The rise of Islam in its spiritual context

[FireDragon76]

The sovereignty of God is pretty clear from scripture. He blesses or He curses. His thoughts are higher than our own. He allowed Islam to rise even though it offers no hope of salvation.

God's dealings can only be understood through the suffering of Christ on the Cross, not through the image of a middle eastern absolute monarch. That God is a figment of human imagination.

 

[mindlight]

God's dealings can only be understood through the suffering of Christ on the Cross, not through the image of a middle eastern absolute monarch. That God is a figment of human imagination.

I actually agree that part of the reason might have been the confusion of church and state that existed in the figure of the Byzantine Emperor had become so profound that Gods interests were being confused with Constantinoples. That many of the heretics within "Romes" borders were actually anxious to differentiate themselves from oppressive masters rather than God. I do not believe that being a Monophysite or even in many cases an Arian or Nestorian would have compromised a mans ability to be saved though it did present an inaccurate picture of Christ. Also the last three of the first 4 caliphs did allow a degree of freedom of religion for many , within a Muslim dominated state, that did not exist in the Byzantine Empire. Yes the focus is on the cross and the sufferings of Christ rather than the BYzantine Emperors imperial interests.

 

[Yytz6]

I am not sure there are any Muslims on this site. Mohamed is just another false prophet that can be added to the list of many like Joseph Smith. If contrast is needed to glorify God then it is only needed by the weak in faith. There is no fruit in spiritual death.
Blessings

Contrast? What do you mean?

 

[Yytz6]

Dear OP, God doesn't "allow" anything,
He is....


Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

So he wills Satan too and his actions?

 

[Yytz6]

Muhammed does not preach Gods will, he was permitted and enabled by the Sovereignty of God but his message contradicts the Christian on the important doctrines of Trinity, Incarnation and Redemption. His Gabriel told him that Jesus was not the Son of God and our Gabriel told us that he was. One is a lie and one is a truth.

So it is a matter of why did God allow Muhammed to rise when he is so clearly not of God? Only the sins of the church and Gods plans for its purification on a global scale give any kind of real answer to this question.

Your question is void since you assume he should be of God.

 

[Yytz6]

God allowed the subjugation of whole nations of Christians

Wasn't that the time they were still at the crusades? Subjugating other nations Muslim or non Muslim - didn't really matter, did it? Hypocricy at it springiest.

 

[Yytz6]

God allowed the subjugation of whole nations of Christians by allowing the rise of Muhammed. More than a billion people are held in oppressive servitude to this false religion today and many have been for more than a millennia now. Millions of Christians are persecuted by Muslims in the Muslim homelands. The Mormons are a complete irrelevance compared to that. Just cause the Muslims have no answers and dare not show up round here to get trounced in a debate does not mean you should stop thinking and asking why on earth can such an obvious lie hold the minds of so many people in darkness.

Might have something to do with the fact that 95% of the forum is strictly for Christians alone. Others aren't allowed to post. Plus there's the rules about not offending - religions, but of course here it's especially Christianity.

But mostly that the forum is restricted for Christians only. Maybe find the Muslims in forums that have a place for their discussions.

 

[mindlight]

Your question is void since you assume he should be of God.

As a Muslim I would have thought your expectation would be that the words Muhammad was given were of God. If he is not of God then the question arises why a Sovereign God would allow him to form an Arab nation that under the first four Caliphs would conquer 2/3rds of the Byzantine and all of the Sassine empires within a generation of his death.

My problem as a Christian with Muhammads words include the following:

1) He seems to borrow a lot of them from previous Christian literature or heretical texts already in circulation.
2) His words often contradict those of the bible, despite the fact that he himself affirms the authority of the bible. e.g. on Who Jesus is, whether Jesus died on the cross.
3) Many of his words seem quite convenient for him personally

 

[mindlight]

Wasn't that the time they were still at the crusades? Subjugating other nations Muslim or non Muslim - didn't really matter, did it? Hypocricy at it springiest.

No this was long before the crusades. The Christian provinces of Syria, Palestine and Egypt were conquered by Muslims and then ruled by them even though a majority of the inhabitants at the time remained Christian for a few more centuries. Arab immigration, the conversion of heretics and later heavy persecution of Christians changed the religious balance of these countries over time and now they all have solid Muslim majorities.

The crusades came in part as a result of the rise of the Seljuk Muslims who started to restrict freedom of worship and access to the Holy places in a way that the first 4 Caliphs never did. They also carried a theme of the liberation of local Christian populations rather than specifically the conquest of Muslim ones.

 

[mindlight]

Might have something to do with the fact that 95% of the forum is strictly for Christians alone. Others aren't allowed to post. Plus there's the rules about not offending - religions, but of course here it's especially Christianity.

But mostly that the forum is restricted for Christians only. Maybe find the Muslims in forums that have a place for their discussions.

Conversations should be respectful and stick to the issues and any forums monitoring staff will tend to support that focus. Also when somebody comes here just to denigrate Christianity rather than debate with Christians they are probably going to find their posts reported. But that said Muslims should be free to offer their criticisms of Christian positions with the implicit recognition that Christians will debate those criticisms and if monitors have been too heavy handed on that I would agree with you that that is a problem which in effect is stifling the possibility of free discussion.

 

[Yytz6]

As a Muslim I would have thought your expectation would be that the words Muhammad was given were of God. If he is not of God then the question arises why a Sovereign God would allow him to form an Arab nation that under the first four Caliphs would conquer 2/3rds of the Byzantine and all of the Sassine empires within a generation of his death.

My problem as a Christian with Muhammads words include the following:

1) He seems to borrow a lot of them from previous Christian literature or heretical texts already in circulation.
2) His words often contradict those of the bible, despite the fact that he himself affirms the authority of the bible. e.g. on Who Jesus is, whether Jesus died on the cross.
3) Many of his words seem quite convenient for him personally

Prophets in Islam are normal human beings.

Message is from the same God.

Jesus - the authority of the Bible? The biblical stories are not all correct.

They're quite convenient to most Muslims.

 

[mindlight]

Prophets in Islam are normal human beings.

Muhammad was a sinner according to the Quran (40:55, 48:2, and 47:19) but Jesus was not.

Message is from the same God.

In the bible Jibreel says Jesus is the Son of God while in the Quran he says that he was not. That is not a message from the same God. or even angel.

Jesus - the authority of the Bible? The biblical stories are not all correct.

Muhammad affirms Christ and the injil which speaks of him. There are no incorrect bible stories and Muhammad never said that he doubted the authority of scripture.

They're quite convenient to most Muslims.

The difference between the early Meccan revelations when he was married to Khadija and the later ones in Medina reflect different opportunities and power.

The man behind the prophet

 

[Yytz6]

Muhammad was a sinner according to the Quran (40:55, 48:2, and 47:19) but Jesus was not.

Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) was a normal human being - I repeat. Capable of sin like all the other prophets. However, all those verses refer to short comings which according to principle, Isa (alaihi Salam) also had.

In the bible Jibreel says Jesus is the Son of God while in the Quran he says that he was not. That is not a message from the same God. or even angel.

It's considered a forgery by Muslims.

Muhammad affirms Christ and the injil which speaks of him.

Allah (Subhaanahu wa ta'ala) only confirms the original gospel which no longer exists. So basically He doesn't confirm anything that speaks about Isa (alaihi Salam)

There are no incorrect bible stories and Muhammad never said that he doubted the authority of scripture.

Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) rejected many things found in them and said the jews and the Christians read their scriptures but do not understand what is in them. The fact that the stories are different in the Qur'an says enough of that.

 

[mindlight]

Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) was a normal human being - I repeat. Capable of sin like all the other prophets. However, all those verses refer to short comings which according to principle, Isa (alaihi Salam) also had.

There are no verses in the Koran that say Jesus ever sinned. So it is pure speculation on the part of later Muslims that there was an equivalence between Muhammad and Jesus. Muhammad never said that.

It's considered a forgery by Muslims.

Allah (Subhaanahu wa ta'ala) only confirms the original gospel which no longer exists. So basically He doesn't confirm anything that speaks about Isa (alaihi Salam)

Which again is a moot point since we have final versions of the text from before the time of Muhammad and this is the book he affirms not some mythical prophetic books that have never existed and for which there exists no historical evidence.

Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) rejected many things found in them and said the jews and the Christians read their scriptures but do not understand what is in them. The fact that the stories are different in the Qur'an says enough of that.

Or it speaks of a man who was illiterate and whose most likely sources of understanding of Jews and Christians were flawed. For instance his views about Christianity were informed by Nestorian heretics like Waraqah al Nawfal. His understanding of Judaism was informed by interactions with Jewish tribes where most were illiterate and separated from traditional understandings of their faith. In an Arab culture where people did not speak Greek but in a world where the primary and most authoritative sources of scripture were written in Greek he would not have had an accurate understanding. Even the Syriac Peshitta was most likely inaccessible to him because of his illiteracy and the lack of people to explain these scriptures to him.

 

[Yytz6]

There are no verses in the Koran that say Jesus ever sinned. So it is pure speculation on the part of later Muslims that there was an equivalence between Muhammad and Jesus. Muhammad never said that.

All men sin.

Which again is a moot point since we have final versions of the text from before the time of Muhammad and this is the book he affirms not some mythical prophetic books that have never existed and for which there exists no historical evidence.

He doesn't affirm the bible, the old testament, the new testament or the gospels. He doesn't even confirm the gospel as a whole.

Final versions indeed.. How many drafts did it require to write down the will of God?

Or it speaks of a man who was illiterate and whose most likely sources of understanding of Jews and Christians were flawed.

We're talking about someone who received word from Allah (Subhaanahu wa ta'ala), you're insinuating Allah (Subhaanahu wa ta'ala) made a mistake.

 

[mindlight]

All men sin.

Jesus did not sin, which is the reason that he is a fitting saviour for all mankind. Adam also was perfect before he fell. But Jesus chose to obey God in the darkest of times and is therefore a fitting, perfect and once for all sacrifice for our sins. Because Jesus never sinned I know that I can be saved from mine. Muhammad gives me no such assurance.

He doesn't affirm the bible, the old testament, the new testament or the gospels. He doesn't even confirm the gospel as a whole.

“It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)” (Surah 3:3).

Final versions indeed.. How many drafts did it require to write down the will of God?

Actually there was only one original version of the 66 books of the bible. We do have a lot more textual evidence verifying the texts we have been given including variations and scribal errors. We can test the original version comparing Hebrew, Greek, Syriac versions from different political and geographical contexts and find a remarkable degree of agreement (indeed 100% on all major theological issues). The destruction of alternate versions of the Quran by Uthman by contrast led to rebellions in Arabia and even his own assassination so illegitimate was it regarded. As the Sana's manuscript demonstrates the Quran itself was an evolving text.

Sanaʽa manuscript - Wikipedia

Omissions like that of the Satanic verses affirming Makkan idols are also notable.

We're talking about someone who received word from Allah (Subhaanahu wa ta'ala), you're insinuating Allah (Subhaanahu wa ta'ala) made a mistake.

“God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? Numbers 23:19

We have a full bible text from before the time of Muhammad and the first 5 ecumenical councils were finished by then. What Muhammad says contradicts what came before him and yet he appears to affirm these same scriptures as being authoritative. That means he was either ignorant of what he was doing, was deliberately deceived or he was simply making it up as he was going along from the faulty sources available to him. The idea that he is a prophet when he affirms sources that contradict him, performed no miracles demonstrating Gods power was at work in him, makes no testable prophecies and fulfilled no prophecies that anticipated him is difficult to accept.

 

[martymonster]

So he wills Satan too and his actions?

Isa 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.

 

[Yytz6]

As the Sana's manuscript demonstrates the Quran itself was an evolving text.

The Sana'a manuscript was obviously a text written by a student. You ought to read the actual study about it.

 

[mindlight]

The Sana'a manuscript was obviously a text written by a student. You ought to read the actual study about it.

The dating of the manuscript to Uthmanns reign and his clear instruction to destroy alternate versions to the one he authorised are the more probable reason why the lower text was wiped. The main point here remains the alternate versions exist.

Indeed today there are about 20 different versions, 7 of which are quoted in Hadith.

The 20 Versions of the Qur'an today. (7 are recorded in the Hadith.)

 

[Yytz6]

The dating of the manuscript to Uthmanns reign and his clear instruction to destroy alternate versions to the one he authorised are the more probable reason why the lower text was wiped.

You really think you're more qualified to decide than the professional researchers?

The main point here remains the alternate versions exist.

No, they don't.

Indeed today there are about 20 different versions, 7 of which are quoted in Hadith.

False. The hadith is not authentic. Its contents make no sense and it doesn't have a proper narrator chain.

A link to bible.ca - how credible.