If Muhammad - who specifically
denied the crucifixion of Christ - was a true prophet, then that would make Jesus Christ a false prophet, for having
prophesied His own crucifixion, death and resurrection. Let alone that the rest of the prophets and witnesses as revealed in the 1600 year record of YHWH to mankind would also be false.
Since Muhammad was not a prophet, as provable beyond doubt through
scripture,
history,
archaeology,
geography and
demography, it goes without saying that everyone that uses the expression "prophet Muhammad", is actually lying. While Muhammad's followers have been brainwashed into believing it, the fact that they call Muhammad a prophet through ignorance of the truth, doesn't really make it any less of a lie. It just makes it an unintended lie.
But what excuse do non-Muslims have?
As I observed from a little of the coverage on the French journalists that were slaughtered in Paris, since the subject is about their having satirized Muhammad, his name is frequently invoked in the conversation.
It isn't a surprise that liberal secular sheeple like those at CNN, parrot "prophet Muhammad" as automatically as everything else that they parrot, to tow the PC liberal line (or ban such terms as "illegal immigrant and "
Islamist" and avoid terms like "Islamic terrorism"). It's to be expected, since liberals are typically short on independent thought, and long on towing the line in conformity to their peer group.
The same crowd that, of Hebdo's cartoon: ".....pixilated Mohammed out of it, so it looks like Mohammed is into the witness protection program, but they left the hook-nose Jew in, and that exactly gets to the double standard here."
The same Associated Press that pixilated Hebdo's cartoon of Muhammad but ".....continued to offer images of a photograph of “Piss Christ,†an art piece that Jesus submerged in urine and another of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant feces....."
However the reason I am writing this is because I was struck by how often, more conservative journalists like those at Fox News for example, used the term "prophet Muhammad". Based on the hints I have observed in the past, I believe most of the anchors there would proclaim themselves to be Christian, so for those Christians isn't it a particularly egregious falsehood to use the term "prophet" in conjunction with the name "Muhammad"?
Might they be effectively making themselves advocates, in helping to advance the grand Islamic deception that Muhammad is a prophet, of the God of the Jews and Christians?
Aren't they thereby promoting Islam?
Since those Christians among them can harbor no doubt, that the self-proclaimed prophet Muhammad was a false prophet since he
denied the crucifixion of Christ, the basis of the
whole subject of the Gospel - thus Muhammad was no prophet at all - why don't they simply say "Muhammad" and leave out the "prophet" part?
Do they say "mein fuhrer Hitler" every time they discuss Adolf Hitler?
In the worst case scenario, if conservative journalists are compelled by PC bosses to say something other than simply "Muhammad", wouldn't it be at least a little bit better for them to qualify it with something like "Islam's prophet Muhammad" or "the Muslims prophet Muhammad"? This would also help to further isolate Muslims, and thereby maybe even get a few more to recognize, that they follow THE false prophet Muhammad alone.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/islam_is_antichrist.htm
