Is Muhammad a Prophet of "the Devil"?

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by Incarnated

 

The 'Devil' - like 'Hell' is a creation of the early Catholic church. 'The Devil' didn't exist beforehand

That is far from accurate.
Moses wrote the book of Job, sometime around 1473 BCE. and in it he detiailed the account of Satan the devil putting Job to the test.
It is clear that the "Devil" was not a notion conceived by the early Catholic Church.

Let's cut to the chase here. I think I might be helpful to both sides of this argument.

You only know what you're taught.

The poster of this thread had heard many times over that Virgins are waiting for Muslims in Paradise when they die. They based the OP on this hear-say. Had they taken the time to research the actual documentation they could have realized that things are not quite that simplistic.

The same can be said for people of both faiths. Many Christians dislike people of the Muslim faith because they've heard stories of Virgins or Jihad. Many Muslims dislike Christians because they've been told they're infidels for various reasons.

It's a two way street and the masses continue to be manipulated by the flow of information and propaganda. Off the religious end - we saw these exact methods use to sway public opinion leading up to the Invasion of Iraq.

I don't blame the poster of this thread ... just as I don't blame people who carry out Jihad. They're simply people who don't know better.

One of my favorite quotes:
"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts."
—Abraham Lincoln

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by Incarnated

 

The 'Devil' - like 'Hell' is a creation of the early Catholic church. 'The Devil' didn't exist beforehand

That is far from accurate.
Moses wrote the book of Job, sometime around 1473 BCE. and in it he detiailed the account of Satan the devil putting Job to the test.
It is clear that the "Devil" was not a notion conceived by the early Catholic Church.

Well 'Hell' certainly was - in it's christianized, otherworldly sense. And my estimation of monotheisim's age stands by your very own assertions of Moses and the book of Job. Problem with your statement is this though: nobody knows if 'Moses' wrote the book of Job at all - as the OT has been re-written and re-edited more times than even the NT has. So it's impossible to accurately date the book of Job with any certainty - let alone verify authorship.

Now I don't mean to stir the pot. I want to address the members who subscribe to Islam.
I have spoken with some Muslim friends who actually believe (and were taught) that the translations concerned actually do refer to woman. Now I can understand if this is not mainstream belief within Islam. I just wanted to know.

Peace and love. I think all religions have those in common.
And that's all that matters.

Originally posted by jimbo999

Well 'Hell' certainly was - in it's christianized, otherworldly sense.

I don't disagree with you on this point. The early Church adopted pagan views of hell that were not explicit in the Hebrew Scriptures.

And my estimation of monotheisim's age stands by your very own assertions of Moses and the book of Job. Problem with your statement is this though: nobody knows if 'Moses' wrote the book of Job at all - as the OT has been re-written and re-edited more times than even the NT has. So it's impossible to accurately date the book of Job with any certainty - let alone verify authorship.

That is really a red herring. The book of Job is one of the oldest books of the inspired scriptures. The ancient Hebrews always included it in their Bible Canon. It was referenced by Ezekiel, James, and partially quoted by the Apostle Paul.

You are correct that there is no direct proof that Moses wrote the book, but he is accepted s the writer by bothe Jewish & Christian scholars. The reason?
The vigorous authentic style of Hebrew poetry used in the book of Job makes it evident that it was an original composition in Hebrew, the language of Moses. It could not have been a translation from another language such as Arabic.

Also, the portions in prose bear stronger resemblance to the Pentateuch than to any other writings in the Bible. The writer must have been an Israelite, as Moses was, because the Jews “were entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God.

Further evidence:
After he had reached maturity, Moses spent 40 years in Midian, not far from Uz, where he could obtain the detailed information recorded in Job. Later, when he passed near Job’s homeland during Israel’s 40-year wilderness journey, Moses could learn of and record the concluding details in the book.

If there was any possibility that it was written by the early church, Jewish scholars would reject it, out of hand.

The point of my post was that it was not the early Christian church that created the idea of the Devil. I trust you can agree with simple truth.


[edit on 18-2-2008 by Sparky63]

[edit on 18-2-2008 by Sparky63]

Well, as a man who study religion and opinions, I find that ALL religions have the same structure. The difference falls upon the Prophet you "choose".
Christians and Muslims differ in the fact that Christians see Jesus as the 'Prince of Peace' ad he died on the cross for our sins.
Muslims see Jesus (Isa) as the Mahdi or a warrior who'll come to destroy his enemies as well as the anti-christ. Also, they believe Isa didt die on a cross but someone in his likeness took his place...

Long story short, its funny that I found in my research that people who "Lost Religion" found God and Spirituality. Afterall, the main purpose is getting to know God for worship, no worshipping his prophets. Isnt that why God buried Moses in an unknown place so his body wouldt be worshipped?

Faith in Man leads to Idolatry. Faith in God leads to Immortality. Selah, As salam a lakim, and Peace to all.

I'm not Attacking the Muslim culture, but from my looking into the Koran, I have interpreted the use of fear in nearly every place that I've looked. Also I found a passage Muhmmad 5 pretty clearly stating that killing in the name of Allah is ok and that Allah will not hold you vain if you kill "disbelievers" in the name of Allah. I think that may be a cause for the rivalry of Christian faith and Islam. The Islam faith appears to me to have usage of fear, killing, and lust to spread and preserve its influence. The Christian faith, uses love and peace and fear on a smaller scale to do so. Does that make Islam right or wrong? It is not my place to judge.

Originally posted by Dienekes
Also I found a passage Muhmmad 5 pretty clearly stating that killing in the name of Allah is ok and that Allah will not hold you vain if you kill "disbelievers" in the name of Allah.

I believe the passage you are referring to is Surah Muhammad, verse 4. And if you have read it as you say, you will notice that it only makes this allowance when you 'meet unbelievers in war'. You will also notice (if you have read the Quran) that there are very strict restrictions for when war is allowed. Otherwise, all life is held sacred.

Originally posted by Dienekes
I think that may be a cause for the rivalry of Christian faith and Islam.

I believe that the main cause of rivalry between the believers of the Christian and Islamic faith involves the divinity of Christ.

Originally posted by Dienekes
Does that make Islam right or wrong? It is not my place to judge.

It seems you already have.

Originally posted by Incarnated


Was it that Muhammad wanted so much to be something that he sold his soul to the devil in placement of being the Prophet of the Devil?

Wow, I really give you credit for coming out with this thread. I've been pondering the same ideas for quite some time now, but I didn't feel like putting forth the effort to fully explain the theory.

The main concern I have is that all religions speak of an Anti-Christ figure appearing in our midst. When all major religions follow through with this ideology, there then exists the very real possibility that such an idea is in fact a reality as opposed to mythical pondering.

First and foremost, Islam is the only of the Major religions that clearly advocates and allows for violence. It was a religion founded on the conquering of "non-believers", or "Infidels", and was spread by the sword as opposed to preaching. This is a fact, and is not some biased theory in dispute. It is a religion that allows for polygamy, which although far from pure evil, goes against all tenants of the other major religions. Islam, the same as Judaism and Christianity, are all spread from the "Father" of Abraham. Thus they have the same basis for religious beliefs flowing from a singular source, and yet Islam has strayed the farthest from such.

Why is it that Islam has more twisted murderous followers than any of the other religions combined?

So many Muslims claim that their religion does not stand for the violence, mayhem, and evil that has been propogated by extremists elements within the religion. Yet, what good is the religion if in theory it's not about the evil, but in reality it is? You can say what you want about any religion, but in actuality it is only as good as its followers.

You must also ask what is it within the Islamic religion that allows room for such widespread and long-term corruption, and violence? Christianity went through a period of corruption and violence known as the "The Spanish Inquisition", which in a sense was the climax of a violent period within the religion. However, Christianity progressed out of such problems, and even managed to form seperate various branches within the religion without bloodshed. Islam on the other hand cannot even hold two seperate sects without civil war, and that war has been raging since the death of Mohammed. Why have those following such a "peaceful" prophet found a need to not only bring the sword to bare on "Infidels", but their own as well?

The evil that I have witnessed amongst the Islamic Terrorists is nothing short of satanic. These true Infidels of Humanity actually believe that what they are doing is God's will, and that they are flushing out demons. They are actually twisted enough that they find it funny to watch others suffer, and beg for mercy, only to have their heads sawed off. I can even recall one video image I saw of these devil worshippers sawing a guys head off extremel slowly as he screamed. They were about halfway through, when they decided to pause for a break. The walked a short distance away, while the guy rolled around on the ground screaming through his windpipe as the half of his still connected head rolled with him. The SOBs taking their break were laughing so hard at this sight that they almost fell over. What could ever possess such sick minded "Muslims" to believe that what they are doing is actually the will of their prophet and Lord?


It's really a shame, because I know a lot of good Muslims, and many of them are very good friends. Yet I feel that the questions pondered above are legitimate concerns in regards to the faith. Until those that wish Islam to be a peaceful and well respected religion step forward to prove their critics wrong and fruitless, there will be a serious doubt amongst much of the world as to the true character of this religious following and its leading prophet.


[edit on 2-18-2008 by TheAgentNineteen]

reply to post by TheAgentNineteen


And this is the problem that we face is the moderates are NOT coming forward and taking on the extremists so basically what the extremists are spouting is sticking.

Eventually when you hear it and hear it and hear it eventually it becomes the truth because no one is stepping up and saying or doing otherwise.

Im a simple man and I like to look at the facts. The facts are a woman was gonna be killed for naming a bear Muhommed.

A newspaper guys was going to be killed for drawing a picture of Muhommed.

The extremists are telling potential suicide bomber males they are getting some virgins if they blow themselves up.

A woman was thrown into jail for sitting next to a man in a business meeting in a restaurant in Saudi Arabia because he wasnt her husband.

A woman was almost sent to death because she was raped and she let it happen.

I mean this is the crap I see no matter what the Koran says this is what is being taught over seas. Until things change my view stays as is and that is there is not much good coming out of islam right now.

Side Note Walking fox for the liberated woman/girl that you are I dont think you would fair well in Saudi Arabia......mabey Im wrong (like u say I always am )

I hate to interject at this late hour in the discussion, but I will.

(source: www.redmoonrising.com...)

Revelation 13:11-15
Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.

He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon: This means he comes from a background of shepherds, commoners perhaps, or innocent .. a lamb is a symbol of good and innocence. A man of faith looks like a lamb, that is direct symbolism. But if he speaks like a dragon, what comes of its' mouth? Fire and smoke, in other words... destruction and death? Ah, words of hate and words which inspire destruction and death, this is the correct symbolism of this passage. Hate to draw the line but you can all see it whether I draw it or not. Muhammad fits the bill quite nicely. Some of his rules were very very cruel, there were mass killings of other tribes, some just for being Jewish, and the man had like 30 wives or some such.

He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed.: This one is very important. Muhammad exercised the authority of the Monotheistic God of the Hebrews and Christians on his behalf, therefore the first beast. Alternatively, Muhammad was a man of war in his time, and suffered sword wounds which he lived from. Commonly called the battle scars of Muhammad. Another take on this is, the first beast was Muhammad, who was pierced with a sword and lived, and the man exercising his authority (Muhammad's) would indeed be an archetypal Muslim Fundamentalist Terrorist Leader. They do in his name. If they kill you, its because somewhere back in the Koran, they read something from Mohammad that they interpreted whichever way and came to the conclusion that it is perfectly okay to kill innocents such as myself just because I am a Western Christian, should I have been kidnapped overseas.

And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men.: This future false prophet which takes authority from the first beast, or Mohammad (or Allah, depending on your interpretation of the above paragraph) will have the ability to use nuclear and other accurate powerful ballistic weaponry such as advanced rocketry that can actually do solid damage to Israel and U.S. Bases in the region. Think Iran. The Shiite's claim direct descent of all of their 12 Imams from Muhammad's daughter, Fatima. This is where the "Fatimid" dynasty got its name. Here we have another clue of assuming authority from the first beast, while looking like a lamb and speaking like a dragon. In other words, wearing priestly garb and yet causing death and destruction via explosions, fire, smoke, and weaponry.

Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth.: This means that because of his signs or "power", signs being .. big explosions, miraculous victories, sending rockets and missiles onto "the great Satan USA" or "the little Satan Israel" as they say? Anyone who successfully launches such a campaign would get immediate backing by ALL Muslim Fundamentalists .. and could solidify the beginnings of a true Islamic Caliphate of the 21st Century, albiet founded on Terror and death. But, this will not come to pass. Keywords, "he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast", this means the first beast, still some type of authoritarian figure on the evil side, is basically saying this man is my successor and so forth, he has control of my power.

He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived.: This is pretty straight forward. If we keep on this same theme, and say Muhammad was the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived, then "He", who ordered them to set up an image in honor? Could likely be anyone, or a present/future Islamic Terrorist Leader. Images of Muhammad directly are strictly forbidden, but in Biblical times, "image" doesnt mean simply "picture", it means "representation" or "likeness to it". If the 21st Century "Mujahedeen" aren't sharing a direct likeness with the original Muslim Warriors who fought alongside Muhammad, who spread the religion with the sword through North Africa, Southern Spain, and South/Central Asia, I don't know who is?

ahh, the last one.

He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.: This could very well mean that this image, as described above, is really a "way to be", a "likeness", "to be like Muhammad and the original Mujahedeen". To establish a Muslim Caliphate just like he did. Is this not their ultimate goal? He, this mysterious figure possibly not yet on the scene but likely an Islamic Terrorist Leader or Spiritual Leader, "gives breath to the image of the first beast". This means that men are actually breathing, alive, in that spitting image, ready to die, ready to kill, ready to conquer in the name of Islam. A million Muhammads and his original soldiers, all side by side, these are our modern terrorists and mujahedeen are they not?

I'm not looking to offend, just going straight off my interpretation of the text. Instead of just telling me I'm wrong, please show me why you think I am wrong with the same text that I analyzed, and maybe you can present your own interpretation of the text that makes more sense. But dont just say, "no ur wrong" .. prove it. deny my ignorance, if thats how you feel!



[edit on 2/18/2008 by runetang]

reply to post by Sparky63



I've taken a new way to just let the ignroate people babble anything they want. They want to believe the foolishness that spouts from their mouth. Might as well let them. However I have to say that was a short and sweet retort!

Just my Two Cents: "Two Horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon." means "he" had two sons who appeared innocent ad everyone loved them, but "he" was the oe who gave them power or, they took commands from him.

"He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed." -This one is very important. Muhammad exercised the authority of the Monotheistic God of the Hebrews and Christians on his behalf, therefore the first beast.-

*I have to disagree with your opinion (no disrespect). I don't think God ca be considered a "Beast" in any religious affiliation. Beasts translate as a King who excercised Cruelty. Nero was considered a 'Beast' because he wanted people to worship the likes of Caligula who called himself a Living God.

"And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men."

*Nuclear firearms isnt cosidered a miraculous sign. In the Old Testament, some men actually had that ability. Didnt Elijah's son Elisha have the ability to call forth Bears to devour children? And Moses had the ability to do even more. Even on the opposite side, SIMON MAGUS pretended to be the Messiah and did miraculous things, but was ultimately put to shame by Peter and Paul. It wouldnt be dificult to believe a man will come with power to call forth hail...

"He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived."

*This could go anyway. The 'sword' could translate as the tongue or word. The atichrist will be put to shame by 'the Logos' or 'Word' but he'll survive the backlash. He'll revert to the ways of the first Ruler and make his followers pay homage. Nobody really fight with swords today. Never bring a knife to a gun fight...lol. The Tongue is sharper tha a sword.

"He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed."

*Another one that could go anyway. Think about..what if Joseph Stalins body came to life from his glass coffin? That wouldnt happen though... not until the Day of Judgment. Literally it means, that the words from the first ruler had faded but "he'll" restore the rulers doctrine. "He'll" speak the same words as the ruler and people will say he's the "reincarnation of the ruler".

I beleive that time has come and gone through the Roman Era. John's Vision was from that time ad maybe a few centuries ahead. Remember, the Angel of the Lord forbade Joh to write everything he saw. read [Rev 10 v.4].
Anywho, thats my opinion. No looking for controversy cause I value everyones opinion. Our forefathers screwed up and its up to us to save the world, no matter what religion we choose. The ultimate message is that there is only one God. - peace

[edit on 18-2-2008 by Judaz_Escariot]

May take this opportunity to add an IMO.
I feel the Mohammed honestly thought he was doing the work of God, and may well have, but his message was lost or misinterpreted over the years. I am a Christian and I feel that even the Christian bible has been considerably distorted for the purposes of the religious “higher powers”. Look and Christadelphians and J.W.s They use, so they say, the same bible but have very different interpretations.
I have known many Muslims of the years and have nothing against the religion over all but find it hard to believe any religion (according to mainstream thinking) is so determined to kill and destroy all others that don’t fall into their way of thinking. Now I know this is not the majority but the war mongering brainwashed minority do not make it easy for the rest of us to accept their point of view. Especially when they come to our country and try to have us conform to their ways. IE banning Xmas carols and Religious Education in schools and displaying crucifixes etc. as it offends them. There are even stories of Muslim women now being allowed to have their official document photos with their faces covered. This sort of thing does not help their cause.
Also, it is my understanding according to Muslims I have known, that Muslims believe the Koran to be the third testament. If this is the case why are so many of the teachings so very different to the first two?

This is why I haven't posted on ATS for a while, and got my "points' deducted for speaking my mind. I find it funny that people like you find the time to make a thread about something so ignorant and something you have no knowledge of it. Islam is one of the most peaceful religions and to say that the prophet of Islam worships the Devil is just right out ignorant. When Muslim's like myself pray, we pray to God and we thank our prophet for his sacrifices he has done to spread the word of Islam. He sacrificed his body and risked his life, like when the people of Ta'if got the children and beggars to stone and pelt him so much that his sandles dried to his feet from the blood. Besides that, don't make threads regarding something you know nothing of, it just makes you look really ignorant and full of hate.

reply to post by Incarnated


Then why could everyone look at Jesus?

reply to post by tyranny22


As a formal military member, I can attest to mass control through religion as one of the key foundations of almost every government in existence. The Roman's perfected it with Catholocism and governments have just become alot better at it. The only thing they can't figure out is a religion that can control the entire mass. I.E. the whole planet.

Originally posted by EverUpward
reply to post by Incarnated

 

Then why could everyone look at Jesus?

Such simple questions, statements, lead too much to acurately understand what is really being asked. I can only therefore assume you're asking "Why can't the same be said about Jesus?" as is being asked of Muhammad and the devil. If this is more the question you tryed to ask then The answer is as follows.

I think christians are for the mostpart the biggest lot of fools I've ever had to deal with. A good percentage never even read the bible. They believe the words out of slicktounged man in fancy dress up infront of some some group at a place they think is holy called "Chuch" on most Sundays, and they believe this makes them rightous.

However in the fullest context of the story, of mankind throughout the ages, it's clear to see "Jesus" was the real deal. This is not to say that Christians understand one aeota what that "real deal" truly is.

However Jesus spoke of spiritual things. He lived his life spiritual. His only offer of reward was acceptance within the loving arms of our creator father. He didn't play to the mortal nature, the animlistic set of feelings within mankind.

Amoung several other markers of truth that most people refuse to see.

reply to post by AshleyD

Sorry, I missed this one.
What about Muhammad and his wives? The fact that he was told he did not have to adhere to the limit of 4, while the rest of the muslims were told they could not have more than four?
When the commandment for a limit of 4 wives came, those with more than 4 wives divorced them. Muhammad didn't do this because it would be awkward to marry someone who was originally Muhammad's wife, and if they didn't get married, they'd have no means of support. Also, it would be pertinent to note that after the commandment limiting the number of wives a man could have, Muhammad took no more wives.


As for the age of Aishah, I've talked about it once or twice before on these forums, here is a quote:

Originally posted by babloyi
There is much debate about the actual age of A'ishah when she got married to Muhammad. Originally she was meant to marry another person, but he broke it off due to religious differences. While there is 1 Hadith from Sahih Bukhari that says directly that A'ishah was 9 at this time, it contradicts numerous other Hadith, and one of the people in the chain of narration (Hisham ibn `urwah) was very old, and suffered memory loss at the time that he related this and other Hadith (many of which are considered suspect).

Here is a (disorganised

) list:
* A'ishah got married in 1AH (1 year after the muslims migrated to Medinah from Mecca)
* According to Tabiri, all of Abu Bakr's (A'ishah's father) children were born during the Pre-Islamic period, which would put A'ishah at being AT LEAST 14 when she got married.
* When the 1st migration (to Abyssinia) occurred, Abu Bakr took Ayesha to the house of her betrothed (the guy before Muhammad), and asked him to take her into his house, which he refused for religious reasons. The Migration to Abyssinia took place 8 years before AH, so if Ayesha was 6 when she married Muhammad, she couldn't have even been alive at this time!
* According to the Kitab-ul-Tasfir, A'ishah was a "young girl" (as opposed to an infant) when the 54th Surah of the Quran was revealed. Surah Al-Qamar (the 54th surah) was revealed 9 years before AH.

There is even more information on this, but it goes deep into Abu Bakr's family history, and analysis of the Hadith, so I've left it out.


Muhammad's fighting was done for survival, but I'm not sure what you are referring to with regards to Muhammad murdering someone and taking their wife. Please clarify.

Plus, as I emphasised in my first post in this thread, all mention of these 'companions' (not explicitly 'virgins') are gender neutral (except for the one involving voluptious breasts ), so it is assumed that what the guy gets, the girl gets.

[edit on 19-2-2008 by babloyi]

No, that wasnt my question, my apologies. What I was asking if that no man could look upon the creator than how could people in Jesus' time look upon him. It was also written that the creator could not touch any unclean thing, I.E. die, but again here comes Jesus who according to the bible was divine and ideed 'if you have seen me you have seen the father'. The answer lay in the extraneous teachings that were more based on tradition instead of recorded fact. Which was a huge part of the problem when he came on the scene in the new testament calling the religious leaders of the day vipers. These were supposed to be the rabinnical experts of the day. Now another 2k years later we all sit here discussing Jesus vs. Muhammed vs whatever as if much has changed in humanities collectively legalistic mind. We all think we have the answers and I am pretty sure we are all wrong.

Now on another note, and this question goes out to all the Muslims out there. Excuse my ignorance here but i am trying to study this particular sector of the whole christianity/islam issue. But from all my studies the bible basically lays out that two lines of Abraham were begun with one being the line of Isaac and the other Ishmael. Isaac being the line which would ultimately become christianity and Ishmael being the line that would ultimately become Islam. The bible says God made a promise to both lines and that they would constantly fight again each other. Here is my question, to you, and anyone else feel free to answer; Is it possible that christianity and islam have the same exact divine origin and it has been the meddling of man and the influence of non-divine traditions that have really muddled the water for all of us?