From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Conservlogo.png

Not even sure where to start with this one, but it should be more in-depth and probably needs to be started from scratch.--John 22:12, 7 March 2007 (EST)

This page should be fixed after everyone gets a good laugh at the vandal--Elamdri 00:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, Muhammad started life as a merchant? How did he manage a business in the womb?--Thomas 15:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Preferred Transliteration?

There is also a stub under Muhammad. Which should we prefer: Muhammad or Mohammed? Dr. Richard Paley 10:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Muhammad with a redirect from Mohammed. Here's some good source material THE POLITICAL CAREER OF MUHAMMAD (p.466 on) RobS 23:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Images depicting Muhammad

We had one in the article but someone removed it. I assume this is because of the modern Muslim taboo on images depicting Muhammad. Should Conservapedia adhere to this prohibition? Sulgran 21:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

NO. It is not our job to censor ourselves of a historically accurate image due to the whining of some religious group. We can respect their values, but we certainly should not adhere to them. If we did, we'd all be wearing turbans and praising Allah right about now. --Hojimachongtalk 22:32, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

There is no 'modern taboo' on his images. For more than 1000 years no pictures of him were permitted incase people started to 'worship' it- because he is a Prophet, not to be mistaken for Allah. Also, no picture is worthy to depict the beauty of the Prophet. Respecting a religion does not require one to adhere to it- you repsect thats all you do. For example, if I were to enter a Church, in respect of the religion, I would dress modestly- not like a nun. On another note, there is a mistake in the article in relation to the so called "massacre of Jews in Madina" (mind you the source of this statement is NOT reliable). Yes there were three Jewish tribes living in Madina when the Prophet (peace be upon him) and fellow Muslims settled there. The first thing Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) did was sign a treaty with the Jews, however, the Jews broke this treaty as of day one when they tried to force the Muslims out of Medina. The Jews were actually waiting for a Prophet to arrive, however, as Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) was Muslim they rejected his Prophethood.

Of course, there is no "modern taboo", and I think Sulgran knew that. And if I am not mistaken, the Shi'as are much more lenient when it comes to showing pictures.
And thank you for the comparison of you entering a church and showing respect. Unfortunately, this is not a holy building; it is an encyclopedia, which will portray Muhammad as a historical figure first, prophet next. As a historical figure, he existed, and notable artists have portrayed him. --Hojimachongtalk 11:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, if you want to display Muhammed (PBUH) as a historical figure, and just that, then I suppose the same should be done for other religions, too. Right? So, historically, Jesus was not a prophet, he was just some guy. Let's portray him that way since we don't need to respect other religions. I guess my real point is this: Stop being a jerk. Just because this encyclopedia has an American Christian bias, and is only presented in English does not mean you should treat others like this. The average Muslim is a much nicer person than most Christians I have known, since Islam has it's followers strive to be like the prophet, rather than just pray to him. I don't understand why you can regard so many others in this way for the actions of a few over-zealous people whom you place in the same category.


Why is there no citation for the part of this article?Prof0705 09:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


where is the image?Богдан Talk 13:36, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Removed by Andy, though I would like to see it re-inserted. It can be found at [Image:Maome.jpg] --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 13:38, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
I see no reason why having this image on the page would be bad.Богдан Talk 13:45, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Visually depicting Muhammad is a grave sin in Sunni Islam. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 13:50, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Yeah I know, but this is not Sunnipedia. I'm pretty sure most of us are already grave sinners among the Islamic extremists anyway.Богдан Talk 13:52, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Careful; that was a catch-all statement for Sunnis. Depicting Muhammad is a grave sin for every Sunni, not just the extreme ones. Unless of course you would like to define all Sunnis as extremists, which is a different discussion entirely. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 17:30, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

So what exactly is wrong with identifying all Sunnis as extremists? ChristianFaith 13:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Is this question intended to be provocative? Sunni's perhaps number close to one/fifth of the planets population. RobS 14:59, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
Not provocative but a fact's a fact. It is a fact that Muslims self identify as extremists. Their Bible "the Koran" tells them to be. Let me see, forcing Christians into slavery in Somalia, stoning people to death for minor crimes, murdering christian missionaries and finally -murdering women and children up. For the record, not all self-identified Christians (the LRA) are excluded -But call something what it is.ChristianFaith 16:57, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
Half right. And some good points. The question is how do you define extremist? If 20% of the population of planet earth are "extremist" by virtue of the culture and civilization they are born in, than we can probably conclude more than 20% of the planet earth's population are extremist, and possibly not even by virtue of their cultural upbringing, but something inherent in human nature.
This whole hypothesis is probably not supportable by any kind of rational or reasoned investigation--except it may be believed and propagated by other extremists. Hence you take a big risk offering that theory here. RobS 17:22, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
When put into the context of "should there be an image of Mohammed"? -there is very little risk. We are allowing the dictates of their society and their values to affect how we present information in our society. In our society -presenting images is the norm. We recognize that what images convey is more than "idolatry". (The reason that images of Mohammed are forbidden is to prevent Idol worship). Furthermore, the image that is posted is relatively tame and respectful [Image:Maome.jpg] -not like the one that I would post. Is there another reason that you aren't posting the image? -Did you get a bomb threat? ChristianFaith 19:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

more on "Sunni" ChristianFaith 13:38, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Too Politically Correct

To quote Scripture:

Matthew 24:11 "And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."

(Please read the whole chapter for context)

Mohammed was a false prophet.

Also whoever put that extremely weak excuse that Mohammed's wife substituted numbers for her age is a liar. Mohammed was a pedophile.

"The holy Prophet died when he was 63. So he must have married Ayesha when he as 51 and went to her when he was 54...

Khadija died in December of 619 AD. That is two years before Hijra. At that time the Prophet was 51-years-old. So in the same year that Khadija died the prophet married Ayesha and took her to his home 3 years later, i.e. one year after Hijra. But until she grow up he married Umm Salama."

Mohammed was also a barbaric thief and would force people to convert to Mohammedism by force. Their current religion reflects this...

Of course being new here I wouldn't want to stir things up. What would the heathens say if the "Conservapedia" article on Mohammed told the truth? ChristianFaith 13:41, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Oh give me a break, you can be conservative all you want but that doesn't mean anti-Islam, pro-Christian, all the people editing religious articles are HEAVILY biased. Leave it to people who actually know about Muhammad not people that hate him, it just makes no sense at all. No ones telling you to like him, have some common decency, and respect. If you want to make a claim prove it, don't be a moron.

So... what should we do about the bit regarding Archangel Gabriel? I find it unlikely that the guy who gave Mary the news that God chose her to be impregnated with His son Jesus Christ would just defect to Satan's side, and the article does mention that Gabriel played some role in Mohammad founding Islam. Pokeria1 (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2016 (EDT)
The problem is that Muhammad claimed to be serving the same God as Christians and Jews. We know that he was not, but Satan presumably impersonated Gabriel. So, if this page is to be written objectively as "He believed that..." then we should mention that (he believed) Gabriel directed him as already stated. However, we caould also write it subjectively as "Although this contradicts the Bible, he claimed that..."
I don't know which option is better for sure, but I would probably mention that his teachings did go against the Bible, even though he claims to server the God therein. --David B (TALK) 20:18, 21 September 2016 (EDT)
Eh, we probably should reword it. Quite frankly, though, I personally think God dropped the ball there, especially in light of Jesus's victory. God really should have interfered, like, I don't know, have the actual Gabriel interfere, or even blow up the fake Gabriel in front of Mohammad and essentially tell him that was a fake and forget about what he said. Had it been me in God's position, I'd make sure there's absolutely NOTHING taking away my victory over Satan, and even go as far as to have Jesus outright murder Satan during his three-day death and leave Satan permanently dead, to ensure no one can ever escape my rule again. In fact, also make sure that Jesus, when he kills Satan for good during that time, does it like Vegeta did with Jeice here [1]. That's what I would have done, and probably take away free will as soon as Jesus rose from the dead specifically to end sin then and there. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2016 (EDT)
That would certainly be the efficient way...
Strange as it may seem, though, Satan seems to be an integral part to God's plan. If you think about it, God created Satan, knowing that he would fall. Also, as we see in Job, Satan apparently needs to ask permission from God do do things. Why God permits him to do so much I don't really know, but it's a part of His plan. If nothing else, Satan separates the wheat from the chaff, and in some cases, drives people to Christ. Some day, I trust we'll know.
Anyway, I'd say that you might as well go ahead and give this page a try then. I'm sure you'll hear about it if anyone objects! --David B (TALK) 20:36, 21 September 2016 (EDT)
Already altered it. Don't know what else I need to do with the page, though.
So, in other words, God's just like the Patriots from Metal Gear Solid 2, Galenth Dysley from Final Fantasy XIII, or the Architect from the Matrix Reloaded? That... really doesn't give me even a remotely good image of God, unfortunately. I've already got a warped impression of God ever since I accidentally saw the ending of Raiders of the Lost Ark as a small boy, those sources already made my views on God worse, even when I tried to reconcile Christianity with that and ignored those sources, and as you can pretty much guess from those videos, they were depicted in a very negative, almost evil light. The fact that at least one sermon from Christianity, Sinners at the Hands of an Angry God, actually ultimately depicted God in a similar maniacal light doesn't help matters either. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2016 (EDT)
Some theologians seem to have all the answers (whether right or not) but honstly, if I think it though too far, all I get is a headache. (Put simply, how can a perfect God create the devil and permit sin?) Many of the answers are out there, but at some point, it's my opinion that you need to trust in God, regardless of all that. We know He is good, faithful, loving, and merciful, and in a way, that's enough. In certain cases, I just opt to trust Him, and figure that some day, I will probably be able to ask Him. I will say that I think the idea of Him being like the "Architect" or other such evil geniuses is unfair to Him. His purposes may be beyond us, but if we are to be rules or in any position of authority in heaven, perhaps this all was needed to test us and prove that we are willing to let Him be the "boss" (Lord), and to trust in and obey Him. --David B (TALK) 21:44, 21 September 2016 (EDT)
Also, I forgot to mention it, but while Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is a great book for convincing sinners of their guilt, it's exactly a daily devotional for every christian. It is written to convict, disarm, and drive to Christ those who are resisting. As the puritans would put it, it "shuts them up to God" (drives them to Him, leaving nowhere else for them to go). It is a great book, but try to remember that He is angry at those who have refused for their entire lifetime to repent. If you have repented, turned to Him, and trusted in Him for salvation, and are walking faithfully with Him, He is not this was towards you. He can certainly be angry, but He is slow to anger and abounding in love. --David B (TALK) 23:07, 21 September 2016 (EDT)