Who is the Prophet Mohammed?

[IgnatianPhilo]

If one were to look objectively, of course, one would realise that “God made us all and saw that it was good”. This INCLUDES SIN …

And so it is with sin, it is simply a gradation of all that is good

Sin is never good, nor is of God.

 

[Red_Sox_1]

I really think this discussion’s direction is not necessary.

Simply the Bahai view is that Matthew 24:29-31 is a reference to Mohammad. Islam also has martyr who sacrificed his life. His name is Husayn.

Baha’is believe Mohammad declared “I am Jesus!”

Christians should see what Ali said. Some of his words are translated to English. The words of Jesus are easily seen in Ali’s words.

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

According to the interviews I have heard with “Not Peace But A Sword” author, Robert Spencer, on EWTN, Muhammad was probably not a historical person because he was not referred to at all in early Islam.

That’s simply not true. Not only are there numerous texts from the early period that name Muhammad, there are artifacts: coins, inscriptions and mosaics that name him or quote his words. See Bacharach, Islamic History Through Coins, p13 for an example. The book has a “see inside” on Amazon
amazon.com/Islamic-History-Through-Coins-Tenth-Century/dp/9774249305

In general, if you’re looking for information on Islam, use standard reference works first and don’t give credence to people who obviously have an iron in the fire. The best reference work is undoubtedly the Encyclopaedia of Islam
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_of_Islam
but rather hard to access. The Encyclopaedia of Islam and the Muslim World is free online

archive.org/stream/EncyclopediaOfIslamAndTheMuslimWorld_201211/Encyclopedia%20of%20Islam%20and%20the%20Muslim%20World#page/n1/mode/2up

 

[Brendan_64]

Given the pronouncements of Vatican II about the legitimacy of Islam, Christians must learn how to accept Mohammed as a prophet and refrain from the negative innuendo that they are in the habit of using against him.

Vatican II did not even mention Islam, Mohammed or the Qu’ran, let alone make any pronouncements legitimising Islam or accepting Mohammed as a valid teacher (let alone a prophet). The Catholic Church does not teach that Mohammed was a prophet, nor does it teach that Islam is legitimate. All that is mentioned are ‘Muslims’, as individual people themselves.

It did however in essence say that Muslims (like Christians and Jews) worship the God of Abraham, there is some truth to be found within some of what Muslims believe, and we should ‘bury the hatchet’ and engage in dialogue with Muslims.

The Catholic Church certainly does not view Mohammad as having been teacher of any revealed truths, let alone consider him as a prophet. Vatican II recognises that there is some truth within what Muslims believe, however these truths come, either from what God has made accessible to the hearts and minds of all people, or from divine revelations granted exclusively to Jewish and Christian scripture.

Vatican II made no reference to Mohammed or the Qu’ran. The Catholic Church certainly does not regard Mohammed as a prophet, or as a recipient of of any revealed truths. Nor does the Catholic Church recognise any validity in the Qu’ran (other than at most a repetition in some parts of already established, known truths, inherent in all men, or revealed through Jewish and Christian Scripture). The Catholic Church does not recognise the validity of the teachings of Islam…

All Vatican II said was, there is some good within what Muslims believe, let’s recognise this fact and engage in dialogue with them in the spirit of charity. Vatican II certainly did not recognise the Qu’ran, the teachings of Islam, or Islam itself as being in any way valid. It certainly did not recognise Mohammed as a prophet.

I think this view (that is held by some people) of Vatican II legitimising Islam and Mohammed is another instance of Vatican II being misrepresented by people who haven’t actually read the documents.

 

[Servant19]

Vatican II did not even mention Islam, Mohammed or the Qu’ran, let alone make any pronouncements legitimising Islam or accepting Mohammed as a valid teacher (let alone a prophet). The Catholic Church does not teach that Mohammed was a prophet, nor does it teach that Islam is legitimate. All that is mentioned are ‘Muslims’, as individual people themselves.

It did however in essence say that Muslims (like Christians and Jews) worship the God of Abraham, there is some truth to be found within some of what Muslims believe, and we should ‘bury the hatchet’ and engage in dialogue with Muslims.

The Catholic Church certainly does not view Mohammad as having been teacher of any revealed truths, let alone consider him as a prophet. Vatican II recognises that there is some truth within what Muslims believe, however these truths come, either from what God has made accessible to the hearts and minds of all people, or from divine revelations granted exclusively to Jewish and Christian scripture.

Vatican II made no reference to Mohammed or the Qu’ran. The Catholic Church certainly does not regard Mohammed as a prophet, or as a recipient of of any revealed truths. Nor does the Catholic Church recognise any validity in the Qu’ran (other than at most a repetition in some parts of already established, known truths, inherent in all men, or revealed through Jewish and Christian Scripture). The Catholic Church does not recognise the validity of the teachings of Islam…

All Vatican II said was, there is some good within what Muslims believe, let’s recognise this fact and engage in dialogue with them in the spirit of charity. Vatican II certainly did not recognise the Qu’ran, the teachings of Islam, or Islam itself as being in any way valid. It certainly did not recognise Mohammed as a prophet.

I think this view (that is held by some people) of Vatican II legitimising Islam and Mohammed is another instance of Vatican II being misrepresented by people who haven’t actually read the documents.

In think in all fairness you are absolutely correct.

The reality is that the Jewish Faith did not and will not recognize or legitimize the Messianic claim and Divinity of Jesus.

At some stage people have to start using their own God given intellect and their heart to look at the possibility of going against the teachings of institutions. The Jews have to to attract their hearts to the truth of Jesus, and the Christians have to to attract their hearts to the truth of Muhammad

…I would absolutely go as far as to say that our salvation is dependent upon it…

 

[Brendan_64]

…I would absolutely go as far as to say that our salvation is dependent upon it…

And that assertion is, I suppose, based on your “own God-given intellect”?

If all our intellects are God-given (as they surely are) and we are to trust them in making theological assertions (as you are indicating) then why is there so much diversity of opinions, values and beliefs out there?

Upon what authority do you base your version of intellect-based truth as being what is true, as opposed to that arrived at by others using their God-given intellects to arrive at an entirely opposing view?

Or are there indeed many different, conflicted and opposing versions of what is true? Is truth something fluid, merely a matter of opinion? In that case there can be no such thing as falsehood, as everything arrived at through men using their intellect must be true.

 

[Servant19]

And that assertion is, I suppose, based on your “own God-given intellect”?

If all our intellects are God-given (as they surely are) and we are to trust them in making theological assertions (as you are indicating) then why is there so much diversity of opinions, values and beliefs out there?

Upon what authority do you base your version of intellect-based truth as being what is true, as opposed to that arrived at by others using their God-given intellects to arrive at an entirely opposing view?

Or are there indeed many different, conflicted and opposing versions of what is true? Is truth something fluid, merely a matter of opinion? In that case there can be no such thing as falsehood, as everything arrived at through men using their intellect must be true.

Hi Brendan,

I would humbly submit that a diversity of opinions should be welcomed. The fruits of those opinions should be how we judge whether that opinion is borne out of God’s Spirit or not, for God’s fruits are only goodly fruits.

I always start the one critical assumption, “that there is One God, and that He is the source of all good”

We can then judge all thoughts and opinions using our own intellect as a result, we do not require anyone to do the thinking for us.

What we then need to consider is how an opinion is viewed at the TIME of its revelation. We cannot judge the teachings of a religion in how it is applied in todays society. There are many many Biblical teachings and exhortations which have no goodly fruits at all when applied to todays society.

Lastly, I would judge an teaching of a Prophet based on the authentic Word by which the religion is based on. Therefore, I use the Bible, and the Quran. I will not and do not judge Muhammad on the Hadiths nor do I judge Jesus based on sources outside of the Bible.

If it is goodly and contributes to society’s advancement, then that diversity of opinion is welcomed in my humble opinion

 

[Brendan_64]

Hi Brendan,

I would humbly submit that a diversity of opinions should be welcomed. The fruits of those opinions should be how we judge whether that opinion is borne out of God’s Spirit or not, for God’s fruits are only goodly fruits.

And again this judgement as to whether the opinion is borne out of God’s Spirit is down to opinion.

If truth is formulated as a result of opinion, then there is no way of judging and discerning between these conflicting opinions. In the end everything will be simply a matter of opinion. The individual will be his own absolute authority on ‘truth’.

I always start the one critical assumption, “that there is One God, and that He is the source of all good”

But not everything is pure and uncorrupted. Evil exists in this world. How do we judge what is evil? Surely it is all just a matter of opinion?

We can then judge all thoughts and opinions using our own intellect as a result, we do not require anyone to do the thinking for us.

Stalin, Mao, Charles Manson, all used their intellect to form their opinions leading to their actions. Who then is to judge that the opinions they held were wrong?

If it is goodly and contributes to society’s advancement, then that diversity of opinion is welcomed in my humble opinion

Who determines what is ‘goodly’ and what represents a contribution to society? Has Mein Kampf represented a contribution to society? There are people (past and present) who genuinely believe (using their God-given intellect) that it has. If truth is all simply a matter of opinion then who are we to tell them otherwise.

 

[Red_Sox_1]

But not everything is pure and uncorrupted. Evil exists in this world. How do we judge what is evil? Surely it is all just a matter of opinion?

Stalin, Mao, Charles Manson, all used their intellect to form their opinions leading to their actions. Who then is to judge that the opinions they held were wrong?

Who determines what is ‘goodly’ and what represents a contribution to society? Has Mein Kampf represented a contribution to society? There are people (past and present) who genuinely believe (using their God-given intellect) that it has. If truth is all simply a matter of opinion then who are we to tell them otherwise.

This is an excellent question.

Baha’is are not pure pluralists. The answer in the Bahai view is very simple. Baha’u’llah proclaims Himself (or the Bab proclaimed Bahaullah as) as the Promised One of all Religions: Eastern and Semitic and Native and European.

He embraces all Faiths and all Religions.

 

[Brendan_64]

He embraces all Faiths and all Religions.

Does he also embrace religions that are opposed to Christianity, Islam etc? does he also embrace ceremonialism (OTO etc.), setianism, satanism etc.? Are all faiths and religions deemed good, regardless of their beliefs and values?

 

[Red_Sox_1]

Not at all sir. I don’t even presuppose existence of God. The Bab anticipated Baha’u’llah’s proclamation as the Sender of religions, not the messianic promised one. That’s a big difference.

 

[MartinJordan]

This thread was abandoned some months ago. It as now lost its focus. Sheesh.

MJ

 

[Red_Sox_1]

This thread was abandoned some months ago. It as now lost its focus. Sheesh.

MJ

I will stop posting. But I like very much you call it “the Bab thread”. you’ve understood the meaning hidden in my post.

The claim of Bahaullah cannot be taken lightly, whether good or bad, divine or evil.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

Vatican II, Chapter II. 16:
“… the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

I have been told that I advocate the abandonment of Christianity because I have sought a way to view Mohammed as legitimate religious leader. Nothing could be further from the truth. I seek a way to acknowledge Mohammed without the necessity of converting to Islam. I do this by noting parallels (but not equivalency) between Mohammed and Moses. Both were military leaders; both brought monotheism to their tribes. So I say that Mohammed was the “Moses” of the Ishmalites, sent by YHWH some 2000 years after the time of Moses, but certainly nowhere near as great as Moses.
Readers might also note that about 2000 years after the advent of the Jewish Messiah (Rabbi Yehoshua ben Yosef), the Moslem messiah appeared, Baha’u’llah.
His writings contain many profound messages that we of all religions can learn from: National patriotism must give way to international brotherhood. The worship of freedom leads to sedition, the only true freedom is obedience to God’s laws.

 

[Brendan_64]

Vatican II, Chapter II. 16:
“… the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

This passage is not giving any validity to Mohammed or Islam. It does not say that any of the truths believed by Muslims are as a result of anything claimed to have been revealed to Mohammed. Truth can be found in all walks of life, even atheists believe in some things that are true and therefore come from God (even though they reject Him). Mohammed, the Qu’ran, or Islam are not mentioned in any of the documents of Vatican II.

 

[daler]

This passage is not giving any validity to Mohammed or Islam. It does not say that any of the truths believed by Muslims are as a result of anything claimed to have been revealed to Mohammed. Truth can be found in all walks of life, even atheists believe in some things that are true and therefore come from God (even though they reject Him). Mohammed, the Qu’ran, or Islam are not mentioned in any of the documents of Vatican II.

Brendan,
. I’m just popping in here with a comment, not you specifically, but would like some feedback.

. What I have largely observed in life is that the vast majority of people “inherit” their “beliefs”. That is, they tend to parrot those around them, or “mimic” verbal behavior for various reasons of need: acceptance, safety, herd pressure, food, cookies, etc.

. Not to pick on any one group, but as an example only, when we see these young boys on bicycles wearing white shirts and black pants going door to door spreading the Mormon religion, how many of these kids have ever stopped to consider that had they been born into a Hindu family and with the usual surroundings, they would themselves “be” Hindu, think like Hindus, and “believe” Hindu beliefs.

. Alternatively, had the Jehovah Witnesses who come knocking on the door been born into a Mormon family, would they not be riding those bicycles talking about Joseph Smith? Most likely, “Yes, they would.”

. Why? Because we are all wired as human beings, and human beings overall tend to imitate those around them, express similar beliefs, exhibit like behaviors, etc because creatures survive by imitating other creatures which have survived, particularly older, big creatures, parents, etc.

. How many Catholics, had they been born Protestant, would be convinced of “their Faith”, as such? How many Protestants, born as Catholics, would likewise “believe” as Catholics believe?

. And again, had you and I been born in Egypt to Muslim parents, town, people, would certainly have that worldview and express Islamic beliefs? Around 99%, I suspect. Or had we been born Buddhist, etc…

. So religion becomes not entirely what we “believe”, but what others believe who surround us, protect us, feed us, train us, reward us, etc, etc, etc.

. How then, do we arrive at truly “our own” beliefs? Only by bearing the burden of an exhaustive independent investigation of truth for ourselves. Then, and only then, can we qualify as “believers” in anything, in the fullest sense of the term.

 

[daler]

Jharek,
. There is some difficulty keeping on task here, I think we can all admit. However, in truly addressing “Who is the Prophet Muhammad?”, there are related topics which connect in ways which are relevant. For in attempting to answer this question, “Proofs” appear at times from non-Muslim sources. If they are to be considered for understanding, they should be admitted as evidence.

. One of these aspects is the position of “The Bab”, Who appeared in the year 1260 AH in fulfillment not only of certain Muslim traditions, but Jewish and Christian prophecies as well, which, if understood, lend much credibility towards accurately answering the very question at hand: “Who is the Prophet Muhammad?”

. If there is interest in going in this direction, further discussion of its relevance and importance can be demonstrated, as the number 1260 appears repeatedly in the Bible in both Daniel and Revelation.

. As to there being a single Source of Divine Inspiration from which the various Religions have drawn, this is not hard to consider when one understands that, over time, human interpretations and coloring have amended most of the ancient religious traditions to such an extent that much of the original is unrecognizable. Still, underlying the colorations, there is a fundamental tone found at the Root of the Tree, of which the various “Religions” are Branches.

. As time passes, the leaves once green become yellow, brown, or red, and are no longer recognizable except in their basic form. Tracing them back by allowing for this understanding of the process of decay and separation from the Tree in each season accounts for the distance they have fallen from the very Tree from which they have sprung.

.

 

[Brendan_64]

. What I have largely observed in life is that the vast majority of people “inherit” their “beliefs”. That is, they tend to parrot those around them, or “mimic” verbal behavior for various reasons of need: acceptance, safety, herd pressure, food, cookies, etc.

I live in the UK which is a secular society. Most people do not attend any Church. I know more atheists than any other faith group. People who attend Churches are not mimicing the behaviour of those around them. In the UK, Christianity is under attack from the media and political establishment. You will be accepted far more easily in society here if you are a secular-liberal-atheist.

How many Catholics, had they been born Protestant, would be convinced of “their Faith”, as such? How many Protestants, born as Catholics, would likewise “believe” as Catholics believe?

That isn’t the case in my experience. Our church is full of Protestant converts.

How then, do we arrive at truly “our own” beliefs?

Well I was called through an experience with the Holy Spirit, when I was an adult, when I was not a Christian or interested in becoming a Christian.

Only by bearing the burden of an exhaustive independent investigation of truth for ourselves. Then, and only then, can we qualify as “believers” in anything, in the fullest sense of the term.

I would dispute that. Belief does not arise from understanding. Belief does not arise out of an investigative search to acquire understanding. Belief is not an intellectual pursuit. Understanding arises as a result of belief, not the other way round.

 

[Red_Sox_1]

Well I was called through an experience with the Holy Spirit, when I was an adult, when I was not a Christian or interested in becoming a Christian. I would dispute that. Belief does not arise from understanding. Belief does not arise out of an investigative search to acquire understanding. Belief is not an intellectual pursuit. Understanding arises as a result of belief, not the other way round.

Dear Brendan,

Actions are louder than words. I honor your words as true, but if Daler is telling you that the Holy Spirit is speaking through him to convey to you the Divine Message of Mohammad or Bahaullah, one like yourself would at the very least listen to Daler and not ridicule him (I am not saying you, just making a general observation).

 

[Brendan_64]

Dear Brendan,

Actions are louder than words. I honor your words as true, but if Daler is telling you that the Holy Spirit is speaking through him to convey to you the Divine Message of Mohammad or Bahaullah, one like yourself would at the very least listen to Daler and not ridicule him (I am not saying you, just making a general observation).

I would certainly not ridicule him, and I would listen to what he had to say.

I would however be very sceptical of any claim that the Holy Spirit communicated with him in such a way as to give him a very specific task, such as that you have given in your example. I would also treat with much suspicion that the Holy Spirit is actually using him as a medium by which to speak through. I do not believe that that is how it works. The Holy Spirit dwells within us all (we only have to stop and recognise this) and is not a remote entity using particular humans as a means to communicate a message.

We are listened to as a result of our actions and how we live out our Christian lives. We are not listened to (by wider society) because we claim authority from the Holy Spirit. It is through our deeds that the Gospel of Christ is lived out.