How should Christians view Muhammad historically?

[jessehove]

I would argue that Christians should see Muhammad as a true prophet for his time and context, while maintaining that Christ is the fulfillment of all the prophets through his death and ressurection. Here is my central historical arguement regarding the Prophet Muhammad:

http://mercyandmessiah.blogspot.ca/2012 ... ophet.html

[Muzaffar]

[Replying to post 10 by kayky]

I see Muhammad as a visionary who saw the deep-rooted problems in Arab society and wanted to create a solution.

From this I can conclude that either you are blind or just following conjectures of other people.

Let's for the sake of argument agree that the Qur'an was a fabrication from Muhammad, then you'll have to agree that he is the Greatest writer of all time, as this novel has marvel arab poets for 1400 year and for the past decades scientist too.

Now I'll compare the Qur'an to another "revelation" made to another "prophet", Joseph Smith who "received" the book of Mormon. In contrast with the Qur'an, the book of Mormon contains whole pages copied from the Bible (Isaiah...etc) and not one verse in the Qur'an is similar to the Bible. The doctrine found in the Qur'an is identical everywhere in the Qur'an, whereas for the book of Mormon, 'The preface' differs from 'The Introduction' which in turn differs from 'The Testimonies'.

So according to me Joseph Smith wanted to resolve the problem of the Christians in his time into a new Universal Church.
But for Muhammad he taught the Pagans of Arabia submit to the will of God.

He saw the civilizing effects of Christianity on the societies around him and decided to create an Arab version.

When we create a version of something usually we change small parts to make the original better, but in this case it has become radically different:
1) Jesus is God - He says Jesus is not God.
2) God is a Trinity - He says God is one alone not in a Trinity.
3) Jesus died for the sins of mankind - He says that no one can carry the burden of another.
and on and on. If all this opposites are only a version of christianity then he would have give it another name such as:
LDS, Anglican, Catholique.... not Islam...

Hope I was clear in my points if you have any query do not hesitate. (If you want references you can ask too)

[Muzaffar]

@jessehove

I would argue that Christians should see Muhammad as a true prophet for his time and context

If you believe that Muhammad is a true prophet then immediately you should reject the idea of the sacrifice of Christ.
As the Qur'an rejects the Idea that Jesus dies on the cross.
"And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain." (Qur'an 4:157)

while maintaining that Christ is the fulfillment of all the prophets through his death and ressurection.

I want to know on what is based the argument that Jesus is the fulfillment of all the prophets?
He himself said to his disciples:
"Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Messiah,' and will deceive many." (Matt 24:4-5)

Do not hesitate if you have any question

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

I see Muhammad as a visionary who saw the deep-rooted problems in Arab society and wanted to create a solution. He saw the civilizing effects of Christianity on the societies around him and decided to create an Arab version.

Well... Judaism too. That's why a lot of Qur'anic precepts were tailored to appeal to Jews, which caused Muhammad the utmost surprised and raging disappointment when they DIDN'T appeal to Jews.

In fact, Jews openly mocked his poor 'understanding' of their Bible and traditions.