Was mohammed Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter eigerhar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
he did not incorporate myth in his book for no reason…
Click to expand...
The original qoran is not a book written by mohammed but by Uthman!!!

He compiled some apocryphe christian texts that he didn’t even understand. And he used some jewish targums.
He added some sentences of mohammed.

But mohammed didn’t use those texts (It is written in the quoran!!!).
Mohammed used the Gospel and the Torah (=orthodox texts).
There is NO mention in the quoran that mohammed used targums or apocryphes!!!

The original quoran doesn’t say that Jesus wasn’t really crucified. It says that Jesus wasn’t definitively put to death. But with his resurrection he gave death to his death.

If you understand that the quoran of Uthman wanted to neutralize the teaching of mohammed, you understand its teaching about Jesus.

When the quoran denies the divinity of Jesus, this is against mohammed.
 
To the OP.
Muhammad was a Tribal Pagan as was his society at that time.
If you read up on the pagans around him at that time you will see it is parallel to Islam.
One reason I left Islam.😦
 
what proof do you have that Muhammad wrote otherwise?
Click to expand...
The quoran says that mohammed respected the gospel as book from God.

The gospel says hundreds of times that Jesus is THE Son of God or that God is THE Father of Jesus.
Even those Pseudo-“Christians” that don’t believe in the divinity of Christ would affirm that Jesus is the Son of God in a certain way.
Everybody (even heretical) who accepts the Gospel, affirms that Jesus is the Son of God.

But the quoran doesn’t: 9,30.

Mohammed respected the gospel. The quoran doesn’t. It’s evident!!!

Mohammed believed in the Son of God. Uthman didn’t. Therefore Uthman took jewish targum and apocrypha. It’s against Mohammed.
do you expect the author of the Quran to say that he copies apocryphas and legends and targums and at the same time claim they are the literal words of God?
Click to expand...
No, not as a source. But if mohammed followed those texts there should be a positive reverence against those gnostic texts. But you don’t find any mention of them. He mentions only the gospel.

Only Uthman used those texts.
 
eigerhar said:
Mohammed believed in the Son of God. Uthman didn’t. Therefore Uthman took jewish targum and apocrypha. It’s against Mohammed.

texts.
Click to expand...
Those words my friend can get you killed!

P.S.
Proof?
 
eigerhar said:
The quoran says that mohammed respected the gospel as book from God.

correct.
The gospel says hundreds of times that Jesus is THE Son of God or that God is THE Father of Jesus.
Even those Pseudo-“Christians” that don’t believe in the divinity of Christ would affirm that Jesus is the Son of God in a certain way.
Everybody (even heretical) who accepts the Gospel, affirms that Jesus is the Son of God.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
AlessandraRose said:
Those words my friend can get you killed!

P.S.
Proof?
Click to expand...
actually there is a very interesting verse in the Quran:

Nay, I swear by this city -
  1. And thou art an indweller of this city -
  2. And the begetter and that which he begat,
  3. We verily have created man in an atmosphere
"the begetter and that which he begat " : very strange formula…Muslims presented different interpretations but actually it is a Christian formula…just an observance.
 
Who told you that the gospel Muhammad “revered” is actually our gospel instead of the Gnostic and apocryphic ones?
Click to expand...
You follow the modern islamic apologists.
  • The gospel of the quoran is another gospel
  • The torah of the quoran is another torah
  • The Myriam, sister of Aaron, is another Myriam in the quoran
  • The ismael of the quoran is another ismael.
  • the quoran of the quoran is another quoran.
If I prove
a=>b
b=>c
ergo a=>c

The muslim apologist replies:
The first b and the second b (in the quoran) are different.

NO!!!
THE gospel is well defined at 650 after Christ!!!
Ben Nawfal’s sect, not to orthodox Christianity…your theory is based on quoting the Quran and rejecting the same book…mine is based on looking at the Quran and hadith and history of Mecca…
Click to expand...
I look at everything. But the whole islamic history is a systematic politically falsification.
You have to abstract from the political facts. That’s what I’m doing.

The whole islamic tradition doesn’t find any positive word for Ben Nawfal’s sect. It’s absurd to think that mohammed followed him.
Mohammed would mention Ben Nawfal much more positive.

Mohammed was surely NOT member of Ben Nawfal’s sect!!!
True that some rejected Uthman’s copy, but it was impossible for a single man to change a whole religion.
Click to expand...
And what about Luther? You have only to tell to simple people that the true religion was deformed.

The political power of Uthman was much bigger.
There were less believer.
There were less historical documents to destroy.
 
eigerhar said:
Concerning Waraqa and the prophethood of mohammed

christoph-heger.de/Waraqa.html

Was Uthman perhaps a follower of Waraqa, what do you think?
Click to expand...
i once read this article and i disagree for one simple reason : this is NOT the only paragraph that talks about Waraqa…the Seera says explicitely that it was Waraqa who pronounded Muhammad and Khadija husband and wife…the hadith talks about him as well…

Your link says:

Eventually I may point to a fairly revolutionary theory, put forward by the Lebanese scholar who goes under the pseudonym Abû Mûsâ al-Harîrî in his book “qass wa nabîy” “Priest and Prophet”], Diyâr ‘Aql, Lebanon, 1985, that Waraqah b. Naufal and Muhammad co-operated for some time. Apparently this co-operation ended in dissension and strife.

this Arab scholar, among others like Yussuf Al-Haddad, prove it historically, from various Islamic literatures and historic documents that Waraqa was Muhammad’s teacher who made him ready to take his place in Mecca . Unfortunately these books are in Arabic…if there is a translation, you’ll be able to trace most of the Quranic teachings to Arabian sects before Muhammad. Muhammad did not create a book from nowhere.
 
Some points of my link:
  • Waraqa was probably never muslim
  • Mohammed had a VISION (not revelation) that he couldn’t interpret
  • Mohammed was convinced that it was a christian vision (because he asked a christian for interpretation)
  • Waraqa gave an ebionitic explanation (Mosaic law)
  • Mohammed was not happy with the answer
  • Waraqa wanted to influence the conviction of mohammed (declaring them as falsificated).
It’s absurd to think that Waraqa was the origin of mohammeds movement.

Mohammed had a catholic vision!!!
Waraqa was NOT catholic!
 
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...
We know he couldn’t have been protestant so you can’t blame us 😃

As far as the Aisha thing … regardless of how he treated her – a 52 year old man betrothing a six year old child; and wedding her at 9 (and then proceeding to have relations with a baby) is sick.

Show me one Jewish prophet or Christian Apostle who did such a thing?

Now will you keep saying Muhammad was a “good Catholic”? Even as a protestant I’m sort of bewildered by your assertion.

Perhaps you will feed me some revisionist history (I get that quite often here)?
 
Marriage with 6 years was NO scandal in those countries.

The scandal was that he has touched her before she was mature.

Were do we know this from?

From the hadiths who HATED mohammed!!!
They LIE!!!

Mohammed did NEVER such a thing!!!

He was a good catholic!!!

My history is the following (I’m not neutral because the Hadiths aren’t either).
Abu Bakr saw that Fatima the catholic daughter of mohammed grew up more sanely than the childs of pagan fathers.

So Abu Bakr asked mohammed to take his daughter that she becomes like his Fatima.
But mohammed replied: “She is much to young for me!!!”
But Abu Bakr said said: “Look we are brethren in the faith. Take my daughter that she becomes a good catholic like your daughter. That is more important.”
Against his will but as a burning missionary mohammed took this religious duty. He didn’t touch her but invited her girl friends to play with puppets. He only loved Kaddisha.

But when he was asked to bring anyone to catholic faith he couldn’t say no.
 
eigerher,
your not been very convincing here.
i dont think anything you have brought to the table would convince the simplest novice to religion.
I think the points that have been brought up have put flaws in your logic.
 
your not been very convincing here.
Click to expand...
That’s evident nobody added arguments in my favour. So I was not convincing
I think the points that have been brought up have put flaws in your logic.
Click to expand...
I’m a very logical thinker. Please give examples!!!
You have an idea so you reject Quran and hadith to prove the idea you created and you use the same sources when you like it. Very poor approach.
Click to expand...
Which other approach do you propose?
Should I take the quoran or the hadiths for serious?
It’s absurd! They say that they admire mohammed, but in the same sentence they say that mohammed is a pedophile war criminel. They are liars!!!

Or is there another source that I should consider?

I can only make logical conjectures.
…so no he did not ask him because the “vision” is Christian but because Waraqa was his religious leader.
Click to expand...
In NO source Waraqa appears as a leader admired by mohammed. That’s a fixed idea of you.

Waraqa was not even muslim.

He was a poor autodidactic hobby intellectual who knew a little bit about christianity and had little knowledge about foreign languages. But his intellectual capacities were inverse-proportional to his exagerated self-existimation.

(The same as his pseudo-christian religiosity.)

Mohammed was an intelligent man. He didn’t take Waraqa for serious. But he listened to him, because he was christian and he knew some christian texts.
…a spirit shaking the heck out of a man asking him to recite whatever thing is not something we see in our scriptures.
Click to expand...
Even Shiites deny this stupid story.
Why do you think that this event is authentic?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top