Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

[Dawnofhope]

I voted no, not just because Muhammad isn't a messenger of God, but because there are no messengers of God. Why would God need to appoint someone in his stead? Only self-aggrandizing people, mostly all men, have ever made it to that 'lofty' throne, with occasional the help of some deceived and ardent followers who have a psychological need for a messiah. Just way too outside my paradigm.

It is a very different paradigm from your practice of Hinduism for certain. Yet this alternative (not your paradigm) exists, not just as small isolated groups scattered here and there, but as the dominant religious paradigm on the planet held by all the Abrahamic Faiths. Your perspective of it is no more anti-Abrahamic than many I’ve encountered on RF. The facts for me are the many wonderful peoples I’ve encountered from all the major religions. For that reason I reject the “I’m right and you’re wrong” perspectives of Christians and Muslims, just as I do with Hindus and Buddhists. Whatever our world view, for me it needs to reflect love, compassion and justice for all as well as what we objectively observe around us.

 

[Vinayaka]

It’s a little off topic by why not ask @Trailblazer ? As a self appointed moderator for my own thread you have my permission to digress, not that I really have any control over what others post and ask lol

I thought I just did.

 

[Vinayaka]

In another thread one Baha'i said that it was a blessing to not have to serve.

That's just the pat answer that all Baha'i s give. It's nothing more than rote memory

 

[Dawnofhope]

I though I just did.

I tagged Susan just in case she missed it.

 

[Vinayaka]

For that reason I reject the “I’m right and you’re wrong” perspectives of Christians and Muslims, just as I do with Hindus and Buddhists.

And yet when Baha'is do it, it doesn't seem to bother you. How convenient.

 

[Dawnofhope]

And yet when Baha'is do it, it doesn't seem to bother you. How convenient.

I freely acknowledge based on the behaviour I’ve seen from Baha’is on RF, we’re no better than anyone else.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

On the contrary, please do give the references - I can get help with the translation - I have a few Muslim friends and I am only two minutes drive from a Mosque - I have already been there, they'll be happy to help me.

While you're at it, you might want to research this question:

If the 12 Imams taught heliocentrism and my idea...

why, then, did Abdu'l Baha claim that:

"...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

Seems AB was as mistaken as I am!

I did a quick search, found some traditions from the Imams. I don't have a lot of time for it to try finding more to put together something to make it completely clear their sayings about this. But you can ask your friends to translate this link:

http://lib.eshia.ir/12016/17/90/"وَالشَّمْسُ_تَجْرِي_لِمُسْتَقَرٍّ"


http://lib.eshia.ir/27413/1/388/"وَالشَّمْسُ_تَجْرِي_لِمُسْتَقَرٍّ"


As regard to your second question, the doctors of Islam are not infallible 12 Imams. This is why they did not explain them away like the doctors, but they stick with what Quran teaches even in their time most people believed the Quran was wrong on this.



Edit: I added another one later

 

[Dawnofhope]

What's the difference between this thread and the "Great Beings" thread. The underlying question is the same... is the Baha'i interpretation correct.This thread is trying to link Muhammad into the chain of "manifestations". Once that is done, it is a small step to add Baha'u'llah. But, if Muhammad is rejected as a true messenger from God, then that makes the Baha'i Faith false also.

I know very little of the progression from Muhammad to the specific Shia sect that the Baha'i Faith evolved out of. But, I'm sure there's several problematic areas that are lurking there. Can't wait to get into some of that stuff.

Muhammad taught that it is not enough to believe in Him. Muslims need to believe in all the prophets, with particular emphasis given to Jesus and Moses:

"We have believed in Allah and in what was revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [submitting] to Him." Surah 3:84

This thread is an opportunity for us all to learn about Muhammad and His teachings regardless of our perspectives. I'm not expecting to convince anyone that Muhammad is a Messenger of God, but that is what I believe.

On the surface, the words of the Baha'i Faith is very convincing... like peace, equality and that all religions are one. It's when the deeper things are explored, then it becomes hard to believe. Our question are words and your answers are words. They gotta make sense and be convincing. If not, we're going to call you on that. But I think you know that.

Of course. It comes down to the most plausible narrative. For you we have man made religions and so you continue to look for the flaws, inconsistencies, and contradictions. For Muslims, Muhammad, Jesus, and Moses are all prophets. I'll refrain from outlining the Baha'i perspective that you are well acquainted with as its off the topic and departs from the primary purpose of this thread.

 

[siti]

I don't have a lot of time for it to try finding more to put together something to make it completely clear their sayings about this. But you can ask your friends to translate this link:

http://lib.eshia.ir/27413/1/388/"وَالشَّمْسُ_تَجْرِي_لِمُسْتَقَرٍّ"

I don't understand why you chose this reference - it seems to be an online version of a book by Abu l-Hasan al-Isfahani (1860-1946) - there doesn't seem to be any reference to either heliocentrism or to the 12 Imams in the page that you linked or the pages immediately before and after and the only reference to any earlier interpretations is a reference to al-Athir who (it seems) was a late 12th/early 13th century Arab historian.

There is a reference to Surah Yassin verse 38 - the one that Abdu'l Baha claimed was indicating the "fixity of the sun" -

والشمس تجري لمستقرٍّ لها

(out of interest, how would you translate this?) and it does talk about the "rotation" of the planets but there is absolutely no indication that this understanding was promoted by the 12 Imams or anything whatsoever specifically about heliocentrism as far as I can tell (but do please correct me if I am wrong - my underline here is to emphasize my relative ignorance and I am more than happy to be corrected if I missed a direct reference to either heliocentrism or the 12 Imams).

Even if it is intended to show that heliocentrism is what Muhammad was getting at in that verse, this book was written 400 years after Copernicus and more than a 1000 years after the 11th Imam departed the scene. I don't really see how it could possibly support your contention that the 12 Imams taught heliocentrism.

 

[Prestor John]

Disagreed. This I call proselytizing "Jesus is the only way". Implicit belittling all other religions with their prophets, saints, avatars.

I in no way was trying to "belittle" anyone's religion.

However, when people are discussing the answer to what is or is not "true", that obviously means that all other "not true" answers would be "false".

It was my opinion that a true prophet would preach salvation comes only through Jesus Christ the Lord, and me having that opinion is not me "belittling" anyone's religion, implicitly or otherwise.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thank you for your well considered post. I understand a little better where you are coming from and why you feel the way you do about theists.

I have always made the implicit assumption that our actions are very much informed by our knowledge and our beliefs. My knowledge of how fire and stove tops work informs my extreme reluctance to get my hand too close to either. My belief that what I have a right to, everyone else has a right to as well, informs how I behave towards others.

Throughout human history, people have acted based on their beliefs. They have helped, based on their beliefs, and they have tortured and killed based on them. They have gone to other people, with different beliefs, and tried to supplant those others' beliefs with their own. And if their beliefs are wrong, the actions based on those beliefs are just as likely to be wrong, too.

You might just consider, after all, that I myself felt the brunt of religious opinion most of my life, as a gay person. It is not, you may perhaps be surprised to learn, exactly a warm feeling to be accused of being depraved and an affront to God simply for an orientation that is utterly beyond your control. (And if you believe that not to be true, you can tell us how you would go about changing yours.)

I'm straight though when younger had to consider my sexual identity as with some my age. I think for a portion of those who identify as gay such as yourself, it seems to be unchangeable. There is a significant minority of teenagers who find themselves attracted to both sexes to some degree and there is some fluidity as to sexual orientation.

The obvious difficulty is the historic laws all the Abrahamic faiths have had in regards homosexuality being forbidden. There certainly seems to be some flexibility these days with some denominations of Christianity and Judaism. So when you tell me you are gay it makes immediate sense why you would have an aversion to theism.

And mostly, I truly believe that religion must and does in many ways suppress rational thinking. It does this every time that apologists make excuses for what is clearly and undeniably wrong. For one example, you might read William Lane Craig's drivel on why God was so right to order the complete destruction of the Canaanites, including the murder of children and the keeping of virgin females for (who can guess what) other purposes. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/slaughter-of-the-canaanites

My favourite quote from that Craig bit, by the way, is this:

"So the problem isn’t that God ended the Canaanites’ lives. The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn’t that like commanding someone to commit murder? No, it’s not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong."

Now, do me a favour for just a moment, and think about that quote: who heard God make such commandments? Craig argues that the killing was morally obligatory for Israeli solders who themselves never heard God say a word. Moses SAID God told him things concerning the Exodus. Joshua SAID God ordered the death of the Canaanites, but there is only their word for it. Let me ask you how you think such a thing would stand up in any court on earth today: "I slew my daughter, your honour, because God told me to. I heard it from his own lips myself."

I put it to you in no uncertain terms: Craig's ability to reason is severely, perhaps catastrophically, disabled by religious belief that is clearly WRONG.

I have learnt never to underestimate the capacity of people of all wordviews to disengage their intellect. These days, political parties and the marketing of corporate bodies are examples of mass manipulation. Sometimes, even in businesses or organisations such as a school or hospital there is a tribal mentality that can make it difficult to think outside of the norms of one's peers.

When it comes to considering the Torah, its important to realise we have no objective evidence that any event in these books actually happened. They probably weren't written until the Babylonian era, centuries after it all allegedly took place. How much is myth and how much is true might be a more constructive conversation in the first instance with Christian apologetics.

Beyond verifiable historical truth we have the reality of tribalism. Many of these cultures didn't keep written records. Stories that may have been part true and part mythology were passed down by word of mouth. Tribal warfare, slavery, abysmal treatment of women and children, infanticide, genocide, and even cannabislism were common place. So in that environment, the problem with what to do about a tribe that was once a threat and now defeated?

Its good you raise the topic of these more ancient peoples as this was also the kind of tribalism from which Muhammad emerged. Rather than listening too closely to the Christian apologetics, I would be considering Mosaic and Islamic law and what laws assisted their peoples move beyond tribalism to something more civilised.

Thank you again for your post.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I in no way was trying to "belittle" anyone's religion.

However, when people are discussing the answer to what is or is not "true", that obviously means that all other "not true" answers would be "false".

It was my opinion that a true prophet would preach salvation comes only through Jesus Christ the Lord, and me having that opinion is not me "belittling" anyone's religion, implicitly or otherwise.

Hey, I like the big white foot in your avatar.

I appreciate your sincerity. I wonder if you can appreciate how peoples of Faiths that don't have a belief in Jesus might feel belittled by what you just said?

 

[Prestor John]

Hey, I like the big white foot in your avatar.

I appreciate your sincerity. I wonder if you can appreciate how peoples of Faiths that don't have a belief in Jesus might feel belittled by what you just said?

I would hope that they would feel just as "belittled" as I am by their non-belief in Jesus...

Which is none at all!

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I would hope that they would feel just as "belittled" as I am by their non-belief in Jesus...

Which is none at all!

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, that is true. But not every opinion is true, and some opinions can evoke unintended negative emotions in others.

In regards Christianity and Hinduism there’s a lot of history between the two religions on account of the British colonising India for centuries. Before that the Muslims, particularly in the North. Do you ever consider such history when talking to Hindus?

 

[Prestor John]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, that is true. But not every opinion is true...

Obviously, there is only one truth.

That would mean that anything other than the truth would not be true.

...and some opinions can evoke unintended negative emotions in others.

Sounds like some people need to mature and grow a thicker skin.

In regards Christianity and Hinduism there’s a lot of history between the two religions on account of the British colonising India for centuries. Before that the Muslims, particularly in the North. Do you ever consider such history when talking to Hindu?

No, I do not, for there is no need.

I am free to have my opinion and to express it whenever, wherever and to whomever I desire.

 

[stvdv]

13 jul 2018 stvdv 017 44

I believe the very first test to determine whether a man is a true prophet or not is if he teaches the divinity of Christ and Mankind's reliance upon Him for salvation.
If they do not teach that, then they cannot be a true prophet.

Disagreed. This I call proselytizing "Jesus is the only way". Implicit belittling all other religions with their prophets, saints, avatars
.....
IMHO

I in no way was trying to "belittle" anyone's religion.
However, when people are discussing the answer to what is or is not "true", that obviously means that all other "not true" answers would be "false".
It was my opinion that a true prophet would preach salvation comes only through Jesus Christ the Lord, and me having that opinion is not me "belittling" anyone's religion, implicitly or otherwise.

Proof that proselytizing and Blasphemy can have "heated and destructive consequence" is proved by the following:
Yesterday Pakistan politician said "I will nuke Holland for Muhammad Cartoon Contest"
[RF member (from Pakistan I think) believed this man will go through with this] and he sounded convincing to me

I can keep it short and just answer your reply, because I have explained in detail before why "belittling is not a good thing"

You reply: "I was not trying to belittle anyone's religion" [don't get me wrong, I do appreciate your effort]
My reply: "But you did belittle". Only trying "doesn't do the trick usually" [I am Just trying to inspire Christians to this next level]

Hint: Ask yourself "Why I belittle, knowing I upset others. Why I keep saying `I was not trying to belittle`. Why I not just stop this?"

The solution is very simple:
1: Praise Jesus all day long, no one will object. I will encourage even
2: Just don't imply anything negative about others' religion; that is sufficient

*: You are free to speak what you want; don't start crying when world gets `nuked` because people insist to upset others [can't tell Jesus I didn't know]
*: It's okay to criticize acts done in name of religion. Just don't do your "Ad Hominem Attacks" [criticize religion instead of `bad acts in name of religion`]

Maybe I am very smart, but this is my personal conclusion, how I feel about it:
For me there is not much difference in "Evangelize and Proselytize". When someone does this then I and many others get this feeling/impression of you
They both show know respect for others' religion. Even if they tell "I try to tell in a nice way your religion sucks (you into Hell) or whatever they say or imply"
Why Christians "belittle" so much (on purpose or no aware)
Christian rule number 1 "Go out and evangelize the whole world"
I have the feeling that this is the reason "Christians don' try very hard NOT to belittle" IMHO

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I don't understand why you chose this reference - it seems to be an online version of a book by Abu l-Hasan al-Isfahani (1860-1946) - there doesn't seem to be any reference to either heliocentrism or to the 12 Imams in the page that you linked or the pages immediately before and after and the only reference to any earlier interpretations is a reference to al-Athir who (it seems) was a late 12th/early 13th century Arab historian.

There is a reference to Surah Yassin verse 38 - the one that Abdu'l Baha claimed was indicating the "fixity of the sun" -

والشمس تجري لمستقرٍّ لها

(out of interest, how would you translate this?) and it does talk about the "rotation" of the planets but there is absolutely no indication that this understanding was promoted by the 12 Imams or anything whatsoever specifically about heliocentrism as far as I can tell (but do please correct me if I am wrong - my underline here is to emphasize my relative ignorance and I am more than happy to be corrected if I missed a direct reference to either heliocentrism or the 12 Imams).

Even if it is intended to show that heliocentrism is what Muhammad was getting at in that verse, this book was written 400 years after Copernicus and more than a 1000 years after the 11th Imam departed the scene. I don't really see how it could possibly support your contention that the 12 Imams taught heliocentrism.

I had added another reference later.
Ok, telling you the truth, i spent 15 min, and found those two references. The first book has an interpretation of the verse by a Muslim scholar. I am not sure where he gets his interpretation, however he says this verse is talking about the sun being fixed relative to earth and other planets. So, at least here we have a Muslim explaining the verse similar to Abdulbaha.
As regards to the second book, there are Hadithes from Imams about the verse. I have not spent the time translating it accurately. There are Arabic words in it I have to spent time searching for their meaning. So, so far, I do not have any conclusion for you.
You also asked how I would translate the verse.
It is like this:

The Sun is moving in its own place. The arabic word used here, is understood, as a Fixed Place. Meaning the Sun has a specific place and location in which it is located. The other word in the verse denotes it is Moving.

 

[Vinayaka]

I appreciate your sincerity. I wonder if you can appreciate how peoples of Faiths that don't have a belief in Jesus might feel belittled by what you just said?

I'm certainly not belittled by it. It's what John believes.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Thank you for your well considered post. I understand a little better where you are coming from and why you feel the way you do about theists.

Just to clarify, I do not have negative feelings to all theists -- only those who use their theism against others who aren't like them, or against reason when reason is the obvious truth. I know many theists, including in the ministry, who take a much more reasonable and logically sustainable view of what their faith means.

Its good you raise the topic of these more ancient peoples as this was also the kind of tribalism from which Muhammad emerged. Rather than listening too closely to the Christian apologetics, I would be considering Mosaic and Islamic law and what laws assisted their peoples move beyond tribalism to something more civilised.

I go further, and say that if you consider all of the attempts of humans, in all places and in all belief systems, to establish laws and codes of behaviour that make life better for all, you will see that the central impetus is not religious, but human. They are often expressed in religious terms for the simple reason that the ancients had access to a lot less information than we have now.

Consider the Code of Hammurabi, for example, much older than that found in the Bible. Much of is about contract law, payments due for various tasks, resolution in defaults and such. There are parts that define how transactions play out, who has liability for failures (if your house collapses, the builder is liable. And about a third of it deals with domestic and family relationships such as inheritance, divorce, paternity, and (yes) sex and reproduction.

To the point about religious expression being common, you might consider the Greeks and their devotion to philosophy...yes, they still often expressed things religiously, but were much more focused on what could be demonstrated empirically and logically. Only when they had no tools to understand a topic (like human sexuality and a lot of nature) were they likely to turn to religion. For a very good example, see Plato's Symposium.

 

[CG Didymus]

Muhammad taught that it is not enough to believe in Him. Muslims need to believe in all the prophets, with particular emphasis given to Jesus and Moses:

"We have believed in Allah and in what was revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [submitting] to Him." Surah 3:84

This thread is an opportunity for us all to learn about Muhammad and His teachings regardless of our perspectives. I'm not expecting to convince anyone that Muhammad is a Messenger of God, but that is what I believe.



Of course. It comes down to the most plausible narrative. For you we have man made religions and so you continue to look for the flaws, inconsistencies, and contradictions. For Muslims, Muhammad, Jesus, and Moses are all prophets. I'll refrain from outlining the Baha'i perspective that you are well acquainted with as its off the topic and departs from the primary purpose of this thread.

When you say "all the prophets" does Muhammad say anything about Buddha or Krishna? Did Moses or Jesus say anything about them? I don't think they did. Yet, after all these manifestations and all these years, finally Baha'u'llah includes them.