Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

[Prestor John]

For us to have an interfaith discussion there has to be mutual respect and courtesy as well as a commitment to being fair and reasonable. Otherwise it will lead to more heat than light which is not good for either of us. Put another way, when two people argue about religion they are both wrong.

I wish you well and thank you for dropping in.

If this is what you truly believe, then why did you say that I knew "next to nothing about either Islam or the Baha'i Faith", even though I never once shared any misinformation about the tenets, teachings or doctrines of either faiths?

Why did you claim that because I believe that the divinity of Christ is an "absolute truth" that I have "avoided learning about Islam and the Baha'i Faith" and that I "live in an LDS bubble"?

Could you please explain how this was you showing me "mutual respect and courtesy"?

Are these examples of you being "fair and reasonable"?

The facts remain that,

1.) There are many in Islam who believe that Mary was only a little girl at the time when she gave birth to Jesus.

Her exact age is not completely agreed upon, but some early interpretations of the Qur'an claim that she was as young as ten years old at the time.

I know this because I have had personal discussions with many Muslims on the topic of Muhammad's child bride and they mentioned their belief that Mary had been a child at the time of her virgin birth of Christ as some sort of defense for the practice of men marrying prepubescent girls. (I don't know how it does, but they did it.)

Even the link you supplied described Mary as both a "young woman" and "still a young woman in age" at the time Gabriel supposedly appeared to her.

And,

2.) You also claimed that I was "ignorant" about the personal experiences that I had with certain members of the Baha'i faith which led me to believe that they tried to be "good" with everyone.

I showed a video about the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and the impact that it would have on the world to dozens of practitioners of the Baha'i faith in a multigenerational home and they claimed that they believed it to be true.

They also claimed that all other religions were essentially true.

This and other personal experiences I have had with other members of that faith caused me to think of the old adage, "If you stand for everything, you stand for nothing."

Can you please explain how I could be "ignorant" about my own personal experiences?

And,

3.) I never once "argued about religion" with you.

It was you who first quoted Biblical verses in an attempt to combat my beliefs concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, when all I ever did was share my personal opinions and beliefs that led me to disagree with you.

I never said you were wrong. I merely said that I could not agree with you.

Then you demanded "proof" for why I believed Muhammad was not a true prophet, even though I had already shared my reasons for believing so.

It was you who was arguing about religion. Not I.

Therefore, according to what you said above, you are the one that was wrong.

However, I do not believe that you will actually apply what you said above to yourself, because you actually claimed to have "mutual respect and courtesy as well as a commitment to being fair and reasonable", when it is demonstrably clear that you had been anything but.

I didn't really care to respond to this post up until people started liking it and even labelling it "Friendly", which was so far from the truth that I had to set the record straight!

If you want to continue this discussion, without the moral grandstanding, self-righteousness and ad hominem attacks, just say so.

I would still be interested in talking about the Bible verses you brought up and why other verses in the Bible contradict or at least disagree with them.

Until then, stay calm and God bless.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Adrian, I have read the Surah al Yusuf and skimmed through the Bab commentary you linked to. I have now read your summary and how it might parallel some things that happened to the early Muslims and Muhammad. I am still struggling to see how interpreting the Jewish traditional story about Joseph (which Muslims do not take as purely allegorical as I recall) as a fable or parable helps to prove that Muhammad was a Messenger of God.

When we ask ourselves "What is a Prophet?" or "What is a Messenger of God?" and "Is Muhammad a Meseger or Prophet?" we need to exercise great care in investigating their claims and also consider the standards we use. The standard is that set down by the prophet in the book itself. The principle is summarised by Baha'u'llah:

Say: O leaders of religion! Weigh not the Book of God with such standards and sciences as are current amongst you, for the Book itself is the unerring balance established amongst men. In this most perfect balance whatsoever the peoples and kindreds of the earth possess must be weighed, while the measure of its weight should be tested according to its own standard, did ye but know it.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 198-199

Further in the Torah it is clear that it is not seemly for man to put Gpd to the test but for man to test to God:

You shall not put the Lord your God to the test
Deuteronomy 6:16

So when the Quarysh tribesman tested Muhammad although they had no right He consented and provided of them what they asked. Although an illiterate tribesman He had innate knowledge. What He provided was a rendition of a story in Genesis that is considered one of the most beautiful in the Arabic language, which English translations don't have the same effect. The story gives an account of the prophet Joseph that is both historic as the Muslims believe but allegoral too. You just need to consider how much attention the Sufi's give to this Surah.

Joseph in Islam - Wikipedia

The story being strongly allegorical has many meanings of which only one may be apparent. One of those meanings is what it means to be a prophet or Messenger of God.

So Muhammad brought Teachings that clearly promulgated the Abrahamic Faith of both the Christians and Jews. He went further and reframed the essence of those teachings along with many new Teachings to meet the needs of His people and beyond. The result was a monumental paradigm shift as the Arabian tribesman became one people worshipping One God as they cast the gods of their former pagan lives away.

Like Jesus who spoke in parables, Muhammad also spoke in a language that was rich with hidden inner meanings for only the pure in Heart to discern.

Of course there are the arguments that Muahmamd simply knew of the story of Joseph anyway. Perhaps He was literate or heard it in His travels. Perhaps the Christian blacksmith told Him.

However He appeared to do what Prophets and Messengers of God do and brings a message from the Abrahamic God amidst great tests and difficulties. In that regard, He met the standard of Joseph as to what a prophet or Messenger of God truly is. However He came across the story, it was an act of brilliance for it to be included in the Qur'an.

For what its worth, I agree that the story may have been intended as allegorical and certainly can usefully be use an allegory...like David and Goliath, Noah and the Ark, Adam and Eve...etc. etc. We all go through Joseph moments in our lives - times when we are betrayed by those we love and trust, times when we are wrongly accused, times when we are imprisoned by circumstances (if not literally) and unable to escape the boundaries that life has erected around us...and such stories can be helpful in building up the mental attitudes of perseverance and patience that will give us the fortitude to survive until the day of "redemption" when the "prison walls" crumble and we are able to raise ourselves to a new level of life and see the blue sky again...I get that.

I appreciate you have taken the time to read this Chapter of the Qur'an. Whatever the origins of the story, it speaks to the heart and of the struggles we all face. Its a useful starting point to consider the Qur'an because it so clear and enables us to have a truer portrait of who Muhammad was regardless of whether we see Him as a Messenger of God or not.

But what does any of that have to do with Muhammad being a Messenger of God? The story was not of his originality. And he surely already knew he would be persecuted for introducing a new monotheistic religious paradigm in a belligerent and polytheistic culture - he surely didn't need divine revelation to figure that out. So I'm struggling to see this Surah as anything other than Muhammad plagiarizing what he knew of Jewish folklore to suit his current circumstances. That, I think, is the least fanciful and most sensibly mundane interpretation.

So we would need to study more than one surah of the Quran to appreciate that its not just a rehash of what's already in the Hebrew Bible, right?

In all fairness, I had great difficulty following the Bab's "commentary" - it seemed fragmented and disjointed and didn't seem to be addressing any particular "flow" of ideas at all to me. Maybe I'm just not cut out for this mystical stuff - but it was more "babble" (confusion) than "Bab" (gateway) to me.

The Bab revealed a chapter for each one the the 111 verses that make up the Surah of Joseph.

As Baha'u'llah said:

"Every knowledge hath seventy meanings, of which one only is known amongst the people. And when the Qá'im shall arise, He shall reveal unto men all that which remaineth." He also saith: "We speak one word, and by it we intend one and seventy meanings; each one of these meanings we can explain."

That is exactly what the Bab did and I'm sorry you didn't get. What the Bab did was similar to what Muhammad did:

“He will perform that which Muḥammad, the Messenger of God, hath performed, and will demolish whatever hath been before Him even as the Messenger of God hath demolished the ways of those that preceded Him.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 221-257

 

[Dawnofhope]

Welcome back John,

If this is what you truly believe, then why did you say that I knew "next to nothing about either Islam or the Baha'i Faith", even though I never once shared any misinformation about the tenets, teachings or doctrines of either faiths?

Why did you claim that because I believe that the divinity of Christ is an "absolute truth" that I have "avoided learning about Islam and the Baha'i Faith" and that I "live in an LDS bubble"?

Could you please explain how this was you showing me "mutual respect and courtesy"?

Are these examples of you being "fair and reasonable"?

This is the twelth post from you in this thread. To date I haven't read anything from you that gives me cause to believe you understand either Islam or the Baha'i Faith. If I'm wrong then I apologise.

The facts remain that,

1.) There are many in Islam who believe that Mary was only a little girl at the time when she gave birth to Jesus.

Her exact age is not completely agreed upon, but some early interpretations of the Qur'an claim that she was as young as ten years old at the time.

I know this because I have had personal discussions with many Muslims on the topic of Muhammad's child bride and they mentioned their belief that Mary had been a child at the time of her virgin birth of Christ as some sort of defense for the practice of men marrying prepubescent girls. (I don't know how it does, but they did it.)

Even the link you supplied described Mary as both a "young woman" and "still a young woman in age" at the time Gabriel supposedly appeared to her.

There is no mention of Aisha's age in the Quran. Why would such a detail be included?

I've never heard a Muslim try to justify having sex with children by claiming Mary was a child when she was conceived of the Holy Spirit. It sounds like a very poor argument. If you have a credible source of information regarding the claim that Muslims believe Mary was a child at the time she became pregnant, please do share.

I do not believe Muhammad had sex with a child. Aisha's age of marriage is a popular approach Christian apologetics take to slandering and defaming Islam and the character of Muhammad. You may like to consider a more in depth review of what is in Wikipedia for some perspective:

Aisha's age at the time she was married to Muhammad has been of interest since the earliest days of Islam, and references to her age by early historians are frequent. According to Sunni scriptural Hadith sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was married to Muhammad with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached the age of nine or ten years old which is interpreted by many observers to indicate that she reached puberty at this age. For example, Sahih al-Bukhari states that Aisha narrated that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:64

Recording of Aisha's age in the hadith collections came a couple of centuries after the Prophet's death, since the hadith are (it is claimed) records of early Islam through a verified unbroken chain of reliable witnesses (see: Hadith studies for more information). The hadith in this regard come from collections with sahih (fully authentic) status. However, some other traditional sources (without the same status) disagree. Ibn Hisham wrote in his biography of Muhammad that she may have been ten years old at the consummation. Ibn Hisham also wrote about two hundred years after Muhammad, basing his biography on the now-lost work of Ibn Ishaq, who was born about 72 years after Muhammad's death. Aisha was recorded as nine years old at marriage, and twelve at consummation, by both Ibn Khallikan (1211-1282), and Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi (784-845), the latter citing as his source Hisham ibn Urwah (a grandson of Muhammad's companion Zubayr ibn al-Awam).

Child marriage was not uncommon in many places at the time, Arabia included. It often served political purposes, and Aisha's marriage to Muhammad would have had a political connotation.

Muslim authors who calculate Aisha's age based on the more detailed information available about her sister Asma estimate that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen at the time of her marriage. Muhammad Niknam Arabshahi, an Iranian Islamic scholar and historian, has considered six different approaches[clarification needed] to determining Aisha's age and concluded that she was engaged in her late teens. Using the age of Fatimah as a reference point, the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement scholar Muhammad Ali has estimated that Aisha was over ten years old at the time of marriage and over fifteen at the time of its consummation.

American historian Denise Spellberg has reviewed Islamic literature on Aisha's virginity, age at marriage and age when the marriage was consummated and speculates that Aisha's youth might have been exaggerated to exclude any doubt about her virginity. Spellberg states, "Aisha's age is a major pre-occupation in Ibn Sa'd where her marriage varies between six and seven; nine seems constant as her age at the marriage's consummation." She notes one exception in Ibn Hisham's biography of the Prophet, which suggests that consummation may have occurred when Aisha was age 10, summarizing her review with the note that "these specific references to the bride's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status and, implicitly, her virginity. They also suggest the variability of Aisha's age in the historical record." Early Muslims regarded Aisha's youth as demonstrating her virginity and therefore her suitability as a bride of Muhammad. This issue of her virginity was of great importance to those who supported Aisha's position in the debate of the succession to Muhammad. These supporters considered that as Muhammad's only virgin wife, Aisha was divinely intended for him, and therefore the most credible regarding the debate.

Aisha - Wikipedia

 

[Dawnofhope]

And,

2.) You also claimed that I was "ignorant" about the personal experiences that I had with certain members of the Baha'i faith which led me to believe that they tried to be "good" with everyone.

I showed a video about the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and the impact that it would have on the world to dozens of practitioners of the Baha'i faith in a multigenerational home and they claimed that they believed it to be true.

They also claimed that all other religions were essentially true.

This and other personal experiences I have had with other members of that faith caused me to think of the old adage, "If you stand for everything, you stand for nothing."

Can you please explain how I could be "ignorant" about my own personal experiences?

Baha'is don't stand for everything. We don't stand for genocide, murder, prejudice, lies, theft, immorality, racism, religious bigotry, sexism, and injustice to name a few. I recommend you reflect a little more about the statement you made about the Baha'is and why you made it. In light of the short list of things Baha'is don't stand for, you might like to consider why being told that we do in fact stand for all of these things might be viewed as ignorant.

3.) I never once "argued about religion" with you.

It was you who first quoted Biblical verses in an attempt to combat my beliefs concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, when all I ever did was share my personal opinions and beliefs that led me to disagree with you.

I never said you were wrong. I merely said that I could not agree with you.

Then you demanded "proof" for why I believed Muhammad was not a true prophet, even though I had already shared my reasons for believing so.

It was you who was arguing about religion. Not I.

Therefore, according to what you said above, you are the one that was wrong.

However, I do not believe that you will actually apply what you said above to yourself, because you actually claimed to have "mutual respect and courtesy as well as a commitment to being fair and reasonable", when it is demonstrably clear that you had been anything but.

I didn't really care to respond to this post up until people started liking it and even labelling it "Friendly", which was so far from the truth that I had to set the record straight!

If you want to continue this discussion, without the moral grandstanding, self-righteousness and ad hominem attacks, just say so.

I'm just an ordinary guy making his way in the world. If you would like to discuss the OP question with me, I'm happy to oblige.

I would still be interested in talking about the Bible verses you brought up and why other verses in the Bible contradict or at least disagree with them.

Until then, stay calm and God bless.

We are in the religious debates section of RF. I placed this thread here to allow debates about such issues so do respond if you wish.

In regards the Baha'i perspective of Christianity:

As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that it s divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended. ("The Promised Day is Come")

In regards the Divinity of Christ Baha'u'llah has said:

Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God!” He verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His name and His attributes, are made manifest in the world. Thus, He hath revealed: “Those shafts were God’s, not Thine!” And also He saith: “In truth, they who plighted fealty unto thee, really plighted that fealty unto God.” And were any of them to voice the utterance: “I am the Messenger of God,” He also speaketh the truth, the indubitable truth.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 161-200

Best Wishes
Adrian

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I looked at a couple of, no doubt, "fake sites" and they agreed with you. It is virtually a lifetime appointment. One site said that it is a "selection" not an "election" to get into the UHJ after being appointed to some teaching center by the UHJ. Thanks

Yeah there has to be some sort of back room dealing. The 'fake sites' correctly predict who is next in lin

As I have read up on this topic you have both mentioned, I find it interesting that when Adrian puts such a topic on this forum and backs the argument well with teachings from both the Koran and Baha'i Writings, that people would stoop to the low tactics of providing false and misleaing information about the Faith Adrian follows.

Is this an attempt to refute the sound argument that Adrain has given to date?

Seems proselytism of ones own personal views can take many forms.

Peace be with you both and all.

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

Yes, Muhammad was not a god but he was a messenger of G-d,d he claimed it and gave reasons for it.

Regards

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

Yes, Muhammad was not a god but he was a messenger of G-d,d he claimed it and gave reasons for it.

Regards

Muhammad may peace be upon him.

 

[siti]

Weigh not the Book of God with such standards and sciences as are current amongst you, for the Book itself is the unerring balance established amongst men...You shall not put the Lord your God to the test

Oh I see - so to question the text or engage in any kind of critical analysis is forbidden - that's convenient if you happen to be to the writer of the book wouldn't you say?

Whatever the origins of the story, it speaks to the heart and of the struggles we all face.

Yep - and that's probably because it was originally composed by a human who had faced the kind of struggles we all face.

Its a useful starting point to consider the Qur'an because it so clear and enables us to have a truer portrait of who Muhammad was regardless of whether we see Him as a Messenger of God or not.

I fail to see how the Sura al Yusuf tells us anything substantive about Muhammad or his life - it might tell us a little bit about who he thought he was - if it was Muhammad who narrated it (and that is an assumption after all). It might tell us that Muhammad was familiar (somehow) with the stories of the Tanakh - but it certainly doesn't tell us how.

The Sufis, true to form, concentrated on the love story angle (Joseph and Potiphar's wife) as a mystical representation of the relationships between God, men and the world (to put it very glibly) so their testimony is not really relevant to the establishment of Muhammad as a Prophet or Messenger of God except in the most oblique sense.

The message Muhammad (assuming Muhammad actually narrated it - have I already said that?) wants to get across is "Look! Allah preordained all this - my Prophethood and your opposition to it. Look! here is a story about it that you have already heard about from the Christians and Jews that dwell in our midst". I mean, he must have meant them to recognize the story as linked to the monotheistic God of the "people of the Book" I think - otherwise he would have seemed to them like just another hakawati - wouldn't he?

Of course he didn't write it down himself - being, as he reportedly was, illiterate - but we'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was his exact words that were written down in the most exquisite Arabic several decades later (if not later). But I still don't really see how the (choice or quality of) language bears on the validity of the claim. But the essence of the message was to convince them that he was the Prophet, preordained by Allah and prophetically foreshadowed by Joseph. Right?

OK - so we understand that - now, how - without resorting to "such standards and sciences that are current amongst" us (such as checking the facts of history, examining the text critically etc.) - are we to determine whether this claim is valid or not?

 

[paarsurrey]

Muhammad may peace be upon him.

May G-d bless him and may other people understand his true peaceful and reasonable character.
Regards

 

[Vinayaka]

As I have read up on this topic you have both mentioned, I find it interesting that when Adrian puts such a topic on this forum and backs the argument well with teachings from both the Koran and Baha'i Writings, that people would stoop to the low tactics of providing false and misleaing information about the Faith Adrian follows.

Is this an attempt to refute the sound argument that Adrain has given to date?

Seems proselytism of ones own personal views can take many forms.

Peace be with you both and all.

This is just more of the 'them versus us' paranoia common in Baha'i circles. If you're not a Bahai' and offer up any differing POV at all, then you're anti-Baha'i. I'm used to it. And I'm certainly not anti-Baha'i, nor is Didymus. But go ahead, it's a free country. I think Adrian knows each of us well enough to know that.

 

[CG Didymus]

Yeah there has to be some sort of back room dealing. The 'fake sites' correctly predict who is next in line. Always from the teaching center, and well conditioned.

So it becomes an exclusive club for men to rule the world... the world of God's new religion. What could go wrong?

 

[Dawnofhope]

This is just more of the 'them versus us' paranoia common in Baha'i circles. If you're not a Bahai' and offer up any differing POV at all, then you're anti-Baha'i. I'm used to it. And I'm certainly not anti-Baha'i, nor is Didymus. But go ahead, it's a free country. I think Adrian knows each of us well enough to know that.

It’s true I’ve been talking to both you and @CG Didymus for a long time and we’ve all got to know each other quite well over last 1 1/2 years. The comments about Baha’i administration didn’t seem to relate to the OP and you guys were talking to each other so I didn’t respond. I’m happy to provide some perspective if you want.

 

[CG Didymus]

This is just more of the 'them versus us' paranoia common in Baha'i circles. If you're not a Bahai' and offer up any differing POV at all, then you're anti-Baha'i. I'm used to it. And I'm certainly not anti-Baha'i, nor is Didymus. But go ahead, it's a free country. I think Adrian knows each of us well enough to know that.

I wonder who here, if they had been born at a different time and place would have converted to another religion without thoroughly questioning it's validity? Who would have converted to Judaism and thought "Gee, that's exactly what I needed. A religion with a bunch of strict rules and the death penalty of stoning if you break certain ones of them?"

Or, how about early Christianity... "Yes I believe Jesus is God and so is the Holy Spirit. And I'm going to cast out demons in the name of Jesus and get people saved from going to hell."

So what can be said of Islam? If a person was a Jew or a Christian, were they really supposed to recognize the "truth" of what Muhammad was teaching and convert? But then, Baha'is say, that after a few years, all those religions got "man made" traditions mixed in anyway and lost the "original" teachings? So why should anyone have converted? If that is true, then the person would have been better off dropping out of all those religions.

But now, aren't Baha'is are trying to say that the Quran is accurate? So what about the other writings of Islam? And what about the practices of Islam? Have become corrupted or misinterpreted? So, theoretically, we could all turn to the Quran and know exactly how to live and how to believe? Which, I guess, would lead us straight into recognizing and believing the Baha'i message? I don't know... I've got a few questions about that.

 

[CG Didymus]

It’s true I’ve been talking to both you and @CG Didymus for a long time and we’ve all got to know each other quite well over last 1 1/2 years. The comments about Baha’i administration didn’t seem to relate to the OP and you guys were talking to each other so I didn’t respond. I’m happy to provide some perspective if you want.

Sure. Might as well tie it back in to Muhammad and explain what his plan was to keep and maintain Islam from getting off track and divided.

 

[Vinayaka]

It’s true I’ve been talking to both you and @CG Didymus for a long time and we’ve all got to know each other quite well over last 1 1/2 years. The comments about Baha’i administration didn’t seem to relate to the OP and you guys were talking to each other so I didn’t respond. I’m happy to provide some perspective if you want.

Thank you for this. Shows a broader perspective.

Wise move, (not assisting in derailing your own thread) and I apologise for any role I've had in derailing it.

 

[CG Didymus]

As I have read up on this topic you have both mentioned, I find it interesting that when Adrian puts such a topic on this forum and backs the argument well with teachings from both the Koran and Baha'i Writings, that people would stoop to the low tactics of providing false and misleaing information about the Faith Adrian follows.

Is this an attempt to refute the sound argument that Adrain has given to date?

Seems proselytism of ones own personal views can take many forms.

Peace be with you both and all.

To you it's sound. To me, I don't know and question its soundness. Do you accept all religious beliefs? Or do you question and doubt the validity and truth of some of them? Like Fundamental/evangelical Christianity. Are all their concepts, doctrines and beliefs true? How about Sunni Islam? Or Tibetan Buddhism? Or the Mormons? Do you believe the account of Jesus Christ taught in the Book of Mormon? And, of course, the Baha'i say to personally investigate what the truth is. So I got that going for me... which is nice.

 

[Vinayaka]

I wonder who here, if they had been born at a different time and place would have converted to another religion without thoroughly questioning it's validity?

I often ponder these conversions as well. When I hear about it, I often get all puzzled and go "What? You did what?" Edited ... (I do believe the internet is changing that.)

 

[Dawnofhope]

Sure. Might as well tie it back in to Muhammad and explain what his plan was to keep and maintain Islam from getting off track and divided.

Thank you for this. Shows a broader perspective.

Wise move, (not assisting in derailing your own thread) and I apologise for any role I've had in derailing it.

Keeping in mind both a broader context and establishing proofs of the 'Messenger of God' status of Muhammad, we need to consider provisions made for succession of leadership after the prophet dies and maintaining the integrity of what was taught. It should be clear examining any of the Abrahamic Faiths that such provisions for the future were integral to the Founder's Teachings. Whether Moses, Christ, Muhammad, or Baha'u'llah the concern was not just to create a personal following but to establish a moral code of conduct and laws that would endure for centuries for a sizeable portion of humanity. Such provisions would apply until a new Messenger or Teacher came. Mosaic law makes provision through a judicial and priestly (Levitical) system, Christ through the appointment of Peter who was the first Pope, and Muhammad in appointing Ali as the first Imam.

The Levitical system of the Hebrew people disintegrated several decades after Christ was crucified, precipitated in no small measure by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. It had lasted over 1500 years. The Papal Empire shrunk to a shadow of its former glory in the nineteenth century not long after Baha'u'llah wrote to Pope Pius IX. The Caliphate system of the Muslims ended with the Ottoman empire in 1922 after the establishment of the first Caliphate nearly 1,300 years beforehand.

Baha'u'llah made provisions in His Will and Testament for Abdu'l-Baha as His appointed successor who in turn appointed the Guardianship and Universal House of Justice as the twin successors. Although a line of Guardian's was envisaged, it was clear through the writings of Baha'u'llah that this line would come to an end, and Shoghi Effendi as the first and last Guardian was unable to appoint a further Guardian because of the requirements laid down by Abdu'l-Baha's in his will. However, the guardian (Shoghi Effendi) did appoint the hands of the cause to carry on his work and eventually their responsibilities devolved to the institution of the counsellors.

The Institution of the Counsellors

The Universal House of Justice could not be elected until sufficiently supported by an adequate number of local and national spiritual assemblies in 1963.

So the leadership and guidance of the worldwide Baha'i community rests with the elected institutions and appointed arm known as the institution of the counsellors.

The Baha'i Faith being in no small measure a grass roots movement has its communities guided and supported at a local level by the assistants (appointed by the auxillary board members) that form part of the institution of the counsellors and the local assemblies when there are at least nine adult members in a community

At a national level we have the auxillary board members and their counsellors that appoint them represented along with the National Assemblies and their regional councils.

Internationally we have the International Teaching Centre and the Universal House of Justice. Both of these institutions reside at the Baha'i World Centre in Haifa, Israel.

The International Teaching Centre (ITC) members are appointed by the Universal House of Justice and the Universal House of Justice is elected every five years by members of the National Spiritual Assemblies.

Whether at a local, national, or international level both the institutions of the counsellors and elected assemblies collaborate closely together.

Almost without doubt, those who are appointed or elected to any Baha'i institution are those that best combine the qualities of a well trained mind, recognised ability, selfless devotion, unquestioned loyalty, and mature experience. In addition those that are appointed to the institution of the counsellors are those that have distinguished themselves in their services to the Baha'i community. Those that serve at the world centre on the ITC have generally served their Baha'i communities in many capacities over several decades and exemplified the qualities that are prerequisites for service. For that reason, members of the ITC are more likely to be elected onto the Universal House of Justice.

That probably raised more questions than it answered but I hope it helps.

 

[Prestor John]

This is the twelth post from you in this thread. To date I haven't read anything from you that gives me cause to believe you understand either Islam or the Baha'i Faith.

On the other hand, nothing I have said should give anyone cause to assume that I don’t have an efficient understanding of either faith.

I answered the OP accurately and I did so without criticizing Muhammad or attacking the beliefs of the Islamic faith.

The OP did not specify the need for any prerequisite knowledge or level of understanding before being able to answer the question.

I don't even know what I would need to say in order to satisfy your subjective definition of what is actual “understanding” of either faith.

However, I am not of the opinion that someone needs to have a degree or extensive knowledge of a topic in order to form an opinion on it.

I don’t need to know everything there is to know about the KKK or Black Lives Matter to know that I do not want to be associated with either of those organizations.

The “deal breakers” for me are on the surface, therefore, there is no need to delve into them any further.

Just like with Muhammad and his denial of the divinity of Christ. That is my “deal breaker” in regards to Islam.

If I'm wrong then I apologise.

Apology accepted. Just stop making assumptions.

There is no mention of Aisha's age in the Quran. Why would such a detail be included?

Why should such a detail be excluded?

I've never heard a Muslim try to justify having sex with children by claiming Mary was a child when she was conceived of the Holy Spirit. It sounds like a very poor argument.

I agree that it is a very poor argument. However, it is a common argument used by Islamic Apologists.

Joseph the Pedophile - WikiIslam - Claim that Christian God is a pedophile

Responses to Apologetics: Muhammad and Aisha - WikiIslam - Number 23

If you have a credible source of information regarding the claim that Muslims believe Mary was a child at the time she became pregnant, please do share.

You mean, besides the one you supplied earlier that described Mary as both a “young woman” and “still a young woman in age” at the time the angel supposedly appeared to her?

Perhaps you would share your subjective definition of what is or is not “credible”?

Bahar Davary, an associate professor of Religious Studies at USD who focuses on the interpretation of the classical Islamic canon wrote an article in the August 2010 edition of the New Theology Review titled, Mary in Islam “No Man Could Have Been Like This Woman” and she wrote under the heading “Muhammad and Maryam: A Prophetic Connection”,

“Most Muslim theologians indicate Mary’s age at the time of pregnancy to have been ten, thirteen, or fifteen.”

You can read the entire article here - newtheologyreview.org/index.php/ntr/article/download/849/1036/0

I do not believe Muhammad had sex with a child.

Ok. But many Muslims and theologians do.

Aisha's age of marriage is a popular approach Christian apologetics take to slandering and defaming Islam and the character of Muhammad.

True. Just like the link you shared about the criticisms of the LDS Church being popular approaches to slander and defame my Church.

I did not bring this up in an attempt to slander or defame anyone. I only mentioned it because this was the topic of discussion I had that led to many Muslims making claims about Mary's age.

You may like to consider a more in depth review of what is in Wikipedia for some perspective:

No, I'm good because I don’t really care about this. It’s like what I said back in post #515,

“My opinion about Muhammad as a man is a mixed bag, and ultimately unimportant. I’ve heard good and bad about him.”

The only thing that bothered me about this topic was the fact that Muhammad claimed that it was revelation from God that Aisha marry him.

I feel that this would have been more defensible if Aisha had been of childbearing age at the time of the revelation and the purpose of the marriage included Muhammad having children by her.

However, the primary reasons given were to reinforce friendly relations which already existed between Muhammad and her father and to educate, train, and utilize her capabilities for the sake of Islam.

All of which could have been accomplished without him marrying her, so I have my doubts about the existence of such a revelation, besides the fact that I do not consider him to be a true prophet.

Baha'is don't stand for everything. We don't stand for genocide, murder, prejudice, lies, theft, immorality, racism, religious bigotry, sexism, and injustice to name a few. I recommend you reflect a little more about the statement you made about the Baha'is and why you made it. In light of the short list of things Baha'is don't stand for, you might like to consider why being told that we do in fact stand for all of these things might be viewed as ignorant.

No, this entire paragraph is absurd.

My comments about the Baha’i faith trying to be “good” with everyone were obviously about their views of other religions and had nothing to do with criminal activities or the other vile things you mentioned.

Is this another example of you being “fair and reasonable”? Showing a “mutual respect” or “courtesy”?

It's comments like these that led me to claim that you were being belligerent and accusatory.

They make me believe that you are intellectually dishonest or too immature to have this discussion.

I'm just an ordinary guy making his way in the world.

By “ordinary” do you mean dishonest and/or living by a double standard?

You ask me to be “fair and reasonable” with you while you do the opposite towards me?

You won’t even admit when you are "wrong" according to your own standards.

If you would like to discuss the OP question with me, I'm happy to oblige.

In light of the many times I have already shared my beliefs concerning the Lord Jesus Christ and you confirming my statements about Muhammad denying Christ’s divinity and Mankind’s reliance upon Him for salvation - what more really is there to say?

We are in the religious debates section of RF. I placed this thread here to allow debates about such issues so do respond if you wish.

I honestly do not believe you are up for it.

You apply double standards and put words in my mouth.

Hardly fair, reasonable, respectful or courteous.

As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that it s divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended. ("The Promised Day is Come")

In regards the Divinity of Christ Baha'u'llah has said:

Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God!” He verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His name and His attributes, are made manifest in the world. Thus, He hath revealed: “Those shafts were God’s, not Thine!” And also He saith: “In truth, they who plighted fealty unto thee, really plighted that fealty unto God.” And were any of them to voice the utterance: “I am the Messenger of God,” He also speaketh the truth, the indubitable truth.

I am aware and I do not believe that Baha'u'llah was any “Manifestation of God” or any kind of messianic figure.

I believe that the only Messiah, who is the Mediator between God the Father and Mankind, is the Lord Jesus Christ, who even now works on behalf of all the world.

 

[danieldemol]

Now you are cherry picking too.

I don't see why you say that

Anyway, here is the relevant paragraph from an English translation of ibn-Ishtaq's Sirat Rasul Allah (its in Chapter 18)

The apostle of Allah imprisoned the Qurayza in Medina while trenches were dug in the market‑place. Then he sent for the men and had their heads struck off so that they fell in the trenches. They were brought out in groups, and among them was Kab, the chief of the tribe. In number, they amounted to six or seven hundred, although some state it to have been eight or nine hundred. All were executed. One man turned to his people and said, 'It matters not! By God's will, the children of Israel were destined for this massacre!’ Then he seated himself and his head was struck off.​

​

For me, as important as "What" happened is "why" it happened. In those days prior to the industrial revolution I think it would be wrong to assume that society was able to generate enough excess to support a large popultation of hostile fighters isolated in prisons. As I see it, the most humane means of dealing with a large number of hostiles available at the time was the death sentence.

The Qurayza violated a peace treaty with the Muslims so my question to you is how would you have dealt with such a large existential threat given the limited means available at the time?