WI: Muhammad Seen As God?

[whitecrow]

What if Muhammad is viewed by adherence of his beliefs not only as a prophet but as a manifestation of God like Jesus is for Christians? How could this belief come about and what would be its ramifications?

 

[LSCatilina]

Well, apart from precise denomination, Christians overall considers Jesus as God, not a manifestation.

If the same happened to Muhammad : first, he would have a hell lot more of troubles making his message heard. You can listen more easily to someone saying he have a divine message than someone saying quietly "I'm God, you know".
Yes, it worked for Jesus, mostly because of religious turmoil in Palestine.

Not that a definitive obstacle, while it would be definitely one for Judeo-Christians and Jews in Arabia, and for them and Christian outside the peninsula.

So, if it's not preventing Islam to rise as a major religion, it would make it harder for reaching it.

 

[whitecrow]

If the same happened to Muhammad : first, he would have a hell lot more of troubles making his message heard. You can listen more easily to someone saying he have a divine message than someone saying quietly "I'm God, you know".
Yes, it worked for Jesus, mostly because of religious turmoil in Palestine.

As I recall the belief that Jesus is the Son of God arose after his death. He himself never claimed to be Son of God IIRC. I was thinking the same thing could happen with Muhammad: the Koran was written after his death so whoever writes it says Muhammad is God

 

[Herman Gigglethorpe]

What if Muhammad is viewed by adherence of his beliefs not only as a prophet but as a manifestation of God like Jesus is for Christians? How could this belief come about and what would be its ramifications?

You'd have to have a very different Qu'ran for that to work, or some kind of weird "heresy" somehow becomes dominant. You couldn't have Islam be recognizable with this setup. Even more "heterodox" versions like Ahmadiyya don't go that far.

6:100 ". . .they falsely, having no knowledge, attribute to him [Allah] sons and daughters"

4:171 "So believe in Allah and his messengers, and say not "Three" Cease! (it is) better for you! Allah is only one Allah".

As for Jesus, there are quotes attributed to him in the Bible that people used for divinity such as "I and the Father are One" from John 10:30.

I used the "Three Translations of the Qu'ran Side by Side" available on Project Gutenberg for this post.

 

[Shutenmaru]

As I recall the belief that Jesus is the Son of God arose after his death. He himself never ccompilers be Son of God IIRC. I was thinking the same thing could happen with Muhammad: the Koran was written after his death so whoever writes it says Muhammad is God

The Koran wasn't written after his death, it was only compiled some years after he died. And it would be hard for the compilers to add this in because many people had memorized the entire Koran and would know something is up when a part about Muhammad being God is mysteriously added in.
Muhammad took great pains to state he himself is not a God, so the only way for people to believe this is if he himself claimed it. Not if somebody after his death claimed it.

 

[LSCatilina]

As I recall the belief that Jesus is the Son of God arose after his death. He himself never claimed to be Son of God IIRC. I was thinking the same thing could happen with Muhammad: the Koran was written after his death so whoever writes it says Muhammad is God

"And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

" Marc 1.11

The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."

Matthew 4.2

Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

Matthew 14.43

Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

John 20.22

I'm not going to quote all the occurences, really, there's simply too much.

You could argue "but they were written after his death". Yes indeed. Maybe the historical Jesus didn't said that or that, maybe he did, it doesn't matters on a historical point of view.

What matters is that people came to believe that, and Muhammads is playing on this ground.

 

[DanMcCollum]

" Marc 1.11


Matthew 4.2

Matthew 14.43

John 20.22

I'm not going to quote all the occurences, really, there's simply too much.

You could argue "but they were written after his death". Yes indeed. Maybe the historical Jesus didn't said that or that, maybe he did, it doesn't matters on a historical point of view.

What matters is that people came to believe that, and Muhammads is playing on this ground.

Well, the "written after his death" really does come into play in this case; to have a better idea of the actual words of Jesus you need to go back to the reconstructed Q Gospel (in which Jesus usually refers to himself as the mysterious "Son of Man"). However, even if we are to assume that Jesus referred to himself as the Son of God, that is a very different thing than calling himself God; after all, David was called "the Son of God" due to his rightousness and being favored by the divine. No one, obviously, thought David was the LITERAL son of God. (the Adoptionists seem to have held to this later definition of the term, as did many other early Christians, for that matter).

But, anyway, that is digressing from the main topic here. Anyway, what exactly would Muhammad gain by calling himself an incarnation of God, or would early Islam gain by claiming their founder was? In Christianity, the claims of divinity seems to have played into the apocalyptic fervor of the day (even though the belief in Jesus' divinity was really, really, unique!) and also helped it spread amongst the Hellenized-Jews of the diaspora and, later, through the Greek community (where there was already some interest in Judaism, a fondness for mystery religions, and a population which had no problem assuming that someone could have divine parentage or be divine oneself)

 

[LSCatilina]

Well, the "written after his death" really does come into play in this case;

As as I said in the post you quoted : eventually, what mattered is what people believed.
Unless you have the proof that an historical Jesus never said or tought that, it's all that we can have to begin with.

(the Adoptionists seem to have held to this later definition of the term, as did many other early Christians, for that matter).

There's a reason if Adoptiannism never really manages to takes root, outside German peoples that used it more as a cultural distinctive feature (and in a really, really vague and conciliating way) : it wasn't that widespread to begin with (even if it wasn't totally an elitist heresy)

But, anyway, that is digressing from the main topic here.

I don't think so : most of first converted in and critically out Arabia were Judeo-Christians with quite precise toughts on God and who could be called such. A "Muhhamadism" introducting himself as God and not messenger, is going to encounter more difficulties.

 

[Mookie]

As I recall the belief that Jesus is the Son of God arose after his death. He himself never claimed to be Son of God IIRC. I was thinking the same thing could happen with Muhammad: the Koran was written after his death so whoever writes it says Muhammad is God

Problem arises from having to explain that to few thousand people who have learned Quran word for word and can recite it entirely from their head ?

 

[DanMcCollum]

As as I said in the post you quoted : eventually, what mattered is what people believed.
Unless you have the proof that an historical Jesus never said or tought that, it's all that we can have to begin with.


There's a reason if Adoptiannism never really manages to takes root, outside German peoples that used it more as a cultural distinctive feature (and in a really, really vague and conciliating way) : it wasn't that widespread to begin with (even if it wasn't totally an elitist heresy)

I think you're confusing Adoptionism with Arianism. Although early Arianism was rather had some notions which could be considered adoptionist, Arianism in its more developed state believed that Jesus was a creation of the Father and of a similar, but different, substance. This is the form which was adopted by the Germans.

Adoptionism was actually strongest during the first several centuries of the Christian era (during the period, in other words, where the Jewish roots of the religion would have been strongest).

 

[Mookie]

" Marc 1.11


Matthew 4.2

Matthew 14.43

John 20.22

I'm not going to quote all the occurences, really, there's simply too much.

You could argue "but they were written after his death". Yes indeed. Maybe the historical Jesus didn't said that or that, maybe he did, it doesn't matters on a historical point of view.

What matters is that people came to believe that, and Muhammads is playing on this ground.

Arent we all sons and daughters of God?
I think that is a common ocurence in that time for a follower of religion.
And my lord and my God actually went like: MY LORD!? MY GOD!?
More as a statement of shock than a statement of facts and is written like that.

 

[Mookie]

Well, the "written after his death" really does come into play in this case; to have a better idea of the actual words of Jesus you need to go back to the reconstructed Q Gospel (in which Jesus usually refers to himself as the mysterious "Son of Man"). However, even if we are to assume that Jesus referred to himself as the Son of God, that is a very different thing than calling himself God; after all, David was called "the Son of God" due to his rightousness and being favored by the divine. No one, obviously, thought David was the LITERAL son of God. (the Adoptionists seem to have held to this later definition of the term, as did many other early Christians, for that matter).

But, anyway, that is digressing from the main topic here. Anyway, what exactly would Muhammad gain by calling himself an incarnation of God, or would early Islam gain by claiming their founder was? In Christianity, the claims of divinity seems to have played into the apocalyptic fervor of the day (even though the belief in Jesus' divinity was really, really, unique!) and also helped it spread amongst the Hellenized-Jews of the diaspora and, later, through the Greek community (where there was already some interest in Judaism, a fondness for mystery religions, and a population which had no problem assuming that someone could have divine parentage or be divine oneself)

He would probably gain... IDK, more loyal followers? And Islam would fall apart when he dies.

 

[LSCatilina]

I think you're confusing Adoptionism with Arianism.

Ah, sorry, I mistook Adoptianism with Homeism. Admittedly, both were close enough to be confused, but still.

Arent we all sons and daughters of God?

Please note the "this is my son", "my favourite", etc. It couldn't be only a reverential form : at this time, and while it was used earlier in this sense, it was a taboo to call himself issued from God directly, to distinguish yourself from the common humanity.
I would say, if it's claryifing : that we aren't, in Christian PoV, sons/daughers of God but in God.

And my lord and my God actually went like: MY LORD!? MY GOD!?
More as a statement of shock than a statement of facts and is written like that.

Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing." Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

So here, when Thomas touch Jesus, it's clearly in order to strengthen, revivify its belief that is Jesus is his lord, and his God.
If Jesus wasn't, he would have denied to be (as he denied to be all the sort of things Jews wanted him, a liberator from Romans, etc.)

So it's both a shock, and a statement of facts.

 

[DanMcCollum]

He would probably gain... IDK, more loyal followers? And Islam would fall apart when he dies.

Well, Christianity didn't when Jesus died, it actually got stronger (leaving out that the development as Jesus = God probably happened later. The Resurrection narrative, however, seems to have developed very early on and was vital to Christian missionaries and the early church).

Anyway, my point is, is that from what I know of Islam, the message of the faith wouldn't really be strengthened by a divine Muhammad. The moral teachings of the faith, and the notion of arriving back to a more pristine worship of God doesn't really require a divine prophet. In fact, it might actually be hurt by it; Arabia during the era was a region which possessed a lot of different religions. In addition to the native polytheistic faiths, you also have Judaism (Yemen, for instance, seems to have been ruled by a Jewish dynasty during the region, and have also had members of a little known Abrahamaic religion Rahmanism ... which may or may not have been Judaism. Things a bit foggy), as well as Christian sects, usually of the more esotaric variety.

An Islam with a divine Muhammad is not going to have less luck converting the pagan Arabs, but may run into some real problems with the Arabic Jewish community (who, after all, aren't going to really take to a faith claiming that God is suddenly taking human form) or the Christian sects (no, Jesus is God in the flesh.) Islam, in OTL, framed itself as an attempt to strip back centuries of innovation and get back to the true worship of God; this is something which would have appealed to Arabic Jews and even Christians who could have honestly embraced both faiths. A divine Muhammad makes the later proposition very very difficult.

 

[Mookie]

Ah, sorry, I mistook Adoptianism with Homeism. Admittedly, both were close enough to be confused, but still.


Please note the "this is my son", "my favourite", etc. It couldn't be only a reverential form : at this time, and while it was used earlier in this sense, it was a taboo to call himself issued from God directly, to distinguish yourself from the common humanity.
I would say, if it's claryifing : that we aren't, in Christian PoV, sons/daughers of God but in God.





So here, when Thomas touch Jesus, it's clearly in order to strengthen, revivify its belief that is Jesus is his lord, and his God.
If Jesus wasn't, he would have denied to be (as he denied to be all the sort of things Jews wanted him, a liberator from Romans, etc.)

So it's both a shock, and a statement of facts.

But there are many people in bible that are called sons of God.

Well, Christianity didn't when Jesus died, it actually got stronger (leaving out that the development as Jesus = God probably happened later. The Resurrection narrative, however, seems to have developed very early on and was vital to Christian missionaries and the early church).

Anyway, my point is, is that from what I know of Islam, the message of the faith wouldn't really be strengthened by a divine Muhammad. The moral teachings of the faith, and the notion of arriving back to a more pristine worship of God doesn't really require a divine prophet. In fact, it might actually be hurt by it; Arabia during the era was a region which possessed a lot of different religions. In addition to the native polytheistic faiths, you also have Judaism (Yemen, for instance, seems to have been ruled by a Jewish dynasty during the region, and have also had members of a little known Abrahamaic religion Rahmanism ... which may or may not have been Judaism. Things a bit foggy), as well as Christian sects, usually of the more esotaric variety.

An Islam with a divine Muhammad is not going to have less luck converting the pagan Arabs, but may run into some real problems with the Arabic Jewish community (who, after all, aren't going to really take to a faith claiming that God is suddenly taking human form) or the Christian sects (no, Jesus is God in the flesh.) Islam, in OTL, framed itself as an attempt to strip back centuries of innovation and get back to the true worship of God; this is something which would have appealed to Arabic Jews and even Christians who could have honestly embraced both faiths. A divine Muhammad makes the later proposition very very difficult.

I doubt it would go stronger. Muhammads message was basicaly, here are your Gods
throws idol on the ground*
If it couldnt help itself how will it help you?

Now when he dies, then the same could be used on him, if he couldnt save himself from death how can he help you/be God.

And christianity didnt because someone explained the death by saying it was willing death to save humanity

 

[Russian]

What if Muhammad is viewed by adherence of his beliefs not only as a prophet but as a manifestation of God like Jesus is for Christians? How could this belief come about and what would be its ramifications?

As a matter of fact there were A LOT of versions what Jesus was among the Christians. Son of God, God, just a man, a prophet, something else, something in between or many things put together at the same time.
By the way being a God and a son of God at the same time is the funniest thing I ever heard of.

Muhammad seen as the God is almost impossible. It goes contrary to whatever he said during his life, his revelations in Koran.
But Muhammad being son of the God.... Why not?
May be Muhammad himself did not know that he was the son of the God.
Let's say a trusted 'companion' (or better a few 'companions') saw Muhammad after his death and Muhammad said:
- You know, guys, when I died and went to heaven I saw the God. And imagine my surprise when He told me that I am not only His most important prophet - I am His son as well.
And the rest of the Muslims believed these trusted 'companions'.

Being the son of the God is cooler than being just a prophet. That's for sure.
What are the consequences?
Well, I don't know. I don't think that would change Islam as a religion.
There might be some political consequences though.
For example the daughter of Muhammad, Fatima, would become the granddaughter of the God and so her descendants, the 'Fatimids' would be more important politically - they would be the descendants of the God.
They quite naturally might claim to be chosen as caliphs.

 

[Nargis]

Well consider the following things:

1. Muhammad sits on a throne, in heaven, right next to god. So he replaces the position that Jesus is supposed to take, according to the Christian view.

2. The universe was created for Muhammad according to Islam.

3. Muhammad can decide who goes to heaven or hell in the afterlife.

4. The submission to Islam requires not only the acknowledgement of one god but also the acknowledgement of Muhammad as the prophet. No other religion does that.

Really, you could argue Muhammad always had a hidden status of a deity, even though Islam outwardly denies it.

 

[RPW@Cy]

An Islam with a divine Muhammad is not going to have less luck converting the pagan Arabs, but may run into some real problems with the Arabic Jewish community (who, after all, aren't going to really take to a faith claiming that God is suddenly taking human form) or the Christian sects (no, Jesus is God in the flesh.)

That depends. What approach is this variant islam taking towards Jesus? Denying he was the son of God ("no, Mohammed was")? claiming he's another son of God ("you didn't listen to my brother, let me put it a bit more plainly")? Or Jesus returned as prophesied ("I *said* I'd be back...")?

The third approach in particular might even help in winning converts from Christianity as it would only require converts to update their beliefs, not renounce them, which many people would be willing to do to get an in with the new power elite.

 

[Mookie]

Well consider the following things:

1. Muhammad sits on a throne, in heaven, right next to god. So he replaces the position that Jesus is supposed to take, according to the Christian view.

2. The universe was created for Muhammad according to Islam.

3. Muhammad can decide who goes to heaven or hell in the afterlife.

4. The submission to Islam requires not only the acknowledgement of one god but also the acknowledgement of Muhammad as the prophet. No other religion does that.

Really, you could argue Muhammad always had a hidden status of a deity, even though Islam outwardly denies it.

There are left and right side of God. Jesus still sits at the right
Nope.
Nope.
Being christian requires you to believe in God and that Jesus died for your sins. Without the second you arent christian.

 

[Mookie]

That depends. What approach is this variant islam taking towards Jesus? Denying he was the son of God ("no, Mohammed was")? claiming he's another son of God ("you didn't listen to my brother, let me put it a bit more plainly")? Or Jesus returned as prophesied ("I *said* I'd be back...")?

The third approach in particular might even help in winning converts from Christianity as it would only require converts to update their beliefs, not renounce them, which many people would be willing to do to get an in with the new power elite.

The third one really intrigued me
I wonder what would world be like and how would people receive that