Posted on 01/12/2015 10:10:23 AM PST by PROCON
Whether Muhammad is a prophet is a matter of faith, not fact.
In all the coverage of the barbaric terror attacks in Paris Wednesday, one fact of the story kept getting repeated in a curious way on network news, cable news, and in most mainstream publications. They kept saying, “Charlie Hebdo published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.”
Do you see it? You probably have become so used to it you don’t even notice anymore. But it’s strange, isn’t it?
Why on earth do the news media continue to proclaim Muhammad as a prophet? Isn’t “prophet,” in this context, a subjective modifier? Words are important, and the word “prophet” means something very specific.
The Prophetic Nature of Muhammad Is Not A Universal Truth
When the media calls Muhammad a “prophet” they are imparting to him a title that is not based in fact but is a matter of faith. To call Muhammad a “prophet,” don’t you have to believe he was divinely inspired? It is arguable that Muhammad’s status as a prophet is not an objective fact. And the media is supposed to deal in facts, whenever possible (climate change reporting notwithstanding.)
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
For the words of the profits were written on the studio wall.
Garfunkel song
Yeah, for the same reason that NPR anchors exaggerate the Spanish pronunciation of Nicaragua and that Obama says “Pok-ee-stahn” all the time.
Some are ignorant of the truth about Mo. . Some just trying to be courteous without thinking it through. And some are on the take, sold out to the islamonazis
whether he is a prophet is a mater of faith but what is known for sure was that he was a will known historic figure that is will known with in his own fallowing as being a pedophile. so I propose instead of referring to him as the prophet we refer to him in the media with the title “Mohammad the pedophile” at least that title is based on excepted facts presented by those that are true believers.
mohammed was a child rapist.
That’s more historically accurate than “prophet”.
I put it in the same category as why the homos have been allowed to subvert the use of the word ‘gay’. It’s because those who control the language control the debate….always. In the case of homos, now that they got everyone comfortable with using the word ‘gay’, those who use the word are essentially acknowledging without saying so that ‘gayness’ is an inherent natural condition… after all, they are already using a word that names it as an entity supposedly for what it is i.e. gay. Another example of this has to do with the entire abortion industry….. it’s not called a baby, it’s a fetus (makes it easier to justify the killing of him/her). So this brings us to the Moose Limbs…. By getting the news media comfortable with referring to their supposed founder as ‘the prophet’, the media is essentially acknowledging the stature and validity of the belief without further comment.
Probably both.
Fox News once referred to “Mohammed, whom Muslims revere as a prophet”.
Once.
The more important question: at 1:33 min
What does it mean that the media calls him the prophet?
It means they are all muslim converts. When they say this they are saying they accepting a major tenet of Islam.
6:25 Minutes
Brian Lilley on Islamic Jihad Sun News Canada
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFup3TRRDvs
They can call Muhammad (pi$$ be upon him) when they start calling Jesus Lord or Savior. Ain’t gonna happen.
He didn’t prophesy anything but death.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
