Islam Why call Muhammad a prophet?

[Limo]

The verses are there in the list i gave regarding Mosaic examples referring to the manner and meaning of Christs cruicifixion. Basically the details of Christs cruicifixion are anticipated and the patterns and themes of sacrifice are articulated in the cross. No such anticipation in scriptures exists for Muhammad. He fulfils no patterns and no details are predicted.

It is not written in the format of the messiah will be cruicified like x and y. There are various odd phrases in the OT and patterns of understanding in the OT which the cross makes sense of proving the original prophetic inspiration of Moses and Isaiah and the other prophets. The fact is the life of Christ animates and explains the revelations that came before him and demonstrates their prophetic quality. As with Zechariah he enters Jerusalem on a donkey. At the cross his hands pierced but not a bone in his body is broken. Detail after detail, pattern after pattern is there in the OT anticipating his life

Clear

It means nothing is in old testimony about "Messiah+crucifixion" in one context.

It's something like special interpretation of Pauline Christianity.

 

[dzheremi]

Clear

It means nothing is in old testimony about "Messiah+crucifixion" in one context.

It's something like special interpretation of Pauline Christianity.

And Markian Christianity, and Johanine Christianity, and Petrine Christianity, and Matthaean Christianity, etc.

Just because you can make up some stupid term for it doesn't mean you have a good point.

 

[mindlight]

Clear

It means nothing is in old testimony about "Messiah+crucifixion" in one context.

It's something like special interpretation of Pauline Christianity.

You paint this false picture of a retrospective Pauline theological fabrication of the cruicifixion story. But the whole bible Old and New Testaments points to the cross and gives details and patterns of understanding related to it. All the 4 gospel writers give accounts of cruicifixion. Each account articulating OT details and patterns. The prophetic anticipation of the cross and the ways in which it expressed numerous OT patterns is missing in your understanding. But then this prophetic anticipation and expression of Gods will ,articulated before the event ,in Islam ,is completely missing. So maybe you just do not understand the concept.

 

[Limo]

You paint this false picture of a retrospective Pauline theological fabrication of the cruicifixion story. But the whole bible Old and New Testaments points to the cross and gives details and patterns of understanding related to it. All the 4 gospel writers give accounts of cruicifixion. Each account articulating OT details and patterns. The prophetic anticipation of the cross and the ways in which it expressed numerous OT patterns is missing in your understanding. But then this prophetic anticipation and expression of Gods will ,articulated before the event ,in Islam ,is completely missing. So maybe you just do not understand the concept.

Forget about the term Pauline Christianity

My question is do you've anything in old testimony about Messiah+crucifixion in one context ?

 

[mindlight]

Forget about the term Pauline Christianity

My question is do you've anything in old testimony about Messiah+crucifixion in one context ?

We are in a bit of a loop here.

If you understand "The suffering servant" to be Jesus and the people of Israel as only a foretaste of him as I and all the NT writers did then the whole of Isaiah 52:13-53:12. refers to the Messiah and describes the events of the crucifixion.

But also Zechariah 12:10

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication, and they will look upon Me, the One whom they have pierced, and they will mourn for Him, as One mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over Him as one weeps over a firstborn."

Detail after detail and pattern after pattern of his life are anticipated in the OT. This is not the same with Islam which has no anticipation in the scriptures.

For example the name that Isaiah shared in the context of a "Virgin will be with child" also directly refers to the Messiah.

Immanuel means "God with us"

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14

There are 40 more prophecies here in this link

Top 40 Most Helpful Messianic Prophecies • Jews for Jesus

 

[Deus Vult!]

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.

No idea. I have asked muslims much the same and I tell you they always pivot away from such scrutiny of their "prophet".
I will tell you the only prophecy that he foretold was concerning that of his own death... not that he knew when, where, or how it was going to occur though... muhammad is quoted as having said in the quran that if he were a false prophet that his punishment would be death by the severing of his aorta.
Here is the quote from the quran:

And if he (Muhammad ) had forged a false saying concerning Us (Allah), We surely should have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might), And then certainly should have cut off his life artery (Aorta), (Quran 69:44-46, Muhsin Khan)

Then, wouldnt you know it, what do you find in nearly all of the accounts regarding Muhammad's death? You read this:
By the way, quick note these are from the "Hadith", they are the recorded sayings and acts of muhammad by those that knew him. Hadiths are graded. The best grade for a Hadith is "Sahih".
"Sahih" (meaning "authentic"- if a Hadith is Sahih muslims are obliged to accept it as valid and truthful.)
Enjoy.

….Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, “O ‘Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.” (Sahih Bukhari 5:59:713)

Sahih al-Bukhari 4428 - The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O Aishah! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison".

Sunan Abu Dawud 4449 - Umm Bishr [Bishe mother] said to the Prophet during the sickness of which he died: What do you think about your illness, Apostle of Allah? I do not think about the illness of my son except the poisoned sheep of which he had eaten with you at Khaibar. The Prophet said: And I do not think about my illness except that, this is the time when it cut off my aorta.

These are all Sahih, all record the same event pretty unanimously, and oddly enough is probably like the one event that is the most clear amongst all the crazy claims of the muhammadans. And they cannot seem to connect the dots on this. Namely that muhammad was a flase prophet given the curse he himself placed on himself should he be a false prophet.

 

[mindlight]

No idea. I have asked muslims much the same and I tell you they always pivot away from such scrutiny of their "prophet".
I will tell you the only prophecy that he foretold was concerning that of his own death... not that he knew when, where, or how it was going to occur though... muhammad is quoted as having said in the quran that if he were a false prophet that his punishment would be death by the severing of his aorta.
Here is the quote from the quran:

And if he (Muhammad ) had forged a false saying concerning Us (Allah), We surely should have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might), And then certainly should have cut off his life artery (Aorta), (Quran 69:44-46, Muhsin Khan)

Then, wouldnt you know it, what do you find in nearly all of the accounts regarding Muhammad's death? You read this:
By the way, quick note these are from the "Hadith", they are the recorded sayings and acts of muhammad by those that knew him. Hadiths are graded. The best grade for a Hadith is "Sahih".
"Sahih" (meaning "authentic"- if a Hadith is Sahih muslims are obliged to accept it as valid and truthful.)
Enjoy.

….Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, “O ‘Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.” (Sahih Bukhari 5:59:713)

Sahih al-Bukhari 4428 - The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O Aishah! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison".

Sunan Abu Dawud 4449 - Umm Bishr [Bishe mother] said to the Prophet during the sickness of which he died: What do you think about your illness, Apostle of Allah? I do not think about the illness of my son except the poisoned sheep of which he had eaten with you at Khaibar. The Prophet said: And I do not think about my illness except that, this is the time when it cut off my aorta.

These are all Sahih, all record the same event pretty unanimously, and oddly enough is probably like the one event that is the most clear amongst all the crazy claims of the muhammadans. And they cannot seem to connect the dots on this. Namely that muhammad was a flase prophet given the curse he himself placed on himself should he be a false prophet.

Interesting find. It is curious to me why Muslims have apparently accepted as Sahih ahadith which indicate that Muhammads only prophecy to come true was one that seemed to confirm he never spoke Gods words as warned in Quran 69:44-46

 

[Rescued One]

Islam is similar to Mormonism in that they are sort of Restorationists in their beliefs. Someone may correct me, but they say the Qur'an fixes the tampered and distortions of the Scriptures, and gives the essential message that they believe was lost through corrupt men who possessed the Scriptures, but was yet preached by the former prophets (including Isa or Jesus). The message of Islam. So they read the Scriptures through the lens of the Qur'an.

Excellent comparison!

 

[Deus Vult!]

Interesting find. It is curious to me why Muslims have apparently accepted as Sahih ahadith which indicate that Muhammads only prophecy to come true was one that seemed to confirm he never spoke Gods words as warned in Quran 69:44-46

I know... the rabbit hole goes deeper!
Check out on youtube a Christian apologist to the muslims, his name is "Christian Prince". He accepts muslims to call him via Skype on air and it is pretty hillarious how he shows them how rediculous their beliefs are. Chrisrian prince has a bachelor'degree in islamic law as well as other degrees in other fields. You never see his face but you watch his screen and he references everything. Backs up everything he says with the Islamic references themselves.

 

[Limo]

We are in a bit of a loop here.

If you understand "The suffering servant" to be Jesus and the people of Israel as only a foretaste of him as I and all the NT writers did then the whole of Isaiah 52:13-53:12. refers to the Messiah and describes the events of the crucifixion.

But also Zechariah 12:10

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication, and they will look upon Me, the One whom they have pierced, and they will mourn for Him, as One mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over Him as one weeps over a firstborn."

Detail after detail and pattern after pattern of his life are anticipated in the OT. This is not the same with Islam which has no anticipation in the scriptures.

For example the name that Isaiah shared in the context of a "Virgin will be with child" also directly refers to the Messiah.

Immanuel means "God with us"

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14

There are 40 more prophecies here in this link

Top 40 Most Helpful Messianic Prophecies • Jews for Jesus

Isiah is talking in past about israiltes suffering not about the Messiah.
The other verses are without debate about the Messiah.

As you've said we're circulating in loops.
As I see nothing in old testimony about crucifixed Messiah in one context.
Why blame Prophet Mohamed for denying crucifixion of the Messiah which never told by any prophet?
Regards

 

[Deus Vult!]

Isiah is talking in past about israiltes suffering not about the Messiah.
The other verses are without debate about the Messiah.

As you've said we're circulating in loops.
As I see nothing in old testimony about crucifixed Messiah in one context.
Why blame Prophet Mohamed for denying crucifixion of the Messiah which never told by any prophet?
Regards

Wisdom of Solomon (2:12-20)

12 Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our education.

13 He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord.

14 He was made to reprove our thoughts.

15 He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, his ways are of another fashion.

16 We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father.

17 Let us see if his words be true: and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him.

18 For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies.

19 Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience.

20 Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected.

* Side Note: Something does not need to be foretold by a Prophet to be true anyway. Muhammad is not to blame because he denied the crucifixion out of anything in the Old Testament Prophets, he is to blame because he denies the truth of Jesus' crucifixion period. The crucifixion of Jesus is as historical of a fact as you can get. It happened. It is the truth.
But that alone is not where Christians really have a merit in their faith anyway, it is the faith that Jesus rose from the dead after He was crucified that merits the faith of the Christian. That he died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, AND that He was raised from the dead on the third day in fulfillment of the Scriptures...

1 Corinthians 15:3-4
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures

Peace of Christ to you friend +

 

[Limo]

Wisdom of Solomon (2:12-20)

12 Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn, and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our education.

13 He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord.

14 He was made to reprove our thoughts.

15 He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, his ways are of another fashion.

16 We are esteemed of him as counterfeits: he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness: he pronounceth the end of the just to be blessed, and maketh his boast that God is his father.

17 Let us see if his words be true: and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him.

18 For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies.

19 Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience.

20 Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected.

* Side Note: Something does not need to be foretold by a Prophet to be true anyway. Muhammad is not to blame because he denied the crucifixion out of anything in the Old Testament Prophets, he is to blame because he denies the truth of Jesus' crucifixion period. The crucifixion of Jesus is as historical of a fact as you can get. It happened. It is the truth.
But that alone is not where Christians really have a merit in their faith anyway, it is the faith that Jesus rose from the dead after He was crucified that merits the faith of the Christian. That he died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, AND that He was raised from the dead on the third day in fulfillment of the Scriptures...

1 Corinthians 15:3-4
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures

Peace of Christ to you friend +

A few notes:
- crucifixion is not historical fact as you've said. İt's theological not historical. İt's no t there other than canonical (from denomination churches only)
- Almasseh is not the only "son of God" according to old testimony. Ibrahim, Yaqoob, İshaq, Dawood,,, and many Prophets are attributed as son of God in Old testimony
- not only Prophet Mohammed denied the crucifixion, resurrection, and salvations but also all Prophets including Almasseh himself
Regards

 

[dzheremi]

A few notes:
- crucifixion is not historical fact as you've said. İt's theological not historical. İt's no t there other than canonical (from denomination churches only)
- Almasseh is not the only "son of God" according to old testimony. Ibrahim, Yaqoob, İshaq, Dawood,,, and many Prophets are attributed as son of God in Old testimony
- not only Prophet Mohammed denied the crucifixion, resurrection, and salvations but also all Prophets including Almasseh himself
Regards

Please answer this:

Your Qur'an may not report that He was crucified, but it does report that the Jews boasted that they had done so (incorrectly). If this is so, then why did they do that to Him, but not do that to Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, David or any other prophet that you can mention?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Islamic prophetology teaches that these all taught Islam in at least some form (like the billboard in my old city of Albuquerque which advertised Islam as "the religion of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus"), so it is strange that the Jews would boast in killing one specifically as though one was markedly different than the others in what He taught, when Islam itself does not say that, but instead the opposite.

Can you explain this? Can you explain why the Jews were apparently so interested in killing Jesus in particular, whether they did so by crucifixion or not? (And clearly some thought they had...) There is no such dialogue that I am aware of in any Islamic sources about them boasting over the killing of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Nehemiah, etc.

Either the Qur'an and Islam are not consistent on this point, or just didn't give the full story. Please tell us what parts of the story are missing, only from Sahih hadith, please (since that is the majority of the Islamic world's standard, we should like to keep to it to avoid charges of using weak or unreliable sources).

 

[Limo]

Please answer this:

Your Qur'an may not report that He was crucified, but it does report that the Jews boasted that they had done so (incorrectly). If this is so, then why did they do that to Him, but not do that to Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, David or any other prophet that you can mention?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Islamic prophetology teaches that these all taught Islam in at least some form (like the billboard in my old city of Albuquerque which advertised Islam as "the religion of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus"), so it is strange that the Jews would boast in killing one specifically as though one was markedly different than the others in what He taught, when Islam itself does not say that, but instead the opposite.

Can you explain this? Can you explain why the Jews were apparently so interested in killing Jesus in particular, whether they did so by crucifixion or not? (And clearly some thought they had...) There is no such dialogue that I am aware of in any Islamic sources about them boasting over the killing of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Nehemiah, etc.

Either the Qur'an and Islam are not consistent on this point, or just didn't give the full story. Please tell us what parts of the story are missing, only from Sahih hadith, please (since that is the majority of the Islamic world's standard, we should like to keep to it to avoid charges of using weak or unreliable sources).

Mmmm, instead of providing evidences from Prophet's, you ask questions about Islam.

The answer to all your questions is simple, Jews killed some Prophets as well.

 

[dzheremi]

You brought up the crucifixion as something that all the prophets supposedly denied, so it is fair play to ask about Islam's/the Quran's obviously nonsensical stance on this matter. If you don't want to have to answer questions that you clearly cannot answer, maybe you shouldn't bring these things up in the first place.

It's not our job to make your religion make sense. We already have the evidence of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ contained in our own tradition, which is obviously at variance with your own, so there's no point in arguing about that, since everything will be met with "the Qur'an says otherwise", so I'm cutting the chase and asking about what the Qur'an says and why.

And I note that you can't really answer it. "Jews killed some prophets as well" is not an answer to why they supposedly rejoiced over the killing of "the Messiah" (odd, since Jews don't think Jesus is the Messiah; I guess the author of the Qur'an didn't know the basics of Judaism any better than he did those of Christianity) if there really is no difference between him and any of the past prophets they supposedly killed.

I'd like an actual answer, not a throw away line that says nothing and doesn't even show that you actually read the question.

 

[Godistruth1]

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.

Jesus as per Bible performed no wonders, made no predictive prophecies and told those who asked for such things he was only sent to warn....

 

[mindlight]

Jesus as per Bible performed no wonders, made no predictive prophecies and told those who asked for such things he was only sent to warn....

Asserting lies does not make them true. Examples of Jesus wonders and predictions have been shared in this thread.

 

[Lybrah]

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.

They are deceived and so was he. Muhammad was the "deceived deceiver." He believed he was a prophet. When he couldn't get anyone to convert to his new religion, he started incorporating elements of Judaism and Christianity to make it more attractive to the clans of Jews and/or Christians nearby. (I learned this from a book written by an ex-Muslim).
After a while, he sent his troops and conquered land for "Allah" and forced conversion on people. This still happens today, just not in the West.
The crusades were about preventing the spread and force of Islam on Europe as well as taking back the Holy Land of Jerusalem.
Other than the Spanish Inquisition, I don't recall any other degree of force upon people to convert to Christianity. Even in England when it was Protestant against Catholic, people were still basically worshipping the same God, but in different ways.
If you point this out today you will be accused of "hate speech," even if you talk about facts like the history of Islam and it's violence. Satan is rampant today and I believe that Allah is Satan, so of course, the prince of this world wants everyone to leave his religion alone and believe it is peaceful while believing Christianity is hateful. Never mind that Muslims do not approve of homosexuality at all, and women are severely persecuted and oppressed under its rule. But no, apparently in the USA, the freest and less oppressive country in the world, women are "oppressed."
A man named Steven Crowder did an experiment where he posed as a gay guy going into Muslim bakeries to order a gay wedding cake. They ALL SAID NO! They told him to go to the other Muslim bakeries across the street, where the answer was "No, I don't like that." But outrage on the US Left is selective. If the owners are Christians, lawyer up and ruin their lives. Everyone else,...crickets. This so-called "Equality Act" is really the "Punish Christians Act" because gay people ALREADY have the rights outlined in it. It ALREADY is against the law to discriminate against people's sexual preferences in the workplace.
Amazing though, how ex-Muslim authors who escaped from Islam in the Middle East are booed off stage when they try to tell women and people at rallies what Islam is really all about. These people lived it!

 

[Yytz6]

The first people the crusaders slaughtered were Jews.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The first people the crusaders slaughtered were Jews.

I'm curious as to the relevance of this statement. What are you trying to say?