Mohammad - a perspective

Originally posted by babloyi

What has that got to do with anything? "They came before Jesus, so it was okay for them to be violently genocidal, even though they are from the peaceful line of Isaac, and the evil violent line of Ishmael is much worse"? So now you admit that the line of Isaac is not peaceful at all?

Fine, I won't use the term, "peace" any longer.

What we do know is that God called Ishmael a "wild man" or "a wild ass" (depending on version of Bible) and said that he would be fighting against his brethren his entire life. What we also know is that God said that Isaac's seed was called. Therefore, making them the "chosen" people. They were "chosen" to produce Jesus and God "chose" them to inherit that which was promised to Abraham, so that still leaves Muhammad and the Muslims out when it comes to the land of Palestine.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


So by your logic, the Taliban is currently getting what they deserve as god's will.

And if in the future Islamic radicals are also beaten with many blows, they will also be getting theirs as god's will.

And if the West continues to thrive and prosper, as it will, than that is also god's will.

At what point in time will you concede to god's will?

Originally posted by Deetermined
Fine, I won't use the term, "peace" any longer.

not to define Islam thank you... this doesn't look like 'peace' to me,


it reeks of dominance, no independence nor freedom of speech, and no liberty for women. The culture is full barbarism even in their Nations which speak the Farsi.

reply to post by Deetermined

Originally posted by Deetermined
Fine, I won't use the term, "peace" any longer.

Fair enough, but just to point out, your original purpose of bringing the difference between Ishmael and Isaac's line into this discussion WAS the supposed difference in "peace" between the two, and not some strange religiously discriminatory idea that the land one group of people lives on doesn't belong to them because of something written in a book over 2000 years ago.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


I'm not trying to derail your precious thread, I'm trying to put into perspective what you're actually proposing.

I am a monotheist.... I do not worship idols.... so this "foreign army" that kills my friends and family and hands me a Koran are war criminals.

So it's okay that Mohammad killed all those innocent people because they were polytheists? That's a logical extrapolation from your statement.

I don't care what religion or ethnicity a person is. Threatening to kill somebody to worship God is NOT ok. But of course I'm anti-Islam for questioning it.

reply to post by babloyi


If you'll go back through the entire thread, there's much I point about the difference between the lines of Isaac and Ishmael. I point it out from the very first post and page.

reply to post by CaptainNemo


Yes, apparently the only reason Skorpion defends Muhammad is because it eliminates Jesus.

He's for anything that pushes for one God, but he doesn't understand or accept the concept of a triune God.

What I cant understand is how Muslims accept an impotent deity, the allah god is useless, it has no spirit of redemptiove power and can not know love outside of its own existence.
The Trinity is redemptive, communal (loving), equal...equal being important because the Trinity knows value of relationship.
This allah is a self centered murderer, capable of only operating within the law. No compassion can exist in a singular deity.

Jesus said he would bring in "others" in to a covenantal relationship with Himself
"I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

I guess skorp thinks Jesus is talking aliens here.
Jesus is revealed to those called to be his bride. You have no comprehension of what that could mean and probably never will. Arrogant and self righteous is not a teaching of Jesus. He didnt come as a conqueror but a servant. Jesus doesnt want what youe god wants, Jesus wants us to win His chosen.
allah wants blood and dominion over earth simply because it hasnt got dominion. A nothing god with no power other than what it can get through the sword. The sword is oppression.
Your god is weak. If it was strong it wouldnt need a sword as its gospel.

reply to post by CaptainNemo

I don't care what religion or ethnicity a person is. Threatening to kill somebody to worship God is NOT ok. But of course I'm anti-Islam for questioning it.

Since you are bringing this up... care to answer my earlier question...

what if you were a Midianite during biblical times and the Israelites did a Numbers 31:17 on you.... would you still accept the message of the bible?

Or is it ok only if the bible says so?

reply to post by Deetermined

Yes, apparently the only reason Skorpion defends Muhammad is because it eliminates Jesus.

How so? If anything at all, Mohammad confirms Jesus as the messiah... Islam adds to Jesus, in the sense that 2 billion more people accept Jesus as messiah.

Just because Islam, maintains that there is only One God, and that Jesus was His servant does not eliminate Jesus. In fact, any muslim who claims to oppose Jesus is not a muslim at all.

but he doesn't understand or accept the concept of a triune God.

You really think I'd be arguing against the trinity if Jesus directly mentioned that God was triune?

reply to post by borntowatch

The Trinity is redemptive, communal (loving), equal...equal being important because the Trinity knows value of relationship.

That's your own personal theology.
Hardly surprising to hear that from a Paulianite, posing as a christian.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by CaptainNemo

 

I don't care what religion or ethnicity a person is. Threatening to kill somebody to worship God is NOT ok. But of course I'm anti-Islam for questioning it.

Since you are bringing this up... care to answer my earlier question...

what if you were a Midianite during biblical times and the Israelites did a Numbers 31:17 on you.... would you still accept the message of the bible?

Or is it ok only if the bible says so?

What does that question remotely have to do with the OP?

In the quotations below, Western writers have used the word Muhammadanism for Islam. The word Muhammadanism connotes worship of Muhammad, an absolutely unworthy statement for any learned man to use. Prophet Muhammad's mission was to propagate the worship of the One and Only God (in Arabic Allah), the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. His mission was essentially the same as that of earlier Prophets of God. In the historical context, many such terminologies about Muhammad, Islam, and Muslims were borrowed from earlier European writings of the Eleventh to the Nineteenth century, a time when ignorance and prejudice prevailed. The quotations below attest to the facts.

Thomas Carlyle in 'Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History,' 1840

"The lies (Western slander) which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only."

"A silent great soul, one of that who cannot but be earnest. He was to kindle the world, the world’s Maker had ordered so."

A. S. Tritton in 'Islam,' 1951

The picture of the Muslim soldier advancing with a sword in one hand and the Qur'an in the other is quite false.

De Lacy O'Leary in 'Islam at the Crossroads,' London, 1923.

History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.

Gibbon in 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' 1823

The good sense of Muhammad despised the pomp of royalty. The Apostle of God submitted to the menial offices of the family; he kindled the fire; swept the floor; milked the ewes; and mended with his own hands his shoes and garments. Disdaining the penance and merit of a hermit, he observed without effort of vanity the abstemious diet of an Arab.

Edward Gibbon and Simon Oakley in ‘History of the Saracen Empire,’ London, 1870

"The greatest success of Mohammad’s life was effected by sheer moral force."

“It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina is preserved after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Koran....The Mahometans have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man. ‘I believe in One God and Mahomet the Apostle of God’ is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honors of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion.”

Reverend Bosworth Smith in 'Muhammad and Muhammadanism,' London, 1874.

"Head of the State as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without the Pope's pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a police force, without a fixed revenue. If ever a man ruled by a right divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the powers without their supports. He cared not for the dressings of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life."

"In Mohammadanism every thing is different here. Instead of the shadowy and the mysterious, we have history....We know of the external history of Muhammad....while for his internal history after his mission had been proclaimed, we have a book absolutely unique in its origin, in its preservation....on the Substantial authority of which no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt."

Edward Montet, 'La Propagande Chretienne et ses Adversaries Musulmans,' Paris 1890. (Also in T.W. Arnold in 'The Preaching of Islam,' London 1913.)

"Islam is a religion that is essentially rationalistic in the widest sense of this term considered etymologically and historically....the teachings of the Prophet, the Qur'an has invariably kept its place as the fundamental starting point, and the dogma of unity of God has always been proclaimed therein with a grandeur a majesty, an invariable purity and with a note of sure conviction, which it is hard to find surpassed outside the pale of Islam....A creed so precise, so stripped of all theological complexities and consequently so accessible to the ordinary understanding might be expected to possess and does indeed possess a marvelous power of winning its way into the consciences of men."

Alphonse de LaMartaine in 'Historie de la Turquie,' Paris, 1854.

"Never has a man set for himself, voluntarily or involuntarily, a more sublime aim, since this aim was superhuman; to subvert superstitions which had been imposed between man and his Creator, to render God unto man and man unto God; to restore the rational and sacred idea of divinity amidst the chaos of the material and disfigured gods of idolatry, then existing. Never has a man undertaken a work so far beyond human power with so feeble means, for he (Muhammad) had in the conception as well as in the execution of such a great design, no other instrument than himself and no other aid except a handful of men living in a corner of the desert. Finally, never has a man accomplished such a huge and lasting revolution in the world, because in less than two centuries after its appearance, Islam, in faith and in arms, reigned over the whole of Arabia, and conquered, in God's name, Persia Khorasan, Transoxania, Western India, Syria, Egypt, Abyssinia, all the known continent of Northern Africa, numerous islands of the Mediterranean Sea, Spain, and part of Gaul.

"If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astonishing results are the three criteria of a human genius, who could dare compare any great man in history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws, and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples, dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and the souls.

"On the basis of a Book, every letter which has become law, he created a spiritual nationality which blend together peoples of every tongue and race. He has left the indelible characteristic of this Muslim nationality the hatred of false gods and the passion for the One and Immaterial God. This avenging patriotism against the profanation of Heaven formed the virtue of the followers of Muhammad; the conquest of one-third the earth to the dogma was his miracle; or rather it was not the miracle of man but that of reason.

"The idea of the unity of God, proclaimed amidst the exhaustion of the fabulous theogonies, was in itself such a miracle that upon it's utterance from his lips it destroyed all the ancient temples of idols and set on fire one-third of the world. His life, his meditations, his heroic revelings against the superstitions of his country, and his boldness in defying the furies of idolatry, his firmness in enduring them for fifteen years in Mecca, his acceptance of the role of public scorn and almost of being a victim of his fellow countrymen... This dogma was twofold the unity of God and the immateriality of God: the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with words.

"Philosopher, Orator, Apostle, Legislator, Conqueror of Ideas, Restorer of Rational beliefs.... The founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?"

Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924.

I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.

Sir George Bernard Shaw in 'The Genuine Islam,' Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.

"If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam."

“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity."

"I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”

Michael Hart in 'The 100, A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons In History,' New York, 1978.

My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the secular and religious level. ...It is probable that the relative influence of Muhammad on Islam has been larger than the combined influence of Jesus Christ and St. Paul on Christianity. ...It is this unparalleled combination of secular and religious influence which I feel entitles Muhammad to be considered the most influential single figure in human history.

Dr. William Draper in 'History of Intellectual Development of Europe'

Four years after the death of Justinian, A.D. 569, was born in Mecca, in Arabia, the man who, of all men, has exercised the greatest influence upon the human race... To be the religious head of many empires, to guide the daily life of one-third of the human race, may perhaps justify the title of a Messenger of God.

Arthur Glyn Leonard in 'Islam, Her Moral and Spiritual Values'

It was the genius of Muhammad, the spirit that he breathed into the Arabs through the soul of Islam that exalted them. That raised them out of the lethargy and low level of tribal stagnation up to the high watermark of national unity and empire. It was in the sublimity of Muhammad's deism, the simplicity, the sobriety and purity it inculcated the fidelity of its founder to his own tenets, that acted on their moral and intellectual fiber with all the magnetism of true inspiration.

Philip K. Hitti in 'History of the Arabs'

Within a brief span of mortal life, Muhammad called forth of unpromising material, a nation, never welded before; in a country that was hitherto but a geographical expression he established a religion which in vast areas suppressed Christianity and Judaism, and laid the basis of an empire that was soon to embrace within its far flung boundaries the fairest provinces the then civilized world.

Rodwell in the Preface to his translation of the Holy Qur'an

Mohammad's career is a wonderful instance of the force and life that resides in him who possesses an intense faith in God and in the unseen world. He will always be regarded as one of those who have had that influence over the faith, morals and whole earthly life of their fellow men, which none but a really great man ever did, or can exercise; and whose efforts to propagate a great verity will prosper.

W. Montgomery Watt in 'Muhammad at Mecca,' Oxford, 1953.

His readiness to undergo persecution for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as a leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement - all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems that it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.... Thus, not merely must we credit Muhammad with essential honesty and integrity of purpose, if we are to understand him at all; if we are to correct the errors we have inherited from the past, we must not forget the conclusive proof is a much stricter requirement than a show of plausibility, and in a matter such as this only to be attained with difficulty.

D. G. Hogarth in 'Arabia'

Serious or trivial, his daily behavior has instituted a canon which millions observe this day with conscious memory. No one regarded by any section of the human race as Perfect Man has ever been imitated so minutely. The conduct of the founder of Christianity has not governed the ordinary life of his followers. Moreover, no founder of a religion has left on so solitary an eminence as the Muslim apostle.

Washington Irving 'Mahomet and His Successors'

He was sober and abstemious in his diet and a rigorous observer of fasts. He indulged in no magnificence of apparel, the ostentation of a petty mind; neither was his simplicity in dress affected but a result of real disregard for distinction from so trivial a source.

In his private dealings he was just. He treated friends and strangers, the rich and poor, the powerful and weak, with equity, and was beloved by the common people for the affability with which he received them, and listened to their complaints.

His military triumphs awakened no pride nor vain glory, as they would have done had they been effected for selfish purposes. In the time of his greatest power he maintained the same simplicity of manners and appearance as in the days of his adversity. So far from affecting a regal state, he was displeased if, on entering a room, any unusual testimonials of respect were shown to him. If he aimed at a universal dominion, it was the dominion of faith; as to the temporal rule which grew up in his hands, as he used it without ostentation, so he took no step to perpetuate it in his family.

James Michener in ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,’ Reader’s Digest, May 1955, pp. 68-70.

"No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur’an is explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience."

“Like almost every major prophet before him, Muhammad fought shy of serving as the transmitter of God’s word sensing his own inadequacy. But the Angel commanded ‘Read’. So far as we know, Muhammad was unable to read or write, but he began to dictate those inspired words which would soon revolutionize a large segment of the earth: "There is one God"."

“In all things Muhammad was profoundly practical. When his beloved son Ibrahim died, an eclipse occurred and rumors of God 's personal condolence quickly arose. Whereupon Muhammad is said to have announced, ‘An eclipse is a phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to attribute such things to the death or birth of a human being'."

“At Muhammad's own death an attempt was made to deify him, but the man who was to become his administrative successor killed the hysteria with one of the noblest speeches in religious history: ‘If there are any among you who worshiped Muhammad, he is dead. But if it is God you Worshiped, He lives for ever'.”

Lawrence E. Browne in ‘The Prospects of Islam,’ 1944

Incidentally these well-established facts dispose of the idea so widely fostered in Christian writings that the Muslims, wherever they went, forced people to accept Islam at the point of the sword.


“The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about”

- Unknown

__________________________________________________

Prophet Muhammad in the Bible ?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Matthew 28:15-20
So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

reply to post by Iason321


That is not a direct mention of the trinity. You are reading things into that verse.

Secondly, Jesus also said ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."
Jesus never said that God is a trinity and that he is part of it.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


The Quran can not possibly be from God. Most people through out history and in the present, dont have the resources, nor money, nor time to learn Quran. You cant just tell them its the word of God and all the miracles it has and expect them to believe it. They would see it as no different than the Bible. Except of course, the difference being this book has "miracles" within, but you cant show them to them...they would have to be experts in Quranic Classical Arabic..to even consider the possibiliy of this book having miracles.

"Mohammed succeeded because his followers stayed true to him even when it seemed his cause was hopeless. Had they doubted and abandoned him, Mohammed would have been no more than an obscure historical footnote in the story of Mecca."

?

reply to post by 0thetrooth0

The Quran can not possibly be from God. Most people through out history and in the present, dont have the resources, nor money, nor time to learn Quran. You cant just tell them its the word of God and all the miracles it has and expect them to believe it. Except of course, the difference being this book has "miracles" within, but you cant show them to them...they would have to be experts in Quranic Classical Arabic..to even consider the possibiliy of this book having miracles.

I have an english version of the Koran...and its the overall message that got me interested in the first place. The miracles in the Koran are a different matter. Whether or not people are willing to give the miracles fair consideration depends on how they perceive Islam in the first place.

"Mohammed succeeded because his followers stayed true to him even when it seemed his cause was hopeless. Had they doubted and abandoned him, Mohammed would have been no more than an obscure historical footnote in the story of Mecca."

Mohammads immense success cannot be attributed to mere luck...that too because his few hundred followers stood by him. Islam, established by Mohammad 1500 years ago, stood the test of time and lasts to this day... with 1.5 billion adherents around the world. How do christians explain this?

You have essentially asked the question "Is Islam a valid religion?" And "If not a valid religion why is it successful?"

So here is what I have for these questions. I suspect Islam may be a valid religion. BUT. And it's a big one. I believe it's part of a curse on this world. And that is why the middle east currently is so screwed up at present. All the factions in the middle east at present are under a major biblical curse. And it's starting to run out. And it's supposed to go out with a bang.

So here's the details of the curse.

Matthew 17.
10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

Now why was the death of John the Baptist such a terrible thing? And why did Jesus Christ give us this parable?
Matthew 21
33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.

And above all why did he give them verse 43?

Because of this prophecy in Malachi 4.
5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

According to Malachi when the Lord was to appear at the Temple he was supposed to be accompanied by the 2 messengers. See Malachi 3. And then the Lord of Hosts was going to make an appearance.

Herod killed the messenger. And while there is absolutely nothing on the other messenger it's possible he may have run afoul of Herod as well. And when Jesus Christ realized this he threw a rod. He didn't just throw the book at the Jews of the day. He took one of those old three to four foot long Torah scrolls and ripped it in half. And he beat them with the scroll cylinders. And he is still beating them with the scroll cylinders. What he did was to slam them with a 2000 year top level Leviticus 26 curse. See Hosea 6-2 and 2nd Peter 3-8 for the time frame of the curse and the book of Hosea in general for the details of the curse.

Now the problem is this. By the time of Mohammad the curse was running for hundreds of years. Which would mean that what he was told is questionable. And possibly makes him a instrument of the curse.

So why is Islam successful? The prophesies of Genesis 48 and 49.
In those prophesies we're told that the children of Jacob/Israel were to become nations by the end times. And with the Diaspora of the first century AD the problem is that a number of Jews were scattered around the middle east. And got converted to Islam when Mohammad came conquering through.

The problem is now the Arabs, Persians and other misc. groups of people in SE Asia through biology have become the descendants of the Jews from the first century AD. They are in so much trouble over there and they don't know it.. They're cursed.

reply to post by ntech

Now the problem is this. By the time of Mohammad the curse was running for hundreds of years. Which would mean that what he was told is questionable. And possibly makes him a instrument of the curse.

Nowhere in the bible does it say that the non-Israelites would inherit the curse of the Israelites.

Secondly, Mohammad was not an instrument of the "curse".
Rather he was the light of the gentiles of Isaiah 42... which points to Kedar and the wilderness....(Mohammads territories) and also refers to the shaming of its idolaters, as Mohammad brought an end to idolatry.)

Only Mohammad could have achieved this, and not any other biblical prophet. I have expanded upon this in earlier pages of this thread... www.abovetopsecret.com...

So why is Islam successful? The prophesies of Genesis 48 and 49.

Actually that gets included under the original blessing given to Abraham in Genesis 12:2
""I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing."

Who makes up this nation? The sons of Ishmael and Isaac. And since Ishmael was also blessed to become a great nation... even thats covered under the blessing of Abraham. So the idea of God raising up an Ishmaelite prophet makes perfect sense... theres nothing about Islam being a curse.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Originally posted by skOrpiOn
Islam makes it clear that God is omnipotent and is above human functions and that he does not need a "son".

A "son" is a procreation between a "father" and a "mother".

You christians acknowledge that Mary was Jesus' mother.... right?
So what does it mean when you say God had a son?

Isn't it better to acknowledge Jesus as a direct creation of God in the womb of Mary?

88 And they say: "The Most Beneficent (Allah) has begotten a son (or offspring or children)

91 That they ascribe a son (or offspring or children) to the Most Beneficent (Allah)

92 But it is not suitable for (the Majesty of) the Most Beneficent (Allah) that He should beget a son (or offspring or children)

The verses from the Quran above, all seem to point to this idea, that God having a son is not possible, but I believe there has been a misunderstanding here. The verses are right in one sense, in that God is not made off flesh, and therefore doesn’t have the need or desire for offspring, which is true, because God is a spiritual being.


But when Jesus said he was "The Son of God", IMO he was talking in terms of the Spirit and not the flesh, and this is where I believe, the misunderstanding has come from. God creates all things, including every man and woman's spirit/soul, before they are born in the flesh, which is why we are all sons and daughters of God.


- JC