Was Muhammad Inspired of God?

[ELF1024]

I read that report, and found it very amusing. The guy has a point. In France (as in the rest of Europe and the US), cohabiting between consenting adults is not illegal; and you can have as many as you like. A man can have ten "mistresses" if he likes, or the other way round, without breaking any law. So what difference does it make whether you put the title of "marriage" on it (especially that of another religious tradition) or not?

Islam allows up to four wives.

My point was not that they practice polygamy, but that they continue to do so inspite of laws against it.

Another example of Islam in today's news...

Britain's Islam Channel Censored After Condoning Marital Rape, Violence Toward Women

[Daniel Peterson]

So I disagree with you so you insult me and link me with this group of terrorist, that is insulting and beneath you. Thank you very much Dan

[Vance]

I used to have a rather negative attitude toward Muslims, but have come to a better understanding.

My son served about half of his mission in Malaysia. He was treated with respect and dignity by Muslims. Far better treatment than from the self proclaimed "Christians".

It is a very sad fact that many Muslims live more of a Christian life than many Christians.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I've just about had it with message boards. Really. Seriously.

If you require forty thousand smiley faces with each post, please consider them inserted.

The fact is that your view is identical, in that specific respect, with the view of the terrorists. That's simply a fact. It's the truth. For which I apologize.

If you find that an insult, consider this: Just like

[cinepro]

It is a very sad fact that many Muslims live more of a Christian life than many Christians.

You should make that into a bumper sticker

[Thunderfire]

1. I'm not sure whether Muhammad was a prophet or not. I'm reasonably confident that he received inspiration from God. So has the First Presidency under Spencer W. Kimball, and so have been certain other past apostles and leaders of the Church.

You bring up some good points to consider Dr. Peterson. Not to twist or wrestle any scripture, but we are told that God is not a respector of persons. Like you, I am also "reasonably confident he received inspiration from God as do we all. There are some very interesting truths we need to consider here regarding Muhammad.

Muhammad was a direct descendent of Ishmael through his second son Kedar. Ishmael was the first son of Abraham and is one of ONLY four people named by God prior to their birth (he was actually the first. They were Ishmael, Isaac, John-the baptist, and Jesus). We cannot deny the prospects of God "blessing" Ishmael and his promised great nation, even though his covenant went through Isaac. In Genesis (17) we find God promising Ishamel that he will be blessed and made fruitful, that he will be the father of (12) rulers and made into a great nation.

There are many parallels here between what happened to Isaac through his son Jacob as there are between Ishmael and his sons (especially Kedar, father of Muhammod)

While I would not classify him a prophet in the biblical sense (Amos 3:7). We need to acknowledge that some of the truths he revealed are "biblical".

2. From what I can tell, Muhammad seems to have been a reasonably good man by the standards of his day. In considering his actions, it helps to remember the old saying that "The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there." Was he involved in violence? Yes. But so were Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and many of the other prophets of ancient Israel.

Good point here! Some times we do have the propensity of giving "our guys" a free pass regarding certain acts committed that we hold against those not of our fold.

3. Suggesting that Muhammad may have received divine inspiration is quite distinct from a complete endorsement of Islam as it is taught and practiced today, let alone of extremist Islam and terrorism. I take it that we don't blame Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, and Jesus for everything done by medieval and Renaissance Christians, so I see no reason to blame Muhammad for every act of Muslims over the centuries.

Good point again!

4. Islamic civilization is responsible for much good, in philosophy, art, architecture, science, mathematics, medicine, literature, and many other fields. Islam has given meaning to the lives of billions of people over a millennium and a half, has taught them to pray, and has conveyed to them a great deal of truth about God. I personally cannot say that the bad of Islam outweighs the good of it.

I was surprise to learn now much they have given to mankind regarding science, mathematics and other things. How could this not be seen as a form of inspiration from God when the whole earth benefited from the knowledge they gave?

Now some of the things which I believe hold them back is that they have no concept of "grace" and are very works based in their theology. As Ishmael was banished from his fathers presence (Abraham), always seeking the love and acceptance of a father, they too see this same relationship with God. Because of this, in my opinion we should show mercy on them, because they do not know of a redeemer.

I was taught that the word Islam means "submission to God". Because of this, much of there identity centers on being a servant to God, rather than one of a loving relationship as a beloved child. Again, we should have pity on them that this void of have a fatherless heart might be healed. Anyway, just some basic thoughts I wanted to offer for consideration.

[Daniel Peterson]

Absolutely -- and I mean absolutely -- no insult was directed at you, and utterly zero disrespect was directed toward you. You have completely misread what I wrote (and ignored the majority of it, too).

I am, however, tired to the bone of internet assertions that I'm arrogant and intolerant of other opinions -- personally insulting and disrespectful claims that you've just repeated here. They do not, in my experience, tend to be made by people who know me, but are made on the Internet. So much the worse for the Internet, then, from my perspective. I don't need this kind of treatment, and I don't need message boards.

You needn't take it personally. I never meant anything personal, and I don't with this, either.

I wish you all the best.

[zerinus]

Islam allows up to four wives.

My point was not that they practice polygamy, but that they continue to do so inspite of laws against it.

Who are "they"? Are you suggesting that every Muslim "breaks the law" or practices polygamy against the law? What percentage of them do you think do? There are also breakaway Mormons who practice polygamy "against the law". Does that make all Mormons criminals and lawbreakers? I am not really sure what any of this proves.

Another example of Islam in today's news...

Britain's Islam Channel Censored After Condoning Marital Rape, Violence Toward Women

Sure, those kinds of things exist in some aspects of Islam. I am not sure what you are trying to prove by that though. Such attitudes more often have to do with culture than with religion. There is probably more violence and discrimination against women in non-Muslim India than there is in Muslim India--or in Pakistan. I am not really sure what that is supposed to prove.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

I asked you why you hadn't prayed to know if Muhammad was a prophet of God. You replied:

Why do you assume that I haven't?

The answer becomes evident in what follows. I had asked you if you didn't believe, as a Mormon, that God would give you an answer if you asked him about an alleged prophet. You ducked that question and commented:

Whether Muhammad was or was not a prophet is not a matter of existential concern to me, and would make no difference to the way I live my life. I have found the gospel and church of Jesus Christ, and I don't think God really cares that much about answering questions of merely antiquarian curiosity.

From your earlier statement that you didn't know if Muhammad was a prophet I can see only two possible conclusions: (1) you asked God if Muhammad was his prophet and didn't get an answer, or (2) you didn't ask. Scenario (1) doesn't fit the LDS doctrine of revelation, which is why I tend to think scenario (2) is the reality. Your comment quoted above would seem to confirm my assumption, since someone who claims not to care if Muhammad was a prophet is unlikely to bother asking God about it.

To your statement quoted above I might retort that whether Joseph Smith was or was not a prophet is not a matter of existential concern to me and would make no difference to the way I live my life, but that would be a lie. If I knew that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, I would become a Mormon. Likewise, if I knew that Muhammad was a prophet of God, I would become a Muslim. Since Islam is incompatible with both Mormonism and orthodox Christianity, neither one of us can plausibly claim not to know if Muhammad was a prophet of God; our choice to remain where we are proves we have answered that question in the negative. And the question of whether Muhammad was a true prophet of God certainly ought to be a matter of existential concern to anyone who claims to care about God's truth and who is an expert on Islam!

On one point, though, I can agree with you. God does not need to answer questions about whether Muhammad was a prophet of God. We have the revelation of God in Jesus Christ and can see for ourselves (even from our very different theological perspectives) that the religion of Muhammad is not compatible with that revelation in Christ. I don't need to ask God if Muhammad is God's prophet, because I know Christ is God's Son. Likewise, I don't need to ask God if the Book of Mormon is the word of God, because I know the Bible is the word of God and that the religion founded on the Book of Mormon is not compatible with the Bible. Disagree with that conclusion you will, but the principle is a sound one: we need not pray to know if a religion is true if we have what we consider good, God-honoring reasons to conclude that it is not.

You wrote:

That said, though, and despite your obvious attempt to mock Mormonism and Moroni 10:4-5....

No, Dan, I wasn't mocking Mormonism or Moroni 10:4-5. I do of course reject both, but here I was merely exposing an apparent inconsistency in your fidelity to the Moroni principle. Other Mormons here seem unabashed in judging Muhammad to have been a false prophet, as they should.

You wrote:

...I will add this: I have found prayerful consideration of Islamic texts far more valuable to me, as both a person and a scholar, than the reading of the thirty or so evangelical anti-Islamic books that I've collected in my personal library -- which, significantly, bear very close resemblance in both tone and academic rigor to the evangelical anti-Mormon materials that are emitted by the same sad and unseemly sector of the evangelical community.

Bringing out the anti-Mormon whipping boy won't extricate you from the corner into which you have for some reason painted yourself.

You wrote:

I'm inclined to think that Muhammad was not a full prophet in the LDS understanding of the word. But I was impressed, years ago, by the way in which what I believe to be his authentic call narrative matches ancient Semitic throne theophany visions, and I'm open to the theoretical possibility that the text of the Qur

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

For the record, in my opinion, you certainly are not intolerant. As for arrogance, well, I suppose you and I both have to watch ourselves on that one.

Absolutely -- and I mean absolutely -- no insult was directed at you, and utterly zero disrespect was directed toward you. You have completely misread what I wrote (and ignored the majority of it, too).

I am, however, tired to the bone of internet assertions that I'm arrogant and intolerant of other opinions -- personally insulting and disrespectful claims that you've just repeated here. They do not, in my experience, tend to be made by people who know me, but are made on the Internet. So much the worse for the Internet, then, from my perspective. I don't need this kind of treatment, and I don't need message boards.

You needn't take it personally. I never meant anything personal, and I don't with this, either.

I wish you all the best.

[Ahab]

I don't need this kind of treatment, and I don't need message boards.

Think not what message boards can do for you, Dan, but what you can do for message boards.

The Godfather is out there saying it's just business and not personal, when the truth is, it IS personal.

Just do your best to deal with it as our Savior would deal with it.

Smile. Say "I love you". Be a friend.

[SilverKnight]

Think not what message boards can do for you, Dan, but what you can do for message boards.

The Godfather is out there saying it's just business and not personal, when the truth is, it IS personal.

Just do your best to deal with it as our Savior would deal with it.

Smile. Say "I love you". Be a friend.

I'm sure Dan will survive just fine without your patented elixir of self-righteous stupidity.

[Ahab]

I'm sure Dan will survive just fine without your patented elixir of self-righteous stupidity.

I love you.

What would you like to learn next?

[zerinus]

Likewise, I don't need to ask God if the Book of Mormon is the word of God, because I know the Bible is the word of God and that the religion founded on the Book of Mormon is not compatible with the Bible. Disagree with that conclusion you will, but the principle is a sound one: we need not pray to know if a religion is true if we have what we consider good, God-honoring reasons to conclude that it is not.

So you went through all that rigmarole just to tell us that you did not want to pray about the Book of Mormon? LOL! You think anybody cares? Mormon missionaries meet thousands of people every day who don't want to pray about the Book of Mormon. You know what they do? Nothing! They say good by, and go and find someone else who is interested in listening to their message, and will pray in faith to know if it is true. Interestingly, there are thousands that do. Our message is intended for them, not for folks like you. Our message to you, and others like you, is a polite good by! Have a nice day! We will meet again sometime! Let us not waste each other's time any longer.

[Jason]

To your statement quoted above I might retort that whether Joseph Smith was or was not a prophet is not a matter of existential concern to me and would make no difference to the way I live my life, but that would be a lie. If I knew that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, I would become a Mormon. Likewise, if I knew that Muhammad was a prophet of God, I would become a Muslim.

That would presuppose that Islam as it exists today is the valid successor to Muhammed.

Dan, by this reasoning, potentially anyone might be a misunderstood prophet of God, someone whose revelation was later obscured or corrupted. Appealing to the possibility that Muhammad was a true prophet whose teachings were later distorted is an instance of the fallacious appeal to ignorance (like saying that, for all we know, there are alien bodies in Area 51). It is useless speculation.

If we have a reasonable suspicion that Muhammed's writings have not been accurately preserved, then it does become a trivial issue if the original writings were truly inspired - because we don't have them and can't reasonably expect to find them in the future.

[Ahab]

So you went through all that rigmarole just to tell us that you did not want to pray about the Book of Mormon? LOL! You think anybody cares? Mormon missionaries meet thousands of people every day who don't want to pray about the Book of Mormon. You know what they do? Nothing! They say good by, and go and find someone else who is interested in listening to their message, and will pray in faith to know if it is true. Interestingly, there are thousands that do. Our message is intended for them, not for folks like you. Our message to you, and others like you, is a polite good by! Have a nice day! We will meet again sometime! Let us not waste each other's time any longer.

Why say good-bye?

Why not let them hang around us, even if they say bad things about us, while we go on sharing the truth with other people, and also with them if they want to talk some more about the gospel?

I don't see any good reason to say good-bye to them, as long as they don't cause too much trouble.

Even if they don't listen to us, it's still good for us to share the gospel with them and anyone else who will listen.

If nothing else, it helps "us" to share the gospel.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

Who said I didn't "want" to pray about the Book of Mormon -- or even that I didn't pray about it? Not I!

So you went through all that rigmarole just to tell us that you did not want to pray about the Book of Mormon? LOL! You think anybody cares? Mormon missionaries meet thousands of people every day who don't want to pray about the Book of Mormon. You know what they do? Nothing! They say good by, and go and find someone else who is interested in listening to their message, and will pray in faith to know if it is true. Interestingly, there are thousands that do. Our message is intended for them, not for folks like you. Our message to you, and others like you, is a polite good by! Have a nice day! We will meet again sometime! Let us not waste each other's time any longer.

[SilverKnight]

On one point, though, I can agree with you. God does not need to answer questions about whether Muhammad was a prophet of God. We have the revelation of God in Jesus Christ and can see for ourselves (even from our very different theological perspectives) that the religion of Muhammad is not compatible with that revelation in Christ. I don't need to ask God if Muhammad is God's prophet, because I know Christ is God's Son. Likewise, I don't need to ask God if the Book of Mormon is the word of God, because I know the Bible is the word of God and that the religion founded on the Book of Mormon is not compatible with the Bible. : we need not pray to know if a religion is true if we have what we consider good, God-honoring reasons to conclude that it is not.

Good advice!

This is the same reason I will never read the Bible, nor give a moment's consideration to Christian mythology, nor pray to some invisible deity cobbled from a primitive mess of medieval folklore and downright laughable superstitions.

I know, through a veritable mountain of hard evidence, that your holy book and associated religion is incompatible with science, history, reason, logic and reality in general.

Therefore I have no need to even consider the mere possibility that it's true - much less read, study or pray about it.

Disagree with that conclusion you will, but the principle is a sound one: we need not pray to know if a religion is true if we have what we consider good reasons to conclude that it is not.

[Rob Bowman]

Jason,

You wrote:

That would presuppose that Islam as it exists today is the valid successor to Muhammed.

The point also applies to the presupposition that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as it exists today is the valid successor to Joseph Smith.

You wrote:

If we have a reasonable suspicion that Muhammed's writings have not been accurately preserved, then it does become a trivial issue if the original writings were truly inspired - because we don't have them and can't reasonably expect to find them in the future.

I will ask you what I asked Dan: Is there anyone in the history of the world who claimed to be a prophet of God that you can say confidently was or is a false prophet?

[Rob Bowman]

SK,

I reject all double standards: I favor examining the claims of Christianity reasonably to see if they hold up, and examining the claims of Mormonism to see if they hold up.

Good advice!

This is the same reason I will never read the Bible, nor give a moment's consideration to Christian mythology, nor pray to some invisible deity cobbled from a primitive mess of medieval folklore and downright laughable superstitions.

I know, through a veritable mountain of hard evidence, that your holy book and associated religion is incompatible with science, history, reason, logic and reality in general.

Therefore I have no need to even consider the mere possibility that it's true - much less read, study or pray about it.

Disagree with that conclusion you will, but the principle is a sound one: we need not pray to know if a religion is true if we have what we consider good reasons to conclude that it is not.

[Ahab]

zerinus,

Who said I didn't "want" to pray about the Book of Mormon -- or even that I didn't pray about it? Not I!

So you're saying you did talk with God about the Book of Mormon, and he told you the truth about it?

Okay. Good. Now you know what God told you and there is no need for you to doubt anything that God told you about it.

Way to go! Congratulations!

[Jason]

The point also applies to the presupposition that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as it exists today is the valid successor to Joseph Smith.

Certainly it does, which is why a testimony of the Church consists of more than just a belief in the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

I will ask you what I asked Dan: Is there anyone in the history of the world who claimed to be a prophet of God that you can say confidently was or is a false prophet?

No, not with full confidence.

I can name some people who definitely were true prophets, however.

[SilverKnight]

SK,

I reject all double standards: I favor examining the claims of Christianity reasonably to see if they hold up, and examining the claims of Mormonism to see if they hold up.

As do I.

But as a faith-challenged agnostic, I find your Christian claims buckling just as easily under examination as I do my mormon claims.

So don't pretend your reasons believing are somehow superior to mine, a Muslim's, a Buddhist Monk's, a Hindu Sadhu's, or a Druid Priestess's.

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

I didn't say that God answered me according to the LDS paradigm of how God answers such prayers.

So you're saying you did talk with God about the Book of Mormon, and he told you the truth about it?

Okay. Good. Now you know what God told you and there is no need for you to doubt anything that God told you about it.

Way to go! Congratulations!

[Ahab]

I reject all double standards: I favor examining the claims of Christianity reasonably to see if they hold up, and examining the claims of Mormonism to see if they hold up.

How do you determine whether or not they hold up?

Whose thoughts do you use, and where do you get those thoughts?

We're all influenced by someone else, one way or another.