Jesus vs Mohammed

[take it or leave it]

I have a 2 questions to ask my muslim friends regarding Mohammed and Islam….. the way I see it is , what is at the core of these two believes , what are the fruits of studying these scriptures, lets take a look at the bible , now Christians today don’t follow the NT and the whole of the NT is all about love , Gods love , he comes to die a death on the cross, when he is chased down and crucify , while being totally blameless , he was a pacifists , he was not a violent man at all, its fair to say he was very peace loving – that what we belive and if you look across the world most Christians are peace lovers, you do get terrorist Christians , but no where near as widespread as ion Islam , it’s a case of Christians simply imitating the attitude and way Jesus lived

Now…

We come to Mohammed , well mohammed was a man , the perfect muslim , a man who was a walking miracle , that could perform miracles , so he must have been sent from god …right...so we see mohammed very very early on in his life attack his former hometown , because muslims where being persecuted, surely he should have given himself over to them and let allah protect him , anyway so he attacks his former town , and becomes a political warlord , putting arbia to the sword for 7 years , fighting , killing and general being violent –those muslims who are violent today are simply following mohammed as the perfect muslim and using him as an example on how to live there life, is that a fair statement ?

Is it fair to say mohammed live was a long violent battle to spread islam by the sword , and Jesus live was the story of love for the whole of mankind (believers and unbelievers) – if that not a fair statement how would you describe mohammeds live and Jesus live


Are these far statements I would love some feedback I really appreciate the discussions …take care

 

[CaptainBritain]

Any and all scriptures can be put to any purpose but usually the person is reflecting there own morality rather than any contained in the books, ie to justify slavery, to speak out against slavery, to support execution of homosexuals or love the sinner but hate the sin, to support womens rights or to terminate those rights, to mutilate your childrens genitals or decide that passage dont suit you and not mutilate your childrens genitals etc etc etc,

Like Chris Hitchens says these books are about the only things that are capable of making good moral people perform wicked acts or give bad people a reason to justify their wicked acts as moral.

 

[WorldCitizen]

"Muhammad received the Divine Revelation among these tribes, and after enduring thirteen years of persecution from them, He fled. [To Medina.] But this people did not cease to oppress; they united to exterminate Him and all His followers. It was under such circumstances that Muhammad was forced to take up arms. This is the truth: we are not bigoted and do not wish to defend Him, but we are just, and we say what is just. Look at it with justice. If Christ Himself had been placed in such circumstances among such tyrannical and barbarous tribes, and if for thirteen years He with His disciples had endured all these trials with patience, culminating in flight from His native land--if in spite of this these lawless tribes continued to pursue Him, to slaughter the men, to pillage their property, and to capture their women and children--what would have been Christ's conduct with regard to them? If this oppression had fallen only upon Himself, He would have forgiven them, and such an act of forgiveness would have been most praiseworthy; but if He had seen that these cruel and bloodthirsty murderers wished to kill, to pillage and to injure all these oppressed ones, and to take captive the women and children, it is certain that He would have protected them and would have resisted the tyrants. What objection, then, can be taken to Muhammad's action? Is it this, that He did not, with His followers, and their women and children, submit to these savage tribes? To free these tribes from their bloodthirstiness was the greatest kindness, and to coerce and restrain them was a true mercy. They were like a man holding in his hand a cup of poison, which, when about to drink, a friend breaks and thus saves him. If Christ had been placed in similar circumstances, it is certain that with a conquering power He would have delivered the men, women and children from the claws of these bloodthirsty wolves."

Some Answered Questions
Part One -- On the Influence of the Prophets in the Evolution of Humanity
pages 18-25

 

[chinu]

Is it fair to say mohammed live was a long violent battle to spread islam by the sword , and Jesus live was the story of love for the whole of mankind (believers and unbelievers) – if that not a fair statement how would you describe mohammeds live and Jesus live

T.I.L.I Before answering you, Chinu have one question for you:

Can you follow 200 years back trend and way of living, --- like the way of living which was being used by the parents of your grand parents ?

_/\_
Chinu

 

[Father Heathen]

Mohammed has the benefit of being an actual historical character.

 

[Marble]

if you look across the world most Christians are peace lovers, you do get terrorist Christians , but no where near as widespread as ion Islam ,

Ever heard about the Christianization of Latin Amerika?
Christianity has a bloody history, it is easy to forgett peace & love when you are after power & gold.

 

[Vansdad]

Mohammed has the benefit of being an actual historical character.

Jesus was an actual historical figure too. Maybe the acuracy of his life is in question.

 

[take it or leave it]

Mohammed has the benefit of being an actual historical character.

does not make him a true prohet or a good man , i am very greatfull , so we can see how moahmmed used the sword to spread islam , the perfect muslim, messanger from god, involved in war and murder for waht ever reson , the relgion of love and peace , how could the relgion of love and peace be birthed in voilence and war and blood

 

[take it or leave it]

ever heard about the christianization of latin amerika?
Christianity has a bloody history, it is easy to forgett peace & love when you are after power & gold.

maybe but we talking about now

 

[take it or leave it]

"Muhammad received the Divine Revelation among these tribes, and after enduring thirteen years of persecution from them, He fled. [To Medina.] But this people did not cease to oppress; they united to exterminate Him and all His followers. It was under such circumstances that Muhammad was forced to take up arms. This is the truth: we are not bigoted and do not wish to defend Him, but we are just, and we say what is just. Look at it with justice. If Christ Himself had been placed in such circumstances among such tyrannical and barbarous tribes, and if for thirteen years He with His disciples had endured all these trials with patience, culminating in flight from His native land--if in spite of this these lawless tribes continued to pursue Him, to slaughter the men, to pillage their property, and to capture their women and children--what would have been Christ's conduct with regard to them? If this oppression had fallen only upon Himself, He would have forgiven them, and such an act of forgiveness would have been most praiseworthy; but if He had seen that these cruel and bloodthirsty murderers wished to kill, to pillage and to injure all these oppressed ones, and to take captive the women and children, it is certain that He would have protected them and would have resisted the tyrants. What objection, then, can be taken to Muhammad's action? Is it this, that He did not, with His followers, and their women and children, submit to these savage tribes? To free these tribes from their bloodthirstiness was the greatest kindness, and to coerce and restrain them was a true mercy. They were like a man holding in his hand a cup of poison, which, when about to drink, a friend breaks and thus saves him. If Christ had been placed in similar circumstances, it is certain that with a conquering power He would have delivered the men, women and children from the claws of these bloodthirsty wolves."

Some Answered Questions
Part One -- On the Influence of the Prophets in the Evolution of Humanity
pages 18-25

does not make him a true prohet or a good man , i am very greatfull , so we can see how moahmmed used the sword to spread islam , the perfect muslim, messanger from god, involved in war and murder for waht ever reson , the relgion of love and peace , how could the relgion of love and peace be birthed in voilence and war and blood -

1.why did allah not rescue muhammed ? his messanger insterad of forcing him to become voilent

2.Jesus was crucfied on the cross , but did not take up arms or run away -why is that , would moahmmed have taken up the sword if he was about to be crucifed for no reason , yes he did has you just stated above

3. the reason mohmmaed had to flee to medina is he made the people living there so anger buy trying to force islam on them, that he asked them to leave , and thats a fact

 

[Storm]

maybe but we talking about now

No, you're not. You're talking about Muhammad's time when it suits you.

 

[YmirGF]

Although the writer of the OP handles the subject matter with all the subtlety of a young teen getting lucky in the back seat of a Buick, the OP does pose an interesting and, in my view, quite legitimate comparison. When you look at the alleged antics of Muhammad and compare them to the alleged antics of Jesus, Muhammad simply does not come out of the comparison smelling like a rose. Curiously, had Muhammad suffered the same alleged fate as Jesus, it is unlikely that we would have ever heard of his name or his life or the Qur'an.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

lets take a look at the bible , now Christians today don’t follow the NT and the whole of the NT is all about love , Gods love , he comes to die a death on the cross, when he is chased down and crucify , while being totally blameless , he was a pacifists , he was not a violent man at all, its fair to say he was very peace loving

No, it's not fair to say that.

Jesus' language was full of descriptions of violent torture in store for people who run afoul of God. He wasn't non-violent or pacifistic; he simply argued that the violence should be done by God alone.

... although even that's debateable, since he did tell his followers to arm themselves, right? Why were they supposed to go out and get swords if Jesus' message was entirely non-violent?

And as for his life on Earth as described in the Bible, Jesus was only "not a violent man at all" as long as you weren't a fig tree or a moneychanger.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Although the writer of the OP handles the subject matter with all the subtlety of a young teen getting lucky in the back seat of a Buick, the OP does pose an interesting and, in my view, quite legitimate comparison. When you look at the alleged antics of Muhammad and compare them to the alleged antics of Jesus, Muhammad simply does not come out of the comparison smelling like a rose.

That depends on your view of the Trinity, I think. If Jesus is the God who he describes in his sermons, the one who's going to cause "wailing and gnashing of teeth" and treat people like weeds, cutting them down and burning them, then he sounds pretty violent to me. It's just that Jesus sticks to nasty threats rather than actual action. If we think that he's going to follow through on those threats, then Jesus' future actions are immeasurably worse than anything that Muhammad did in the Quran.

IMO, the idea that Jesus himself is non-violent implies that Jesus is not God.

 

[YmirGF]

That depends on your view of the Trinity, I think. If Jesus is the God who he describes in his sermons, the one who's going to cause "wailing and gnashing of teeth" and treat people like weeds, cutting them down and burning them, then he sounds pretty violent to me. It's just that Jesus sticks to nasty threats rather than actual action. If we think that he's going to follow through on those threats, then Jesus' future actions are immeasurably worse than anything that Muhammad did in the Quran.

IMO, the idea that Jesus himself is non-violent implies that Jesus is not God.

Indeed, metaphors are so much more dangerous than actual deeds. Bravo.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Indeed, metaphors are so much more dangerous than actual deeds. Bravo.

Are they metaphors or threats of future violence? IMO, future violence, if it will be actually realized, is just as bad as violence in the past or present.

 

[YmirGF]

Are they metaphors or threats of future violence? IMO, future violence, if it will be actually realized, is just as bad as violence in the past or present.

Key action word here is "IF". That's a lot of if's to go off half-cocked, my friend.

 

[outhouse]

Jesus was an actual historical figure too. Maybe the acuracy of his life is in question.

this is very dabatable, and jesus does not have 100% historicity

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Key action word here is "IF". That's a lot of if's to go off half-cocked, my friend.

That depends whether we're talking about Jesus-the-historical-figure or Jesus-the-character-in-the-Gospels.

As an analogy, the question of whether Star Wars actually happened isn't relevant to whether Darth Vader is nastier than Muhammad. He's a character who's presented with certain attributes and described doing certain things. If we say that Muhammad is nastier because Darth Vader, being fictional, never killed anyone, then we've stripped Darth Vader's context away.

Same with this comparison between Jesus and Muhammad. If we're talking about the characters in the Gospels and the Quran, then the question of whether this character Jesus is also a vengeful God (or at least intimately supports a vengeful God) is relevant. OTOH, if we're talking about Jesus and Muhammad as historical figures apart from the Gospels and the Quran, then that's a whole different kettle of fish that we haven't really gotten into in this thread yet. I think so little is known about the historical Jesus (including whether he even existed at all, when it comes right down to it) that we can't really make any determinations about how nice a person he was.

 

[YmirGF]

That depends whether we're talking about Jesus-the-historical-figure or Jesus-the-character-in-the-Gospels.

As an analogy, the question of whether Star Wars actually happened isn't relevant to whether Darth Vader is nastier than Muhammad. He's a character who's presented with certain attributes and described doing certain things. If we say that Muhammad is nastier because Darth Vader, being fictional, never killed anyone, then we've stripped Darth Vader's context away.

Same with this comparison between Jesus and Muhammad. If we're talking about the characters in the Gospels and the Quran, then the question of whether this character Jesus is also a vengeful God (or at least intimately supports a vengeful God) is relevant. OTOH, if we're talking about Jesus and Muhammad as historical figures apart from the Gospels and the Quran, then that's a whole different kettle of fish that we haven't really gotten into in this thread yet. I think so little is known about the historical Jesus (including whether he even existed at all, when it comes right down to it) that we can't really make any determinations about how nice a person he was.

Oh good grief, have it your way. You do realize that this arugment can be use to neuter practically any comparisons between two individuals, real or fictional, right? Moral equivalence - gotta love it.