Whats the Christian view of Mohammad?

1. 72

   Rishy Richposted 13 years ago

   I knw Jesus has a very respected place in Islam, So is Moses. Both are considered prophet & messengers of God in Islam. But how do Christians & Jews explain the prophethood of Mohammad? I know some take him as the messenger of Satan while some think he was a lunatic pervert. What about the others? Does anyone has any respect for the founder of Islam?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      From a Christian's viewpoint, Mohammad is a false prophet, similar to Joseph Smith and many other "prophets" who founded whole religions on erroneous concepts,  or rather more like....a following of people perpetuated the false views of those prophets and that of course perpetuated and escalated into false religions....
      
      It's the followers who do it.   Just like, if so many people didn't have some nonsensical passion for Obama, he wouldn't have gained the position and power that he has.   He didn't do it on his own.   The people who wanted to believe in some fairy-tale-like situation escalated his image and popularity into what it became (at the suggestion of both the man and other men like David Axelrod, who "made" his Campaign.)   Like Jim Jones.  He can't be entirely blamed for what happened.  The people who were willing to worship him were instrumental in events.  Otherwise, he'd have been ignored or institutionalized for the madman that he was.   But weren't Jones's followers (the adults anyway) just as insane?  I think so!
      Entertaining the idea of the possibility of evil being good is....giving place to the devil.  One must guard their thought processes in order not to be taken in by falsehoods and false prophecies.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         It's so funny that you write off every single other religion's history except your own, even though every single other religion, both still going and long dead starts the exact same way as yours, exactly as you describe.
         
         It's actually less funny than it is stupefying.
         
         I am glad you brought up Joseph Smith though, that's where I was going to go too. 

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You were!
            What a coincidence!
            Are we...gulp....starting to think alike??
            
            hahaha no way huh?
            
            
            Actually, the followers of Christ began following Him in earnest after He died for mankind.
            
            What other religion has that fact to back it up?   He DIED for us,  including you.  If that isn't Love, then nothing is.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Oh, those people following him around after the miracles weren't "in earnest" then.  Good to know.
               
               And yes, when it comes to exposing the glaring holes in the sales pitches of religionists, you and I may have a few strategies in common.  I just have one extra religious story I see the flaws in that you do.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Okay, so maybe I could've said that better.
                  
                  At any rate,  they weren't all AS earnest, how's that?
                  
                  Several of them left Him, denied Him, and....Judas betrayed Him.
                  
                  But Jesus proved Himself.
                  
                  Others, who were false prophets, proved nothing.

                  replyreport
                  1. 72

                     Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Its interesting & amusing how you termed Islam a  "fairy-tale-like situation", Its really especial when u hear it from a believer. Most of the times guys like Mark or Earnest would call ur religion Fairy Tale & u guys would complain against their attitude but when it comes to other religions, you behave the same way.
                     
                     As far as I understand, Religion is a subject of faith where logic fails significantly. We wont be able to apply logic to any religion including Christianity. Given the fact that the Son of God had only 500 followers during his death while many Sons of Men has achieved greater things for humanity  without the help of God. There is not even enough archaeological evidence for Christ's existence. We dont even have a proper definition of God since each definition & attribution creates self conflict to Gods omnipresent & omniscient nature. Thus ur Jesus is as false as Muhammad and ur God is no different than their Allah when it comes to Logic .
                     
                     But when it comes to faith, there is no known way to find out which faith is correct & which faith is a lie in terms of faith. Their Allah is as vivid to them as ur God is to you.
                     
                     Jesus proved himself? How? Where? When? DID HE EVEN EXIST? CAN YOU PROVE IT? NO! But you believe he has proved it. Its a faithfool logic, the same logic that Muslims, Jews, Parsis, Hindus, Buddhas, Shikhs, Shintos think that their Savior has Proved too. Faith+fool logic is not a logic at all.
                     
                     Before identifying flaws of others, you need to correct ur flaws first!

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Well, for what it's worth, Jesus had the codex going for him (posthumously).  It looks like Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard are going to be the last guys to work the codex with success.  Everyone before them had to do Epic poetry and oral stuff.  Now, the next religions are going to have to work Facebook or Twitter or whatever comes next.
                        
                        Relgions are born of story telling and whoever deploys (yes, DEPLOYS) the technology of the day.  Just as oral tradition and even the scroll were CRUSHED by the codex, all this 2000 year old stuff (and the offshoots) are going to be destroyed by the first really compelling argument that brings scientific advances inline with the story-telling capacity of the Information age.  The only thing missing is the personality of such compelling charisma that we all buy the new story.  It's coming; we just have to wait.
                        
                        And survive the deadly backlash of those who cling to the last version.  It happens every time, but the small minded who wrap up in the religion "of the day" always think that "this time we got it right" and they ignore all the failed faiths that came before. 
                        
                        Humans are so stupid.  And predictable.

                        replyreport
               2. 0

                  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  What story?

                  replyreport
         2. 0

            Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Nonsense, there's a big difference between Joseph
            Smith and Mohommed. For starters Mohammed denied the divinity of Christ, where Smith supported every biblical sentence in his teachings concerning the creator and his only begotten Son. And his sacrifice for the good of the world.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Right, but for those not buying any of it (like me), we can see that both were just Johnny-Come-Lately cults setting up shop based on foundations laid earlier.  Which is not a crime or anything, it's how the whole thing has been going all along.
               
               I'm not even bagging on either of them.  Both are perfect examples of how religion is and has always been, has always evolved.
               
               Christianity and, by their "non" association, LDS and Islam are inevitable and continuing conglomerations of Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and Pagan mythology, with even a dash of stuff from the Upanishads, all cobbled together as trade developed around the Mediterranian rim.  From Gilgamesh to Joseph Smith, there is a clear and obvious "paper trail" for anyone who cares to do any semi-deep reading. 
               
               My point is not to discredit Mohammed or Joseph Smith or any of them.  I'm sure they are all perfectly valid.  I'm just pointing out how perfectly all the stories line up, like a big string of divine dominoes running back into the places where the cthonic myths dissolve into prehistory.

               replyreport
      2. 52

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         From a Christian point of view,I take refuge with the Creator-God Allah YHWH, Jesus should be a false Prophet. Jesus, as per the NT, died a cursed  death on the Cross, which is a punishment of the false Prophet as per Deutronomy.
         
         As per Quran Jeus was a truthful Prophet as he died a natural and peaceful death.
         
         Muhammad died a peaceful death so he is a truthful prophet as per OT and Quran.
         
         Thanks

         replyreport
         1. 61

            skipper112posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I waited for paar to continus his attack's on Jesus. Paar sure HATE'S Jesus, not a day goes by when paar is ATTACKING Jesus in some thread.paar always try's to use the Bible or the Quran to INSULT Jesus, I belive paar hates Jesus so much , paar can't wait for a new thread were paar can attack Jesus paars ,  Get a life paar what did Jesus ever do to you to get so much HATRED from you??
            
            Jesus NEVER WAS a PROPHET og the Quran PERIOD!!!!
            There is no mention of Mohammed in the BIBLE, so  Mohammed was never a prophet of the OT
            paar you can never take a Christian view on anything as you are not Christian and do not understand Christians. PERIOD!!!!!!

            replyreport
   2. 59

      dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Do not confuse Religion with true beliefe, he is viewed as
      bad in the middle ages only due to the wars and the Crusades:
      
      With the Crusades of the High Middle Ages, and the wars against the Ottoman Empire during the Late Middle Ages, the Christian reception of Muhammad became more polemical, moving from the classification as a heretic to depiction of Muhammad as a servant of Satan or as the Antichrist, who is suffering tortures in Hell.
      
      But later the views changed it to this:
      
      A more positive interpretation appears in the 13th century Estoire del Saint Grail, the first book in the vast Arthurian cycle, the Lancelot-Grail. In describing the travels of Joseph of Arimathea, keeper of the Holy Grail, the author says that most residents of the Middle East were pagans until the coming of Muhammad, who is shown as a true prophet sent by God to bring Christianity to the region.
      
      This mission however failed when Muhammad's pride caused him to alter God's wishes, thereby deceiving his followers. Nevertheless, Muhammad's religion is portrayed as being greatly superior to paganism.[13]
      
      The depiction of Islam in the Travels of Sir John Mandeville is also relatively positive, though with many inaccurate and mythical features. It is said that Muslims are easily converted to Christianity because their beliefs are already so similar in many ways, and that they believe that only the Christian revelation will last till the end of the world. The moral behaviour of Muslims at the time is shown as superior to that of Christians, and as a standing reproach to Christian society. [14]
      
      Other Romantic depictions of Muhammad also began to appear from the 13th century onward, such as in Alexandre du Pont's Roman de Mahom, the translation of the Mi'raj, the Escala de Mahoma (“The Ladder of Muhammad”) by the court physician of Alfonso X of Castile and Leon and his son.[1]
      
      Medieval European literature often referred to Muslims as "infidels" or "pagans", in sobriquets such as the paynim foe. These depictions such as those in the Song of Roland represent Muslims worshiping Muhammad (spelt e.g. 'Mahom' and 'Mahumet') as a god, and depict them worshiping various deities in the form of "idols", ranging from Apollo to Lucifer, but ascribing to them a chief deity known as "Termagant".[15][8]
      
      The definition of "Saracen" in Raymond de Peñafort's Summa de Poenitentia starts by describing the Muslims but ends by including every person who is neither a Christian nor a Jew.
      
      When the Knights Templar were being tried for heresy reference was often made to their worship of a demon Baphomet, which was notable by implication for its similarity to the common rendition of Muhammad's name used by Christian writers of the time, Mahomet. All these and other variations on the theme were all set in the "temper of the times" of what was seen as a Muslim-Christian conflict as Medieval Europe was building a concept of "the great enemy" in the wake of the quickfire success of the Muslims through a series of conquests shortly after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, as well as the lack of real information in the West of the mysterious east.[11]
      
      References Below:
      
      Ernst, Carl (2004). Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 0-8078-5577-4. 
      Esposito, John (1998). Islam: The Straight Path. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-511233-4. 
      Esposito, John (1999). The Islamic Threat: Myth Or Reality?. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-513076-6. 
      Reeves, Minou (2003). Muhammad in Europe: A Thousand Years of Western Myth-Making. NYU Press. ISBN 978-0814775646. 
      Schimmel, Annemarie (1992). Islam: An Introduction. SUNY Press. ISBN 0-7914-1327-6. 
      Schimmel, Annemarie (1995). Mystische Dimensionen des Islam. Insel, Frankfurt. ISBN 3458334157. 
      Watt, W. Montgomery (1961). Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-881078-4. 
      Watt, W. Montgomery (1974). Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-881078-4.  New Edition.
      William Montgomery Watt, Muslim-Christian Encounters. Perceptions and Misperceptions
      [edit] Encyclopedias
      F. Buhl (A.T. Welch), Annemarie Schimmel, A. Noth, Trude Ehlert, ed. "Various articles". Encyclopedia of Islam Online. Brill Academic Publishers. ISSN 1573-3912. 
      "Various articles". The New Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica, Incorporated; Rev Ed edition. 2005. ISBN 978-1-59339-236-9. 
      Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Christian_views_on_Muhammad"
      
      from the following Web Site:
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_C … n_Muhammad

      replyreport
      1. 61

         skipper112posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         ty so much for your post, I think even paar wil not argue with your proven facts,
         thank you
         God bless

         replyreport
2. 68

   IntimatEvolutionposted 13 years ago

   I think most of us are raised to think that Mo was a
   wack-a-doodle.
   
   It wasn't until my adult life did I finally discover some of the mystery that surrounded his image.  He is still mysterious to me.  I don't know enough about him yet.  But......., I went to Sunday school and bible school religiously for 18 years.  Not once were we taught anything about Islam, and not once was Mohammad's name ever mention.  It's like we paid him no mind, because he wasn't important.  So his life, Islam, and anything that had to do with that religion went unnoticed in my Church.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Dont u find that a little awkward? Especially when over 20% of the world population is muslim & Islam has been a religion which always tried to relate itself with Judaism & Christianity!

      replyreport
      1. 68

         IntimatEvolutionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah I do.  But that is how it is.
         
         I didn't even know the guy existed until I was in college.

         replyreport
   2. 59

      Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Generally, most fundamental christians veiw Mohammad, as the opposite to Jesus. They don't like him, much, but some of that is because of ignorence. Islam is ultimately veiwed as the enemy. Not my veiw, but I am not a christian. The problem is that Jesus is veiwed as more than a prophet. This is my veiw, that they were both prophets, but I am not, nor will I ever be, Islamic. I am not a Hebrew. I believe we all go the same direction, and to the same destination.

      replyreport
      1. 68

         IntimatEvolutionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Well I am just speaking from the heart of a midwestern girl, and I'm telling you Christians here don't talk about him, period.  No false prophet business, no nothing- that is until 9-11.  Before 9-11 he was an unimportant, old guy that thought he could speak to Gabriel.  That's the sum of what I was taught through out school and church school.
         Based off my experience, I firmly believe that most Christians here didn't have a clue to who or what Mohammad was, until 9-11.  Seriously, he was something of a mystery.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I knew about him.  Enough about him to have already dismissed him as a false prophet.
            9/11 didn't change that.
            And neither will the false claims now that he's a misunderstood victim of Christian zealots.

            replyreport
3. 52

   paarsurreyposted 13 years ago

   Ever since the Christians deserted Jesus and followed Paul; they became narrowminded in religion; just opposite of Jesus. Some of them claim to be universal or catholic but their approach is too narrow.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      ...I think Catholics base most of their ideas on their views of the Apostle Peter, not Paul....
      
      What do you mean, anyway?  What gives you the idea that Paul's teachings are different from Jesus's?

      replyreport
   2. 61

      skipper112posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      by what athority do  you state ' Christians deserted Jesus and followed Paul' PROVE THIS STATEMENT or just STOP your UNIFORMED attacks, I want CHAPTER VERSE AND PAGE if you CANNOT provide paar you stand CONDEMED as a LIER!!!!!

      replyreport
   3. 61

      libby101aposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Paar some think you are narrowminded! It seems you love to put Jesus on the same level as Muhammad... a known thief and warmonger! A blantant lie!
      
      Jesus was the son of God!

      replyreport
4. 63

   Greek Oneposted 13 years ago

   He was one of the greatest boxer of all
   
   

   replyreport
5. 57

   zzronposted 13 years ago

   He was a profit.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      WuldUStilRemebrMeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yes. That is the Ali I know.  the Profit.

      replyreport
6. 58

   Jeramiposted 13 years ago

   I haven't studied Mohamed very much.
     I understand that he thought that Gabriel came to him with something like a revelation.
     He said that he was given the same teachings that the Hebrews were given long ago but had fallen away from.
     I read that he was sympathetic to the Hebrews and Christians of the time.
     When they invaded a country everyone HAD to convert to His religion or die, unless they were Hebrew or Christian.
   
      That is about all that I think that I know about the situation of Mohamed.
   
      If Mohamed was a true prophet? 
      When he died, This new religion broke into two factions.
      Half the people followed Mohammed's' son in the furtherance of that religion, as was the custom of the day!
     Half the people follower Mohammed's best friend and confidante.
   
     One or the other of these two leaders would have to be a FALSE  LEADER according to the true way in which Mohamed would have carried their doctrine.
   
      False leader =  False prophet ????????????

   replyreport
   1. 52

      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Please make a correction; Muhammad had no living son when he died; his sons died in their early childhood.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I don't remember where I read that about his son leading the
         Shia Muslims after Mohamed's' death but am sure that I did.,?
         Will see if I can find it again. 
         
         I Did do a couple of searches and found this.
         
           Shia Muslims further believe that Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, was the first of these Imams and was the rightful successor to Muhammad.
         
           When where these two branches of Islam created.
         I was under the impression that they divided immediately after Mohamed died???
         
            The book that I had read years ago also mentioned that
         after about 100 years after Mohammed's death ,,the last direct descendant vanished and he was thought to have been caught up by God and it is him that is expected to come back in the last days to lead their Holy war.
         
           As I said it was many years ago that I read this.  My memory may not be 100% accurate ???

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            No its not even close to accuracy. No descendants of Mohammad caught up by God. They are all dead. You are talking about Jesus. Majority muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified rather God pulled him up to save him from crucifixion & he will return in the last days of earth. God fooled them by putting a sinner in Jesus' disguise. The second coming of Jesus in Christianity is very similar to the second coming of Jesus in Islam. Except that the Muslims believe Jesus will correct the flaws of Christianity, clarify that he is a prophet not a Son of God & will spread Mohammad's teachings.

            replyreport
            1. 52

               paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Yes the above is correct.
               
               Second Coming of Jesus has already taken place in the form of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908.

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Well...that is not what the majority of Muslims believe & to be frank, it is not even close to what the Sunni prophesy tells us.

                  replyreport
                  1. 52

                     paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     In religious matters; only what matters is the truth; minority or majority is not the issue.

                     replyreport
                     1. 72

                        Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        And how do u determine what is truth in religious matters?

                        replyreport
               2. 61

                  libby101aposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a false prophet too! He swore his writings were straight from God.. but later it was proven that part of his writings were in plagarism by a great author!
                  
                  He aslo blasphemed according to islamic religion... he called Jesus a liar and many other things... and he called Mary bad names (can't remember exactly what he called her at the moment)... 
                  
                  The Islamic people dismissed him as the true Messiah because of many things as stated above that proved he was NOT the Messiah!

                  replyreport
7. 73

   Diane Insideposted 13 years ago

   He was just a pedophile.  That's what I think.

   replyreport
8. 52

   paarsurreyposted 13 years ago

   Muhammad died a peaceful death so he is a truthful prophet as per OT and Quran.
   
   From a Christian point of view,I take refuge with the Creator-God Allah YHWH, Jesus should be a false Prophet. Jesus, as per the NT, died a cursed  death on the Cross, which is a punishment of the false Prophet as per Deutronomy.
   
   As per Quran Jeus was a truthful Prophet as he died a natural and peaceful death.

   replyreport
9. 73

   Diane Insideposted 13 years ago

   paarsurrey what do you say about a man who marries and has sex with a nine year old little girl? Seems you never have anything to say about that.

   replyreport
   1. 52

      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It is just a made up story ; the only source of Muhammad's time does not mention it.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Diane Insideposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         really because there are alot of Muslims who believe that and try to reason with it by saying she(the little girl) had started menses and could start having sex.  Which it states in the quran, so that is false.  I don't think so.

         replyreport
   2. 72

      Rishy Richposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      NO. Its not a made up story parrsurrey. May be you are trying to made up a new image of Muhammad which is not accurate with historical sources.

      replyreport
      1. 52

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Kindly quote from a source which existed in the times of Muhammad ; there is none.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Nor can you qoute from a source of the time of the Gospels that says Jesus didn't die on the cross. That is from the time of Muhammad some four hundred years after the fact. You turn christians against you with such talk.

            replyreport
            1. 52

               paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Following sources prove that Jesus could not die and/or did not die on the Cross:
               
               1.    OT Bible states that only false Messengers Prophets are killed or die on the Cross.
               
               2.    It could be inferred from several cues in the NTBible.
               
               3.    Above all, the Creator-God Allah YHWH mentions it very clearly in Quran; and it does not require further witnessing.
               
               4.    History of India; Buddhist, Hindu and Islamic ancient sources mention it.
               
               5.    Ancient medical books also mention it.
               
               6.    Genealogy of the Pushtoons and the Kashmiris also give evidences.
               
               Etc, etc

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  libby101aposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Hogwash! All hearsay!

                  replyreport
   3. 53

      ITRYposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Let me remind all you guys that at that time people married at thirteen,and that after he married her they only started sexual activity when she was 18.. and she was 9 btw!!! And as stated in hadith he used to watch her play and raced with her... She was not raped or forced

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Of course - all 9 year old kids are ready to be married and don't need forced.  Of course, the definition of "force" relating to children well under any age of consent needs worked on some...
         
         But if you're actually claiming that he married a woman and then waited 5 years AFTER normal age of marriage to consummate that marriage, well, I want some of what you've been smoking!

         replyreport
         1. 53

            ITRYposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I dont want to call u uneducated, because Jesus would not do that and nor would Muhammad and you probably are and a very respectable man. Just let me tell you that if you use Muslim hadith, you will see that he did marry a small girl. But you should also use hadith to see that he did wait 5 years to consummate that marriage, and that anyways she coudnt have had sex at 13 and reproduce.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Now the claim is that most "women" that married then at 13 years of age could not reproduce?  So men would not have sex with them?  What HAVE you been smoking???
               
               As far as taking Muhammad at his word, simply accepting everything he said as truth (hadith), that is not in the cards.  The man said things we know to be false, after all (think an egg shaped earth and I'm sure you know of others).

               replyreport
10. 60

    paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago

    A very tired Let-It-Go.!?!?!

    replyreport
    1. 52

       paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Please express yourself fully; you could differ with me; no compulsion.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          skipper112posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          paar please express your self with reason and honesty.
          Mohammed did have sex with 9 year old Alisha that fact is admitted by TRUE MUSLIMS.
          EXPRESS your self with FACTS ( chapter and verse)
          no true Muslims thinks or belives Jesus went to India, so prove from Bible or Quran?????
          paar do not bring up half truth's give us chapter verse and page from Quran or Bible????
          What 'Ancient medical' books and do they mention Jesus by name, if not then as usual paar ILLINFORMED and UNPROVEN as 99% of your statement's are only there to INSULT  Jesus and are always  UNPROVEN
          
          May My Lord Jesus Christ  fogive you paar because you know not what you say.
          
          PROVE YOUR STATEMENTS
          Give refrences like Duchman, back up your statements paar.

          replyreport
11. 68

    lrohnerposted 13 years ago

    The Christian view of Mohammad? I can only speak for myself, but I would have to say my view is an older guy who likes to sleep with little girls.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       libby101aposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Yep!

       replyreport
       1. 61

          skipper112posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          you got it right Irohner,
          Now paar will start another thread as this one is in the too hard basket.
          
          G'day Libby.
          
          
          I do not know why paar hates Jesus so much, but by his words he must hate Jesus with a vengance.!
          paar says ' please express yourself fully' paar says 'give me were it is written'
          yet paar almost NEVER answers a question, with out asking another question, and some of his questions are on another SUBJECT.
          but paar sure keeps me amused with his ( to me) worthless  comments,and his unrelenting attacks on Jesus.
          Peace be with you irohner and Libby,
          God bless

          replyreport
12. 52

    paarsurreyposted 13 years ago

    Following sources prove that Jesus could not die and/or did not die on the Cross:
    
    1.    OT Bible states that only false Messengers Prophets are killed or die on the Cross.
    
    2.    It could be inferred from several cues in the NTBible.
    
    3.    Above all, the Creator-God Allah YHWH mentions it very clearly in Quran; and it does not require further witnessing.
    
    4.    History of India; Buddhist, Hindu and Islamic ancient sources mention it.
    
    5.    Ancient medical books also mention it.
    
    6.    Genealogy of the Pushtoons and the Kashmiris also give evidences.
    
    Etc, etc

    replyreport
    1. 61

       skipper112posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       why does the Quran not need whitnessing, after all it is pure Hearsay.?
       give ancient medical books. name them??
       give page verse and chapter in OT and NT ??
       paar give the references I have asked for, or admit you do not know what you are talking about.
       paar you have made the statements now prove it.
       JUST PROVE YOUR STATEMENTS VERSE CHAPTER AND PAGE AFTER ALL IT IS SIMPLE YOU MADE THE STATEMENTS PROVE IT PAAR>
       ALSO PAAR NAME THE ANCIENT MEDICAL BOOKS YOU SAY EXISEST TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS,
       NOW IT IS UP TO YOU PAAR PUT UP OR SHUTUP

       replyreport
13. 53

    ITRYposted 10 years ago

    If you use Muslim hadith to show that Muhammad pbuh married a six year old, then you should read muslim hadith to see how long he waited "to consummate that marriage"
    And you should also read muslim hadith to see how aisha agreed to the marriage. And I'm a muslim so I dont do drugs as my god, and your god, and the god of every other monotheistic person has commanded me not to as it will make me say stuff like that retard paarsurrey would say

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Does it matter that a six or seven year old agrees to a marriage?
       
       And not doing drugs has not prevented you from calling someone a "retard"? I do suggest you stay away from any drugs if this is what you do without them.
       
       Thirteen year old girls can't reproduce?

       replyreport