Muslims: Tell us about Muhammad's first encounter in the cave with "Gabriel"

Arthra said:

You're welcome!

You can call me "Art"...

You know peaceful soul if we were discussing the revelation of Jesus in the Gospels we would also have symbols like the baptism and the descent of the dove and the subsequent forty day retirement to the Judean desert and temptation.. Prophets and Holy Men experience things that transcend the normal and strain often the crudulity but we accept them nonetheless.

- Art

Click to expand...

Art, I think this is totally irrelevant to what we are arguing here. We are also focusing on the source of islamic revelation, however, when I have Christ, why would I consider Muhammad's horrifying experience and accept it? Because it transcends normal?

peaceful soul said:

He has to do this because if can succeed, then he will point out to us that we shouldn't talk since we are in the same boat. They do this because they know they have not true point to differ on. That approach borders on a tu quoque argument. If that doesn't work, they will claim that our interpretation is incorrect, followed by doubt, and lastly they will believe that the Bible becomes corrupt at those sections of scripture in discussion. No matter what, they have a way to bail themselves out of jail, but Christians cannot use their tactics against them without them telling us that we don't know Islam or read biased sources. They have a system that is built to win at all costs. I guess they don't see the moral corruption that accumulates from that kind of practice.

Click to expand...

But knowing deep inside that they could NOT settle their point with Christians, knowing that they just ignored all Christians have been saying about correct exegesis, should be the worst feeling one could feel in his heart, if that heart is open. These kind of people eventually stop talking to Christians, or, they become Christians themselves. If you have noticed, Islam Mulia's entire premise, in any topic of Christianity, is of his own understanding!!! Secundulus' point is very good on this one, WITHOUT accepting Christ and having the real COMFORTER as the guide, one is bound stay blind what Christians are saying.

Originally Posted by Arthra You're welcome!

You can call me "Art"...

You know peaceful soul if we were discussing the revelation of Jesus in the Gospels we would also have symbols like the baptism and the descent of the dove and the subsequent forty day retirement to the Judean desert and temptation.. Prophets and Holy Men experience things that transcend the normal and strain often the crudulity but we accept them nonetheless.

- Art

Click to expand...

Hi Art. It would also help if the Muslims [and even the Jews] would read the Revelation of Jesus Christ in the Christ-ian Jewish/Hebrew book of Revelation. Don't ya think?

Luke 2:32 A Light into the from-covering/apo-kaluyin <602> of nations, and glory of people of You, Israel.'

Revelation 1:1 A-from-covering/apo-kaluyiV<602> Yeshuwa` Mashiyach, which gives to Him, the God/YHWH, to show to the bond-servants of Him, which is binding to be becoming in swiftness.

Here are some similarities between the Prophet's first revelation experience and Biblical accounts,

Fear:Isaiah 21:3 Therefore are my loins filled with anguish; pangs have taken hold upon me, as the pangs of a woman in travail: I am pained so that I cannot hear; I am dismayed so that I cannot see.

Daniel 8:17 So he(Gabriel) came near where I stood; and when he came, I was affrighted, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man; for the vision belongeth to the time of the end.

Doesn't recognize the Angel: Daniel 10:18 Then there touched me again "one like the appearance of a man", and he strengthened me.

anatolian said:

Here are some similarities between the Prophet's first revelation experience and Biblical accounts,

Fear:Isaiah 21:3 Therefore are my loins filled with anguish; pangs have taken hold upon me, as the pangs of a woman in travail: I am pained so that I cannot hear; I am dismayed so that I cannot see.

Daniel 8:17 So he(Gabriel) came near where I stood; and when he came, I was affrighted, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man; for the vision belongeth to the time of the end.

Doesn't recognize the Angel: Daniel 10:18 Then there touched me again "one like the appearance of a man", and he strengthened me.

Click to expand...

So Muhammad just copied certain parts from the Jewish book of Daniel?

LittleLambofJesus said:

So Muhammad just copied certain parts from the Jewish book of Daniel?

Click to expand...

It's easy for you to claim such a thing since those verses were written before the time of the Prophet, but, the life of the Prophet gives us the clue that he was not interested in studying the Jewish scriptures nor he had a chance to even read them.He was illiterate and was interested in trade.

anatolian said:

It's easy for you to claim such a thing since those verses were written before the time of the Prophet, but, the life of the Prophet gives us the clue that he was not interested in studying the Jewish scriptures nor he had a chance to even read them.He was illiterate and was interested in trade.

Click to expand...

Could he hear or was he deaf also?
Are you saying he NEVER came into contact with Christians or Jews in his entire life?

1Timothy 1:4 Neither to be heeding to fables/myths and endless genealogies, interminable which any exactions are affording, rather than home-lawing of God in the Faith.

2 Timothy 4:4 And from indeed the Truth the hearing of them they shall be turning away, upon yet the fables/myths shall be being turned aside to.

anatolian said:

Here are some similarities between the Prophet's first revelation experience and Biblical accounts,

Fear:Isaiah 21:3 Therefore are my loins filled with anguish; pangs have taken hold upon me, as the pangs of a woman in travail: I am pained so that I cannot hear; I am dismayed so that I cannot see.

Daniel 8:17 So he(Gabriel) came near where I stood; and when he came, I was affrighted, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man; for the vision belongeth to the time of the end.

Doesn't recognize the Angel: Daniel 10:18 Then there touched me again "one like the appearance of a man", and he strengthened me.

Click to expand...

Anatolian, the point here is that although they were surprised at first contact because they weren't expecting a visitation, they understood immediately after the angel spoke and told them who he was and what his purpose was in visiting. The angel always told them to not fear, and after that, they were able to carry on a normal conversation. We don't see Daniel running scared or being choked, squeezed, etc. and intimidated in any unhealthy way. When the angel touched Daniel, we don't see the angel being aggressive and demanding of Daniel. That should help you to see that the conduct of angels in the Bible are different than the conduct of the presumed angel in Islam. That is so easy to see.

peaceful soul said:

Anatolian, the point here is that although they were surprised at first contact because they weren't expecting a visitation, they understood immediately after the angel spoke and told them who he was and what his purpose was in visiting. The angel always told them to not fear, and after that, they were able to carry on a normal conversation. We don't see Daniel running scared or being choked, squeezed, etc. and intimidated in any unhealthy way. When the angel touched Daniel, we don't see the angel being aggressive and demanding of Daniel. That should help you to see that the conduct of angels in the Bible are different than the conduct of the presumed angel in Islam. That is so easy to see.

Click to expand...

1. The visit by the angel Gabriel always bring "fear" to those who were not expecting it. In some cases, the persons could get a 'fever' or 'being struck dumb'.

2. The experience is NOT a good indicator if the message is from God or not. I would think that a careful analysis of the message is far more important than the 'experience' the persons get.

3. In fact, Bushmaster did ask to look into a 'guideline' which Chrsitians like at assess if the message was from God (not that I agree with the guideline):

Bushmaster78FS said:

This Waraqah story doesn't make sense. Either the hadith is false or Waraqah is completely ignorant of Christian Scriptures. It is known that he was separated from Orthodox Christianity at the time by following the sect of nazarenes and translated Scriptures, it is unlikely for him to miss the warning of St. John in his first epistle. It is possible that his confirmation might have been added to the hadith narration, either case, Waraqah sticks out like a sore thumb, because he is dead wrong! Also interesting to note, no revelations until Waraqah is dead! Maybe Waraqah is not required for further "confirmation"?

Click to expand...

What did John said?

originally posted by Islam_mulia

1. The visit by the angel Gabriel always bring "fear" to those who were not expecting it.

Click to expand...

Yes, we agree with that, but not a fear by intimidation imposed by the angel. That is were you have gone wrong in trying to equate this to explain away the trauma that Mohammad suffered in his visitation. There is no trauma, emotional, psychological, or otherwise given in any Biblical passage where God spoke through angels or directly.

In some cases, the persons could get a 'fever' or 'being struck dumb'.

Click to expand...

There is no Biblical character that suffered adverse effects from the visitation. Mohammad is the one that got the fever and threatened to jump off of a cliff and commit suicide. I will repeat the passage of Zacharias since you have trouble comprehending. I don't want to hear anymore excuses from you. Here it is in bright daylight.

Luk 1:11 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
Luk 1:12 And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
Luk 1:13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
Luk 1:14 And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
Luk 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
Luk 1:16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
Luk 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
Luk 1:18 And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.
Luk 1:19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.
Luk 1:20 And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.

Where in that passage do you see any fear by intimidation or coercion? I highlighted certain portions so you can see your faulty premise.

If we read further into the passage, we find the following:

Luk 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
Luk 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Luk 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Luk 1:29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
Luk 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
Luk 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Luk 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Luk 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luk 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Luk 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
Luk 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
Luk 1:39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;
Luk 1:40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.
Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
Luk 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

Note that Mary also was troubled because of the surprise, but the angel once again said "fear not" and proceeded to give the message. After answering questions from Mary, he left. That in no way resembles what happened to Mohammad.

Let's look even further and get an even a better picture.

Luk 1:57 Now Elisabeth's full time came that she should be delivered; and she brought forth a son.
...
Luk 1:59 And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.
Luk 1:60 And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John.
Luk 1:61 And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name.
Luk 1:62 And they made signs to his father, how he would have him called.
Luk 1:63 And he asked for a writing table, and wrote, saying, His name is John. And they marvelled all.
Luk 1:64 And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God.

Here we see the end of the prophecy where Zacharias was not able to talk again. This shows the fulfillment of the scripture and removed all of the doubt from Zacharias. Being unable to talk was not a means of intimidation by fear.The angel never forced Zacharias to believe. Note that he showed him by God's power via prophecy. In the case with Mary, the sing of the prophecy was being filled with the Holy Spirit in her womb and the birth of John being born from previously barren Elizabeth 6 months in advance of Jesus.

Could you please show me in any of these accounts of an angel visitation that resulted in chaos, loss of one's senses, irrationality, foaming at the mouth, etc.? All accounts show calmness by both the angel and the person. The person was able to carry on a normal conversation and was able to ask questions on the authority of the angel's visit as well as confirmation of the delivered prophecies. Gabriel always gave them signs so that they could believe. You are trying to assert that these confirmations are somehow a product of fear imposed upon the person by the angel. Any sane person can read these passages and see that your argument has no merit whatsoever. These passages are so easy to read that even a little kid could understand. You just warped them beyond imagination by trying to pervert them to justify that angelic visits are the same in both Islam and in Christianity.

2. The experience is NOT a good indicator if the message is from God or not. I would think that a careful analysis of the message is far more important than the 'experience' the persons get.

Click to expand...

The ends does not justify the means. If a bank robber gives all of his stolen money to charity, he is still a bank robber. His gratuitous action of being charitable does not justify his theft. We can't excuse his criminality on the basis that he was charitable. Likewise, with things of God, character does matter. Just because something sounds good and looks good, does not make it good.

Basically, you believe that since the presumed angel told Mohammad to worship Allah, that must make the message authentic? Because, no presumed angel would inspire people to do bad things. Since worshiping Allah appears to be a good thing, it is from God. That is a false premise and only works if your false premise is taken as truth. All things that appear to be good things do not have to originate from God. That is why there is a satan and demonic spirits that seduce people to take a presumably good thing and deceives them into going astray from God.

3. In fact, Bushmaster did ask to look into a 'guideline' which Chrsitians like at assess if the message was from God (not that I agree with the guideline):



What did John said?

Click to expand...

I am not going to comment on anything else that is not directly related to the OP. You have failed to show how the OP is valid, given what has been discussed already. Unless you have some means of validating the OP, then we shall not discuss other things. I am not interested in your deceitful tactics and false constructs. Go play with someone else who are prey to your games.

The scriptures quoted above serve as an answer for your question. As you read, you can see that God gave confirmations to his messages in the form of goth immediate and distant prophecies to show each person who was visited by Gabriel was in fact receiving a message from God. These prophecies were confirmed by others as well when they came to fruition. Part of the veracity of scripture is that it can be confirmed by others. No single person is privy to God's word like Mohammad was. No one could confirm his revelation like we see here in Luke 1.

Let's see if you can be honest enough to admit that there is no true comparison of Mohammad's experience to any that is shown in the Bible.

I think we really don't know what the physical effects were on say Prophet Moses or other prophets mentioned in the Bible as most of these accounts were compiled many years later.. But we are told that Moses face was radiant when He descended Mount Sinai:

"When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the Testimony in his hands, he was not aware that his face was radiant because he had spoken with the LORD."

- Exodus 34:29

The word is "qaran" and means radiant...


The effects on Prophet Muhammad physically are also not necessarily "negative" either.. but were noted by people around Him.

• Ubada b. Samit reported that when wahi descended upon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him), he felt a burden on that account and the colour of his face underwent a change. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p. 1248).

There is an account though in the Bible that reminds me of the experience recorded on Mount Hira..

It is in Jeremiah...where it says:

"Ah, Lord GOD!" I said, "I know not how to speak; I am too young."
7 But the LORD answered me, Say not, "I am too young." To whomever I send you, you shall go; whatever I command you, you shall speak. 8 Have no fear before them, because I am with you to deliver you, says the LORD. 9 Then the LORD extended his hand and touched my mouth, saying, See, I place my words in your mouth!
Both Moses and Jeremiah make remonstrances that they are unworthy and similar thing occurs with the dawning of revelation in the case of Prophet Muhammad:
And here is the account of the revelation on Mount Hira:
One day suddenly, while he sat in a cave at Mount Hira, Gabriel, the Angel of Revelation, appeared to him and said,

`Recite!' He said in surprise, `What shall I recite?'

Again the divine voice very clearly and openly called out, `Recite, O Muhammad!'

And a third time Gabriel repeated,

"Recite in the Name of Your Lord Who created. He created the human being from a clot. Recite and your Lord is Most Honorable, Who taught (to write) with the pen, taught the human being what he knew not..."

Holy Quran (Alaq 96: 1-5)

- Art

peaceful soul said:

Yes, we agree with that, but not a fear by intimidation imposed by the angel. That is were you have gone wrong in trying to equate this to explain away the trauma that Mohammad suffered in his visitation. There is no trauma, emotional, psychological, or otherwise given in any Biblical passage where God spoke through angels or directly.

Click to expand...

Even if there was 'trauma', how would that prove the message was not from God?

Conversely, if the person claimed to receive a message from an angel, and did not experience 'trauma' would that really make the message true? Joseph Smith is one fine example?

peaceful soul said:

There is no Biblical character that suffered adverse effects from the visitation. Mohammad is the one that got the fever and threatened to jump off of a cliff and commit suicide.

Click to expand...

Did you get that from Ibn Ishaq?

peaceful soul said:

The ends does not justify the means. If a bank robber gives all of his stolen money to charity, he is still a bank robber. His gratuitous action of being charitable does not justify his theft. We can't excuse his criminality on the basis that he was charitable. Likewise, with things of God, character does matter. Just because something sounds good and looks good, does not make it good.

Click to expand...

I asked if the message given is far more important than the 'experience' the person received. I have no idea how or why you put in the robber scenario.

If Saul of Taurus saw a vision and became 'blind', I will not jump to a conclusion that because he was 'blind' and afterwards became a 'Christian', the message he recieved on the road to Damascus is false. Rather, you should look at the message and the content to make your judgement. Thought that was a more logical step.

peaceful soul said:

Basically, you believe that since the presumed angel told Mohammad to worship Allah, that must make the message authentic? Because, no presumed angel would inspire people to do bad things. Since worshiping Allah appears to be a good thing, it is from God. That is a false premise and only works if your false premise is taken as truth. All things that appear to be good things do not have to originate from God. That is why there is a satan and demonic spirits that seduce people to take a presumably good thing and deceives them into going astray from God.

Click to expand...

You must consider the message in totality. While the core message is to believe in God, Muhammad (pbuh) also received revelations about doing good and avoiding evil. You should then take note of the whole Quran and make your judgement if it is from God.

Similarly, I would like to judge Christianity based on your scripture and teachings, and not based on some personal experience like vision, apparation or dreams.

peaceful soul said:

I am not going to comment on anything else that is not directly related to the OP. You have failed to show how the OP is valid, given what has been discussed already.

Click to expand...

Bushmaster mentioned about the warning of John in his first epistle. What was the warning?

Another favorite Christian text to support 'false prophets' is Gal 1:6-9 where it speaks of angel preaching different gospels. Now, this is very related to the OP... it talks about angel. Notice, your bible tells you that one of the ways to judge if a message is wrong, is to consider the message (the gospel)... not if the person is blinded or has fever or struck dumb... with or without coercion.

Islam_mulia said:

Even if there was 'trauma', how would that prove the message was not from God?

Conversely, if the person claimed to receive a message from an angel, and did not experience 'trauma' would that really make the message true? Joseph Smith is one fine example?


Did you get that from Ibn Ishaq?


I asked if the message given is far more important than the 'experience' the person received. I have no idea how or why you put in the robber scenario.

If Saul of Taurus saw a vision and became 'blind', I will not jump to a conclusion that because he was 'blind' and afterwards became a 'Christian', the message he recieved on the road to Damascus is false. Rather, you should look at the message and the content to make your judgement. Thought that was a more logical step.


You must consider the message in totality. While the core message is to believe in God, Muhammad (pbuh) also received revelations about doing good and avoiding evil. You should then take note of the whole Quran and make your judgement if it is from God.

Similarly, I would like to judge Christianity based on your scripture and teachings, and not based on some personal experience like vision, apparation or dreams.


Bushmaster mentioned about the warning of John in his first epistle. What was the warning?

Another favorite Christian text to support 'false prophets' is Gal 1:6-9 where it speaks of angel preaching different gospels. Now, this is very related to the OP... it talks about angel. Notice, your bible tells you that one of the ways to judge if a message is wrong, is to consider the message (the gospel)... not if the person is blinded or has fever or struck dumb... with or without coercion.

Click to expand...

I don't have time to play your games. I have shown that the Biblical visitations by angels or by God directly are not similar to that of Mohammad's. That is very plain for even a little kid to see; so, that is it, Islam_mulia, in a nutshell. The awkwardness of the visitation with Mohammad is therefore, not consistent with anything that we know of from the Bible. This leads one to believe that the visitation was not from Gabriel. Those that encountered Gabriel in the Bible did not have to wonder what they had encountered after the visitation like Mohammad did. All of them knew immediately who Gabriel was what his message was to them. They even questioned him and got answers and were always confirmed by prophecy that served as a confirmation to each individual. Never did they walk away wondering what just happened and had to go and seek council to determine what had visited them. The angel was always polite and comforted them, unlike with Mohammad. Non of Mohammad's visitation matches up with what we know from the Bible. That is very clear from anyone who reads it with an open mind.

Arguing about the authentication of the message was not the point of the OP as far as I see; but this does lend credence to a message being sent by God if it can be authenticated in some way. In the passages in Luke 1 we can see very easily that prophecy accompanied the angel that was not only seen by the individual, but to others. Mohammad was the sole person to get any messages; subsequently, there were no witnesses to anything that he said. This also is a strike against him as a prophet. The inconsistencies with what we know from the Bible leads a Christians to reject Mohammad as a authentic prophet not only on these grounds just mentioned, but in an even more important one: his message contradicts the message of Jesus Christ. The authenticity of a message is not just what is said, but the method of delivery too. If there are no external witnesses, that makes it doubtful since the Bible use witness to things so that no one person can claim any authority from God as we see with Mohammad.

You argument of being dumb is out of context as I had shown you at least twice. You are being disingenuous by continuing to pervert the purpose of Zacharias being made incapable of speaking. It was to help him to believe what the angel said--not to terrorize him. If you want to be idiotic, then be that way. Your straw man argument of terror by angels in the Bible is unfounded.

Arthra said:

I think we really don't know what the physical effects were on say Prophet Moses or other prophets mentioned in the Bible as most of these accounts were compiled many years later.. But we are told that Moses face was radiant when He descended Mount Sinai:

"When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the Testimony in his hands, he was not aware that his face was radiant because he had spoken with the LORD."

- Exodus 34:29

The word is "qaran" and means radiant...


The effects on Prophet Muhammad physically are also not necessarily "negative" either.. but were noted by people around Him.

• Ubada b. Samit reported that when wahi descended upon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him), he felt a burden on that account and the colour of his face underwent a change. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p. 1248).

There is an account though in the Bible that reminds me of the experience recorded on Mount Hira..

It is in Jeremiah...where it says:

"Ah, Lord GOD!" I said, "I know not how to speak; I am too young."
7 But the LORD answered me, Say not, "I am too young." To whomever I send you, you shall go; whatever I command you, you shall speak. 8 Have no fear before them, because I am with you to deliver you, says the LORD. 9 Then the LORD extended his hand and touched my mouth, saying, See, I place my words in your mouth!
Both Moses and Jeremiah make remonstrances that they are unworthy and similar thing occurs with the dawning of revelation in the case of Prophet Muhammad:
And here is the account of the revelation on Mount Hira:
One day suddenly, while he sat in a cave at Mount Hira, Gabriel, the Angel of Revelation, appeared to him and said,

`Recite!' He said in surprise, `What shall I recite?'

Again the divine voice very clearly and openly called out, `Recite, O Muhammad!'

And a third time Gabriel repeated,

"Recite in the Name of Your Lord Who created. He created the human being from a clot. Recite and your Lord is Most Honorable, Who taught (to write) with the pen, taught the human being what he knew not..."

Holy Quran (Alaq 96: 1-5)

- Art

Click to expand...

Moses' face was radiant not because of any fear imposed upon him. He radiated because he was just in the presence of God.

The effects on Mohammad were negative. He was commanded to recite and was squeezed and his breath was almost gone as a result. If that is typical of God, they I say that you are nuts to believe that, Arthra, just like Islam_mulia. No matter how you try to spin this, you are still incorrect in your assessment about the visitation of Mohammad being normative with those of the Bible.

Where do you see any coercion in those visitations of Jeremiah and Moses? Show me where they were disoriented, lost their disposition, etc.

Your theory: If an angel visit someone with a message, that person may feel 'fearful' but there should not be any 'coercion' in believing the message. Otherwise, the message is not from God. Even a little kid can see this.

My reply: How about Joseph Smith visited by an angel? He did not feel coerced into believing the message. Using your benchmark above, does it mean the religion of Mormon is from God? Is your theory above meant only for kids?

Islam_mulia said:

Your theory: If an angel visit someone with a message, that person may feel 'fearful' but there should not be any 'coercion' in believing the message. Otherwise, the message is not from God. Even a little kid can see this.

My reply: How about Joseph Smith visited by an angel? He did not feel coerced into believing the message. Using your benchmark above, does it mean the religion of Mormon is from God? Is your theory above meant only for kids?

Click to expand...

You continually argue logical fallacies. You are now creating a false dichotomy (either/or) fallacy. I am not saying that negative encounters are false indicators while the opposite must be true indicators. It is not either one or the other. I showed you that false indicators automatically disqualify one for being a prophet or sent by God since we have no model for such behavior in the Bible. The lack of coercion certainly helps one's case, but it does not guarantee authenticity. The testing of false messages is used. Regardless of which method was used--coercion or not--the message of Christ would still ultimately determine if that newer presumed revelation is of God. The negative visitation just makes it much easier since we know that God does not have that type of character according to the Bible. We don't need to go through a full criteria of items to know if something is not authentic. All we need to prove is that any one of the qualifications is violated. That is common logic.

Intimidation by an representative of God, whether it be another human, angel, or by God, Himself is not in the character of God; so, we dismiss any presumed prophet who testifies to such a revelation. We don't even need to see his message. I will give you a real life example: a stranger comes to you and acts nasty towards you, but he claims that he is a nice person. Good judgment will hopefully tell you not to trust what he says since his actions don't coincide with his claims of his character.

Islam_mulia, I know that ibn Ishaq is only used when he supports something positive about Mohammad and Islam. When it is negative, you will say that he made errors in his historical dictation. You attack his credibility. You should equally attack his credibility when something is positive too. If you think that his historical writings are suspect, you shouldn't assume that the positive ones are not suspect. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

When dealing with Muslims it is wise to understand some of the approaches used by them to discredit Christianity. Much could be written on each of the following subjects with numerous examples. But, instead, let's simply point out the areas common among Muslim approaches and see what to watch for.

Peaceful Soul, I am sure you are familiar with this already!

No. 1 Attack the validity of the Bible

• Stating that the Bible has numerous contradictions
• Criticizing the lack of original manuscripts
• Claiming that the Bible is false because it contradicts the Qur'an

No. 2 Attempt to set Paul against Jesus
No. 3 Misrepresentation of Christian doctrine
No. 4 Misinterpreting various Scripture passages
No. 5 Failing to differentiate between Protestant and Apostolic doctrines
No. 6 Claim their logic is correct and Christian logic is incorrect
No. 7 Switching topics when challenged

This is Islam_Mulia in a nutshell for you!

peaceful soul said:

We don't see Daniel running scared or being choked, squeezed, etc. and intimidated in any unhealthy way. When the angel touched Daniel, we don't see the angel being aggressive and demanding of Daniel. That should help you to see that the conduct of angels in the Bible are different than the conduct of the presumed angel in Islam. That is so easy to see.

Click to expand...

And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes. And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains: Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him. And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.
(Mar 5:1-5 KJVR)

Presumed angel was not a heavenly Angel of the Lord, it was a minion of Satan, as those are always aim to hurt humans, that is if that supernatural story of Muhammad is real.