Muhammad and Joseph Smith Were Right on a Certain Point

As a Catholic, I’m always open to investigating claims of prophethood.  I talk a lot about Islam on this blog but Islam is not the only world religion with a false prophet.  There is Mormonism as well.  Mormonism is another religion that started with a false prophet who in many ways was similar to Muhammad.  A political leader as well as a military leader, had multiple wives, and said the previous Scriptures were corrupted whenever they disagreed with him so his claims couldn’t be tested.

What about false messiahs?  There have been plenty of those throughout history as well and they’ve led absolutely nowhere.  There have been several claimants to be the messiah promised in the Hebrew Scriptures.  Jesus Christ is the only viable candidate as he clearly fulfilled prophecy and established a Church that has lasted 2,000 years.

False messiahs have come and gone.  In the book of Acts when talking to the Sanhedrin, Rabbi Gamaliel said:

Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men.  Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing.  After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.  Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail.  But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

In the second century we have the infamous brutal warrior Simon Bar Kochba.  A vicious man who persecuted Christians.  He fit every rabbinic qualification for messiah with the exception of success.  He was a mighty warrior instead of a suffering servant.  Justin Martyr in his First Apology talks about the evils of this demonic man.  Today, no one regards him as the messiah.

In the 17th century we have Sabbatai Zevi.  He also claimed to be the Old Testament messiah.  When he confronted the Ottoman Emperor he was put up against the wall in front a group of Imperial archers.  The Emperor wanted to see if he would die for his beliefs.  After all, the real messiah was willing to die.  It was either death of Islam for Sabbatai Zevi.  This “messiah” chose Islam.  He actually had a bit of a cult following for a couple centuries but the movement doesn’t really exist anymore.

The messiahship of Jesus Christ doesn’t have these problems.  Neither Muhammad nor Joseph Smith claimed to be the messiah.  That was extremely smart of their part because if they did claim to be the messiah from the Old Testament then their movements would have gone down in flames.  There is only one messiah.  There have been many prophets though, and if you want to start a religion, Muhammad and Joseph Smith are proof that a false prophet does better than a false messiah.

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 thoughts on “Muhammad and Joseph Smith Were Right on a Certain Point

  1. Dear Mr Ruhl
    On the one hand many members of the various evangelical churches transform Mohammed into a bloodthirsty Arabian Ghoul with no redeeming characteristics. On the other hand devout Muslims view him as the greatest and most perfect man to ever walk the earth. Your perspective represents a rational middle ground between these two extremes, namely that he was not completely evil in a satanic manner but that he was undoubtedly flawed, since there is only one truly perfect and sinless being to ever walk the earth, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Personally I try to take the stance of polite ambivalence regarding the morality of Mohammed because I see it as being of no greater importance to a member of the Holy Church than the morality of other prophets such as Mani or Zoroaster.

    Yours Sincerly

    Tobias.

    • Well said!

      I am of the opinion that the Muhammad of the Hadith is an amalgation of various Arabic folk tales and legends, as well as plenty of propaganda to suit the requirements of the legislators of the time (Ummayad vs Abassid vs Shia).

      Perhaps once upon a time these orally-related legends had their own unique characters, but upon being committed to writing and attributed to Muhammad, the original oral traditions became absorbed and therefore lost to time.