No doubt that Mohammed could be recognized as a prophet as the term is defined in the dictionary. But to what extent would the Catholic Church need to recognize Mohammed?

When I first read this, I said; "no way Jose" given the hardline fundamental strain of Islam that is Waahabism in Saudia Arabia, let alone the presence of Islams most religious site; the Kaaba in Mecca. Remember you can't even be caught wearing a cross, or carrying a bible when entering Saudia Arabia, many have been arrested by the religious police for even being caught praying in their own homes.

I think this is someones pipe dream as far as becoming reality in Saudia Arabia.

Posted by: Mackie at March 21, 2008 8:57 AM

I just can't believe these demands from the Mohammedans.

Posted by: darcy at March 21, 2008 9:01 AM

Riyadh, 20 March (AKI) - No churches should be permitted in Saudi Arabia, unless Pope Benedict XVI recognised the prophet Mohammed, according to a Middle East expert.

I thought Mohammad was dead. If the Pope wants to know what Mohammad looks like, there is a picture of him on JW. He could direct the Saudi's to that picture as proof that he 'does' recognize Mohammad.

OT but perfect for Dhimmi watch, John Kerry from an interview about Obama, the rest of it is on WND.

"He has the ability to help us bridge the divide of religious extremism," Kerry said. "To maybe even give power to moderate Islam to be able to stand up against this radical misinterpretation of a legitimate religion."

Kerry was asked what gives Obama that credibility.

"Because he's African-American. Because he's a black man. Who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country."

His logic is 'almost' as good the 'logic' mentioned in the article above. Where would we be today had 'He' become president..?

Posted by: duh_swami at March 21, 2008 9:05 AM

I would expect the Pope to volunteer to eat his own liver before recognizing Muhammad as a prophet.

That being said, this back and forth between the Vatican and the house of Saud can only be a positive thing in terms of alerting people worldwide to the Saudi's well-documented position on toleration and moderation, as is eveident by their new re-training program initiative.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7308040.stm

Posted by: awake at March 21, 2008 9:17 AM

Using that logic, Italy should destroy all mosques unless Muslims recognize Jesus as their Lord and savior.

Posted by: JeffS at March 21, 2008 9:20 AM

Using that logic, Italy should destroy all mosques unless Muslims recognize Jesus as their Lord and savior.

Posted by: JeffS at March 21, 2008 9:20 AM

That is a great comment, Jeff. Can you imagine if the Pope said that?! My God, the Mohammedan uproar!

Posted by: darcy at March 21, 2008 9:25 AM

Well, we accept him as a false prophet of satan.

Will that work?

Posted by: LazarOfSerbia at March 21, 2008 9:25 AM

>>I would expect the Pope to volunteer to eat his own liver before recognizing Muhammad as a prophet. --posted by awake.

Well, we'll see. The Pope has already made concessions. Like apologizing for his speech quoting the Byzantine Emperor saying Mo "spread his faith by the sword." Which he did - historical fact. Yet, still the Pope apologized.

Posted by: darcy at March 21, 2008 9:28 AM

Jeffs beat me into it, but I will say what I wanted to say anyway.

No mosque should be allowed in europe unless the Muslims reconize Jesus as God, Lord and Savior of mankind, without Whom there is no salvation ( John 1:3,Acts 4:12, John 14:6).

Fair enough?

Posted by: Crusader at March 21, 2008 9:33 AM

Hi all:
I can imagine that the Pope- who's one a topnotch theologian and philosopher- is most likely supressing the laughter at their presumption. When compared to real prophets, Mohammed was never a prophet let alone one of Abrahamic stature.
In any case, no doubt the prohibition will open people's eyes as well as playing into the Pope's demands for real, serious reciprocity.

JeffS: I like it too but the pope would regard it as counterproductive even though he would quietly give the thumbs up

xavier

Posted by: xavier at March 21, 2008 9:44 AM

JeffS - Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

But Islam is not about equality............

Posted by: tanstaafl at March 21, 2008 10:36 AM

I thought there were no prophets since the days of the Torah or Old Testament, the days of the Jews. The Pope would have to re-write the whole Old Testament to include an evil warlord and brigrand who loves murdering and pludering to spread his mutated version of Judaism.

Posted by: Dumbo at March 21, 2008 10:49 AM

Koranic chutzpah knows no end or limits. Might as well recognize Satan as a prohet as well.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at March 21, 2008 11:01 AM

What a great idea. Expel the followers of a moonrock. Reciprocity is to be demanded and let's stop dealing with their taquiya crap filled thinking.

Don't Tread On Me!

Posted by: lonewolf at March 21, 2008 11:01 AM

Koranic chutzpah knows no end or limits. Might as well recognize Satan as a prophet as well.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at March 21, 2008 11:01 AM

Well, we accept him as a false prophet of satan.

Will that work?
Posted by: LazarOfSerbia

Exactly!
I knew there had to be an islamic trick.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at March 21, 2008 11:03 AM

"to construct a church in Saudi Arabia only after the Pope and all the Christian churches recognise the prophet Mohammed."

Hilarious! "All the Christian churches" disagree on many theological points such as the Infallibility of the Pope, the Immaculate Conception, speaking in tongues, Alcohol consumption, etc, etc, etc.

But in order to plant a single Catholic Church in Saudi Arabia, the Pope is going to have to get "all the Christian churches" to recognize Mohammed as a prophet :

-- meaning what he taught was the Truth

-- meaning most of Christian theology is false.

-- meaning we all become Moslems

-- meaning no Catholic (or other) church can actually be constructed, because what would be constructed would (as Robert notes) in reality be a mosque.

What Chutzpah!

Posted by: StephenDvd at March 21, 2008 12:00 PM

The key is reciprocity.

This suggestion may have given Infidels ideas. At the very least, since Muslims have thousands of mosques all over Europe, they should be asked to do the same: to formally recognize Jesus as the Son of God. Explain that until that happens, mosques all over Europe will be closed down at the rate of, say, fifty a week. That would be a salutary event.

And, in any case, no matter what they do or do not do, all sources of foreign funding for those mosques and Muslim groups will be cut off. Local Muslims will have to rely on their own funds, for there is reason to believe that Islam, an aggressive faith with a clear ideology of world dominance, is more than a religion, and foreign money used to spread Islam is also money that is being used to undermine Western legal and political institutions.

We did not let in, we throttled as best we could, Nazi and Soviet propaganda. Why should propaganda designed to undermine our polities, if it comes from a source we have too carelessly called a "religion," be treated any differently?

It is no different than Soviet, or Nazi, propaganda.

Posted by: Hugh at March 21, 2008 12:22 PM

Saudis: No churches here unless Pope accepts Muhammad as a prophet
hmm only if the saudis recognize the their pet pedophile and brigand and would be profit would be jailed today
and if they do not let churches in saudi arabia the west should close down all mosques untill they do

Posted by: crusader at March 21, 2008 12:38 PM

and if they do not let churches in saudi arabia the west should close down all mosques untill they do

Posted by: crusader at March 21, 2008 12:38 PM

But, crusader, that would mean having backbone and asserting ourselves! How optimistic you are!

Posted by: darcy at March 21, 2008 12:39 PM

The key is reciprocity.

This suggestion may have given Infidels ideas. At the very least, since Muslims have thousands of mosques all over Europe, they should be asked to do the same: to formally recognize Jesus as the Son of God. Explain that until that happens, mosques all over Europe will be closed down at the rate of, say, fifty a week. That would be a salutary event.

And, in any case, no matter what they do or do not do, all sources of foreign funding for those mosques and Muslim groups will be cut off. Local Muslims will have to rely on their own funds, for there is reason to believe that Islam, an aggressive faith with a clear ideology of world dominance, is more than a religion, and foreign money used to spread Islam is also money that is being used to undermine Western legal and political institutions.

We did not let in, we throttled as best we could, Nazi and Soviet propaganda. Why should propaganda designed to undermine our polities, if it comes from a source we have too carelessly called a "religion," be treated any differently?

It is no different than Soviet, or Nazi, propaganda.

Posted by: Hugh at March 21, 2008 12:22 PM

Oh, that's good. Copying it for my bulletin board.

Posted by: darcy at March 21, 2008 12:43 PM

If I understand this correctly....

Denounce the principals of your faith, so that you can have a building.

The fact that this would be 'considered' or 'negotiated' puts the principals of your faith already to the test, and you have failed.

But sit back and watch...you will see these negotiations continue. Our politicians are negotiating away our nations, national security, and domestic wealth. Our religions are negotiating or comprimsing faith.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at March 21, 2008 2:08 PM

>>I would expect the Pope to volunteer to eat his own liver before recognizing Muhammad as a prophet. --posted by awake.

Well, we'll see. The Pope has already made concessions. Like apologizing for his speech quoting the Byzantine Emperor saying Mo "spread his faith by the sword." Which he did - historical fact. Yet, still the Pope apologized.

Posted by: darcy

Darcy,
I could be wrong, but Pope Benedict never apologized for those remarks, he apologized for the REACTION (muslims rioting)to them as the entire speech was taken out of context in the muslim world. The reaction was not his intention of the speech.

Posted by: No_Mooselimbs at March 21, 2008 2:31 PM

Saudis: No churches here unless Pope accepts Muhammad as a prophet.

Sure, no problem. And while we're at it we'll also recognize Zoroaster, Buddha, Baha'ulla, and a few other prophets.

What is that you say? No, no, there aren't any more prophets after Muhammad, nor is there the possibility that there ever will be any new messengers with something of value to say?

Oh well, then. Never mind.

Posted by: Eastview at March 21, 2008 2:57 PM

I have a question. For Muslims, it's normally not enough that Mohammed be recognized as a prophet - he has to be recognized as the last, and overriding prophet. If Christians or anyone else were to recognize him as one of more prophets, would that automatically make them Muslims?

I agree with the general sentiment here that since Mohammed was one of the vilest characters in history, no other religion should defer to him. However, that still doesn't make the case that should the Papacy bestow him, or any other religious figure divine status, that it would automatically transform the religion from Catholicism to something else (just from my vantage point, even though I'm not a Christian). All it would be doing would be extending the definition or coverage of the faith to new areas, a move that could potentially turn off a huge portion of their adherents so as to be transformational in a quantitative sense.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 21, 2008 3:45 PM

"If they don't recognise him as a prophet, how can we have a church in the Saudi kingdom?"

--

They're destroying churches in Serbia, friends.. Kosovo is an indivisible part of Serbia.

Right in Europe they're destroying churches.. the devil's minions are invading the Fair Continent..

Posted by: Allah Schmallah at March 21, 2008 4:01 PM

I do recognize muhammad as the pedophile leader of a deat cult that he was. I can also understand the uninformed citizens of the islamic cesspool countries believing what they are told, but for educated people living in the free world, there really is no excuse for believeing the mythology and lies of islime.

Posted by: Truth at March 21, 2008 4:21 PM

..the argument goes all European countries are SECULAR

so all religions have the same rights and privileges

those mosques are in your face and there is nothing anyone can do about it

unless laws are changed,

and that ain't gonna happen

no islamic majority country would dream of considering itself secular

and besides they have no hesitation deciding that the (muslim) majority can and does overrule the rights of the (Christian) minority

Posted by: ploome at March 21, 2008 4:43 PM

Back to the main topic of the thread.

Theoretically, there can be prophets in Christianity after Jesus. The main difference is that these are not "canonical" prophets in that their acts do add any new content to the deposit of faith divinely revealed and recorded in fixed form in Scripture. Agabus, the prophet named in the Acts of the Apostles who predicted the famine in Jerusalem, is an example, and it is sometimes argued that the office of "Bishop" is descended from the activity of the Old Testament prophets.

I even know of at least one political figure, the Francophone Catholic Louis Riel, who led an important aboriginal uprising that led to important constitutional changes in Canada in the late 19th century, who was acclaimed by many of his followers as a "prophet" (he reportedly was guided by divine visions), without any specific repudiation from the Church (nor any endorsement), and one could argue that the Caesaro-Papism of the late Roman and Byzantine emperors assumes a similar role and status.

The problem with Mohammed is his - putting it mildly - "questionable" character and conduct, and the fact that he introduced a heretical and retrograde revelation, that represented theological and spiritual regression, rather than ongoing enlightenment, especially by reversing so much of the revelation by and about Jesus Christ. Any Muslim apologist who expects the Catholic Church - especially under a Pope like Benedict to dignify a figure like him with any status is going to be very disappointed. The only thing that would make that possible is some sort of major rehabilitation of Mohammed's historical profile that would essentially absolve him of his reputation for violent criminality and leachery and call into question the primacy of his role as the founder of the new "religion" that emerged from his legacy - such as, perhaps, a recontextualization of these events and his role in them (neither of which would be pleasing to historic Islamic orthodoxy).

I'm far more worried about a different threat: the emergence of a real threat to free expression arising from the handwringing about "offending" religion in this joint document signed in Cairo by the rector of Al Azhar University and Cardinal Tauran of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20080226_cairo-declaration_en.html

It would not take any kind of recognition of Mohammed on the part of the Church to acheive this kind of policy. Only more of the same kind of platitudes about "good will" and "shared values" that we've been hearing from the Vatican since the 1960s.

Posted by: templar at March 21, 2008 5:26 PM

"The main difference is that these are not "canonical" prophets in that their acts do add any new content to the deposit of faith divinely revealed and recorded in fixed form in Scripture"

Typing error

That should read "... do NOT add any new content ..."

Posted by: templar at March 21, 2008 5:30 PM

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Now I've heard everything. If Christians become Muslims they can have churches!

Yet another example that Islam creates an irrational culture.

Posted by: James Martel at March 21, 2008 6:19 PM

Templar,

Thanks for the link to info about Narendra Modi. That was very interesting (and disturbing) reading. I assume you posted in response to a comment here by Samantha1857 and my rejoinder to her (said posts both being subsequently removed for reasons that aren't clear to me).

Posted by: Eastview at March 21, 2008 6:35 PM

Hi Eastview:

Sorry to hear your post was deleted. I do remember seeing it, but I don't recall the exact content. I do remember Samantha's better because of its bellicose content, which I think probably accounts for its removal. I think Robert and others helping him monitor the site try to keep it free of things that might incite random violence. I pretty much expected her comment to be deleted.

Glad you found the article at the Chiesa.espressonline site useful.

Take care.

Posted by: templar at March 21, 2008 7:15 PM

Eastview, that article is totally off track and inaccurate. They're probably lifted wholesale from anti-hindu and antisemitic publications like Dalit Voice.

Narendra Modi himself is a 'backward caste' and has done more for them than any pseudo secularist or commie. That the BJP 'oppresses women' is just laughable.. it has a huge women's wing and several of it's leaders are women eg. Sushma Swaraj.

As for the fact that Muslims and Christians are 'oppressed' in India, that is evangelical lies. In fact Muslims are shifting from commie ruled 'secular' West Bengal to Modi's Gujarat. Christianity is a problem because they shamelessly try to convert everyone and insult our gods as fake, attack Hindu saints, encourage naxalite and revolutionary movements ( see Baptist church of Tripura) and so on. Practically every "Hindu Christian conflict" is provoked by Christians.

I don't normally post at a site like this because it it too pro-christian for my liking. For example in this article it's mentioned that Christians can't build churches in Saudi. In fact neither can temples or Buddhist shrines or any other places of worship but then nobody cares about those I guess.

Posted by: infidel_hindu at March 22, 2008 12:08 AM

Methinks Rottweiler digs playin’ chess with the Devil.

Methinks he might be a champion.

Posted by: skevin at March 22, 2008 12:41 AM

“In fact neither can temples or Buddhist shrines or any other places of worship but then nobody cares about those I guess.”

Hindu: I wish I could apologize for all Christians. I am humbled by your frustration.

Posted by: skevin at March 22, 2008 12:54 AM

Infidel_Hindu:

I posted the article to which you react above in response to someone else's inappropriate comments, which have now been removed from the site. It was she, not I, who raised the topic of Hindus and India.

Whether your understanding of events in India or mine is more correct is of no consequence to the topic of this thread, nor to JihadWatch, the purpose of which is to monitor Islamist activity not Hinduist activity or the BJP. Now that her comments are gone mine can be removed as well (along with the link I included) since they no longer serve any purpose.

If you wish to petition Robert Spencer to delete my comment you can send him an email requesting that (I have already done so). I will not object if it is removed.

I disagree with you however that this site is "pro-Christian". There have been many posts on the site dealing with Islamist aggression against India and against Hinduism, and many other religions besides. But if your complaint is about this particular thread, you overlook the fact that the news article that leads the thread is about the remarks made by a Saudi academic specifically between the Saudi's and the Catholic Church, currently lead by Benedict XVI. That topic has been in the news media generally of late, and that happens to be what the news agency (AKI) wrote about in its article. There is no "pro-Christian bias" at JihadWatch.

Posted by: templar at March 22, 2008 1:16 AM

No Christian can accept that Muhammad was a prophet and remain a Christian. This would entail putting a murderer, bandit, rapist and slave-trader alongside true prophets and Christ - all of whom utterly abhor and reject murder, theft, rape and lies.

Islam is not only a religion incompatible with Christianity; it is the utter rejection of Christianity and its Judaic heritage. Islam is anti-Christian and anyone accepting is accepts the moral and religious equality of good and evil.

Therefore, any church accepting Muhammad as a prophet would be a church of Satan and should be treated by Christians as such.

Truly, we are in the end times.

Posted by: Stefcho at March 22, 2008 8:02 AM

Gaawd, what a time I've had of it lately!

Another typo:

For clarity: " ... remarks made by a Saudi academic specifically between the Saudi's and the Catholic Church, ..."

should read: " ... remarks made by a Saudi academic specifically about relations between the Saudi's and the Catholic Church, ..."

Posted by: templar at March 22, 2008 1:25 PM

While you are at it Templar, there is no need for an apostrophe in the word Saudis, since you are not using it in the possessive sense. As for me, I prefer the acronym KSA. ;-)

Posted by: skevin at March 22, 2008 1:41 PM

hee hee. Sorry for the triple post! I shouldn't correct other folk's typos when I'm this tired and jazzed. I saw Aretha Franklin at Radio City Music Hall last night. :-D

Posted by: skevin at March 22, 2008 1:47 PM

LOL, you're right, Skevin. I think we both need some rest.

Cheers!

Posted by: templar at March 22, 2008 2:04 PM

Infidel_Hindu:

This is a non-sectarian site, and we do our best to keep it that way. Searching our archives (from the "Google" field on the main Jihad Watch page) on keywords such as "Buddhist," "Hindu," and "India" should put to rest any notion that we overlook jihadist violence against non-Christians.

Marisol Seibold
Jihad Watch News Editor

Posted by: MarisolJW at March 22, 2008 2:39 PM

How can mohammed be considered a "prophet" when there is no prophecy in the koran?

Posted by: Timur at March 23, 2008 11:48 AM

The age of prophecy in Christianity was over centuries before moe showed up.

And moe himself didn't have the stuff to measure up as a Christian saint, much less a prophet.

What ignorance!

Posted by: joeblough at March 23, 2008 2:39 PM

Mark my word, this is exactly what is going to happen:

The Pope is going to make some watered down, wishy-washy statement praising Mohamed as a "great religious leader", but stopping short of calling him a prophet.

And then the Saudis are going to find some other reason not to allow churches to be built.

Posted by: shortfattexan at March 26, 2008 8:27 AM