Islam Why call Muhammad a prophet?

[mindlight]

I was wondering, ignorant should feel shame but rudely repeats false claims.
Prophet Mohamed peace be upon him did many oracles.
Propheces in Quran and Hadeeths are documented in books.

We can test these if you care to share an example. A great many people have called themselves Oracles and shared words that they say are from God. If they are just stand alone blobs without any connection to previous revelation or to historical reality then it is more of a stretch to believe in their validity though

This is for people like you who beleive that humans like Almasseh, if he did some oracles then can be called God or God the Son.
So, Allah says, even these oracles are from Allah not from the human

Not sure I understand your meaning. Are you saying that what Muhammad shared was from God rather than something he simply made up himself.

Allah said in Quran for people like, even if we give you all oracles, they'll never t beleive, Allah said, if I give you a house from gold and too much gold, those who their heart is "covers" will not beleive.
It's not the eyes which get blind but the hearts.

This is something which a Christian might well say of a Muslim or an unbelieving Jew and which Jesus said to a generation who demanded a sign.

Which testimony contradicts with which Prophet ?

Isaiah prophesied the virgin birth of Jesus (something the Quran agrees with) and that the child would be called Emmanuel (meaning God with us) something that both Jews and Muslims deny about Christ. He goes on to describe his ministry in terms of suffering Isaiah 52-53. Which includes a description of his death and then after his death and a future after death (so resurrection). In other words Jesus is anticipated by the prophet Isaiah , his life described before it happened and his death (in contradiction to the Quran). Muhammad's prophecy by contrast is a standalone statement that requires we trust Muhammad and has not other way of being verified

Isaiah 53:8-12
By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9
He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[g] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11
After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12
Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

According to your Pauline Christianity Jesus Christ is not a prophet, you see him a God.

Jesus as Prophet, priest and King is also God in the Christian view. He made prophecies that later came true e.g. fall of Jerusalem, or indeed of his own death and resurrection. Part of the credibility of Christian statements about Christ is that he had this handle on events before they happened and even attempted to explain their meaning before they happened.

Whatever books you've are not connected to Almasseh, it's anymoumus books written after Almasseh by 40 years on the best guess.
Scribes have played a lot with even these anymoumus books.

Another discussion, but the first written copies of the Quran and aHadith are also decades after so you gain no advantage in such a discussion.

Who wrote these scriptures? Are they genuine? Are they historically relayable?

Yes

What about severe contradiction between the 4 gospels ?
Did you read the crucifixion story in parallel.
Open the 4 gospels all together and start recording the time, action, witnesses and sayings.
When your Jesus crusifixed before or after Passover?
Who entered the tomb first ?
Who was these in the tomb human or humans or angel or Angels?
What did the angel said to the witnesses?
Shall disciples meet Jesus in Galilee or in Jerusalem?
If you gather the answers to these questions in an excel, neutraly you should have a conclusion that it's a fabricated story

The bible witness has the authenticity of sharing what individual eyewitnesses actually saw. It is not a heavily redacted manuscript that has been approved by some Caliph with the bad bits edited out. There are no contradictions properly considered

Previous testimony, are you kidding?
Instead of chasing Moslems, why don't you ask Jews whom Almasseh was one of them and among them.
Forget prophet Mohamed for a while,
They're the owner of the Torah) previous testimony), why the didn't accept Jesus as a God?

But Jesus was Jewish as were most of the early apostles and the nucleus of the early church in the first few decades. There is no contradiction between being Jewish with a good knowledge of scripture and being a Christian. Paul for example was educated as a Pharisee under the best of the Pharisees of the time Gamaliel. This is not really an argument at all as it is clear there were divisions amongst Arabs also over Muhammad's claims and indeed wars fought over this between Mecca and Medinan Arabs for instance.

 

[mindlight]

Who have seen Jesus turns water to wine ?
Who has seen Jesus feeding these thousands 4000 ?
Who has seen Jesus healing the blind ?
Who has seen Jesus getting up in the tomb and going out from the tomb?

Did you see these wonders and signs?

Well there were 4000 witnesses to being fed and there were the people who were healed who were a part of the early church and could confirm the wonders that had been done when scripture was written up and shared by the early church. Yes there are Christians today, including myself, who have also seen wonders done in Jesus name : including healings.

Also the Jews themselves recognised Jesus performed wonders but attributed them to Satan. A Muslim is not going to say Jesus is of Satan and the Quran itself records some miracles of Jesus so we know Jesus performed wonders, but clearly Muhammad did not

• Shabbath 104B: “Jesus was a magician and a fool. Mary was an adulteress.”
• Sanhedrin 107B of the Babylonian Talmud: “Jesus [“Yeshu” in the Talmud] stood up a brick to symbolize an idol and bowed down to it. Jesus performed magic and incited the people of Israel and led them astray.”
• Sanhedrin 43A: “On Passover Eve they hanged Jesus [“Yeshu” in the Talmud] of Nazareth. He practiced sorcery, incited and led Israel astray…. Was Jesus of Nazareth deserving of a search for an argument in his favor? He was an enticer and the Torah says, ‘You shall not spare, nor shall you conceal him!’”

 

[Yytz6]

Telling people about Dr. Bucaille's obvious conflict of interest in writing about how great and scientific Islam supposedly is is "not having anything to say"? Sure thing, guy.

I'm pretty sure if a Christian in this thread had presented a video by someone who had been a Muslim before serving as the personal family physician for Billy Graham or another famous Christian preacher and then suddenly came out with a bunch of writing about how great Christianity is and how Muslims should all look to the Holy Bible as the most scientific, truthful, and authentic scripture ever, you and other Muslims would be noticing the obvious link between who they are working for and what they are saying.

good excuse not to watch it.

 

[Yytz6]

But the moon is not split.

It was full moon and they saw one half of the moon on one side and people coming from the other direction saw the other half, making your objection irrelevant.

 

[dzheremi]

good excuse not to watch it.

Or good excuse to know that before watching it, so that there is not uncritical starry-eyed acceptance of anything someone says just because he's a doctor (as though being a gastroenterologist makes him somehow uniquely qualified to discuss religious matters).

Just because many Muslims (or for that matter many Christians) may uncritically accept anything a person says that seems to be in favor of their religion doesn't make whatever the person is saying correct, and one should be doubly suspicious of those who seem to have dubious motivations or benefactors, as was the case with Dr. Bucaille.

 

[mindlight]

It was full moon and they saw one half of the moon on one side and people coming from the other direction saw the other half, making your objection irrelevant.

so no wonder then, the moon remains in tact

 

[Barney2.0]

I was going to make my entrance into this thread earlier, but I’m finding it quite irritating that we’re not even getting informed Mohammadans on this site anymore. So I don’t see the point in personally arguing with any of the ones here or on this particular thread as I did previously. Also as for Dr. Maurice Bucaille his conversion to Islam was regarded as a fraud even by Muslims, many even accused him of still being Christian after he conversion, muslims after all debunked his conversion story and the “scientific miracle” of the Quranic story of the Pharaoh, not us Christians. Anyone who knows Arabic can refer to the following two videos of his conversion to Islam being debunked by an Islamic researcher not by a Christian or an Atheist, just a Muslim who did his homework:

 

[dzheremi]

I wasn't aware that the Muslims or anyone ever claimed Dr. Bucaille actually converted to Islam. That's interesting. Not terribly surprising, though, given the sheer volume of fake "conversion stories" there are perpetuated by Muslims (it is probably not possible to know them all, even if anyone wanted to). The only time I ever see Dr. Bucaille brought up by Muslims is as an example of a "learned man" who came to understand how true the Islamic claims are (not that he converted), I suppose to imply that everyone who is or wants to be learned should come to the same conclusion. And the only time I ever see him brought up by non-Muslims is as an example of how easy it is to become a useful idiot for Islamic apologetics when you're within the sphere of influence of powerful, rich Muslims like the Saudi royal family or the Egyptian president.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That is not a biblical understanding of a prophet

The biblical view is that a prophet is one who proclaims, one who forth-tells. Making predictions about the future and/or performing miracles are not requisite criteria for a prophet in the biblical model. The ancient prophets of Israel had a ministry of preaching, proclaiming, bringing God's word to the people. Some prophets, most famously Elijah, performed miracles, but that isn't a hallmark of a prophet. Likewise, while warning of future judgment, and promises of future redemption are common themes in the work of the prophets, these were part of the larger mission of bearing and proclaiming God's word to the people. The warnings of future judgment weren't simple foretelling, but were to direct the people to repentance; likewise the promises of future redemption were to remind the people of God's faithfulness in the midst of present adversity and tribulation.

A biblical prophet was someone who, by God's authority, spoke on God's behalf.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Barney2.0]

I wasn't aware that the Muslims or anyone ever claimed Dr. Bucaille actually converted to Islam. That's interesting. Not terribly surprising, though, given the sheer volume of fake "conversion stories" there are perpetuated by Muslims (it is probably not possible to know them all, even if anyone wanted to). The only time I ever see Dr. Bucaille brought up by Muslims is as an example of a "learned man" who came to understand how true the Islamic claims are (not that he converted), I suppose to imply that everyone who is or wants to be learned should come to the same conclusion. And the only time I ever see him brought up by non-Muslims is as an example of how easy it is to become a useful idiot for Islamic apologetics when you're within the sphere of influence of powerful, rich Muslims like the Saudi royal family or the Egyptian president.

I’m surprised you didn’t hear the conversion to Islam claim as well in regard to Dr.Bucaille. I guess it’s more common among the Arabic Islamic community, then the non Arab Muslims, as if you watch Islamic apologetics in Arabic which is worse and more primitive, then the ones you see in the English speaking world, you’d see his conversion story brought up to prove Mohammadanism is somehow true.

 

[dzheremi]

Yeah, it makes sense that they would claim that given his writings, I just hadn't heard of it. I don't make a habit of watching Islamic apologetics regardless of language, but I have noticed what you say about Arabic-language apologetics (they are usually a lot cruder/worse), so I do try to avoid them. They're bad enough as it is in English!

 

[mindlight]

The biblical view is that a prophet is one who proclaims, one who forth-tells. Making predictions about the future and/or performing miracles are not requisite criteria for a prophet in the biblical model. The ancient prophets of Israel had a ministry of preaching, proclaiming, bringing God's word to the people. Some prophets, most famously Elijah, performed miracles, but that isn't a hallmark of a prophet. Likewise, while warning of future judgment, and promises of future redemption are common themes in the work of the prophets, these were part of the larger mission of bearing and proclaiming God's word to the people. The warnings of future judgment weren't simple foretelling, but were to direct the people to repentance; likewise the promises of future redemption were to remind the people of God's faithfulness in the midst of present adversity and tribulation.

A biblical prophet was someone who, by God's authority, spoke on God's behalf.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes biblical prophets are not mere fortune tellers.

No that there is not element of prediction in all the major ones.

Elijah said the rain was coming after Mount Carmel.

Before Elijah was taken the community of prophets all knew he was going

Isaiah prophesied virgin birth, incarnation ( Emmanuel), suffering servant nature of Jesus ministry including death and resurrection.

Jeremiah prophesied fall of Jerusalem when the false prophets denied it.

John the Baptist prophesied Messiah who came in his lifetime

NT prophets predicted famines

 

[Limo]

As usual, very funny Christians.
You started first claiming that they guy was paid by Saudis and Sadat, then you claimed he's a Moslem and his testimony is rejected, no no no he isn't Moslem although some moslems claimed that he's Moslem.
You create the claims and you've rejected.
N one have discussed the subject but anything other that the subject.

I didn't claim that he's a Moslem, being a Christian is more benficery and makes his opinion mor creditable

The christian guy has said a few points that need your response:
- priest told him relegions is something but science is something else
- the time for humans on Earth in gospels contradicts fully with science
- he found no contradiction at all between Quran and science (counted about 125 scientific signs)
- he gave an example of "Haman" who was an engineer. His nam is in Quran only but known after world's resolves the heroglific writings since 3 centuries only.

His book is full of comparisons between Torah, gospels, and Quran. Only Quran is compliant with science

Regardless of his attributes, can you debate his ideas ?

 

[dzheremi]

As usual, very funny Christians.
You started first claiming that they guy was paid by Saudis and Sadat, then you claimed he's a Moslem and his testimony is rejected, no no no he isn't Moslem although some moslems claimed that he's Moslem.
You create the claims and you've rejected.
N one have discussed the subject but anything other that the subject.

The 'subject' is that he makes a lot of claims about the Qur'an and Islam and their relation to science that we're presumably supposed to take seriously because he is a gastroenterologist. We do not take those claims seriously (being a gastroenterologist does not qualify anyone to say anything about any religion or its texts and their relation to science), and furthermore note that they are obviously motivated by the environment in which he made them.

I didn't claim that he's a Moslem, being a Christian is more benficery and makes his opinion mor creditable

Hahaha. How does being a Christian make his opinion more credible? He's wrong because of his ridiculous claims, not because of his religious identity.

You have to understand, Muslims, that the Christian does not have the view that your Qur'an tells us we should all have, thinking of ourselves as an 'ummah' (of sorts), where whenever one of 'our people' says something, we automatically take it more seriously/credibly than if someone else said it. No. There is more division in Christianity than there is in Islam, so perhaps this is difficult for you to understand, but when a Christian says something -- either here or anywhere else -- I first look not at his or her religious identity, but at the degree to which what they say conforms with the faith of the Orthodox fathers (as I myself am Orthodox) and the Holy Scriptures, and if it doesn't, I reject it. It is on that base alone that anyone is judged, including myself. And there is no tradition in Christianity of venerating Muhammad or treating his book as miracle or any of this Islamic nonsense, so of course this French doctor saying this or that means nothing, since his points are against what we have been given. All of our saints reject your religion and its book, because we all know the command to not accept any other gospel than that which has been preached to us, even if it should come from an angel from heaven.

The christian guy has said a few points that need your response:
- priest told him relegions is something but science is something else
- the time for humans on Earth in gospels contradicts fully with science
- he found no contradiction at all between Quran and science (counted about 125 scientific signs)
- he gave an example of "Haman" who was an engineer. His nam is in Quran only but known after world's resolves the heroglific writings since 3 centuries only.

These are all nonsense. Does everyone need to waste their time 'debunking' obvious junk from decades ago just because it exists? I could find a dozen videos from Evangelical and other Christians claiming that "Allah" is a moon god or otherwise god of the pagans, but I don't bother with such nonsense because I know better. (I know what Allah means, and we pray to Allah every time we pray in Arabic in Church, since the 13th century when Arabic was added to the readings during the reign of HH Pope Gabriel II.) In the same way, I know better than to waste my time with this low-quality apologetic.

His book is full of comparisons between Torah, gospels, and Quran. Only Quran is compliant with science

Anyone can write a book that claims anything. The scientific errors in the Qur'an are well known and not refutable (as obviously the text of the Qur'an is not updated to match modern knowledge), regardless of whether or not any Muslim will accept them. Should I find a Youtube video about it, and then charge you "You have to refute every one of these, or else ___"? (Something will happen, I guess?)

I could easily do it, but it would be a waste of time. You don't even care that your book is false, because you can turn to useful idiots like Dr. Bucaille who will tell you otherwise, because that is what is best for them at the time.

Regardless of his attributes, can you debate his ideas ?

Sure, but is this a good use of anyone's time? "All things are allowed, but not all things edify." (1 Corinthians 10:23)

 

[Limo]

The 'subject' is that he makes a lot of claims about the Qur'an and Islam and their relation to science that we're presumably supposed to take seriously because he is a gastroenterologist. We do not take those claims seriously (being a gastroenterologist does not qualify anyone to say anything about any religion or its texts and their relation to science), and furthermore note that they are obviously motivated by the environment in which he made them.



Hahaha. How does being a Christian make his opinion more credible? He's wrong because of his ridiculous claims, not because of his religious identity.

You have to understand, Muslims, that the Christian does not have the view that your Qur'an tells us we should all have, thinking of ourselves as an 'ummah' (of sorts), where whenever one of 'our people' says something, we automatically take it more seriously/credibly than if someone else said it. No. There is more division in Christianity than there is in Islam, so perhaps this is difficult for you to understand, but when a Christian says something -- either here or anywhere else -- I first look not at his or her religious identity, but at the degree to which what they say conforms with the faith of the Orthodox fathers (as I myself am Orthodox) and the Holy Scriptures, and if it doesn't, I reject it. It is on that base alone that anyone is judged, including myself. And there is no tradition in Christianity of venerating Muhammad or treating his book as miracle or any of this Islamic nonsense, so of course this French doctor saying this or that means nothing, since his points are against what we have been given. All of our saints reject your religion and its book, because we all know the command to not accept any other gospel than that which has been preached to us, even if it should come from an angel from heaven.



These are all nonsense. Does everyone need to waste their time 'debunking' obvious junk from decades ago just because it exists? I could find a dozen videos from Evangelical and other Christians claiming that "Allah" is a moon god or otherwise god of the pagans, but I don't bother with such nonsense because I know better. (I know what Allah means, and we pray to Allah every time we pray in Arabic in Church, since the 13th century when Arabic was added to the readings during the reign of HH Pope Gabriel II.) In the same way, I know better than to waste my time with this low-quality apologetic.



Anyone can write a book that claims anything. The scientific errors in the Qur'an are well known and not refutable (as obviously the text of the Qur'an is not updated to match modern knowledge), regardless of whether or not any Muslim will accept them. Should I find a Youtube video about it, and then charge you "You have to refute every one of these, or else ___"? (Something will happen, I guess?)

I could easily do it, but it would be a waste of time. You don't even care that your book is false, because you can turn to useful idiots like Dr. Bucaille who will tell you otherwise, because that is what is best for them at the time.



Sure, but is this a good use of anyone's time? "All things are allowed, but not all things edify." (1 Corinthians 10:23)

No discussion of the ideas because
he's gastroenterologist and he's Christian ..... And because it's waste of time....
And because internet is full of videos...

What a logic ?

 

[dzheremi]

No discussion of the ideas because they're ridiculously stupid and wrong and have been debunked a million times by now. You just don't recognize it because you believe in such weak apologetics, and want us all to believe in it too.

WikiIslam on "Bucailleism" (the cult of pseudo-apologetics around Bucaille's writings in the Muslim community)

There. There's one of a million answers to this stupidity.

 

[Limo]

No discussion of the ideas because they're ridiculously stupid and wrong and have been debunked a million times by now. You just don't recognize it because you believe in such weak apologetics, and want us all to believe in it too.

WikiIslam on "Bucailleism" (the cult of pseudo-apologetics around Bucaille's writings in the Muslim community)

There. There's one of a million answers to this stupidity.

Nice
Let's go back to the original post

 

[Limo]

Muhammed performed no wonders, made no predictive prophecies and told those who asked for such things he was only sent to warn. On occasions e.g. with the Satanic verses he repeated the words of Satan, though he later repented of these words affirming various Meccan idols.

So why do Muslims regard him as a prophet? That is not even something he claimed for himself

"And they say: Why are not signs sent down upon him from his Lord? Say: The signs are only with Allah, and I am only a plain warner." (Sura 29:50)

Also if he was a prophet how come his testimony contradicts that of the other prophets that came before him and indeed historical fact. He claims Jesus did not die on a cross but all scripture and indeed a great many other commentators can testify to this. He gives testimony that Gabriel told him that Jesus was not the Son of God when the previous testimony affirms that he was indeed Emmanuel (God with us) born of a virgin.

Which Prophet's told that Jesus is crucifixed ?

 

[Yytz6]

NT prophets predicted famines

I'm not an expert, but I'd think ordinary people could have predicted famines... At some point at least.

 

[mindlight]

Which Prophet's told that Jesus is crucifixed ?

“He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter…” (Isa. 53:7).

“Surely He has borne our infirmities, and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions; He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we ourselves are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned each one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all…. Yet the LORD willed to crush Him and He has put Him to grief: You shall make His life an offering for sin. He shall see His seed; He shall prolong His days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper in His hand. He shall see of the travail of His soul. He shall be fully satisfied. By His knowledge shall My righteous Servant justify many; and He shall bear their iniquities” (Isa. 53:4-6, 10-11).

“Dogs have surrounded Me; a band of evildoers have encircled me; they have pierced My hands and My feet…” (Psa. 22:16).

“And they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced…” (Zech. 12:10).