Australian Politics Forum - Muhammad as the anti-christ

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47356
At my desk.

Muhammad as the anti-christ
Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:28am

This is an interesting idea from Gandalf:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 1:36pm:

Debating Hitler's genocide can land you in gaol in many western countries. That and the fact that very few people, and certainly no powerful vested interests, disagree that Hitler was awful. On the other hand, I acknowledge there are quite a few - and very (disproportionately) vocal mob of Islamaphobes whose agenda is to make Muhammad out to be the anti-christ.

I have not actually seen anyone use this term to describe Muhammad before, but I think it is both fair and accurate, especially when it comes to the use of violence to promote your ideology. You would struggle to find a single leader, either religious or political, who is to the left of Jesus on this. There are not many that are to the right of Muhammad, and if your metric is their effectiveness in encouraging people to use violence to spread their ideology, there are none.

Muhammad and Jesus are at opposite ends of the spectrum. The Quran is full of explicit instructions to use violence to impose Islam on people, and Muhammad was very effective at motivating people to follow those instructions.

Muhammad is literally the anti-christ. Just to be fair, I should also acknowledge that this makes Jesus the anti-Muhammad. You can have that one for free Gandalf. Give it to the people who coined the phrase Islamophobe and see if they run with it.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Mattyfisk Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 92261 Gender:	Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ Reply #1 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:41am Well, not the anti-Christ. That one's meant to come at the Second Coming, the End Days. You know, the fullness of time.
Back to top	IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #2 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am

Personally, I believe Muhammad acted and behaved as Jesus would have if Jesus was burdened with an actual state to run and under constant military attack. Who knows, if Arabia had been under the yoke of the most powerful civilization the world had ever known, Muhammad may well have been all 'don't do anything stupid' (militarily) - and 'turn the other cheek' - like Jesus was.

I mean its not like Jesus was in any position to forge any sort of successful independent state in defiance of Rome - even if he wanted to.

You simply can't analyse the two scenarios objectively without acknowledging the vastly different political realities between the two.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20955
A cat with a view

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #3 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:51am

Quote:

Muhammad is literally the anti-christ.

Just to be fair, I should also acknowledge that this makes Jesus the anti-Muhammad.

"On his death-bed Allah's Apostle....said, "May Allah's Curse be on the Jews and the Christians....."
hadithsunnah/bukhari #004.056.660

Years ago, i came across an interesting table on the www somewhere, comparing varying aspects of the eschatology [end time studies] of both ISLAM and Christianity.

It depicted for ISLAM, the Christian Jesus as representing an ISLAMIC type 'anti-christ'.

And for Christianity, the ISLAMIC Mahdi [end time personage] as a representation in type, of the Christian 'anti-christ'.

And it presented [for ISLAM] the God of Jacob [and Abraham, and Isaac] as a SATAN 'type' to ISLAMIC theology.

And visa-versa.

It was a interesting table to peruse.

[i have an image of part of that table, but at 366 kb it is too large to attach]

TRY THESE [from my archive]

Will Islam Be Our Future?
A Study of Biblical and Islamic Eschatology ['end-time' beliefs]
Joel Richardson
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/Future/index.htm

and...
Comparison of End Times Figures in Christianity and Islam, Part I
http://al-mahdi.atspace.com/compare.html
http://al-mahdi.atspace.com/index.html

and...
12 Astounding Parallels:
Islam’s Anticipated “Mahdi” and the Bible’s “Man of Lawlessness” or “Beast”
http://www.fbch.com/Notes/2006_07_16_Supplement.html [dead link]

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 92261
Gender: male

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #4 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 11:38am

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

Personally, I believe Muhammad acted and behaved as Jesus would have if Jesus was burdened with an actual state to run and under constant military attack. Who knows, if Arabia had been under the yoke of the most powerful civilization the world had ever known, Muhammad may well have been all 'don't do anything stupid' (militarily) - and 'turn the other cheek' - like Jesus was.

I mean its not like Jesus was in any position to forge any sort of successful independent state in defiance of Rome - even if he wanted to.

You simply can't analyse the two scenarios objectively without acknowledging the vastly different political realities between the two.

And indeed, the Jews were waiting for such a political leader.

Without a doubt, Moh was nicer and kinder than past Jewish leaders/prophets: Abraham, Moses, David.

FD doesn't want to talk about it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #5 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:14pm

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 11:38am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

Personally, I believe Muhammad acted and behaved as Jesus would have if Jesus was burdened with an actual state to run and under constant military attack. Who knows, if Arabia had been under the yoke of the most powerful civilization the world had ever known, Muhammad may well have been all 'don't do anything stupid' (militarily) - and 'turn the other cheek' - like Jesus was.

I mean its not like Jesus was in any position to forge any sort of successful independent state in defiance of Rome - even if he wanted to.

You simply can't analyse the two scenarios objectively without acknowledging the vastly different political realities between the two.

And indeed, the Jews were waiting for such a political leader.

Without a doubt, Moh was nicer and kinder than past Jewish leaders/prophets: Abraham, Moses, David.

FD doesn't want to talk about it.

How so? First of all, Moses didn't rape a nine-year old girl, did he?

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #6 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

Personally, I believe Muhammad acted and behaved as Jesus would have if Jesus was burdened with an actual state to run and under constant military attack. Who knows, if Arabia had been under the yoke of the most powerful civilization the world had ever known, Muhammad may well have been all 'don't do anything stupid' (militarily) - and 'turn the other cheek' - like Jesus was.

I mean its not like Jesus was in any position to forge any sort of successful independent state in defiance of Rome - even if he wanted to.

You simply can't analyse the two scenarios objectively without acknowledging the vastly different political realities between the two.

You're missing the point, Gandalf. It wasn't that Jesus believed it was impossible; he entertained the idea of rebelling against Rome. The point is that HE DIDN'T CHOOSE TO DO SO. Instead, he chose to go through humiliation and torture to make his point.

This is the difference: Jesus made the CONSCIOUS choice to go to his DEATH. He acted IRRATIONALLY (in that he wasn't concerned about self-preservation. Muhammad CONSCIOUSLY chose to the things he did. He acted RATIONALLY (in that he was concerned about this self-preservation).

Which ACT DO YOU THINK WAS MORE SPIRITUAL?

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 92261
Gender: male

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #7 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:44pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:14pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 11:38am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

Personally, I believe Muhammad acted and behaved as Jesus would have if Jesus was burdened with an actual state to run and under constant military attack. Who knows, if Arabia had been under the yoke of the most powerful civilization the world had ever known, Muhammad may well have been all 'don't do anything stupid' (militarily) - and 'turn the other cheek' - like Jesus was.

I mean its not like Jesus was in any position to forge any sort of successful independent state in defiance of Rome - even if he wanted to.

You simply can't analyse the two scenarios objectively without acknowledging the vastly different political realities between the two.

And indeed, the Jews were waiting for such a political leader.

Without a doubt, Moh was nicer and kinder than past Jewish leaders/prophets: Abraham, Moses, David.

FD doesn't want to talk about it.

How so? First of all, Moses didn't rape a nine-year old girl, did he?

No, Moses just burnt them to death for blasphemy.

Have you?

Back to top

IP Logged

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 92261
Gender: male

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #8 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:46pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

Personally, I believe Muhammad acted and behaved as Jesus would have if Jesus was burdened with an actual state to run and under constant military attack. Who knows, if Arabia had been under the yoke of the most powerful civilization the world had ever known, Muhammad may well have been all 'don't do anything stupid' (militarily) - and 'turn the other cheek' - like Jesus was.

I mean its not like Jesus was in any position to forge any sort of successful independent state in defiance of Rome - even if he wanted to.

You simply can't analyse the two scenarios objectively without acknowledging the vastly different political realities between the two.

You're missing the point, Gandalf. It wasn't that Jesus believed it was impossible; he entertained the idea of rebelling against Rome. The point is that HE DIDN'T CHOOSE TO DO SO. Instead, he chose to go through humiliation and torture to make his point.

This is the difference: Jesus made the CONSCIOUS choice to go to his DEATH. He acted IRRATIONALLY (in that he wasn't concerned about self-preservation. Muhammad CONSCIOUSLY chose to the things he did. He acted RATIONALLY (in that he was concerned about this self-preservation).

Which ACT DO YOU THINK WAS MORE SPIRITUAL?

Dying for a cause, or living for one?

Questions questions.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47356
At my desk.

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #9 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:01pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

Personally, I believe Muhammad acted and behaved as Jesus would have if Jesus was burdened with an actual state to run and under constant military attack. Who knows, if Arabia had been under the yoke of the most powerful civilization the world had ever known, Muhammad may well have been all 'don't do anything stupid' (militarily) - and 'turn the other cheek' - like Jesus was.

I mean its not like Jesus was in any position to forge any sort of successful independent state in defiance of Rome - even if he wanted to.

You simply can't analyse the two scenarios objectively without acknowledging the vastly different political realities between the two.

That's a lot of lies for one post Gandalf.

Muhammad was not "burdened" with a state. There was literally no state in Arabia at the time. He created it from scratch. No-one forced him to. Jesus would not have done that in the first place, and certainly not as ruthlessly and violently.

It was not under constant attack. It was constantly attacking. Muhammad got away with many years of robbing Meccan trade caravans and killing innocent traders before the Meccans took any action against him to stop the slaughter and theft in the name of Islam.

After he then reached a treaty with Mecca, he sought out a way to get out of it and conquer Mecca, which he subdued without real challenge. After Mecca, he conquered the Arabian peninsula entirely aggressively. In the century after he died, Muslims expanded his empire into the biggest there had ever been.

The Quran specifically states that fighting is only for self defence during the holy months. Outside of then, Muslims are specifically instructed to fight for the purpose of imposing Islam on people - even if, like Gandalf, they detest fighting. This message is repeated in the Quran, along with many, many verses calling on Muslims to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims. Gandalf lies about the Quran to claim it says something completely different. He even quotes one of the verses instructing Muslims to impose Islam on people by the sword as evidence the Quran says that war may only be fought in self defence. It is literally opposite day when Gandalf reads from the Quran.

And now he also projects the cynicism of Muslims onto Jesus himself - that love thy enemy, turn the other cheek etc were not his actual message, but a strategic move to get his 'real message' out there. And the real message is something to do with Islam, right Gandalf? Jesus and Muhammad were entirely products of circumstance, and religion ought to flip flop from from peace and tolerance to rape and pillage as the opportunity arises...

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #10 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:04pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm:

You're missing the point, Gandalf. It wasn't that Jesus believed it was impossible; he entertained the idea of rebelling against Rome. The point is that HE DIDN'T CHOOSE TO DO SO.

Strange, you seem to dismiss the obvious conclusion to be drawn - that he didn't choose to because he knew it was suicide - not just for him, but for his entire people.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #11 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:06pm

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:01pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

Personally, I believe Muhammad acted and behaved as Jesus would have if Jesus was burdened with an actual state to run and under constant military attack. Who knows, if Arabia had been under the yoke of the most powerful civilization the world had ever known, Muhammad may well have been all 'don't do anything stupid' (militarily) - and 'turn the other cheek' - like Jesus was.

I mean its not like Jesus was in any position to forge any sort of successful independent state in defiance of Rome - even if he wanted to.

You simply can't analyse the two scenarios objectively without acknowledging the vastly different political realities between the two.

That's a lot of lies for one post Gandalf.

Muhammad was not "burdened" with a state. There was literally no state in Arabia at the time. He created it from scratch. No-one forced him to. Jesus would not have done that in the first place, and certainly not as ruthlessly and violently.

It was not under constant attack. It was constantly attacking. Muhammad got away with many years of robbing Meccan trade caravans and killing innocent traders before the Meccans took any action against him to stop the slaughter and theft in the name of Islam.

After he then reached a treaty with Mecca, he sought out a way to get out of it and conquer Mecca, which he subdued without real challenge. After Mecca, he conquered the Arabian peninsula entirely aggressively. In the century after he died, Muslims expanded his empire into the biggest there had ever been.

The Quran specifically states that fighting is only for self defence during the holy months. Outside of then, Muslims are specifically instructed to fight for the purpose of imposing Islam on people - even if, like Gandalf, they detest fighting. This message is repeated in the Quran, along with many, many verses calling on Muslims to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims. Gandalf lies about the Quran to claim it says something completely different. He even quotes one of the verses instructing Muslims to impose Islam on people by the sword as evidence the Quran says that war may only be fought in self defence. It is literally opposite day when Gandalf reads from the Quran.

And now he also projects the cynicism of Muslims onto Jesus himself - that love thy enemy, turn the other cheek etc were not his actual message, but a strategic move to get his 'real message' out there. And the real message is something to do with Islam, right Gandalf? Jesus and Muhammad were entirely products of circumstance, and religion ought to flip flop from from peace and tolerance to rape and pillage as the opportunity arises...

blah blah blah - and thats a lot of ranting to avoid the most pertinent point: Muhammad (and his people) were attacked first. Amazing how many times you neglect to mention that.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #12 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:13pm

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:46pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

Personally, I believe Muhammad acted and behaved as Jesus would have if Jesus was burdened with an actual state to run and under constant military attack. Who knows, if Arabia had been under the yoke of the most powerful civilization the world had ever known, Muhammad may well have been all 'don't do anything stupid' (militarily) - and 'turn the other cheek' - like Jesus was.

I mean its not like Jesus was in any position to forge any sort of successful independent state in defiance of Rome - even if he wanted to.

You simply can't analyse the two scenarios objectively without acknowledging the vastly different political realities between the two.

You're missing the point, Gandalf. It wasn't that Jesus believed it was impossible; he entertained the idea of rebelling against Rome. The point is that HE DIDN'T CHOOSE TO DO SO. Instead, he chose to go through humiliation and torture to make his point.

This is the difference: Jesus made the CONSCIOUS choice to go to his DEATH. He acted IRRATIONALLY (in that he wasn't concerned about self-preservation. Muhammad CONSCIOUSLY chose to the things he did. He acted RATIONALLY (in that he was concerned about this self-preservation).

Which ACT DO YOU THINK WAS MORE SPIRITUAL?

Dying for a cause, or living for one?

Questions questions.

I would say that consciously choosing to be tortured and die is more spiritual. Muhammad might have lived for the caused, but he killed or ordered the deaths of people. That's not spiritual, Karnal.

Answers, answers.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #13 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:14pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:04pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm:

You're missing the point, Gandalf. It wasn't that Jesus believed it was impossible; he entertained the idea of rebelling against Rome. The point is that HE DIDN'T CHOOSE TO DO SO.

Strange, you seem to dismiss the obvious conclusion to be drawn - that he didn't choose to because he knew it was suicide - not just for him, but for his entire people.

That didn't stop other so-called Jewish Messiah pretenders such as Bar Kokbar. That Jesus didn't want to sacrifice the lives of his disciples shows incredible compassion.

Muhammad had no such compunction; he said people out to fight and kill.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #14 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:16pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:06pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:01pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

Personally, I believe Muhammad acted and behaved as Jesus would have if Jesus was burdened with an actual state to run and under constant military attack. Who knows, if Arabia had been under the yoke of the most powerful civilization the world had ever known, Muhammad may well have been all 'don't do anything stupid' (militarily) - and 'turn the other cheek' - like Jesus was.

I mean its not like Jesus was in any position to forge any sort of successful independent state in defiance of Rome - even if he wanted to.

You simply can't analyse the two scenarios objectively without acknowledging the vastly different political realities between the two.

That's a lot of lies for one post Gandalf.

Muhammad was not "burdened" with a state. There was literally no state in Arabia at the time. He created it from scratch. No-one forced him to. Jesus would not have done that in the first place, and certainly not as ruthlessly and violently.

It was not under constant attack. It was constantly attacking. Muhammad got away with many years of robbing Meccan trade caravans and killing innocent traders before the Meccans took any action against him to stop the slaughter and theft in the name of Islam.

After he then reached a treaty with Mecca, he sought out a way to get out of it and conquer Mecca, which he subdued without real challenge. After Mecca, he conquered the Arabian peninsula entirely aggressively. In the century after he died, Muslims expanded his empire into the biggest there had ever been.

The Quran specifically states that fighting is only for self defence during the holy months. Outside of then, Muslims are specifically instructed to fight for the purpose of imposing Islam on people - even if, like Gandalf, they detest fighting. This message is repeated in the Quran, along with many, many verses calling on Muslims to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims. Gandalf lies about the Quran to claim it says something completely different. He even quotes one of the verses instructing Muslims to impose Islam on people by the sword as evidence the Quran says that war may only be fought in self defence. It is literally opposite day when Gandalf reads from the Quran.

And now he also projects the cynicism of Muslims onto Jesus himself - that love thy enemy, turn the other cheek etc were not his actual message, but a strategic move to get his 'real message' out there. And the real message is something to do with Islam, right Gandalf? Jesus and Muhammad were entirely products of circumstance, and religion ought to flip flop from from peace and tolerance to rape and pillage as the opportunity arises...

blah blah blah - and thats a lot of ranting to avoid the most pertinent point: Muhammad (and his people) were attacked first. Amazing how many times you neglect to mention that.

So, in each and every case of warfare he was responding to a direct attack him or the Muslim community??? He never conducted pre-emptive warfare in order to eliminate a 'perceived' threat?

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged