Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

[CG Didymus]

According to my beliefs Christians that believe that Jesus is God are incorrect, but they just believe what they were taught by the Church.
I do not know what all Muslims believe, but from what I know most Muslims adhere to the Qur'an and in so doing their beliefs are correct. The only belief I would say that they are wrong about is that Muhammad is the last and final Messenger of God.

So Christians got off track right away and Islam still is correct accept for the last prophet thing? Not one other false belief?

 

[siti]

Otherwise I'm impressed with the breath and quality of answers that related specifically to Muhammad and I feel like I have learnt a lot. The life of Muhammad is a difficult topic in these days when Islam has often been in the news for all the wrong reasons.

OK - you're right - we should get back on topic - the topic of interpreting the hype that Abdu'l Baha presents in the document you linked to:
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-7.html#fr4

I'll pick out just a couple of points for now if I may:

Abdu'l Baha claims:

These Arab tribes were in the lowest depths of savagery and barbarism, and in comparison with them the savages of Africa and wild Indians of America were as advanced as a Plato. The savages of America do not bury their children alive as these Arabs did their daughters, glorying in it as being an honorable thing to do.​

In reality, as the footnote in the publication you cited indicates that the barbarous savagery of culturally condoned infanticide was (and is) only known to have been practiced by one Arabic tribe. In contrast, the practice of infanticide was certainly known in America all the way from Mexico to the Arctic Circle where the Inuit still practiced female infanticide right up to the 20th century. Strike one Abdu'l.

OK - try again Abdu'l:

...during the first centuries and down to the fifteenth century of the Christian era—all the mathematicians of the world agreed that the earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun moved. The famous astronomer who was the protagonist of the new theory discovered the movement of the earth and the immobility of the sun. 5 Until his time all the astronomers and philosophers of the world followed the Ptolemaic system, and whoever said anything against it was considered ignorant...

...But there are some verses revealed in the Qur’án contrary to the theory of the Ptolemaic system. One of them is “The sun moves in a fixed place,” which shows the fixity of the sun...​

This latter claim, according to the footnote, being a reference to Surah Ya-Sin verse 38 - I could not find a single English translation that suggests this verse was meant to contradict the Ptolemaic system - I am certainly no expert in Arabic but it really looks to me like this verse is simply describing the obvious apparent motion of the Sun across the sky as observed from earth. There doesn't seem to be any way to make this passage contradict Ptolemy or vindicate Gallileo (or, for that matter, Copernicus who Abdu'l Baha fails to credit - but that's a minor point).

Anyway, the point is that crediting Muhammad with supporting heliocentrism is a heck of a stretch. On balance, I reckon that's strike two!

I'll allow an appeal to the umpire at this point - unless someone else wants to read through the passage (its not too long) and deliver the coup de gras.

 

[Dawnofhope]

So Christians got off track right away and Islam still is correct accept for the last prophet thing? Not one other false belief?

In regards the Divinity of Christ, Christianity got off track during the 4th century with the formulation of the Nicene Creed. The first council was initiated by the emperor Constantine to resolve theological differences amongst the bishops. One of the main differences not surprisingly was this very issue of the nature of Christ as a man called Arius had the audacity to teach Jesus was the 'Son of God' AND subordinate to God the Father.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius

Arius lost and his beliefs declared a heresy. However Constantine later agreed with Arius, only for Arianism (nothing to do with Hitler's Germany) to be declared a heresy again after Constantine's death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

The Divinity of Christ although believed to be core Christian doctrine, is not universally believed by all Christian groups.

There are clear texts within the Bible that can clearly and convincingly support the notion that Jesus is NOT God.

Islam's seal of the prophet's is the main point of difference with the Baha'is and THE reason many Muslim's consider Baha'is to be apostates.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Abdu'l Baha claims:

These Arab tribes were in the lowest depths of savagery and barbarism, and in comparison with them the savages of Africa and wild Indians of America were as advanced as a Plato. The savages of America do not bury their children alive as these Arabs did their daughters, glorying in it as being an honorable thing to do.
In reality, as the footnote in the publication you cited indicates that the barbarous savagery of culturally condoned infanticide was (and is) only known to have been practiced by one Arabic tribe. In contrast, the practice of infanticide was certainly known in America all the way from Mexico to the Arctic Circle where the Inuit still practiced female infanticide right up to the 20th century. Strike one Abdu'l.

Thank you for coming back on board with the topic. Its great you looking at what Abdu'l-Baha says as this was the whole point of this thread. An invitation to critically evaluate what one of the leaders of the Baha'i Faith said about Muhammad.

In regards the moral standard of the Arab tribes we need to view this in context. Abdu'l-Baha was educating the Baha'i pilgrims who were visiting him in Akka. They were talks at a table that were written down and later complied into a book. The audience was likely dominated by American Baha'is so Abdu'l-Baha was simply emphasising the low moral standard of the Arab tribes which Muhammad taught and united. He simply uses the comparison to tribes people in the USA viewed as savages at that time. To me its a point in Abdu'l-Baha's favour that he views the American and African tribes positively as there would have been huge racial prejudice towards these groups during the early twentieth century in USA and still is for that matter.

OK - try again Abdu'l:

...during the first centuries and down to the fifteenth century of the Christian era—all the mathematicians of the world agreed that the earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun moved. The famous astronomer who was the protagonist of the new theory discovered the movement of the earth and the immobility of the sun. 5 Until his time all the astronomers and philosophers of the world followed the Ptolemaic system, and whoever said anything against it was considered ignorant...

...But there are some verses revealed in the Qur’án contrary to the theory of the Ptolemaic system. One of them is “The sun moves in a fixed place,” which shows the fixity of the sun...
This latter claim, according to the footnote, being a reference to Surah Ya-Sin verse 38 - I could not find a single English translation that suggests this verse was meant to contradict the Ptolemaic system - I am certainly no expert in Arabic but it really looks to me like this verse is simply describing the obvious apparent motion of the Sun across the sky as observed from earth. There doesn't seem to be any way to make this passage contradict Ptolemy or vindicate Gallileo (or, for that matter, Copernicus who Abdu'l Baha fails to credit - but that's a minor point).

Anyway, the point is that crediting Muhammad with supporting heliocentrism is a heck of a stretch. On balance, I reckon that's strike two!

I don't feel I have the knowledge in either Arabic or the Islamic theology to reach a conclusion so for me the jury is out.

Reviewing this blog, the issue is not as straightforward as you would like it to be.

https://lampofislam.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/heliocentric-concepts-in-the-quran/

 

[siti]

The audience was likely dominated by American Baha'is so Abdu'l-Baha was simply emphasising the low moral standard of the Arab tribes which Muhammad taught and united. He simply uses the comparison to tribes people in the USA viewed as savages at that time.

So what? He got his facts wrong - that much is certain - did he deliberately present a skewed view in order to influence his audience or was he genuinely confused about the historical occurrences of infanticide? Hype or tripe are the only options in this case, I'm afraid.

Reviewing this blog, the issue is not as straightforward as you would like it to be.

No - not a chance - that blog convinces me even more that any heliocentric interpretation of Qur'anic verses is contrived...the very fact that some of the verses put the planets in the "lowest heaven" betrays a Ptolemaic view to start with. Of course everyone knew that light came from the sun - that doesn't put the sun at the center. In the Qur'an, the sun is still racing across the sky to "it's place" - just as it had in Hebrew cosmology a thousand or two years earlier. Anyway, I'll allow a second appeal on this one if you can quote a single authority in the Islamic "Golden Age" that espoused a heliocentric cosmology based any of these verses before Copernicus and Gallileo. If that's what Muhammad meant it surely couldn't have escaped all of them.

PS - here's a link to a page with dozens of generally accepted English translations of the verse referenced in the Baha'i account of Abdu'l Baha's talk - none of them seem to me to indicate anything to do with a heliocentric model of the solar system - anyone disagree?

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/36/38/

 

[Dawnofhope]

So what? He got his facts wrong - that much is certain - did he deliberately present a skewed view in order to influence his audience or was he genuinely confused about the historical occurrences of infanticide? Hype or tripe are the only options in this case, I'm afraid.

He's simply using hyperbole to make a point.

https://www.google.co.nz/search?sou...1.64.psy-ab..3.6.2184...0i131k1.0.Bmna-mi5T8Y

What is hyperbole?

Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Its not about a comparison of which tribes in the world were the most savage. Its emphasising that the Arabian tribes during Muhammad's time were savage.

Why did you go to so much trouble to research this? lol

No - not a chance - that blog convinces me even more that any heliocentric interpretation of Qur'anic verses is contrived...the very fact that some of the verses put the planets in the "lowest heaven" betrays a Ptolemaic view to start with. Of course everyone knew that light came from the sun - that doesn't put the sun at the center. In the Qur'an, the sun is still racing across the sky to "it's place" - just as it had in Hebrew cosmology a thousand years earlier. Anyway, I'll allow a second appeal on this one if you can quote a single authority in the Islamic "Golden Age" that espoused a heliocentric cosmology based any of these verses before Copernicus and Gallileo. If that's what Muhammad meant it surely couldn't have escaped all of them.

There are references to about 30 - 40 verses from the Quran in that blog. If you feel you have honestly assessed them all, and made conclusions then good for you. You have your sheer genius that you can rely on. I can only say honestly that I don't know.

If you go back and read Abdu'l-Bahas talk he is not claiming that Islamic scholars in the Golden age discovered the heliocentric view of the universe first. To the contrary:

Even the doctors of Islám, when they saw that these verses were contrary to the accepted Ptolemaic system, were obliged to explain them away.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-7.html

If you check the footnotes BOTH Copernicus and Galileo are mentioned.

 

[Trailblazer]

So Christians got off track right away and Islam still is correct accept for the last prophet thing? Not one other false belief?

I do not know that much about Islam so I do not know if they have any other false beliefs. I am not even sure that the Qur'an says that Muhammad was the last Prophet. The Muslims probably misconstrued the Qur'an regarding that just as Christians misconstrued the Bible regarding Jesus being the return of Christ.

 

[stvdv]

You accused me that I was wrong to tell you proselytize and asked for proof. [see the end, very clear]
You also asked for the quotes where you belittle other religions. See the lines in RED.

You do belittle Christianity. And you belittle all older religions even at once; that means belittling pretty much everything.

Definition of proselytize: advocate or promote a belief [with or without converting]
That you alone call it "spreading" is a nice trick, but it is still evangelizing.
I rather have people just admitting it then sneakily use other words. I am not a fool !!!

You use "Ad Hominem Attack", by belittling the religion of others. That is "not done". You can disapprove of acts done in name of religion but that's it. Do not belittle the feelings of others
[Ad Hominem Attack: personal attack. We all know that our faith/feelings/soul is most personal. Also for an atheist it is personal "not to believe in God". Theists should respect that also]

How to advocate or promote your religion:
a)Belittle others' religion
b)Magnify your religion
c)Share about your religion
d)Not share about other religions

Show me one place where I demeaned or belittled anyone else’s religion. You accuse me of things but you have no evidence to support your accusations.

a)+b):

It is more special than older beliefs because it is the message for this age in history.
The Revelation of Baha'u'llah abrogates unconditionally all the Dispensations of past religions.
The older religions are no longer what God wants us to follow.

"It" is Bahai. 3 different lines all this belittling tone. Obvious you belittle older Religions [this means all religions so far]
Reminds me of "Animal Farm (Orwell)". Animals took over; humans were arrogant. Pigs ruled and claimed "All animals are equal, but pigs are more equal".

That is why people should stop clinging to the Bible and look at the Revelation of Baha’u’llah.

You just preach here "Stop with the Bible AND look at Bahaullah". That is called proselytizing.

b):

No, if Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be it is not just a belief, it is a reality. Never forget that because it has certain implications for everyone.

You just tell it is for "everyone". Would be correct to start the sentence with "In my humble opinion". Humility and respect is missing.

His Revelation is what humanity needs for at least the next 1000 years, until God sends another Messenger.

Obviously you make Bahai very big here. For 1000 years ONLY your messenger is real. All others are dismissed.

c):
See the examples above and below

d):

It is a lot new than the Bible or even the Qur’an. God is not coming any more often than that, sorry. I could care less about a live Messenger. I have what He wrote.

I know next to nothing about any of them. Christianity was never my religion.

So obviously you do not "share info on other religions". That is okay, but then easily proselytizing sneaks in.
As a comparison: I stimulate others to stick to their own religion. Then there is no proselytizing for sure.

You seem to have a personal definition of proselytizing different than everyone else.

Let me explain something. If my boss at work gives me a job to do I do not ask him why I should do it, I just do it. It is the same with Baha’u’llah. He gave me a job to do and I do not question it, I just do it. That job is to tell people about Baha’u’llah and answer questions if people ask. It is as simple as that. Conversion does not enter into the equation.

Never did I say that. It was not Baha’u’llah’s job to spread the word. That is the job that He gave to the Baha’is. But spreading the word is not proselytizing. It is spreading. If nobody tells people about Baha’u’llah then they won’t know. How do you think Christianity spread?

To me you could not make it any easier and clearer that you are evangelizing/proselytizing.
Just like the Christians. You say it literally in the last few lines.
At least the Christians admit that they proselytize. That I can respect.
You say you do not proselytize, but then you do it. Very strange this. I don't get this

1 Goal For Christians is to Evangelize "Tell the whole world about Jesus. So that at least they have heard it once". We don't talk about converting. That is a bonus.

That you alone call it "spreading" is a nice trick, but it is still evangelizing.
I rather have people just admitting it then sneakily use other words. I am not a fool !!!

 

[Trailblazer]

You accused me that I was wrong to tell you proselytize and asked for proof. [see the end, very clear]
You also asked for the quotes where you belittle other religions. See the lines in RED.

You do belittle Christianity. And you demean/belittle all older religions even at once; that means belittling pretty much everything.

Definition of proselytize: advocate or promote a belief [with or without converting]

You use "Ad Hominem Attack", by belittling the religion of others. That is wrong. You can disapprove of acts done in name of religion but that's it. Do not belittle the feelings of others

How to advocate or promote your religion:
a)Belittle others' religion
b)Magnify your religion
c)Share about your religion
d)Not share about other religions



a)+b):

"It" is Bahai. 3 different lines all this belittling tone. Obvious you belittle older Religions [this means all religions so far]
Reminds me of "Animal Farm (Orwell)". Animals took over; humans were arrogant. Pigs ruled and claimed "All animals are equal, but pigs are more equal".

You just preach here "Stop with the Bible AND look at Bahaullah". That is called proselytizing.

b):

You just tell it is for "everyone". Would be correct to start the sentence with "In my humble opinion". Humility and respect is missing.

Obviously you make Bahai very big here. For 1000 years ONLY your messenger is real. All others are dismissed.

c):
See the examples above and below

d):


So obviously you do not "share info on other religions". That is okay, but then easily proselytizing sneaks in.
As a comparison: I stimulate others to stick to their own religion. Then there is no proselytizing for sure.

You seem to have a personal definition of proselytizing different than everyone else.



To me you could not make it any easier and clearer that you are evangelizing/proselytizing.
Just like the Christians. You say it literally in the last few lines.
At least the Christians admit that they proselytize. That I can respect.
You say you do not proselytize, but then you do it. Very strange this. I don't get this

1 Goal For Christians is to Evangelize "Tell the whole world about Jesus. So that at least they have heard it once". We don't talk about converting. That is a bonus.

What is this obsession you have with me? It is none of your business what I believe or what I post on this forum, what I say or how I say it. You are not a moderator. Why don't you mind your own business and leave me alone? Do you have to belittle me to raise yourself up?

I do not see anyone else complaining about me on this forum except you. That tells me that the problem is you, not me. Please leave me alone or I will report you to the moderators. You have said what you wanted to say more than once. Enough is enough. Please leave me alone now.

 

[stvdv]

What is this obsession you have with me? It is none of your business what I believe or what I post on this forum, what I say or how I say it. You are not a moderator. Why don't you mind your own business and leave me alone? Do you have to belittle me to raise yourself up?

I do not see anyone else complaining about me on this forum except you. That tells me that the problem is you, not me. Please leave me alone or I will report you to the moderators. You have said what you wanted to say more than once. Enough is enough. Please leave me alone now.

You are free to post as you like. If you belittle my faith, then I am free to say so [RF rules 8].
But then you got obsessed telling me I was lying. And you asked me to show your quotes to proof my point

Then I show you what you asked me to do.
Then you accuse me again and ask for more proof
Then I show you once more what you asked me to do.
Then now you attack me again that I do as you asked me to do [showing the proof]

I am done with you [I can also report you]
Leave me alone. And I leave you alone. Enough is enough. Please leave me alone now.

 

[Dawnofhope]

PS - here's a link to a page with dozens of generally accepted English translations of the verse referenced in the Baha'i account of Abdu'l Baha's talk - none of them seem to me to indicate anything to do with a heliocentric model of the solar system - anyone disagree?

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/36/38/

It might be useful to have @InvestigateTruth join us as he is from an Islamic background.

As you will appreciate to understand any verse it needs to be taken in context. Sura 36:38 form part of a creation story or myth similar to the open chapter of genesis.

http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=36&verse=37&to=40

Adbu'l-Baha refers to the 'fixity' of the sun or that it does not move in relation to the planets (ie a heliocentric model). We know also that the solar system is moving through space.

The verse reads:

The sun is running its course to its appointed place.

This could capture both the fixity of the sun and the movement of the solar system through space.

Admittedly vague on its own and that's why we would need to consider a number of other verses that refer to the same theme.

 

[Dawnofhope]

There was a great deal of attention paid to cosmology and astronomy before Copernicus came along.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology_in_medieval_Islam

How much is based on original scientific investigation, the works of others, or interpretation of the Quran would be interesting to consider.

It has been argued by critics of Islam that the Quran promotes and geocentric not heliocentric cosmology.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Geocentrism_and_the_Quran

The Muslims have responded:

https://therealwikiislam.weebly.com/heliocentricism-of-quran.html

 

[siti]

Why did you go to so much trouble to research this? lol

I didn't - I just read the Wikipedia page you linked to earlier. There was sufficient information there to lead me to the conclusion that Abdu'l Baha was either ignorant of the facts about infanticide - which you may recall was key point you raised in support of your contention that Muhammad was a divine messenger - or he was lying. If he was, as you put it, "exaggerating the facts" - then it is the latter - he was deliberately "exaggerating the facts" in order to persuade people to believe in his religion - that's exactly what you referred to as "hype" earlier - isn't it?

There are references to about 30 - 40 verses from the Quran in that blog. If you feel you have honestly assessed them all, and made conclusions then good for you.You have your sheer genius that you can rely on. I can only say honestly that I don't know.

Even the doctors of Islám, when they saw that these verses were contrary to the accepted Ptolemaic system, were obliged to explain them away.

So let me get this right - there are 30 or 40 Qur'anic verses that some blog writer now claims support the heliocentric model of the solar system - and the significance of this entirely escaped the entire body of Islamic scholars in the Golden Age of Islam upon whom the entire progress of the world from medieval ignorance through the renaissance and scientifically illuminated modernity, right up to the post-modern technological age hinged? And out of all these, Abdu'l Baha could pick only one that doesn't even say what he claims it does? And a well-educated 21st century Baha'i medical practitioner honestly doesn't know what these verses are saying?

You don't need to be a genius to smell bu...er...I mean...hype!

Anyway, I'll let you pitch the net ball - apart from stamping out rampant infanticide (which he didn't) and declaring support for the heliocentric model of the solar system (which he didn't) - what is the next best evidence Abdu'l Baha presents for Muhammad's divine messenger status? Remember Abdu'l is on his third strike!

 

[siti]

It might be useful to have @InvestigateTruth join us as he is from an Islamic background.

As you will appreciate to understand any verse it needs to be taken in context. Sura 36:38 form part of a creation story or myth similar to the open chapter of genesis.

http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=36&verse=37&to=40

Adbu'l-Baha refers to the 'fixity' of the sun or that it does not move in relation to the planets (ie a heliocentric model). We know also that the solar system is moving through space.

The verse reads:

The sun is running its course to its appointed place.

This could capture both the fixity of the sun and the movement of the solar system through space.

Admittedly vague on its own and that's why we would need to consider a number of other verses that refer to the same theme.

And yet it reads remarkably like the imagery in Psalms 19:4-6 in which God has placed a "tabernacle" for the sun to run to at the end of each day. If Abdu'l Baha can claim the vague and ambiguous language of the Qur'an suggests heliocentrism, then I can claim the Bible did likewise more than a thousand years earlier.

 

[CG Didymus]

According to my beliefs Christians that believe that Jesus is God are incorrect, but they just believe what they were taught by the Church.
I do not know what all Muslims believe, but from what I know most Muslims adhere to the Qur'an and in so doing their beliefs are correct. The only belief I would say that they are wrong about is that Muhammad is the last and final Messenger of God.

That makes all those millions of Christians deluded doesn't it?

 

[stvdv]

Anyway, I'll let you pitch the net ball - apart from stamping out rampant infanticide (which he didn't) and declaring support for the heliocentric model of the solar system (which he didn't) - what is the next best evidence Abdu'l Baha presents for Muhammad's divine messenger status? Remember Abdu'l is on his third strike!

Good observation you make. The Messengers are not "all knowing", like their followers try to prove to others. Seems more their insecurity. That's why they can't admit it IMO

I am not a Muslim nor a Bahai. I do believe Muhammad and Bahaullah were Messengers of God. But what does that mean to me. It does not mean that they were born "God". It just means that when they were at a certain age, that God gave them some information in visions or dream or voices or knowing even. Then they had to remember it correct, write it down correct, translate correct etc. Easily errors sneak in IMO.

Later on other humans declared it to be "perfect word of God". I am not sure, that the Messengers themselves said of themselves "I am perfect". A good Messenger MUST be humble. Ego and arrogance just do not work well with listening to God and believing Him on His Word. When you consider this, you get a whole different picture of the Messengers and their scriptures, which makes more sense to me.

And I also consider the fact that all humans have a conscience and brains. So if I were God, I would not "spoon feed them all". Give them a few hints and let them work out the details in practical life. So Messenger 2 didn't know all about Messenger 1. Privacy should be also on God's priority "to do" list I think.

Just a few thoughts I got from your inspiring "not blind believing everything" replies.

 

[Vinayaka]

That makes all those millions of Christians deluded doesn't it?

But everyone except for one small break off sect of Islam is deluded. You should know that by now, after all this 'debate'. Have at it, Sir. I shan't be joining this time around. (Well I just did I guess. Shucks.)

 

[Trailblazer]

That makes all those millions of Christians deluded doesn't it?

Yes it does.

 

[siti]

Well I just did I guess.

You just can't help yourself can you? Me too! I stayed out of these for a few months and popped back in a few weeks ago to see if there was anything enlightening going on. There wasn't - but its a bit like those TV soap operas that everyone despises but somehow can't switch off. Strangely and annoyingly addictive.

 

[siti]

Yes it does.

Why don't you tell us how you really feel @Trailblazer - I'd be interested in @adrian009 's take on this though - I seem to recall he objected strongly to my suggestion that profoundly religious experiences might be delusional. I'm guessing he'll probably try to defend his fellow Baha'i by suggesting that in the current context it means "mistaken" rather than "mentally confused".