Is Muhammad a Prophet of "the Devil"?

Well, thank you, Ashley. I can always count on you to pull through with effort, at least Now maybe we can get discussion moving. For the sake of conveniance, I'll be referencing this searchable version of M.H. Shakir's english translation.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Not sure what references you are wanting from Incarnated but here are some passages to back up why some believe the Islamic Heaven is a sexual paradise. Although I can accept the "grape" interpretation as a metaphor for abundance, this is where some get the idea of virgins:

The trouble is, the writings are trying to express the concept of infinite bliss to beings who can't even comprehend infinity, even before making it an infinite something. Therefore, the teller resorts to using worldly descriptions of all that s pleasurable. It's worth noting that the Christian belief of heaven does the same thing - except, if the Koran talks of lust, then the Bible talks of greed, with its mansions, crowns, and riches. But that's just sniping, I suppose.

"Neither they will have Ghoul [any kind of hurt, abdominal pain, headache, a sin, etc.] from that, nor will they suffer intoxication therefrom. And with them will be chaste females, restraining their glances [desiring none except their husbands], with wide and beautiful eyes." Surah 37:47-48

[37.36] And to say: What! shall we indeed give up our gods for the sake of a mad poet?
[37.37] Nay: he has come with the truth and verified the apostles.
[37.38] Most surely you will taste the painful punishment.
[37.39] And you shall not be rewarded except (for) what you did.
[37.40] Save the servants of Allah, the purified ones.
[37.41] For them is a known sustenance,
[37.42] Fruits, and they shall be highly honored,
[37.43] In gardens of pleasure,
[37.44] On thrones, facing each other.
[37.45] A bowl shall be made to go round them from water running out of springs,
[37.46] White, delicious to those who drink.
[37.47] There shall be no trouble in it, nor shall they be exhausted therewith.
[37.48] And with them shall be those who restrain the eyes, having beautiful eyes;
[37.49] As if they were eggs carefully protected.

We see descriptions of fine fruits, sweet water, and companionship - both with each other and with what do appear to be women with beautiful eyes. THere's nothing suggesting sexualization - in fact it seems the opposite. These women are "restraining the eyes" from everything besides hteir own eyes - that is, they are covered, reserved. Koranical Islam views the woman as a companion, to be appreciated as a partner, not as a sex object.

"Wherein both will be those [maidens] restraining their glances upon their husbands, whom no man or jinn yatmithhunna [has opened their hymens with sexual intercourse] before them." Surah 55:56

I'm not going to excerpt, as the entire section is context, and too large to excerpt - instead, just read it here . It does indeed sexualize the companions... though myself, I'm puzzled by hte inclusion of jinn into the picture. However, it seems to be last in a paean of the pleasures in heaven. Stands to reason, in all honesty - Islam borrows heavily from Judiasm, and Judaism regards sex as a gift from god.

"And young full-breasted [mature] maidens of equal age." Surah 78:33

[78.29] And We have recorded everything in a book,
[78.30] So taste! for We will not add to you aught but chastisement.
[78.31] Surely for those who guard (against evil) is achievement,
[78.32] Gardens and vineyards,
[78.33] And those showing freshness of youth, equals in age,
[78.34] And a pure cup.
[78.35] They shall not hear therein any vain words nor lying.
[78.36] A reward from your Lord, a gift according to a reckoning:

This one looks like grapes to me.

There's several more tame references in the Koran and some downright creepy references about females in the Hadith but many Muslims do not consider the Hadith inspired. However (defending my position), if you look at the context of the three surahs I quote above, grapes and wine are being talked about in close proximity and some Muslims also dispute the translation of maidens, virgins, and breasts, etc. The word hur/hoor can also be translated as grapes, according to some Muslim scholars, and that the reference to virgins is a stretch in their opinion.

[edit on 2/17/2008 by AshleyD]

There's also the question of whether it means "virgin" or simply "pure" - in many instances it could simply refer to the same beings that Christians call angels... who are always described as chaste and beautiful, as well.

As for the Hadith... I figure using hte Hadith as a yardstick for Islam is like using the assorted extra-biblical books and gospels as a yardstick for Christianity.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Nice analogies, Bigwhammy.

I think the business with the maid was meant to be...if you get my drift?

Anyways, I don't want to get us off topic so I'll just remain quiet for a spell.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

You know what they say Fox. If ya can't beat them join them... We would be happy to have you in the family. Jesus died for you too.




[edit on 2/17/2008 by Bigwhammy]

LOL....did U really do that at your church Bigwhammy?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


WalkingFox.....You're a star!

I'm smiling with you here so don't smack me too badly.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
The trouble is, the writings are trying to express the concept of infinite bliss to beings who can't even comprehend infinity, even before making it an infinite something.

I agree and tend to think it is a metaphor of abundance like I said above. Hopefully some moderate Muslims will chime in with their view and give us some internal insight to the passages. It does seem to be talking about grapes in the context, original language, and descriptions. In other passages it definitely seems to be talking about literal, physical companions like you mentioned.

It does indeed sexualize the companions... though myself, I'm puzzled by hte inclusion of jinn into the picture...

...There's also the question of whether it means "virgin" or simply "pure" - in many instances it could simply refer to the same beings that Christians call angels... who are always described as chaste and beautiful, as well.

Not sure either. Hopefully Bablyoi will join in. He is a pretty well versed Muslim who is good at answering questions concerning Islam. I was reading about the "hur" in a book of mythology from my library but this is all I could find on them regarding Islam and the "72 virgins." Wikipedia (not known for its relability of course) refers to them as the Houri. See: HERE.

As for the Hadith... I figure using hte Hadith as a yardstick for Islam is like using the assorted extra-biblical books and gospels as a yardstick for Christianity.

I tend to use the analogy of the Talmud when trying to explain how the Hadith relates to Islam. The Hadith consists of traditional sayings of Mohammad and the Talmud consists of traditional rabbinical teachings and folklore. Some Muslims follow the Hadith as is the same with the Jews and the Talmud. There are, in essence, different "tiers" of reliability in the Hadith and the way I had it explained to me that the Hadith is where they get some of the more severe cultural laws from. From what I know, most Muslims consider some of the Hadith reliable and some consider them wholly unreliable.

[edit on 2/18/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Oh, and just thought I would take a moment to clarify in case our paths got crossed. I'm not arguing it either way. Again, I get the concept of metaphor/abundance. My first comment to this thread was relating to the historical Mohammad and end times (as per the original thread's request) and not the actual religious beliefs of Islam, the Koran, the Hadith. How they envision Heaven is their belief so that really isn't an issue for me.

Thought I'd throw that out there. Wasn't sure if you caught my comment that those are some examples of where people get the idea from and that they weren't necessarily my own. The site above lists even more references other than those examples. But my opinion concerning Mohammad remains the same: it seems like he started off being well meaning enough but then lost the plot somewhere along the line and spiraled into corruption.

[edit on 2/18/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
Not sure either. Hopefully Bablyoi will join in. He is a pretty well versed Muslim who is good at answering questions concerning Islam.

Wow, I feel loved .

First off, 'hoor' doesn't mean 'virgins', but instead means 'pure companions with beautiful eyes'. These companions may very well be virgins, but that is not necessarily the foremost meaning. The 'grapes' translation at the moment is not really anything more than a theory by one guy, so I'll ignore it for now.

Next: "chaste females, restraining their glances [desiring none except their husbands], with wide and beautiful eyes" and "those [maidens] restraining their glances upon their husbands" is a bit of a stretch of translation, considering that the words used are (excuse me if I don't give it in direct arabic script, it was taking too long to type out on my keyboard): "Qasaratu-tharaf Ain" and "Qasaratu-tharaf", which basically means "those of modest gaze and beautiful eyes" and "those of modest gaze". Since the terms are in plural, there is no masculine or feminine attached, which makes interjections involving 'husbands' and 'maidens' completely false.

Another thing: "yatmithhunna" translated as "has opened their hymens with sexual intercourse" seems a bit funny, considering that it means 'touched'. It seems this is a translation of Muhammad Al-Hilali & Muhsin Khan. I suppose they were trying to give an 'explanation' of what it meant, but mentioning hymens is again a bit odd, considering that it wasn't the feminine gender mentioned.

But now to the main point: If there is sexual intercourse in heaven (and muslims believe that there is), what, exactly is wrong with this? Are we unclean or evil for having sex?

Rephrasing:


I'm am trying to say that the "voice" or "being" or "entity" that identified itself to Muhammad as "God" was in fact actually "the Devil".

Muhammad might have so baddly lusted after being something that the devil found a stooge in him.

Or maybe would you say Muhammad was born to be the false prophet?

I'm not looking to debate if this is the case. It just is the case. I'm theorizing the generals.

What are your feelings on this?

Originally posted by Incarnated
I'm am trying to say that the "voice" or "being" or "entity" that identified itself to Muhammad as "God" was in fact actually "the Devil".

But I thought that (even according to Christian Theology), the Devil cannot impersonate God. And Muhammad is said to have seen God personally (not just talked through Gabriel) on the night that he went up into heaven.

Originally posted by Incarnated
Muhammad might have so baddly lusted after being something that the devil found a stooge in him.

This doesn't really make sense either, because Muhammad was already highly regarded in his community. He was part of the 'head-tribe', and had been given the title of 'Al-Amin' (meaning truthful), and was sought after as a judge between their tribes. This was all before he became a prophet. Also, later, when he first gave his message to the tribes openly, the leaders begged him to stop, and even promised him position of tribal leader, along with riches and women. Why didn't he accept this?

Originally posted by Incarnated
Or maybe would you say Muhammad was born to be the false prophet?

I guess it could come down to this. Muhammad was a false prophet who taught his people that there is only ONE TRUE GOD. Obviously some satanic influence here.


PS: Because I didn't respond to it earlier, the inclusion of 'jinns' in the passage about not being touched by humans and jinns is there because jinns also get a chance to go to heaven (just like humans)- Jinns live in communities, they eat, they marry, they die, they have free will, etc.

reply to post by babloyi


No man can look upon the creator and live. It was a lie. "God" is just a term. The Devil can make claims of anything it wishes if it finds a willing host to seed the lie into.

Muhammad believed he was on a mission from "God".

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Incarnated


I guess I should have been exact in my words. The Prophet spoke with God 'in person'. Perhaps this is a better way of putting it?

Incarnated poses a question that even in Jesus' day was brought into question concerning Him:

But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. (Matthew 12:24) This conclusion being reached by the Pharisees after Jesus had cast a devil out of a blind and dumb man. (Full Context: Matthew 12:22-37)

Also, Jesus was not only accused of operating under the influence of the devil, but he also confronted the very same religious leaders that had accused him:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (Full Context: John 8:38-45)

Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees that had previously made the statement: "Abraham is our father." (John 8:39)

If we take this and compare it to everything that is written in I John, where John clearly lays out the difference between the children of God and the children of the Devil: one guided by the Spirt of God and the other directed by the fleshly, carnal nature, which Jesus accused the Pharisees of in John 8:38, the Devil, then we can take the words of the Prophets, Jesus and Mohammed, compare their teachings and determine which of the two appeals to the spirit of man or the flesh of man. Whose words feed the spirit of man or fuels the carnal instinct, nature of man. I think that should be the determining factor as to if a prophet is under the influence of the Devil.

It has been said in this thread that sexual intercourse might be a possibilty in heaven. Jesus, the Prophet stated:

Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. (Matthew 22:28-30) If Mohammed leads the idea that the opposite is true, then this would be an example between whose words are spiritually spoken and whose is spoken from the flesh.

oh i am sorry, my post was removed because umm, of my personal views towards religious figures...my bad

the false Profit Mohammad had too have Demonic possesion in order too see his revalations. Mohhamad was Pwned by the devil.

Lets put all the religious people into a big arena and see who wins I'll be watching with a beer and some popcorn.

Come on guys... Islam scares the crap out of me - it really does, and I will fight any spread of it into the UK, with my blood if necessary, but it freaks me out almost as much when Christians and others start calling Islam the devil's religion etc.

Erm.. they are all fairy tales... now lets get back to making the world a better place and getting our asses off this solitary rock

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by Incarnated

 

I guess I should have been exact in my words. The Prophet spoke with God 'in person'. Perhaps this is a better way of putting it?

yes, that's a better way of putting it. I read the kuran once. It struck me as being full of nothing but hate and anger and lust. It was quite clear that it wasn't god muhammad was talking to.

Incarnated,

I would be careful if I was you, people have had a price put on their head for saying less than you have. If there is anyway to connect your ATS indentity with your "real life" id, you are "probably" in danger.

Whatever the case I am sure the majority of people that follow the Muslim / Islam religion do so in the belief that it is good and righteous, just like the majority of those that follow Christianity or any other major religion.

In the end it is about this belief, the belief in a higher, GOOD power that makes the difference. Religion is in my opinion but a way to channel this positive energy and if the energy is positive, how can it be evil?

I would say let sleeping dogs lie... is posting your view on a conspiracy board worth dying for? Especially if that view is but speculation and personal opinion?



[edit on 18-2-2008 by sobolwolf]

reply to post by Incarnated


The 'Devil' - like 'Hell' is a creation of the early Catholic church. 'The Devil' didn't exist beforehand - so somehow I can't see a fictitious god being a fictitious demon. It would make a nice storyline for a Sword & Sorcery novel perhaps...

J.

[edit on 18-2-2008 by jimbo999]

Originally posted by babloyi
Wow, I feel loved

.

You are! It's always nice to have you in threads like these. We *gasp* actually learn something from the horse's mouth instead of our own speculation.

Thanks for adding your input. It's always appreciated. But what is your personal opinion about Mohammad and his wives and some of the other things he was believed to have done? Do you feel it was due to the social context of the time or that the accounts were false? How do Muslims justify things like Aisha's age, Mohammad's wars, his multiple wives and the supposed murder of a man for his wealth and then taking his wife, etc. I'm more curious about such things than the concept of the afterlife.

But now to the main point: If there is sexual intercourse in heaven (and muslims believe that there is), what, exactly is wrong with this? Are we unclean or evil for having sex?

In my opinion it doesn't bother me but I do have a question even though it is off topic. What do women receive in the afterlife according to Islam? Do they get multiple partners, too? Are they one of the virgins of another man? What exactly happens to them? Again, my interest is about Mohammad more but thought I'd throw that in. Thanks, Babloyi.