Options
Why do news organisations refer to Mohammed as a prophet?
TUC
Posts: 5,105 Forum Member
✭
News organisations regularly refer to 'the prophet Mohamed. Why do they do this? Although Muslims believe he was a prophet, others do not. After all, they don't refer to Jesus as the 'Lord Jesus Christ'. Should it not be that they simply refer to Mohammed 'whom Muslims consider to have been a prophet'?
0
Comments
No idea really though lol
Go to Mexico (or Spain) - there's millions...
Yeah but the news here isn't aired in Mexico AFAIK lol. I doubt my reason is the actual one anyway
It's as simple as that.
Do you know his surname off the top of your head? Would the GBP recognise it? How else would you distinguish that Mohammed from the many others, pithily and without bias, for a news report?
This.
I guess Allah was not so knowing after all.
Why do you assume that he wasn't a 'prophet'? - it's nothing particularly special, unlike claiming to be the son of a fictitious 'god'.
Anyone can be a prophet, you just need to make a prophecy - as mediums etc. commonly do (doesn't even need to come true, and can be based so far in the future that it won't matter).
So 'prophet Mohammed' is no different to saying 'carpenter Mohammed' or 'Jones the Milk' if he was Welsh.
Shows how much you know.. The poisoning was a couple of years before his death.
Although the Prophet did say, that he was still feeling the affects of the poison around the time of his death.
As for Allah not knowing, I guess revealing a quranic verse, saying the prophets mission had been completed, before his death was a coincidence?
Careful there you'll have Welsh people waving leeks at you. It was Jones the STEAM. As fictitious as that prophet bloke though.
If Islam calls Muhammad a prophet then surely the news channels will use it.
It is not the news organisations who decided it, in the same way I assume republic countries around the world would still refer to Queen Elizabeth as "The Queen" not Elizabeth Windsor.
Since his status as a prophet is opinion rather than fact, you are wrong. Just like claiming Doris Stokes was a clairvoyant, rather than misguided or a charlatan.
Or Jesus Christ
I don't see any problem here.
(1) Reference is frequently made to "the prophet Isaiah/Ezekiel/Micah &c" from the Old Testament & Mohamed has as much (or as little) right to be considered a prophet as they have.
(2) Whether or not a "prophet" does really have divine inspiration for his prophesies is irrelevant to whether or not he has the right to be considered a prophet. The validity or otherwise of his claims are not part of the definition.
So he died after a been given poisoned food for two years. It means that his so called prophetic powers were none existent because he eventually died from it.
Quite convenient that he dying and said his mission was complete. It's a bit like seeing a Jewish caravan and getting vision saying Allah told him to attack it, oh wait that is what happened, how convenient to receive such 'visions' when he needed them.
And the USA.
More typically they are referred to as Old Testament prophets. Maybe Mohammed should similarly be referred to as 'the Koranic prophet Mohammed' by media outlets.