Christ vs. Mohammed


#1

Previous threads tried to address this opposition by saying that Christianity was all rational and Islam is irrational.

People must have a certain element of Faith to believe in each and no one can definitively prove who is correct. I suppose the better question who has the faith that is most believable.

Mohammed began preaching a peaceful Islam in Mecca, but was thrown out of Mecca and went to Medina. In Medina he gained a large following and an Army. Once he had power, Islam changed and became violent to outsiders. He killed and murdered unbelievers, and forced people who did not bend to his will to accept dhimmitude status (submissive) status and pay a Jizya (tax to the muslims). Mohammed also, claimed that all words from God were corrupted over time and that he had the true revelation. Mohammed became powerful, rich, and had many wifes (more than other muslims are allowed by the way).

From Islamic history none the less, Mohammed seems to have changed his story once he got power, He could not support his claims with history, so he just stated all other books were corrupted. This is a common way to avoid providing evidence for ones belief. He became rich and powerful, so he most certainly had secondary gain. Lastly, he did no die a prophets death. He died of old age. He certainly appears to have used his claim to be a prophet for personal gain.


#2

I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to propagate by starting this thread.

The two truth claims are inherently polemical. Either Jesus Christ really is the Son of God proved by His resurrection from the dead or He’s not. If He is, Mohammad’s claims must be weighed against the words of Christ and in light of that we see that Muhammad was obviously serving a different deity.

You say that no one can definitively prove who is correct. I will take that to mean in a scientific way? I would disagree with you and I think a great number of other learned people would as well. The case for the truth of Jesus Christ, albeit not scientific truth, is a rather defensible argument. There is much that can be shown to substantiate the truth of Christ over and against the religion annunciated by Mohammad.

I don’t see Christianity as rational and Islam as irrational as you said many have argued. Both have a great deal about them that are inherently irrational. God becoming man? Angels revealing messages? Miracles? Rising from death?

For me, it all hinges on the self-consciousness of Jesus Christ and the truth of the resurrection. That’s the reason I even believe in God. Without Jesus it’s difficult to say what type of spirituality I’d have… It certainly wouldn’t be Theistic.


#3

On the other hand,

Jesus claimed to be the son of God. He was credited with performing many miracles. No one alive now witnessed these miracles, but they were said to have been done. Jesus did not throw out older scripture and claim they were corrupted, rather he taught how he was the fulfillment of the scriptures. He certainly did not appear to have secondary gain. He encouraged simple living, giving of ones self to others and compassion. Jesus was tortured and nailed to a cross. This even non-Christian scholars attribute to happening.

His followers fled at the sight of this. Only logical, they though that they would be next. The followers of Jesus who claimed to see him resurrected from death had no secondary gain by proclaiming this other than they really believed that Jesus did it and they would join him in heaven. Most were slaughtered by the Jewish and Roman authorities for their beliefs.

So Jesus was tortured, killed, and did not become rich or powerful. His disciples suffered the same fate.

Mohammed became rich and powerful as did many of his followers from military conquests.

For me common sense tells me who is telling the truth.


#4

Pardon me, but you’re comparing apples and oranges. Muhammad was a Moses-type prophet, military leader, political leader, etc.

Jesus, on the other hand, was a prophet of love, not (like Moses and Muhammad) a prophet of active conflict, of the war-like struggle of good over overwhelming opposing forces of evil.

The thing is, though, you can’t have a prophet of love, without there first being social and political stability. Without a Moses to go to war, you can’t have a Jesus to teach peace. Without a Muhammad to take up arms, you can’t have a Hafiz to teach love.

Comparing Jesus to Muhammad is like comparing Mohandas Gandhi to Winston Churchill.

The Gnostics thought that the God of the OT was evil, since He went to war. The Gnostics, ironically, did not “gnow” that whole truth of the matter. It’s the same God: the God of War, and the God of Love.


#5

Well it’s all about faith, if the religions were completely understood using human logic, then nearly everyone would be religious, the problem stems when ‘logical thinkers’ claim, somethings are just not logical, therefore it doesn’t make sense. I’m sure 1000 years ago, if you told an alchemist that fire is not an element, they would have called you irrational, so this ‘rationality’ seems to change throughout the ages, however the basis of the faith seems to stay the same, and thats where it matters. God wants us to believe based on faith, not infinite examples of proof of his existence everytime some ‘rational thinker’ comes along and says ‘hey this doesn’t make sense’.


#6

All the replies have been very good and thought provoking.

My main argument is that Mohammed had plenty of secondary gain. He preached peace until he obtained an Army in Medina. Then he made all the peaceful verses null and void. Moses, unlike Mohammed did not change a belief system by claiming that previous teachings had been corrupted. Additionally, the Israelites were not seeking monetary gain but to be released from slavery. Moses did not appear to have secondary gain. Wandering around in the desert does not seem to be advantageous for Moses personally.

Jesus, from history really did not seem to have earthly gains nor did his apostles from Preaching his name.

I am saying that I believe mohammed’s story to be suspect based on his secondary gain and the inconsistencies in his preaching based on his military might.


#7

Which verses?


#8

Mohammed was always influenced by the devil, that’s what it was, he was initially deceived to think he was the true messenger of God, and so he proclaimed peace, then once he started tasting power, that was it…

I really don’t like to point out faults in others, but I really got a problem with Mohammed as God’s true messenger, he went from peaceful to violent, he ignored the own rules he put forth and did things which were quite immoral.


#9

Would you say Muhammad was a flawed prophet?


#10

Ahimsa,

As Christians we are obligated to state unequivocally that Mohammad was no prophet at all. He contradicts every single element of the revelation of the Son of God.

He was a false prophet.

Jesus Christ says, "If anyone would come after me he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

Mohammad not only denied the truth about the identity of the one who speaks these words but he also denied the truth that He hung upon a cross.


#11

Among the error that is Muhammad’s teaching, what truths do you find there?


#12

Jesus was not a prophet at all. Jesus is God almighty!

Please stop using the term “Prophet” when referring to Jesus Christ as it it demeaning and disrespectfull. Were I to come to a Muslim website a and start calling Alah “Father”, I would be admonished immediately that Allah should not be referred to as “Father” .

This may well be a forum to discuss differences between The Catholic Church and all other religions, but it still is a Catholic board. Repect please!


#13

Ahimsa,

Is this a serious inquiry?

I find little to no truth.

Truth is found in God incarnate and the word He speaks. Mohammad contradicted everything Jesus Christ spoke.

If we establish truth in Christ all other truth claims are measured against Him.

Mohammad teaches that Jesus is a human being only (not God incarnate) and that he never truly died on a cross as the messiah of mankind.

If we then begin to see that those who speak against the revelation of God in Christ are truly serving the father of lies, that is the devil, we can see that there is absolutely no truth propagated by the supposed revelation of Muhammad.

This may seem harsh… But it is the only intellectually tenable position. :slight_smile:


#14

If we then begin to see that those who speak against the revelation of God in Christ are truly serving the father of lies, that is the devil, we can see that there is absolutely no truth propagated by the supposed revelation of Muhammad.

trinity1984,

The position seems to me untenable. What, for example, do you make of situations where the Quran and the New Testament contain similar teachings? The commands to be modest, and to help the poor, for example?

How do identical teachings become untrue the moment they are expressed outside of the New Testament?

Even more problematic is the issue of Judaism. Since the Jews do not believe that Jesus was God incarnate, does that mean that all of their teaching (including the Old Testament!) must be wrong?

Or is it right only when bound with a cover that says “Bible”, and not when bound in a cover that says “Torah”?

I’m not sure exactly what you mean yet, but I’d be interested in your replies to the questions above.


#15

Forgive me… I made too broad of a generalization.

I was speaking about more specific dogmatic doctrinal statements of the Christian faith.

Obviously one can find moralistic or ethical teachings that are very very true outside of the Christian revelation.

I concur on that one hundred percent.


#16

In your view, do doctrinal statements of faith take priority over “moralistic or ethical teachings”?

For example, is it more important for people to believe that Jesus was crucified in 33 AD, than for them to believe that they should feed the poor?


#17

I don’t think you understand Prophecy.

Muhammad was no Prophet; He left us with no prophecy. (Feel free to argue he was a messenger, but he was not a prophet.)

Christ, too, did not leave us with Prophecy; But He fulfilled it!

Neither Christ nor Muhammed should be called Prophets.

Jesus, on the other hand, was a prophet of love, not (like Moses and Muhammad) a prophet of active conflict, of the war-like struggle of good over overwhelming opposing forces of evil.

The thing is, though, you can’t have a prophet of love, without there first being social and political stability. Without a Moses to go to war, you can’t have a Jesus to teach peace. Without a Muhammad to take up arms, you can’t have a Hafiz to teach love.

Oh paleeze… Moses was called to deliver the Israelites held captive in Egypt.

He was no prophet at all. Delivering a message doesn’t make you a Prophet.


#18

There most definitely are prophecies in Islam. The fact that you aren’t aware of them just makes it clear that you are branding Islam with labels without actually having learned something about the religion.


Prophecies in Islam
#19

Hi pro_universal,

I’ve started a new thread because this would be interesting. I hope you can join it.


#20

Yes they do.

It is much more important to know about Jesus Christ and His sacrificial death for you.

Christianity is not about ethics/morals, its a message about what God has done for spiritually dead people. Its a message about God, we take the secondary role.

Knowing Him leads to sacrificial actions like giving to the poor… As a branch to the vine one begins to grow from Him and embodies His self-abasing attitude.

You might find that obnoxious, but it is the message of Christ.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.