When was the last time the CC condemned Islam and Muhammad?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dronald
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Reuben_J said:
It is alright then if you do not have the information with you. 😛

Just curious. Like you said, I was told that Hadiths follow a specific science to verify their accuracy traceable up to Muhammad’s companions. I therefore thought that for every Sahih Hadith, it must have its references of the names, who they were, how they were related or met each other, what was their professional relationship, etc, up to bona fide Muhammad’s companions, that made the Hadith acceptable as genuine and not hearsay.

Since they were compiled very much later, about two hundred years later, it must be an amazing feat to authentically trace the uninterruption line of sources of the Hadith to Muhammad. More so, as there are thousands of purportedly genunine Hadiths.

Anyway, I hope to see those details information of the names of the sources of the Hadith whenever one is found. 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes I have been told that as well. Never heard any Christian or any other non-Muslim oppose to the authenticity of the Hadiths. Obviously there are weak ones that do exist, but for the most part, Muslims have a much more reliable source for Mohammad’s life, then Christians do for Jesus.

I watched many debates between them, and never did I hear any Christian argue that the Hadiths that are actually not trustworthy to determine if we know what Mohammad taught. Only thing is I never went to detail to research the actual names because I figured I should first focus on understanding what the Quran teaches as well as the hadiths at the time i practiced Islam. I had the intentions to learn more about the companions once I got a better grasp about the faith.

Are you expecting me to find those names for you? If you are so interested there’s plenty of websites and YouTube videos explaining how the Hadiths were collected, what were the criteria for it to be accepted as legitimate and so on. Don’t wait for me bro.
 
dronald said:
I’m curious when the last time was that a Pope or some type of official catechism or document condemned Islam as a false Religion and Muhammad as a false prophet?

I know that this was certainly common throughout the centuries but I’m wondering if such a thing has been done by any Popes since 9/11 or perhaps if not then when was the most recent time?

Or maybe the CC wants to look more towards similarities and find common ground rather than flat out call Muhammad what he is. Perhaps it would be unhelpful to make such a proclamation in this time?

What do people think?
Click to expand...
The way I see it, most people know that Christianity and Islam are two different religions.
 
Speaking of the church’s attitude towards our Prophet (S).

The concept of prophecy is incredibly vague in Christianity, and the term prophet is so loosely thrown around.

It seems that the Eastern Orthodox make very little effort to explain what distinguishes a genuine prophet from a false one, besides citing the few verses in Deuteronomy which say that a genuine prophet speaks in God’s name and is truthful in his statements.

The Catholics on the other hand, have a strange view. A prophet could be a man, woman, or child, and prophets could even be from among the heathens and demons. Although, that does not necessarily mean all prophets are sent by God, but instead could be sent by demons, and even then could still preach many truths. From a Catholic point of view, this would explain why non Christian religions would appear to have some or even many truths in them. However, it ultimately leads to a game of ‘who can you trust?’

I remember when I was an ex Muslim, another Muslim asked me why should I believe what Christians say about Isa ibn Maryam (A) as true over for example what Hindus say about Krishna, due to some significant similarities. All I could really answer was that Isa ibn Maryam (A) was without doubt a historical figure whereas Krishna was most likely a mythical figure, but that didn’t explain why there existed similarities between the beliefs of their followers about them. I even attempted to use Justin Martyr’s argument that the devil foresaw the advent of Isa ibn Maryam (A) and concocted these myths in order to discredit the truth of Christianity; nothing but speculation.
 
Reuben_J said:
It is alright then if you do not have the information with you. 😛

Just curious. Like you said, I was told that Hadiths follow a specific science to verify their accuracy traceable up to Muhammad’s companions. I therefore thought that for every Sahih Hadith, it must have its references of the names, who they were, how they were related or met each other, what was their professional relationship, etc, up to bona fide Muhammad’s companions, that made the Hadith acceptable as genuine and not hearsay.

Since they were compiled very much later, about two hundred years later, it must be an amazing feat to authentically trace the uninterruption line of sources of the Hadith to Muhammad. More so, as there are thousands of purportedly genunine Hadiths.

Anyway, I hope to see those details information of the names of the sources of the Hadith whenever one is found. 🙂
Click to expand...
The aspect of Hadith science you’re referring to is called ilm al rijal.
 
SalamKhan said:
I remember when I was an ex Muslim, another Muslim asked me why should I believe what Christians say about Isa ibn Maryam (A) as true over for example what Hindus say about Krishna, due to some significant similarities. All I could really answer was that Isa ibn Maryam (A) was without doubt a historical figure whereas Krishna was most likely a mythical figure, but that didn’t explain why there existed similarities between the beliefs of their followers about them. I even attempted to use Justin Martyr’s argument that the devil foresaw the advent of Isa ibn Maryam (A) and concocted these myths in order to discredit the truth of Christianity; nothing but speculation.
Click to expand...
What about the similarities between Muhammad and Joseph Smith?
 
SalamKhan said:
Speaking of the church’s attitude towards our Prophet (S).

The concept of prophecy is incredibly vague in Christianity, and the term prophet is so loosely thrown around.

It seems that the Eastern Orthodox make very little effort to explain what distinguishes a genuine prophet from a false one, besides citing the few verses in Deuteronomy which say that a genuine prophet speaks in God’s name and is truthful in his statements.

The Catholics on the other hand, have a strange view. A prophet could be a man, woman, or child, and prophets could even be from among the heathens and demons. Although, that does not necessarily mean all prophets are sent by God, but instead could be sent by demons, and even then could still preach many truths. From a Catholic point of view, this would explain why non Christian religions would appear to have some or even many truths in them. However, it ultimately leads to a game of ‘who can you trust?’
Click to expand...
The word “prophet” does not carry any supernatural connotation in Christianity, that it seems to have in Islam. A prophet can be simply a mouthpiece for someone else - whether that someone else is good, bad, human, divine, etc - is not one way or the other in regard to that term.

In regard to EO, any “genuine prophet of God” will first be within the bosom of the Church - a position that parallels Catholicism. The “good” in the other religions comes not from the “false prophet” who created that religion - but from the good that God can make out of anything.
 
SalamKhan said:
Speaking of the church’s attitude towards our Prophet (S).

The concept of prophecy is incredibly vague in Christianity, and the term prophet is so loosely thrown around.

It seems that the Eastern Orthodox make very little effort to explain what distinguishes a genuine prophet from a false one, besides citing the few verses in Deuteronomy which say that a genuine prophet speaks in God’s name and is truthful in his statements.

The Catholics on the other hand, have a strange view. A prophet could be a man, woman, or child, and prophets could even be from among the heathens and demons. Although, that does not necessarily mean all prophets are sent by God, but instead could be sent by demons, and even then could still preach many truths. From a Catholic point of view, this would explain why non Christian religions would appear to have some or even many truths in them. However, it ultimately leads to a game of ‘who can you trust?’
Click to expand...
We know Mohammed isn’t one.

newadvent.org/cathen/12477a.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophets_of_Christianity
 
SyroMalankara said:
What about the similarities between Muhammad and Joseph Smith?
Click to expand...
Only if you have an incredibly dense, rigid, and superficial point of view; like how Jews would compare Isa ibn Maryam (A) to others who claimed to be the Messiah. Perhaps my point was lost on you, I’m aware that Christian beliefs about Isa ibn Maryam (A) and Hindu beliefs about Krishna aren’t as similar as for example how atheists make them out to be, but that doesn’t change that there are some significant beliefs that pagans prior to Christianity held about their false gods. Robert Sarmast had his own interesting theory about this, but again it’s pure speculation. But I digress, much like you digressed rather than actually answer the point. I guess there really in no point is arguing, if you genuinely need to know the difference between Joseph Smith and our Prophet Muhammad (S), I suggest you seek biographies written by actual scholars and saints of Islam.
 
LtTony said:
That strikes me as a dodge, but since I admire your willingness to post here, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
There are similarities.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_Mormonism

bitterrootvalleycalvarychapel.com/joseph-smith-and-mohammed-similarities/

equip.org/article/are-mormons-and-muslims-apples-and-oranges/
  • many more.
Again, I respect that you are here sharing your views with us.👍
Click to expand...
If you’ve seen my previous posts on this forum, you’d know that I hate arguing, and I believe arguing to be a sign of ignorance. I did tend to argue a lot when I was an ex Muslim (which you can also find on this forum), and yet I returned to Islam anyway, Alhamdulillah.

On the topic of the definition of Prophethood, in Islam the requirements are as follows:
  • Monotheism, and it is impossible that a Prophet believe in or preach polytheism and the like.
  • That he be a free man and not a slave.
  • That he be of noble origins, and not poor.
  • Truthfulness, and it is impossible that a Prophet should lie.
  • Infallibility, and it is impossible that a Prophet should not practice what he preaches.
  • Conveying what they have been commanded to convey, and it is impossible that they should conceal what they have been commanded to convey.
  • Intelligence, and it is impossible that a Prophet should be stupid.
  • Performing an inimitable miracle, which is an extraordinary miracle that cannot be imitated even by the saints (awliya).
This is how we know our Prophet (S) is true in his claim to Prophethood, and this is your answer as to how he is different to Joseph Smith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top