At basics, Jesus and Muhammad

[Desperado †]

Now I was reading a part fantasy (well depending if you believe it or not...) book on the holy land and the Templar knights. And an intresting point came up. Now I'm not saying either man was better in any way, but something was raised on the diffrences between Jesus and Muhammad. Here's the bit from the book ("Standard of Honour", by Jack Whyte) that made me ponder.

"But even though I be not Christian in the proper sense, I would still support Jesus, as a man, for the difference between those two, it seems to me, lies rooted in the power and the way, as men, they sought it. Jesus did not. He never did. He simply lived his life as he saw fit,, and it was men, thereafter, who shaped him into the diety he has become. But Muhammad? Muhammad dealt in power from the outset, seeking to control men's minds and actions in the name of God. He might have been divenly and genuinely inspired by Allah, but that is beyond my ability to determine..." and so on.

So basically it saying Jesus did not want to control the minds of men, he simply lived and people made a religon on him thereafter. Whereas Muhammad always wanted to control men's minds and actions in the name of god.

You must accept that this book believe's that Jesus did not perform the miracles that he did but the religon was created on him afterwards. Even if you don't believe that it still has a point.

What do you think?
:hmmm:

[Gauvin]

Jesus and his companions did not seek political and military power.

Muhammad did.

Jesus' companions went to far-away lands to preach the Gospels peacefully and were martyred.

Muhammad's companions invaded numerous countries and gained extraordinary amounts of wealth through plunder and slave trading.

I would agree with the author.

[Каие]

That is perfectly sums up the difference between them.

"The greatest crime, the greatest sin of Mohammad in the eyes of the Christian West is that he did not allow himself to be slaughtered, to be 'crucified' by his enemies. He only defended himself, his family and his followers; and finally vanquished his enemies. Mohammad’s success is the Christians’ gall of disappointment …. He did not believe in any vicarious sacrifices for the sins of others." - Edward Gibbon

If Jesus didn't have another job as saviour of mankind in the future and had to ascend to heaven, he would have done the same as all prophets before and refused to be subjected and oppressed Moses, Noah, Abraham, David, Soloman etc. etc.. The difference is Muhammeds is the latest one and closest to our time.

That is the cold hard truth.

[Ex Tenebris Lux]

The difference is Muhammeds is the latest one and closest to our time.

That is the cold hard truth.

And what makes you any more right than those who do not say it's truth?

[Каие]

And what makes you any more right than those who do not say it's truth?

So you have a different version of events? Moses did not lead a rebellion out of Egypt and later conquest in the Levant? Jesus fought the Romans and Jews simultaneously with his large army? Muhammed simply rolled over and allowed himself to be killed?

If you don;t believe these people existed, that's something else all together.

[basics]

" The greatest crime, the greatest sin of Mohammad in the eyes of the Christian West is that he did not allow himself to be slaughtered, to be 'crucified' by his enemies. He only defended himself, his family and his followers; and finally vanquished his enemies. Mohammad’s success is the Christians’ gall of disappointment …. He did not believe in any vicarious sacrifices for the sins of others." - Edward Gibbon

Truly a statement from a man who had no inkling of religion in his bones at the time he wrote these words. Quite apart from the fact that he couldn't possibly know the mind of every living Christian, nor know God himself, he therefore assumes much by his comment.

Though in general terms I suppose he got it more or less correct through the exhaustive studies and research put into his work especially that Mohammed never believed in vicarious sacrifice. How could he since he was in a similar position religious wise as was Gibbon?

Strange though was the fact that Mohammed couldn't sacrifice himself yet he thought little of sacrificing hundreds of thousands to make his own point on the subject. And here is a man who asks of his followers to rely on the mercy of God so that their wickedness be overlooked in the quest for his version of heaven.

On the other hand, I think that Gibbon whilst trying to be an impartial participant in his writings demeans Christianity somewhat by thinking that this fellow was in sin because he never let himself be killed at all. Mohammed had never any intent on being killed. Can you tell of any despot that does?

[Ex Tenebris Lux]

And what makes you any more right than those who do not say it's truth?

i was refering only to the singular line i quoted.

not everyone thinks Muhammed was a prophet, despite you saying it is "cold hard truth."

It's cold, hard BELIEF. But truth? How would anyone know? Because a book says so? And yes I apply that to my own faith as well.

[Isbolg]

"The greatest crime, the greatest sin of Mohammad in the eyes of the Christian West is that he did not allow himself to be slaughtered, to be 'crucified' by his enemies. He only defended himself, his family and his followers; and finally vanquished his enemies. Mohammad’s success is the Christians’ gall of disappointment …. He did not believe in any vicarious sacrifices for the sins of others." - Edward Gibbon

This is complete garbage. No, that's not the "greatest" "crime" or "sin" of Mohammed "in the eyes of the Christian West". That's just Gibbon promoting his own agenda for his own reasons. If you want to ascribe just one view of Mohammed "that dominates the Christian West" it would be neither knowing or caring to know about him.

But hey, inventing beliefs and attributing them to people you disagree with certainly makes it easier to win debates with them, at least in your own mind.

[AngryTitusPullo]

So basically it saying Jesus did not want to control the minds of men, he simply lived and people made a religon on him thereafter. Whereas Muhammad always wanted to control men's minds and actions in the name of god.

If you can only choose between the two and you happened to be voted as a leader of your nation who would be your guidance ? Jesus or Muhammad ?

[Gauvin]

If you can only choose between the two and you happened to be voted as a leader of your nation who would be your guidance ? Jesus or Muhammad ?

Am I the Ayatollah Khomeini?

[MaximiIian]

If you can only choose between the two and you happened to be voted as a leader of your nation who would be your guidance ? Jesus or Muhammad ?

Muhammad, no question. Better to have a man with military experience to be an advisor, especially if I got involved in a war. Additionally, he has a certain knowledge of how to manipulate weak-minded people. If I were a Machiavellian ruler, I would choose him as an advisor. Would I actually listen to his religious advice? No.
But, then again, nor would I if it were Jesus, who was just a goofy, nutty preacher with the political inclination of a wombat. But, unlike him, Muhammad would have some usefulness to a Machiavellian regime.

[Ummon]

If you can only choose between the two and you happened to be voted as a leader of your nation who would be your guidance ? Jesus or Muhammad ?

Certainly Jesus. Because the Kingdom is not of this world.

[Shadowcry]

Muhammad (PBUH)

[Zuwxiv]

...the power and the way, as men, they sought it. Jesus did not. He never did. He simply lived his life as he saw fit,, and it was men, thereafter, who shaped him into the diety he has become. But Muhammad? Muhammad dealt in power from the outset, seeking to control men's minds and actions in the name of God.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that the author views religion itself as "control over men's minds and actions in the name of God." The criticism here lies not in the quest for power or control - simply in the claim that Jesus did not 'lead' his own religious movement in the same way Muhammad did. I would have to disagree.

John 16:14 "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

Sounds a bit like "Well, you can burn forever in the flames of hell, or follow me." How is that any different from what Muhammad did? I'm no theological expert, but I understand that Muhammad was a military leader. In that they differ. But Jesus was in no way uncertain about His desire to spread his ideals around the world.

Perhaps this spreads from a different opinion and perspective between the two; "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" can be interpreted as Jesus never having a political slant (which runs quite contrary to modern-day more extreme Christians).

I would disagree with the statement that Muhammad wanted control while Jesus did not; I think it was a different type of control but that Muhammad could generally be said to be the more driven in the political and militaristic sense.

My two cents.

[Desperado †]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that the author views religion itself as "control over men's minds and actions in the name of God."

Yep, the whole book is pretty anti-religous in general, though it is atcually more anti Christianity more than Islam.
It is on the Crusades after all, and most books on the Crusades now day's tend to focus on the death and anti-chivalrous acts (of the Christians in particular).

[Chaigidel]

that passage only means that if Jesus is the Word made flesh you can only come to god through the word-- and that word is knowledge or love; your choice.

either way it is a universal mercy rather than universal condemnation-- it does not mean accept jesus as god; I means love god

[Zuwxiv]

It doesn't matter if it means love or anything else. I agree it is not a condemnation, but it was not fundamentally different from Muhammad.

"I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

It's a simple statement: Do what I say, follow me and my teachings (AKA religion), or you will not get to heaven.

I'm not trying to belittle Jesus at all; that's what he was recorded as saying. And the message of love is an amazing one, although I fear all too many people forget it nowadays. But whether you need love or faith or the blood of your enemies children, it's a quantifier for how to get to Heaven.

It's a message of order and control, just as any religion is: a set of codes, morals, and rules that must be followed for the health of the soul. There's nothing wrong with rules - all cultures, all religions, all peoples have them. But if anything is amazing about religion, it's how similar they all are - the rules of Islam and Christianity in particular.

[The Big Red 1]

I agree with the author.

Jesus said, I will help you and guide you but if you don't follow me then so be it.


Muhammad thought, you should all follow me an if you don't I will force it on you.

[Miraj]

Jesus said, I will help you and guide you but if you don't follow me then YOU WILL BURN IN HELL 4EVER

Fixed.

Muhammad and Jesus are essentially the same - only that Muhammad was smart and tough enough to actually fight, survive and complete his mission. Jesus wasn't.

[The Big Red 1]

Fixed.

Muhammad and Jesus are essentially the same - only that Muhammad was smart and tough enough to actually fight, survive and complete his mission. Jesus wasn't.

Whoa I never knew Jesus said that! (it's me saying it so it must be true)

Jesus completed his mission last time I checked.