Jesus vs Muhammed: Who Truly Follows Who?

[BLBereans]

This thread will be a series of topics taken mostly from the informative web site http://www.answering-islam.org/

Many discussions are being had and many fallacies are being put forth regarding "radical Islam" as if it is a usurpation of the "real Islam" by those who commit willful violence in the form of beheadings, rapes, tortures, massacres, pillaging, etc. all in the name of Allah.

Due to the ever increasing acts of terrorism (most recently by members of "ISIS") people try to reconcile what is "true Islam" or what is really "Islamic". Well, how does one come to a true answer?



source

Now, compare that to what should be the "Christian measurement standard" for those who claim to follow Christianity - the model of Jesus of Nazareth. In my opinion, the majority of so-called "muslims" do NOT conform to the paradigmatic figure of their declared faith.

The same can be said for the so-called Christians; most who profess Christianity do not conform to Jesus' Ways, message, doctrines, actions, teachings, etc. The difference is that true Christians realize this and continue to strive in order to emulate the life of Jesus as best they can. For most of us, it is a lifelong endeavor and journey. However, there are institutionalized "Churches" who call themselves Christian yet in NO WAY emulate the teachings, actions, and doctrine of Jesus. Unfortunately, the majority of "Churches" fall into that category albeit with varying levels of shortcomings and/or direct conflicts.

The Muslims who claim to be "moderate", and the true interpreters of the message of Islam and the Koran, do NOT conform to the teachings, actions, and doctrine of the figure that they claim to be the model of Islam, Muhammed. How can people claim to be the true followers of a certain faith if they deny the teachings, actions, and doctrine of the actual founder, and greatest figure of, said faith? Do moderate muslims renounce Muhammed or do they praise him as the greatest prophet that ever lived?

Compare that to how Christians view the teachings, actions, and doctrine of Jesus. What kind of Christian would renounce Jesus or deny his teachings, actions, and doctrine?

[allodial]

Some suggest that Wahhabism is the standard of ISIS--and even go as far as suggesting Obama and the Bushes to be or to have been aligned with such. Even back as far as 2003 and even 1994 I met people from the USA who had the same kind of ideas of rape, pillaging, sodomy and hatred for the saints and they were self-confessed Muslims.

Re: the saints. Most so-called 'churches' in the USA, I've come to be skeptical about since so many of them seem to be infiltrated with apostasy. Even in one case, someone seeking help --only prayer--had a serious emergency and had been injured after having been attacked went to a congregation meeting place and started explaining to the pastor the pastor only said "Get a job". The person never asked for money, he only asked for prayer for his children. Of course, the pastor put on his "Christian face" when he went back out among the 'sheep'. The real pastors are the ones the cities are trying to drive out and shut down--they are the ones actually doing something to help the poor. The others like the one above, they live in fancy neighborhoods and don't seem to quick to reach out to help others let alone the guy next to them on the pews even if they have surplus of money. The same had given money to the same church for years. But had gotten attacked, robbed. His children were threatened as well. I overheard it, the guy never asked for money--the pastor figuring no one else was around and that the door was mostly shut showed his real face. Had the matter been posed in front of others, they would have touched the organ with some feel good and put on a show.

Nonetheless, those kinds of shady pastors and their flocks will talk about the devil and lion's dens and spiritual warfare and watch you be persecuted and not lift a finger. In contrast, I consider how responsive a secular military or gang is to the slightest danger posed to any of its soldiers or members. If I had to be in a war with most of the so-called Church-goers I've met assigned to my platoon, I would be like surely you are joking. However, there are a few that I would have on my side.

On the other hand there might typically a handful of true saints among any given modern congregation. That is, if one observes and prays one would be led to them, if any.

Related:

• You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia

[BLBereans]

Some suggest that Wahhabism is the standard of ISIS--and even go as far as suggesting Obama and the Bushes to be or to have been aligned with such. Even back as far as 2003 and even 1994 I met people from the USA who had the same kind of ideas of rape, pillaging, sodomy and hatred for the saints and they were self-confessed Muslims.

Related:

• You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia

That may be true; one can study the intricacies of specific doctrines of Islam the same as the many denominations of Christianity. The point, however, is basic and fundamental; what is the measurement standard of being a true muslim and what is the measurement standard of being a true christian?

Then, who do we find emulating said measurement standards?

[allodial]

That may be true; one can study the intricacies of specific doctrines of Islam the same as the many denominations of Christianity. The point, however, is basic and fundamental; what is the measurement standard of being a true muslim and what is the measurement standard of being a true christian?

Then, who do we find emulating said measurement standards?

Valid questions no doubt. One interesting thing, the guys who were actually from the middle east never showed such an attitude as the ones I met who were from the USA.

[BLBereans]

Valid questions no doubt. One interesting thing, the guys who were actually from the middle east never showed such an attitude as the ones I met who were from the USA.

The eye test reveals that the majority of "big mouths" and "activists" and "attention-getters" are the overwhelming minority of a people. However, that does not answer the question as whether or not "moderate muslims" renounce the teachings, actions, and doctrine of Muhammed, the founder of their faith.

[allodial]

Well it might be that the judge has it right about Islam being a political system rather than a religion. The doctrines of Manicheanism would be designated as heritical Gnostic doctrines. AFAIK, the Koran teaches that Christians and Jews to be "people of the book" are are not to be harmed or enslaved. The Wahhabist clearly have a different take on that. I get the impression that with Islam there many factions and divisions like among Christians. However, Christianity has a solid standard. From my observations of Islam, I get contradictory impressions--even rather nebulous widely-fluctuating ones.

Also, Muslims are supposed to obey the sovereign wherever they are. They are to knowledge prohibited from undermining governments where they go. Again, Wahhabists might have a different view on that.

Related:

• ''People of the Book'' & The Muslims
• The Irish Village That Was Kidnapped by Islamist Extremists (In 1631)

[BLBereans]

The "fluctuations" seem to have started with the very founder of the faith...



source

Either Muhammed did what he did or didn't. He either taught that those who follow him and come after him should continue his teachings, actions, and doctrine or he didn't.

[allodial]

Well SHOEBAT suggests Muhammed to have not been the founder of Islam, that Islam has its roots in Arianism. There is a line of evidence allegedly going back to Simon Magus. SHOEBAT also suggests Alberto Rivera to have been a con-artist and the Vatican having had zero part in creating Islam (why are their religions so similar?). SHOEBAT's key argument is that it makes zero sense to him that the Vatican a create a system to kill off Christians which Shoebat suggests would be akin to the Vatican being against itself. In any case, it seems kind've strange how he manages to fail to mention Manichaenism and only mentions Arianism.

From what I have observed, there is a popcorn trail that leads back to Mani and thusly to Simon Magus.

The Roman Catholic Church and Islam


The Roman Catholic Church and Islam have much in common:

1. Both the Roman Catholic Church and Islam believe that they are the one true church/religion.

2. The Roman Catholic Church and the Islam require mandatory fasting.

3. The Roman Catholic Church worships, prays to and gives titles of God to Mary. Islam highly esteems Mary and she is mentioned 34 times in the Qu'ran.

"Even the infidel Muhammed glorifies Mary in his Koran, saying, 'The angels shall say to Maryam, "Allah has chosen thee; he has made thee exempt from all stain'". The Marian (Roman Catholic) Bible

4. The Roman Catholic Church and Islam base their salvation on a complicated system of works and deny salvation by faith alone. There is no assurance of salvation in either religion.

5. Both cults deny the Biblical view of the Atonement. The Roman Catholic Church doctrine dictates that one must go to Purgatory to have his sins purged, Jesus just paved the way. The Muslims believe their works will save them but will not know until Judgment Day. This is because there is no atonement for sin, and God's grace does not exist.

6. The Roman Catholic Church claims visions and apparitions in an effort to add false doctrine. Muhammad claimed to be purified as a child by angels. He claimed to receive revelations from Archangel Jibril or Gabriel.

7. The Roman Catholic Church uses a rosary for their prayers, Islam uses prayer beads. The rosary/prayer beads are concepts taken from paganism.

8. The Pope is the vicar or substitute of Christ for the Roman Catholic Church. (# 882 RCC Catechism) In Islam, Muhammad is called the last and final Messenger of God, the successor to Jesus.

9. The Roman Catholic Church and Islam have their own divorce system. The Roman Catholic Church grants anullments and Islam allows a man to divorce his wife by telling her she is divorced.

10. Islam rejects the Trinity doctrine, the Deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith and teaches that Christians should be killed. However, the Roman Catholic Church accepts them and believes that they are offered salvation because of their faith in Abraham. (# 841 RCC Catechism)

11. Both church organizations believe that leaving their church will result in eternal damnation.

12. The Roman Catholic Church and Islam share a hatred for the Jews.

13. The Roman Catholic Church and the Islam base some of their doctrine on pagan traditions. For The Roman Catholic Church the traditions of a goddess, rosary, pope, relics, purgatory, transubstantiation, praying to dead people, and idol worship are all based on paganism. The Allah of Islam was actually a pagan god, and not even the major deity.

14. The Roman Catholic Church and Islam have added books to support false doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church has added the Apocrypha and Islam the Qu'ran.

15. The Roman Catholic Church priest system (including Popes) has a history of sexual abuse of women and children. Islam has a history of (including Muhammad) sexual abuse of women and children. (source)

Related:
Arianism
Islam And Catholicism Similarities

[BLBereans]

Well SHOEBAT suggests Muhammed to have not been the founder of Islam, that Islam has its roots in Arianism. There is a line of evidence allegedly going back to Simon Magus.

SHOEBAT also suggests Alberto Rivera to have been a con-artist and the Vatican having had zero part in creating Islam (why are their religions so similar?). I figure its kind've strange how he manages to fail to mention Manichaenism.

Related:
Arianism

Again, that may be true; in fact, I believe the roots go even farther back - Nimrod and Babylon. The denial of the Logos, the Angel of the LORD, the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth is at the heart of ALL false faiths. How they progress through history or what the exact and specific doctrines may be is inconsequential. It is the denial of Jesus as God that is at the root of ALL evil teachings and faiths. That would include the faith professed in Rome (The Vatican).

[allodial]

Again, that may be true; in fact, I believe the roots go even farther back - Nimrod and Babylon. The denial of the Logos, the Angel of the LORD, the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth is at the heart of ALL false faiths. How they progress through history or what the exact and specific doctrines may be is inconsequential. It is the denial of Jesus as God that is at the root of ALL evil teachings and faiths. That would include the faith professed in Rome (The Vatican).

The denial of God manifesting as Savior is the denial of a personal god capable of creating life or capable or interested in intervening or having any concern for the "physical world"--it is to deny God's potency, life-giving qualities, creativity, intelligence and personality. A similarity with that kind of thinking and communists, is that they are systems for punishing people for merely thinking or believing above a certain level: tools for political control. An "elite" getting its plebes to oppress each other takes a lot of burden off of that elite --especially if they make it a religion. Perhaps modern-day Esau/Edom has tall poppy syndrome?

...tall poppy syndrome is a pejorative term primarily used in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and other Anglosphere nations to describe a social phenomenon in which people of genuine merit are resented, attacked, cut down, or criticised because their talents or achievements elevate them above or distinguish them from their peers. This is similar to begrudgery, the resentment or envy of the success of a peer.

[b] of silver to the Ishmaelites

Related:
Tall Poppy Syndrome

[BLBereans]

The denial of God manifesting as Savior is the denial of a personal god capable of creating life or capable or interested in intervening or having any concern for the "physical world"--it is to deny God's potency, life-giving qualities, creativity, intelligence and personality. A similarity with that kind of thinking and communists, is that they are systems for punishing people for merely thinking or believing above a certain level: tools for political control.

Agreed. However, how many muslims, whether "radical" or "moderate", acknowledge or recognize that the roots of their faith may lie with Arianism or Simon Magus?

The point being, Muhammed is the only figure for either of them to look to as the "Prophet" by which the measurable standard of a true Muslim should be compared. Both will confess this openly and without apology I assume. Therefore, those who best emulate the "prophet Muhammed" are the true believers and followers of Islam.

Who do we see doing that, "moderates" or "radicals"?

[David Merrill]

I would like to pick up a Koran some time and give it a read. Just to know first hand.

Once I checked out a book about Islamic Law and read the first chapter. The confession is, God is one God and Mohammed is His Prophet. It is funny that even a Christian could take exception to that, considering the Bible has many prophets aside from Jesus.

The SHEMA recited by Jesus as a prefix to the Law, even in the New Covenant confirms monotheism. I suppose that a lot of Christians fail to identify with Ishmael as Abraham's son through Hagar. I feel that Abraham allowing Sarah to drive Hagar away, killing her with dehydration is another big source of guilt on the "Mind" of Abraham and thus effecting the behaviors of the Israelite historically.

But then I actually look for reasons that the Israelites were hard-hearted and stiffnecked.

[allodial]

The impression I got is that Ishmael would not partake in the priestly line and that a separate "world" was made for Ishmael. As for monotheism, I'm not so convinced except it depends on what is meant by monotheism. There is monotheism in the sense of pantheism or in the sense of panentheism or in the sense syncretism or.... Perhaps: "henotheism generally, monotheism internally (internal to the tribe)". The word "god" is said to be in part synonymous with "judge" or "ruler". The judges or rulers in China and the judges or rulers in the USA though they might have the same title, aren't 'gods' of the same people and are different gods. Of course, if A is bound to the laws of XYZ and B is bound to the laws of MNO, then they would each respectfully be judged by the respective rulers/judges of their countries. They could crusade each other's lands all they want about how there is only one 'god'--but they don't have the same 'god' in the sense of rulers/judges, just the same 'titles'.



How can there be strange or foreign gods and there be only one god? It is the potential for going off-road that is important to note. The neo-liberal twist on monotheism (i.e. which could be pantheism encrypted) might obscure this potential.

Panentheism is a form of monistic monotheism which holds that the being of God includes and penetrates all the Universe but unlike pantheism (see below) the universe is not identical with God

Did Abraham really go from polytheism to monotheism? Or did he simply eschew or reject worship of idols or external things, fully being aware that one could actually go after or worship strange, foreign or other gods or even worship one's own false or vain imaginations if one chose to?

On the same note, if someone says "I love the prime minister". Who are they talking about? Justin Trudeau? John Key? Malcolm Turnbull? If the aliens say "Take me to your leader" to a crowd at an airport, they will likely be taken to ten or more different places. "Leader" doesn't specify whom. Thusly, a name is important.

On that note, royalty are typically addressed using plural. English speakers use you all the time (it is a plural word). Eloah is singular (more familiar rather than formal) word that can mean god, judge, ruler, angel, etc. It is said that "allah" and "eloah" might be synonymous. But is judge, ruler or angel a name? Is there anywhere in the Bible where the God of Israel says that is name is "God"?

[allodial]

Perhaps this might have some relevance: The Islamic Origins of Talmudic Judaism?

[BLBereans]

Mohammed's "revelation" was that in the midst of the several "gods" which were formally worshiped by him and his brethren, the god "Allah" was to be exalted and worshiped alone as the only one among the group of gods worthy as being "the god".

This cannot be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as the subsequent rejection of Mohammed by the Jews makes clear. He failed to convince his "brothers of the book" and then turned on them as mortal enemies when he found his strong and willing army in Medina. The campaign, and false doctrine of jihad {the forceful conversion to his new faith Islam (submission)} justified the violence and murder which ensued by offensive invasion into the land of the "infidels".

This is Mohammed folks; no one can dispute it and no one can wash away the fact that the founder, and measurable model, of the Islamic faith committed wanton violence AGAINST INNOCENTS in the name of his god and commanded everyone who follows him to do the same. People were forced to either proclaim Allah and Islam as their god and faith or die by the sword (or pay a "tax" and be a slave).

The people that Mohammed attacked were NOT idol-worshipers, human sacrificers, evildoers unto man, forsakers of God the Creator, etc.; they were innocent people who would not SUBMIT to Mohammed, and his newly claimed false god/religion - mostly Jews and Christians.

Therefore, those who some call "radicals" are not radical at all; they are the true adherents to the original faith as founded and practiced by the self-proclaimed prophet Mohammed. NO real muslim denounces Mohammed and his actions, no matter how "moderate" they may be. They do NOT, however, practice the true Islam; they practice a reformed watered down version which claims "jihad" is to be ONLY interpreted as an "internal struggle". They live in fear of death from their own so they do not speak out loudly and renounce the acts of violence committed in the name of their religion and yet they still exalt Mohammed and Allah, the dynamic duo who justify violence and murder against innocent people who refuse to convert and submit.

They DO NOT follow Mohammed faithfully and, therefore, they are NOT true muslims - by the way; that is a good thing.