Given that:

1) Mohammed was born 570 years after Christ.
2) Mohammed never met Christ.
3) Mohammed never met anyone that met Christ.
4) Christ's disciples wrote about what they saw and heard and experienced.
5) Mohammed's writings about Christ seriously contradicts the writings of Christ's disciples/witnesses.


My questions ====>

- Why should anyone believe what Mohammed wrote about Christ?
- Where exactly did he get his stories about Christ from?
- If his stories about Christ were true, why did he have to spread them by force of arms???

Peace upon those who follow the guidance

zenmaster, first welcome to our forum. I hope you enjoy your stay here.

Regarding prophet Muhammad PBUH, let me correct you. He didn't write anything, he was an illiterate man. The Quran is a holy book that has nothing but the words of God. Angel Gebrael was sent to reveal God's divine words to prophet Muhammad over a period of 23 years.

As for prophet Eisa (Jesus) PBUH, it was God Almighty who told us all about Him. We Muslims love prophet Jesus so much, and his mother Mary, whom the Quran regards highly, and she was the only female mentioned by name in the Quran.

Insha'Allah (God willing) this forum can help you understand more facts and details about prophet Jesus.

Hello, welcome to Islamic Forum.
Very interesting questions.

Clarifications
- correction of perspective: Muslims do not believe Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) 'wrote' the Qur'an. He had no input of his own whim in the Qur'an. Rather it's the will of God manifested in the Qur'an which Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) just conveyed.
- an example of this is, the Qur'an critisizes/admonishes Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) at a few places. If the Qur'an was 'written' by the Prophet (peace be upon him), such admonitions would not exist. There are of course many other things in the Qur'an, or related to the Qur'an that rules out any assumption of Qur'an being 'written' by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
For an amazing easy-to-follow lecture on this topic, check out the link below. It's a lecture on the Qur'an by a University of Toronto Professor, Gary Miller:
Audio Link


Questions:
- Why should anyone believe what Mohammed wrote about Christ?
Answer: Why not? Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had an upright character even before he attained prophethood. He was known as Al-Amin (Trustworthy) among his folks, even by the non-believers. He never lied, be it before or after his Prophethood.
Also, what was he (peace be upon him) to gain from lying against Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him)? There are much textual corruptions in the Bible. So it is more of a legitimate question to ask 'why someone would believe in the words of Christ as written in the corrupted/altered texts of the current bible?'

- Where exactly did he get his stories about Christ from?
Answer: Whatever is in the Qur'an is believed to be from God himself. It's the same God that had sent revelation to Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him). God is all knowing, thus it is not hard for Him to inform us of the truth of the message of Christ through Muhammad, peace be upon them both.

- If his stories about Christ were true, why did he have to spread them by force of arms???
Answer: Good question, but a wrong assumption. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the best in Characters (Not my claim, you may refer to Historical evidences) and he was merciful to all of God's creation: humans, plants, animals. Thus, it's not true he spread the message of God through force. There is a system of conveying the message of God in Islam, the last step of which is physical confrontation. However, even if a Muslim army won against a non-Muslim army in a fair battle, it would only allow the Muslim rulers to run the nation, but not convert people forcefully.

Hope that helped.
And God knows best.

This post has been edited by k-meleon: Apr 8 2008, 12:36 PM

Very good. But you have not addressed my issue.

Why is it that the Quranic stories about Jesus differ MATERIALLY from the account of the four gospels - written by EYE WITNESSES?

Indeed, the differences were so deeply entrenched that Muslims have to resort to the sword to preach to Christians.

Why should something that is claimed to be a 'revelation from God' contradict the account of eye witnesses??????

Well, the bible is not under scrutiny here. I am worried about the MATERIAL differences between the gospels and the koran regarding Jesus. Despite real/imaginary corruptions in the gospels, they have always maintained that Jesus is the Son of God. In fact, the Jews knew the implications of being the Son of God and hated Jesus for it.




Then why would God MATERIALLY contradict the account of eyewitnesses???




Christians in Iraq have a very different experience.

Because the Gospels weren't written by eye witnesses nor by Jesus(pbuh)'s disciples. The authors of the four Gospels are anonymous.



This is simply not true. Care to bring forth any evidence to back up your claims?

This post has been edited by Younes Ibn Abd' al-Aziz: Apr 8 2008, 01:02 PM

Even if Muslims forced Christians to convert in Iraq by force, it doesn't mean that Islam condones such things. What happens in the Middle East doesn't automaticly translate to what Islam allows.

How did Mohammed know this 570 years after Christ????




How do you know this 2000 years after Christ?

Please don't keep repeating this nonesense. We told you above that we know about prophet Jesus from the Quran, which is God's divine words.

Saying that Islam spread by the sword is a proven lie, that is often repeated by the enemies of Islam. We welcome you here with open arms, but we ask that you leave your misconceptions about Islam behind you, if you really have good intentions in joining this forum. Ask, and we will gladly provide you with detailed answers. But do not repeat known lies here. Thanks.

It is always easy to claim that God/angels revealed something to someone. But what if the so-called revelation is examined and found to contradict established truths????
What stops me now from claiming that GOD TOLD ME THAT MOHAMMED IS A LIAR, and writing a book about it????


As for the violent spread of Islam, Muslims have to learn that fanaticism goes hand-in-hand with self-doubt and insecurity.

This is what one of my role models has to about fanaticism in general -->


You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt

Go google something that Christian scholars call "The Gospel of Q" and then you will get the connection we are alluding to here.

The Q document or Q (from the German Quelle, "source") is a postulated lost textual source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke.

More on Q here -> Q_document


----------
By the way, St. Paul never lived with Jesus - only seeing him in visions. But his writings are beautifully consistent with those of the disciples, who wrote the Gospels. Why should Mohammed's case be different???

Furthermore, prophet Isaiah lived 800 years BEFORE CHRIST. His writings are in consonance with the NEW TESTAMENT.

In fact, Christ quoted from his book several times. Theologians have dubbed Isaiah 'the fifth evangelist'.

Again, why should Mohammed's case be different???

If you would read further (assuming you are pulling from the Wikipedia page), it says:

"The two-source hypothesis is the most widely accepted solution to the Synoptic Problem, which concerns the literary relationships between and among the first three canonical gospels (the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke), known as the Synoptic Gospels. Similarity in word choices and event placement shows an interrelationship. The synoptic problem concerns how this interrelation came to pass and what the nature of this interrelationship is. According to the two-source hypothesis, Matthew and Luke both used the Gospel of Mark, independently of one another. This necessitates the existence of a hypothetical source in order to explain the double tradition material where there is agreement between Matthew and Luke that is not in Mark. This hypothetical source is named Q for convenience."

This is what the top Christian scholars say about the origins of the gospels as we know them today.

---

Actually, Paul contradicts Jesus directly. Here is an instance:

Matthew 5:17-19 (Beatitudes, Jesus is speaking here)
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


Where as Paul, in Romans 7 goes off on a diatribe about how the law is dead to him and that he would not sin if there were no laws. Reading into the life of Paul led me to reject Christianity completely.

Notice that all these belong in the realm of HYPOTHESIS.
---



Good. If you rejected Christianity because of an apparent contradiction between Paul and Jesus; you SHOULD ALSO REJECT Islam because of material and deep-seated contradictions between Mohammed and Jesus

How did Muhammed(pbuh) know about Jesus(pbuh)'s life after approxametily 570 years of Jesus(pbuh)'s ascension to Heaven? Simple, in the same way that God informed Moses(pbuh) about the creation of the heavens and the earth, He also informed Muhammad(pbuh) of Jesus(pbuh)'s life.

How do I know that the four Gospels are by anonymous authors? Well, because they aren't signed works, nor do we know about their transmission history.

As for Isaiah, do you know by whom his book was written? I will tell you this, it was not written by Isaiah.

This post has been edited by Younes Ibn Abd' al-Aziz: Apr 8 2008, 02:47 PM

Anybody can claim this. Its the easy way out. Nevertheless, such claims must be subjected to rigorous analysis.




The four gospels, Isaiah, St. Paul, prophet Daniel are all in agreement when it come to Jesus. Why should Mohammed, who came 570 years after Christ be so markedly different ---- and then claim that God inspired him???

I definately agree. For all intents and purposes, anyone of us could claim to be a Prophet right now, however, if there is no positive evidence, it doesn't matter at all. This applies to everybody, not just Muhammed(pbuh).



First of all, Isaiah and Daniel do not mention Jesus by name. If you are talking about prophecies which could be used as positive evidence for Jesus as the son of God or saviour, then you can bring them forth and we may have a look at them. But still I asked you, do you know by whom the book of Isaiah was written?

Jesus quoted texts from Isaiah and the psalms. Daniel saw visions of someone that looked like a 'Son of Man' ---- Jesus always refers to Himself as 'The Son of Man'. etc etc


There are many of them. But that would deviate this thread.




Over and above authorship, I am concerned with consonance. If I write a book now and claim that God/angels told me that Isaiah was not a prophet (2,800 years after Isaiah); why should anybody believe me???

Before reasonable person believes me though, my book must be subjected to rigorous historical, literary and other analysis.... Or what do you think?

What I notice is that anyone who calls Mohammed/the Quran to question immediately starts to receive fatwas/death threats. Is this fanaticism not a result of doubt and insecurity about the complete authenticity of Mohammed/the Quran???

You misunderstand my conclusion: Jesus didn't lie about himself and Muhammad didn't lie about Jesus, Paul lied about him.