Muhammad & Idolatry

I'll start with the easy part. If he was born in 3-5BC and died aged 35-40 then he would have been dead by 35AD, simple. My point was that you couldn't invent Jesus, I'm not talking about his doctrine I'm talking about the charator of the man. It would have taken Jesus to invent Jesus.

"In that respect the Gispels aren't alone either. I would suggest you leave the realm of litteralism (i.e. the source as litteral historical truth) and stop bothering with the silly tit-for-tat between atheists and believers over a quote here and an inscription there -- 'Look, Jesus existed! See, he didn't exist!' -- and look at the larger picture of what Karl Jaspers called the 'Axis-time', a period roughly from 800 b.C. to 800 a.D. which emcompasses the advent of nearly all the great religious 'holy books'. Some thinkers and prohets, , like Heraclitus, Confucius and Buddha, were contemporaries. Some remained anonymous, others left clear historical traces. What these Prophecies (and the supposed Prophets) have in common is that they introduced radically new principles of thought and action."

I don't take the Bible litterally but I don't think its a pipe dream either, with the exception of Revelations. 800-800 is a huge time period and it only encompases the religions that survive. Its also a time of literacy in all the regions these religions sprang up in. Greek Ortheism might have suplanted Christianity if it had been spread more effectivly to Rome and beyond. The Orthics had a doctrine and all the stuff Christianity has. They just didn't quite make it.

Spiritualism is a product of the Middle Classes, they're the ones with the time, the education and the axe to grind usually. They see the problem with a "service" religion which basically exchanges goods for services between god and man.

I don't buy this "Axis-time" you're talking about. Its like designating the early Medieval the "Dark Ages" its an arbitory attempt to divide and classify history. At any rate he's wrong, Sihkism arrives in the 16th Century, Lutherism in the 14th, Mormanism in the 18th.

Religious ferment happens whenever people have time, education and spiritual dissatisfaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

If he was born in 3-5BC and died aged 35-40 then he would have been dead by 35AD, simple.

---

Indeed, if he was born at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

My point was that you couldn't invent Jesus, I'm not talking about his doctrine I'm talking about the charator of the man. It would have taken Jesus to invent Jesus.

---

Literary authors invent literary characters all the time. Mankind has 'invented' countless mythological characters. Why couldn't a sect under the Roman Empire have invented Jesus in the course of a hundred years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Religious ferment happens whenever people have time, education and spiritual dissatisfaction.

---

In other words: all the time. Henceforth we can substitute The Ironwall Credo for the Barnum Credo: there is a Prophet born every minute.

Most literary authors just reinvent. All heroic fantasy stems from Homer, for example. Or the characters were based on real people. I maintain that it would take a man like Jesus to actually invent the man Jesus, so it probably was Jesus. Since he already existed you wouldn't need to invent him.

As to the invetion of mythological characters. Achilles, Cuchulain and Beowulf probably all existed, then they were just elaborated on. Exactly the same with Jesus.

As an aside, the "prophet born every minute" is the pro arguement for religion, given all the ahcks the theory is that you need divine intervention to start a religion and keep it going. Also its not always right fro religious revolution. Monarchial Greece, the Hellenic era and Feudal Europe are all examples of when there wasn't alot going on and the reason was that there were two classes, masters and slaves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Most literary authors just reinvent. All heroic fantasy stems from Homer, for example. Or the characters were based on real people. I maintain that it would take a man like Jesus to actually invent the man Jesus, so it probably was Jesus.

---

If you look a bit closer you will see that much of the Jesus cult was already present in Jewish, Greek and other sources, both contemporaneous and older. The very notion of a redeeming Messiah, which is at the core of his Prophecy, was an age-old Jewish idea. It was one of the thirteen principles of faith for Jews, and it has been recorded time and again by Isaiah, Ezekiel and other Jewish Prophets. The Jesus cult was probably just another splinter group that worked with the same concepts as many of the others that did not survive through the ages, although their existence has been recorded. Even the Jesus sect was short-lived and was only later revived, in drastically altered form, by Paul. All in all these elements do not speak to the historicity of Jezus in any way.

I wasnt sure where to post this. But seeing as it might get sticky I put it here.

Well I was going to ask what if hollywood made a movie on the life of Mohamed and the birth of Islam. How would Muslims in the Middle East react?
Well It turns out there already is such a movie. I did a quick google and found it. Now that I look at it I remember seeing it. It was a really good movie.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...%28film%29.jpg


The Message (1976)
Also Known As:
Mohammed, Messenger of God


Credited cast:
Anthony Quinn .... Hamza
Irene Papas .... Hind
Michael Ansara .... Abu Sofyan
Johnny Sekka .... Bilal
Michael Forest .... Khalid


I cant find anyone playing Mohamed here though.

Quote:

---

In accordance with Muslim beliefs, Mohammed could not be depicted on screen nor could his voice be heard. This rule extended to his seven wives, his daughters and his sons-in-law. This left Mohammed's uncle as the central character (played by Anthony Quinn). In the completed film, actors speak directly to the camera and then nod to un-heard dialogue.


Muhammad Ali expressed interest in playing the role of Bilal, but producer Moustapha Akkad refused, stating that such casting "would smack of commercialism."


Production stopped when the financeers withdrew their support, leaving cast and crew stranded for two weeks in Morocco (in a hotel with broken air conditioning; they slept under wet towels). Financing was eventually supplied by none other than Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi.


The University of Al-Azhar in Cairo and the High Islamic Congress of the Shiat in Lebanon were involved in approving the accuracy of the film.


At its initial release, this movie was banned from many Middle-Eastern countries because the religious leaders didn't like the idea of having the Prophet Mohammed's story being made into a motion picture.
This film was made in both English and Arabic with two different casts. Scenes were shot back to back in both languages.


300 of the extras also helped with the construction of the sets.


It took 4 ½ months to build the ancient city of Mecca.

---

LINK

What do you think the reaction would be today if they made such a film? And who would play Mohamed?

I think I may check this movie out again. Been a longtime since ive seen it.

Heres a link from Wika on it

I dont believe you ever actually saw Mohamed in it. Id like to know if any of our muslim members have seen this movie and how they would feel if a movie were made where he was shown. Can you imagine the Passion without ever seeing Jesus?

Also how many here would like to see such a picture made?

Can't you just read other threads and participate in the discussions instead of making new threads all the time with your cut and paste crap? Take it from here .

Well excuse me for missing a post. Ive been busy. I suppose it could be moved there. I never claimed to perfect like you.

There was no need for an insult.

Well, apparently, Muhammad was depicted in high middle age books and manuscripts.
Can't upload a pic atm, but they're mostly showing the prophet talking to angels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Well excuse me for missing a post.

---

People do that all the time. We have seven threads on this issue already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

As an aside, the "prophet born every minute" is the pro arguement for religion, given all the ahcks the theory is that you need divine intervention to start a religion and keep it going. Also its not always right fro religious revolution. Monarchial Greece, the Hellenic era and Feudal Europe are all examples of when there wasn't alot going on and the reason was that there were two classes, masters and slaves.

---

I would say is all you need is some sort of advantage to start a religion.

After all until it gets a bit of age and respect most religions are called cults.

Some of these cults are to stroke the leaders ego, his bank account or for him to stroke his followers.

Some cults have been made purely to get the advantage in the tax code of most nations not taxing them.

Hubbard is a classic case of creating a cult to garner monetary gain.

A lot of cults pander to peoples fears and say that they will easily and effortlessly lead them away from those fears.

Although I havn't seen a cult to lead people away from their fear of public speaking (well maybe NLP is a bit of that) I have seen plenty of cults saying they can give people eternal life, youth, vigour, happiness, oneness with the universe. All hold the essential spiritual truth of the universe and all they require are a percentage of your material possesions in return for this spiritual enlightenment.

Most religions are a shell game and the followers are the marks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

No. His face should be erased. There are many miniatures of Muhammed in a book that tells of his life which is can be found in Topkapi Palace, I hear dthat a copy of it is also a property of British Museum. In all miniatures in the book Muhammed's face was not depicted.

However I don't think the particular incident you talk about needs any further reaction if they don't agree to erase his face.

---

I would have to disagree. In regards to pictures, sculptures etc in museums, books etc the Islamic university of Kairo have stated that depictation of Muhammed is not desired, but as long as it is in good and educational purpose for non-muslims, no argument should be given by muslims.
There are alot of discussions on this of course, but just as with the sharia law, it is not a law/rule that includes non-believers, as long as it's not blasphemy. The Danish cartoons are insulting regardless Muhammed being depicted is an issue or not.

throughout theis argumant there have been two things that i have wondered about:

1. Why is Islam a seperate religion? yes im seroius, for one thing they base themselves on Abraham same as cristians and jews, in the quran itself there is a passage when some cristians say they are ''muslims'' already!, muslims accept jesus as a prophet (so they should surely be annoyed at all his depictions?), add to that that Allah is not a name and is merely the (arabic?) word for god and youve got a lot of similaritys!

the only problem is that the musims ignore some of the teaching of their prophet jesus, in particular where he said there would be no more (genuine) prophets untill the end!

2. muhamed is often reffered to as ''the prophet muhammed'', but this is surely not his title to non muslims are we not placating muslims by useing the phrase? (unless they are gonna start saying ''Jesus son of god'')

Odd things like that, isn't it? Jesus says he's the last prophet.

Muslims cheerfully ignore that - isn't that sacrelege to Christians? Apparently not.

Mohammed says he's the last prophet, and although he's as good as told us the last guy to say that was wrong, he's to be believed, ok?

We call him the Prophet Mohammed as we have to play nice; Muslims don't call Jesus the son of God as that's against their religion... Simple double standards.

~:smoking:

Christians may well call Mohammed a prophet but I doubt they would call him The Prophet. In the same way Muslims are happy to call Jesus a prophet, but not The Messiah. I see no real double standard.

If a theologian or religious fundamentalist wants to make a doctinal point out of this difference then fair enough, at least they have a stake in it. IIRC from your other posts Rory you are hardly religious enough to warrant that much righteous indignation.

Slyspy, i find two problems with your statement:

firstly its not just christians that call muhammed the prophet muhammed and secondly he is refered to as ''the prophet mohammed'' by everyone, that is what muslims usually call him too (although i think they have to say ''peace be apon him'' each time) ive not heard him referred as ''a prophet muhammed'' very often

AdrianII, you are persistantly missing my point. I'm not talking about the Messiah, the doctrine, the belief or anything. I'm talking about the man Jesus, you couldn't invent him.

Back on topic:

ByzMerc, hit the nail on the head. How can Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet and then say he's not the last or not the son of God. Lack of fundamental internal logic. This is different to Jews who just ignore Jesus as a fake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

ByzMerc, hit the nail on the head. How can Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet and then say he's not the last or not the son of God. Lack of fundamental internal logic. This is different to Jews who just ignore Jesus as a fake.

---

Maybe because they believe the bible/Christian doctrine is corrupted???

I mean the trinity doctrine was codified in the 4th century, and there were many sects of Christianity which were crushed and exterminated because they didn't follow Nicean doctrine.

Think about Arianism, which stated that Jesus was not divine...

As for Jesus's or Muhammed's existence...most historians think so otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Maybe because they believe the bible/Christian doctrine is corrupted???

I mean the trinity doctrine was codified in the 4th century, and there were many sects of Christianity which were crushed and exterminated because they didn't follow Nicean doctrine.

Think about Arianism, which stated that Jesus was not divine...

---

yes, but i don't know of any christian sects that fitted with the muslim view either, the gospels were chosen specifically because they fitted best (and used more material from) the old testament and Judaism and so had less of the later influences on cristianity present in their construction,
but this is beside the point as as far as i know the muslims don't have any source from which they could have got any other information on jesus besides other christian texts which would have been relatively similar to the oficial version by the time of the founding of Islam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary

yes, but i don't know of any christian sects that fitted with the muslim view either, the gospels were chosen specifically because they fitted best (and used more material from) the old testament and Judaism and so had less of the later influences on cristianity present in their construction,
but this is beside the point as as far as i know the muslims don't have any source from which they could have got any other information on jesus besides other christian texts which would have been relatively similar to the oficial version by the time of the founding of Islam.

---

Byzantine Mercenary, as I recall, Islam is a strictly monotheistic faith. Therefore, any talk about "son of God" would be cast aside...Therefore, the christian idea of Jesus being the son of God would be incompatible, but Jesus as a prophet would not...

I really don't know which version, muslim or christian is right...but that's my point, there are two versions, it's not a "lack of fundamental internal logic" as you state, because they simply believe differently about Jesus.

That's why they are two separate religions...however similar, there remain key differences in their doctrines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

AdrianII, you are persistantly missing my point. I'm not talking about the Messiah, the doctrine, the belief or anything. I'm talking about the man Jesus, you couldn't invent him.

---

Alright. Heh, I am doing my bloody best here to understand you. The problem is we do not know anything about a 'man Jesus'. All we have is sources about a Jesus character that are mythological and therefore essentially literary. If you can demonstrate that these sources necessarily refer to a historical person, then you are on to something and you will certainly have my undivided attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

How can Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet and then say he's not the last or not the son of God?

---

They do accept Mozes, Jesus, etcetera, but they do not accept those parts of the OT or the Gospels that emphasise their uniqueness as Prophets. The Muslim view has always been that the Jews and Christians have falsified their holy texts in order to erase all passages that refer to Mohammed's coming as the one and only definitive Prophet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

They do accept Mozes, Jesus, etcetera, but they do not accept those parts of the OT or the Gospels that emphasise their uniqueness as Prophets. The Muslim view has always been that the Jews and Christians have falsified their holy texts in order to erase all passages that refer to Mohammed's coming as the one and only definitive Prophet.

---

Phew...that's what I was trying to say...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Phew...that's what I was trying to say...

---

Well, we can agree to agree on something then. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary

Slyspy, i find two problems with your statement:

firstly its not just christians that call muhammed the prophet muhammed and secondly he is refered to as ''the prophet mohammed'' by everyone, that is what muslims usually call him too (although i think they have to say ''peace be apon him'' each time) ive not heard him referred as ''a prophet muhammed'' very often

---

Hmm. Mohammed is considered a prophet. So when talking about him a non-Muslim might say "the prophet Mohammed" or "Mohammed, the prophet". You may even say "Mohamed, a prophet" in some contexts. You are unlikely to say "a prophet Mohammed" because the sentence structure is wrong. Also I find it hard to believe that Christians would say "The Prophet Mohammed" or "Mohammed, The Prophet". Maybe I'm wrong, maybe my experiences differ to yours. The capitalised version being an honourific (sp?), you see, not a description.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Most literary authors just reinvent. All heroic fantasy stems from Homer, for example. Or the characters were based on real people. I maintain that it would take a man like Jesus to actually invent the man Jesus, so it probably was Jesus. Since he already existed you wouldn't need to invent him.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

If you look a bit closer you will see that much of the Jesus cult was already present in Jewish, Greek and other sources, both contemporaneous and older. The very notion of a redeeming Messiah,

---

And if you're looking for someone being killed and coming back again, look no further than older Egyptian and Middle-Eastern beliefs. Osiris was killed by Set and brought back by Isis to take the post as ruler of the dead. Ishtar's lover spent half the year dead to help ensure the fertility of the land. Just leave out females having power and you have a new version of these cults in Jesus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Well, we can agree to agree on something then. :bow:

---

We probably agree on many things, it's just that human differences seem to be inflated much more than similarities...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

We probably agree on many things, it's just that human differences seem to be inflated much more that similarities...

---

I agree. Violence and all sorts of barriers do that to people and nations. Have you read my last couple of posts on Latinos and Muslims in EU and America? I try to get away from the tit-for-tat and the simplification all the time, but if you are frustrated in your attempts to get across it's hard sometimes not to just blame the other side, throw your hands in the air and go 'Shove it, pal!' Let's try to avoid that and have some good discussions going, Reenk Roink.
:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

Hmm. Mohammed is considered a prophet. So when talking about him a non-Muslim might say "the prophet Mohammed" or "Mohammed, the prophet". You may even say "Mohamed, a prophet" in some contexts. You are unlikely to say "a prophet Mohammed" because the sentence structure is wrong.

---

Precisely my point! or should it be my point precisely! :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

Also I find it hard to believe that Christians would say "The Prophet Mohammed" or "Mohammed, The Prophet". Maybe I'm wrong, maybe my experiences differ to yours. The capitalised version being an honourific (sp?), you see, not a description.

---

well thats the standard way he is always reffered to by everyone as far as i know yet jesus is not ''Jesus son of god''

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

They do accept Mozes, Jesus, etcetera, but they do not accept those parts of the OT or the Gospels that emphasise their uniqueness as Prophets. The Muslim view has always been that the Jews and Christians have falsified their holy texts in order to erase all passages that refer to Mohammed's coming as the one and only definitive Prophet.

---

ha! thats just waky, if we were up to changing the bible and such then there is a whole lot more in it that would be changed! :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Byzantine Mercenary, as I recall, Islam is a strictly monotheistic faith. Therefore, any talk about "son of God" would be cast aside...Therefore, the christian idea of Jesus being the son of God would be incompatible, but Jesus as a prophet would not...

I really don't know which version, muslim or christian is right...but that's my point, there are two versions, it's not a "lack of fundamental internal logic" as you state, because they simply believe differently about Jesus.

That's why they are two separate religions...however similar, there remain key differences in their doctrines.

---

huh?, you can't make such conclusions based on beliefs, and i think you will find that christianity is monotheistic too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary

well thats the standard way he is always reffered to by everyone as far as i know yet jesus is not ''Jesus son of god''

---

Nostrodamus is also referred to as a prophet...

It's not really that big of a deal mate...

Besides prophet =/ (that's my sign for "not equals") son of God in terms of respect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary

ha! thats just waky, if we were up to changing the bible and such then there is a whole lot more in it that would be changed! :laugh4:

---

Ok...well that's what muslims believe...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary

huh?, you can't make such conclusions based on beliefs, and i think you will find that christianity is monotheistic too!

---

With all due respect, isn't that what you are doing? You believe that Jesus is the son of God, therefore, you think it is flawed for muslims to accept him as prophet, but not as divine...

BTW, I said strictly monotheistic, did you know that some compare trinity to polytheism...?

EDIT: I just noticed I use "..." a lot... And I mean a lot!

ByzMerc, either you don't understand the distinction which I am trying to make or, more likely, our experiences are indeed very different.

On changes to the Bible: It is largely suspected that a certain amount of mis-copying and, significantly, mis-translation has changed the meaning of some parts of the text. Even now it when tranlating from ancient Greek it is extremely common for two people to translate the same text with different results. This is on top of any editing which may or may not have been carried out by various parties through out the ages.

I think the general theory on the Bible is that its been edited rather than changed. The difficult bits were cut but there are some difficult bits left in. Paul is very in favour of the divine righ to rule etc but I think Jesus would have put the skids on that from looking at the Gospels.

Adrian, I'm not saying I can prove he existed I'm saying that I don't think you could invent a man like Jesus as he is depicted in the New Testemant.

Spetulhu, actually the doctrine of reserection is much more like Mithraism, the idea of the blood and the flesh also has a parralel in the cult of Mithras.

I never add Mohammed's honerific. I believe the correct form is Mohammed, Peace Be Upon Him.

I like the idea of Islam being a conspiracy theory though. IIRC Mohammed is supposed to have started the movement because he was dissatisfied with Christianity and what he saw as it's corruption.