christians were never ever divided about it…his Gnostic forefathers were and he adopted one version over another from the various gnostic interpretations of the crucifixion.
 
Arabia was NOT exclusively gnostic.
You can read in the act of the apostles that Saint Paul FIRST and LAST preached in arabia.

There were some catholics.

The qoran and the hadiths don’t know christian faith.
I didn’t say anything else.
But Mohammed did. He was intelligent and had contact to the catholic world by his trips.

It’s not even proven that the original qoran had a false conception of the cruzifiction.

I repeat: Luxemberg says that the modern islamic translation is false. He gives a catholic sense to the texts on cruzifiction in the qoran.

I can’t give you any prove of original words of Mohammed because Uthman has burned all sources.

But I can make conjectures of words in the qoran that could be authentic. (The oldest texts of the qoran.)

The duty of prove is on the side of the people who have burned the sources and not on my side.

I can make only plausible conjectures.

My conjectures are plausible.
Islamic history is not.
 
eigerhar said:
The quoran is written by Uthman. One of the biggest ennemies of mohammed (friend of Hakan, friend of Abu Safyan [the Judas Iscariote of Islam], friend of Marwan, he took the two dauthers of Kadhisha’s sister that were married to polytheists, …)
Uthman hated the followers of mohammed and protected the ennemies of mohammed. He was deserteur in all important battles.

I think that the koran is written AGAINST mohammed. Mohammed believed in the Son of God and also his daughter Fatima was catholic.

Uthman uses the power of the authority of mohammed. He tells that mohammed is great only because he wants his power. Uthman says that everyone that doesn’t follow mohammed will be killed.
But Uthman says that he is the only authority who really knows mohammeds thinking.

He hates mohammed and uses only the authority of mohammed.

Look also at some hadiths. They HATE mohammed:
  • mohammed masturbated
  • mohammed abused Aisha against the will of Abu Bakr
  • mohammed committed war crimes (400-900 jews by his own hand)
  • mohammed used women as sex slaves.
  • …
This are LIES against mohammed!!!
Nobody tells such things about a holy prophet.

They HATED mohammed.
But they said that they would follow him.
They killed everybody how didn’t follow.
But they were the only one to know his “true” teaching.

Mohammed was a good catholic.

The caliphs hated him and wanted only his power!!!
Click to expand...
***"[Yusuf Ali 3:28] Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah."
 
It’s interesting thread.
Still waiting for the evidence from eigerhar, why he could say that Mohammed was catholic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top