Muhammad as a Christological Honorific Title

Muhammad as a Christological Honorific Title


Well, I don’t know why we “have to assume” that Mohamed is an honorific applied to Christ when they appear together–surely it could equally “be assumed” to mean Mohamed and Christ alongside each other (which is kinda what the Moslems believe anyway?)

He said:
Ohlig: Since the 18th century, many Christians, even to this day, regard the Enlightenment as an attack and an attempt to destroy their religion. In reality, however, it has allowed Christianity to survive in the modern world and also be applicable to the lives of modern man. This is a phase that Islam still has to go through, but it is unavoidable if it doesn’t want to exist in the future only in ghetto-like, closed communities.

I do not believe in the progressive view of history. Earlier he said something to the effect of Islam’s not having “yet” gone through “its” Enlightenment…

To me this is just prattle based on bad philosophy.

Muhammad is the Arabic version of the title Mahatma, which means “great spirit”.
maha = great , atma =spirit. The nutcase the Moslems follow was actually named Kabul.

Well to be more specific, this is mostly a historical view. Maybe because I currently am reading a fair bit on the history of Islam, it is clearer to me. What Olig’s view consists of is that Islam at the begining was not a “new” religion, but developed out of a heretical veiw of Jesus. Possibly similar to Arianism. Muhammad was a title given to Jesus by this group, similar how we might call jesus “Prince of peace”. This title “the muhammad” over time became a name on to itself. So when muslims say “Muhammad is only a prophet of God” They are actualy saying, Jesus is only a prophet of God in opposition to orthodox trinitarian christianity.


Well in my view when there is a new revelation such as the one which appeared through Muhammad… It would have a similar Source to the one received by Jesus…so there would be a common Origin and similarity.

Some of the Hadiths attributed to Ali ibn abu Talib would seem to support this concept of a common Divine origin.

There was also the recognition of Muhammad by the Christian Waraqa and other Christians at the time of the new revelation.

The name “Muhammad” has an Arabic root H-M-D which means

“praise” — a song or poem in praise of Allah

I think you may have missed some of the gist of the article, Ohlig is not saying Christians recognize Muhammad, he is saying that Muhammad (the praised one) IS a title for Jesus, and not an actual historical person(at least not of the Muslim narrative). More like Jesus THE muhammad(praised one) of God.

Its not my title for anything.

If Muhammad is, Zoroaster should be as well, his teachings that lead to Zoroastrianism may have very much influenced Babylonian exiled Jews.

A good site for anyone interested in the possible origins of Islam

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