Would the prophet Mohammed been offended by the Charlie Hebdo satire?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: WarminIndy

If I say "I was a Christian"...
That means I'm not now...


Was implies that he isn't our Prophet now!



I'm done with you, you're clutching at straws & your logic is flawed!

So he prophecies NOW?

That's your shahada. Either he IS or he WAS. He can't be both if he is just a man.

Moses WAS the prophet to the Israelites, Paul WAS an apostle to the Gentiles and Jesus IS the savior NOW. But Mohammed, can't be is and was at the same time. You aren't done with me, you are trying to avoid the obvious answer.

So do you testify Mohammed is still alive and still the messenger now? Then Mohammed would be eternal, and if you say he is eternal then you are saying he is Allah, because you believe only Allah is eternal.

Not sure what Mohammed would because I have not gotten any good indication if he was a blessed one or a fallen one when he lived and what have happened after he died. But then if I want to listen to a known blessed one connected to Islam then I would listen to the poetry of Rumi. I have not heard any corruption in his words.

Beautiful Sufi. The light shines thru.

What Would Mohammad Do (WWMD)

He'd be angry at France and launch several WMDs..

a reply to: OpinionatedB

Did Jesus tell you that "Israel"?

The reason against making images of the Prophet was to avoid what humans do way too often in religions. The symbol or relic becomes the God and people focus on it versus God and the message. He understood he needed to keep himself out of that trap.

I am guessing he would not have liked it but would not have thought too much about it. In his day, a cartoon would have been pretty weak sauce.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: OpinionatedB

Did Jesus tell you that "Israel"?

And did Allah tell you Mohammed is still the messenger?

Where is Mohammed? Oh yes, buried in the sand and the goat ate the pages of the Quran. If the Hadiths are true then that's very funny that the goat ate the pages.

Tell OpinionatedB that you said Allah speaks to you. I am sure that's funny too, as Allah didn't even speak to Mohammed. Why you? Are you better than Mohammed that Allah would speak directly to you and not him?

Please, you are obviously avoiding the answer because you know I'm right.

originally posted by: ABNARTY
The reason against making images of the Prophet was to avoid what humans do way too often in religions. The symbol or relic becomes the God and people focus on it versus God and the message. He understood he needed to keep himself out of that trap.

I am guessing he would not have liked it but would not have thought too much about it. In his day, a cartoon would have been pretty weak sauce.

um, yeah.

That's why the angel actually gave to Mohammed a picture of Aisha. That kind of goes against his teaching, wouldn't you say?

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

He is the false prophet. Of course he would be angry.

Agree,

The guy's gut told him that he was speaking to a demon. He should have went with his first instinct.

From the mouth of the serpent, "institutional religion breeds insecurity of self. The inequity of illusory authority to that of power of self begets the violence of humanity".

Yeah, I quoted myself.

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

He is the false prophet. Of course he would be angry.

Agree,

The guy's gut told him that he was speaking to a demon. He should have went with his first instinct.

Exactly, thank you.

It was Aisha who said Mohammed said Khadijah said it, and Aisha was born after Khadijah died, so Aisha didn't hear it from Khadijah, just Mohammed telling her that Khadijah said it.

Seems he had a little trouble remembering whom he told what. Yes, a demon beat him up and then he went and cried under his pillow like a little girl.

Then he goes out again, still sniffling like a little girl, says "Look, there it is again, the one that beat me up in the cave". To which Khadijah replied "there, there, my boytoy, it's not a mean old demon, that's just Jibreel" even though Khadijah couldn't see it herself. But she died long before Aisha ever came on the scene, but it was Aisha who said Khadijah said it.

Funny thing there, neither women saw it and Aisha was repeating hearsay.

originally posted by: mnemonicmania
From the mouth of the serpent, "institutional religion breeds insecurity of self. The inequity of illusory authority to that of power of self begets the violence of humanity".

Yeah, I quoted myself.

And there was never violence where there was no institutional religion?

Institutional religion has been around for a very loooooong time. Even the Mayans had institutionalized religion.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Muhammad’s Demon: He Originally Thought He Was Possessed

kjvbiblebeliever.wordpress.com...

Muhammad The False Prophet As a result of these and other “visions”, Muhammad would tell his hearers that they should junk their idols (as he did in Mecca) and the God of the Bible (as he did in Yathrib) and follow only Allah. Ironically, the TRUE prophet called Moses warned of men like Muhammad who would come on the scene to deceive people. Moses said, “If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deuteronomy 13:1-3, kjv) Muhammad flunked the test.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I'd argue that there was less, absolutely, that is if we define "institutionalized religion" as edict from greater authority of which is executed by officials. Of course we as humans war. We always will, my opinion lays in the idea that we might war less. Am I splitting hairs? Probably, but I'd say the same thing twice if asked in different words.

originally posted by: mnemonicmania
a reply to: WarminIndy

I'd argue that there was less, absolutely, that is if we define "institutionalized religion" as edict from greater authority of which is executed by officials. Of course we as humans war. We always will, my opinion lays in the idea that we might war less. Am I splitting hairs? Probably, but I'd say the same thing twice if asked in different words.

War is a man thing, I think. Unless you count Amazons, I don't know.

I can't imagine starting a war, but then again I am a pacifist female.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: WarminIndy

Muhammad’s Demon: He Originally Thought He Was Possessed

kjvbiblebeliever.wordpress.com...

Muhammad The False Prophet As a result of these and other “visions”, Muhammad would tell his hearers that they should junk their idols (as he did in Mecca) and the God of the Bible (as he did in Yathrib) and follow only Allah. Ironically, the TRUE prophet called Moses warned of men like Muhammad who would come on the scene to deceive people. Moses said, “If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deuteronomy 13:1-3, kjv) Muhammad flunked the test.

Yes, I don't know this Allah so I'm not going to follow whatever this Allah is supposed to be. Just like Ba'al, I recognize Ba'al in some churches and really that is foreign to me as well.

Unless it quacks, waddles and eats bread crumbs like the God of the Bible, I'm going to say it's a strange version of a wannabe duck.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I think it is a human thing, lest our literary barbs were loosed over something more substantial than a few words of text. I was always fascinated by the concept of "Original Sin"... Of course in my youth I was told that we had all been born in sin, by Eve eating the fruit of knowledge (a stupid story if you ask me) without much context or explanation. This sentiment is largely all that remains of my religious up bring. The fact that all people, when given authority over another being, will abuse the power of which they took, and also believe was granted.

originally posted by: mnemonicmania
a reply to: WarminIndy

I think it is a human thing, lest our literary barbs were loosed over something more substantial than a few words of text. I was always fascinated by the concept of "Original Sin"... Of course in my youth I was told that we had all been born in sin, by Eve eating the fruit of knowledge (a stupid story if you ask me) without much context or explanation. This sentiment is largely all that remains of my religious up bring. The fact that all people, when given authority over another being, will abuse the power of which they took, and also believe was granted.

I must be strange, I don't like to exert authority and neither do I wish it. That job is above my pay grade.

But yes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The only thing I have quasi-authority over is my dog, and he barely listens to me.

a reply to: infolurker

.

And where did Robert Payne get this information from?


I see a lot of words backed up by no sources.


In fact the only reference to Muhammad being possessed comes from Robert Payne... Of the 20th Century!


Very reliable!

a reply to: WarminIndy

Not strange, there isn't really such a thing. You have hands and and able body? I think those things give an innate power, not to estrange those that do not possess the afformentioned. I believe that religion is an intellectual pursuit that is largely misinterpreted. In most religions, humanity gives away their tools and their power, to a thing that satisfies their deepest quandaries. Almost literally we make ourselves slaves unto a thought that was thrust upon us.

Or, I have an aptitude for making molehills out of mountains.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Good evening ATS, I have a question that I have been pondering on since the atrocities in Paris.

Would the prophet Mohammed been offended by the satirical cartoons that Charlie Hebdo published?

I have read much text over the last week or so and I have come to the conclusion that he would probably have laughed and forgiven the editors of Charlie Hebdo. Therefore, what gives others the right to feel offended on his behalf? No living person actually knows what he looked like, so any depiction isn't going to be an accurate one.

I personally do not think that religion should have the privilege of being protected from criticism or satire. Sure there have been many religions that have been harshly treated throughout history, but no religion should be protected by law from criticism, let alone anyone deciding to take someone's life as a result.

Cobalt, your hunch is correct, he actually did forgive people and laugh it off. More than people realize. He spent much time debating with redneck Arabs trying to convince them that its not a good idea to screw their own sisters, and to kill their babies just because they were girls. (they preferred boys to girls, the same situation goes on in idia today ). The arabs much like Warminindy didn't agree with his crazy ideas so they constantly harassed and insulted him. This is what he said about situations like that.
"The Muslim who mixes with the people and bears patiently their hurtful words, is better than one who does not mix with people and does not show patience under their abuse."
He was also commanded by God in the Holy Quran to be patient....
"Bear patiently what they say." (20:130 and 50:39)