paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I agree with one here. Muhammad/Quran did things in secular domain with gradual and positive processes.
Regards
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
-
- Tags
- baha'i faith islam muhammad prophet
I agree with one here. Muhammad/Quran did things in secular domain with gradual and positive processes.
Regards
With this passage, can you confirm Muhammad penned the Koran Himself?
If it was recorded by others, from the Revelation Muhammad received, the only difference from the Bible, would be the timing of putting the records on parchment.
I see the above passage as a scribe putting their own input into scripture for a personal gain.
I would see this as doctrine created from the written records, nit corruption of the original records.
Peace be with you always.
Sabour
Well-Known Member
Muhamad peace be upon him didn't pen the Quraan himself.
There is a major point that one needs to know to understand the difference. Did you ever come across muslims who memorize the Quraan ? From the first word to the last word ?
Muslims have been doing that ever the revelation started. In our Salat ( we are ordered to do it 5 times a day, we can offer to other salats as well) we recite from the Quraan. Some people recite in their Salat over 40 pages from the Quraan.
My point is think about the number of people who have memorized the Quraan at the time it was written. There was no chance to get anything wrong not even a vowel on a letter.
In the time of Jesus, the Jews memorised their scriptures.
In reality we can not use this arguement, as it would support that the Bible could have also be passed down correctly.
You do not have to convince me of the accuracy of the Koran, as I accept this. I also accept that the Bible is also a reliable source of the guidance given by Allah.
I think Muslims do themselves an injustice by making these accusations against the Bible. We could instead look at the spiritual intent of the Bible and all benefit by doing this.
Peace be with you always.
Sabour
Well-Known Member
See the difference is that far too many muslims ( and you can also see it today) memorize the Quraan from the first letter till the last. And the language of the Quraan is arabic which is still a living language. The gathering of the Quraan involved many companions of Muhammad peace be upon him and took a long time.
Today if you bring 5 people who memorize the Quraan and if you tell them that I am going to recite the whole Quraan for you and you make mistakes on purpose, they will correct you. There won't be any mistake uncorrected. And As I said Arabic is a living language meaning that Quraan has been at the hands and hearts of people since its revelation.
As for the bible, if we see that there are certain mistakes and when we see that we can't accept it. We will say we don't believe this and this because of that and that. Just like the way we would do with any other book.
If I believe that Jesus peace be upon him was not crucified and the bible says or hints that he was, than I can't accept thiat.
If the bible hints about God is three and I believe God is One, I can't accept it.
If the bible hints that Noah peace be upon him was an alcoholic, I can't accept it.
Now we are discussing interpretation, not accuracy. I can offer that many passages in the Koran hint to many other meaning that Muslims might have not yet considered.
I have heard there is a tradition that scripture has many meanings;
"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."
The original source of those traditions I am yet to find, I think they may be from Islam.
Peace be with you.
siti
Well-Known Member
I presume somebody who wrote (long after the meeting with Mulla Husayn) about having recognized the Bab (long before the meeting with Mulla Husayn) - just a guess.
Here's what Bukhari's hadith recorded about the events surrounding this "first revelation" - which Bukhari attests to as being the testimony of Aisha:
The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah's Apostle was in the form of good dreams which came true like bright day light, and then the love of seclusion was bestowed upon him. He used to go in seclusion in the cave of Hira where he used to worship (Allah alone) continuously for many days before his desire to see his family. He used to take with him the journey food for the stay and then come back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food like-wise again till suddenly the Truth descended upon him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, "I do not know how to read. The Prophet added, "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, 'I do not know how to read.' Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read but again I replied, 'I do not know how to read (or what shall I read)?' Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then released me and said, 'Read in the name of your Lord, who has created (all that exists) has created man from a clot. Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous." (96.1, 96.2, 96.3) Then Allah's Apostle returned with the Inspiration and with his heart beating severely. Then he went to Khadija bint Khuwailid and said, "Cover me! Cover me!" They covered him till his fear was over and after that he told her everything that had happened and said, "I fear that something may happen to me." Khadija replied, "Never! By Allah, Allah will never disgrace you. You keep good relations with your Kith and kin, help the poor and the destitute, serve your guests generously and assist the deserving calamity-afflicted ones." Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the PreIslamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!" Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" Allah's Apostle described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, "This is the same one who keeps the secrets (angel Gabriel) whom Allah had sent to Moses..."
The first thing to note is that it seems Muhammad was accustomed to solitary isolation and all the revelations happened under these circumstances so there is no way for anyone else (then or now) to confirm exactly what was revealed or how.
It is also, I reckon, noteworthy that Muhammad was profoundly disturbed by whatever he actually saw - I have made the point previously that even if we have a genuine spiritual contact with God, we could only process that experience using our limited human faculties and such an experience (real or imagined) would be very difficult to process - evidently that was the case for Muhammad. If his mind was not disturbed before the experience it certainly was by the time he began to relate it.
Thirdly, the immediate response of Muhammad and his wife was go to a relative (a cousin of both of them as it happens according to the genealogies) who was a Christian and who was a skilled writer of religious tradition. It was he, and not Muhammad - according to this hadith - that put the supernatural experience in the context of the Judeo-Christian revelations, even mentioning Moses - and this at a point when only 5 verses of what was to become the Qur'an had yet been revealed.
So what? So there is genuine reason to believe that whilst Muhammad my very well have had an extraordinary spiritual experience that lead to the beginning of his "revelation", there is also no question that even if he had not heard so much about the God of the Jews and the Christians before that, he certainly started to put into the context of those religious traditions immediately thereafter, guided in this by an elderly relative - and quite possibly others as time went on. How much he got from these Jews and Christians and how much (if any) he got directly from God after that is impossible to assess independently.
siti
Well-Known Member
That is just another way of saying "cherry-picking". And by the way, the argument you linked to does not really refute the killings (although it tries very hard) but rather settles in the end for justifying them and blaming the Banu Qurayza themselves for their fate - and in the context of the time that might have been (what would then have been considered) a fair judgement. By all accounts they had reneged on a treaty and effectively committed an act of treason in the middle of a battle - quite a few countries even today might administer a death penalty for that - so I am all OK with that (not really OK but I don't think it would have been at all exceptional at the time for such a punishment to have been administered. What I am not OK with is the attempt to whitewash it and claim it didn't happen - that is as much a denial of the religious tradition as denying that Muhammad was God's Messenger. You can't have it both ways.
I don't see it as a major error at all. The principle is what's important, not the historic detail. We know that the NT is not so good as a record of actual history and the OT much worse. The Quran is a more authenticated revelation.
One of the criticisms that both Muslims and Jews have of the NT is that Paul corrupted it. Baha'is don't believe that but certainly do believe that Paul was very influential, and the resurrection is a good example. The first NT book that mentions the resurrection is Corinthians, a Pauline letter to a Greek church. The Gospels were written afterwards so simply followed the narrative that had developed from the teachings of Paul.
No Muslim believes that Jesus was literally resurrected from the dead. Muslims deal with theological differences by alleging the gospel was corrupted and dismissing what the NT and Christians say on that basis. They may refer to the gospels or bible but are often quick to dismiss it when differences arise.
The Muslims I've spoken too don't believe in a literal Satan like some Christian fundamentalists. Maybe there's a few that do.
Iblis - Wikipedia
Its in the open debate section. Anyone can contribute so please feel free to put your views forward, preferably with some arguments or reasons to back them up.
Sabour
Well-Known Member
I was talking there about explicit statements and not implicit statements.
Saying that Jesus peace be upon him was not crucified is explicit in the Quraan and saying that Allah is One and He is the only One worthy of worship is also an explicit statement.
Not all passages need interpretation and effort.
For me there are major differences between the Quraan and the bible which I can't reconcile.
Sabour
Well-Known Member
Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him used to isolate himself because he wasn't impressed by what his society. They were worshiping idols. He was keeping that for himself, that is why he was in isolation. After some time of the first revelation he started talking to his close circle about islam. After a period he started sharing it with the whole of Mecca. After that he travelled to Madina and you know how these periods were full of events.
What I am getting at is that the circumstances of the first revelation were different. If in the first revelation Muhammad peace be upon him was in isolation it doesn't mean that he received all the revelations in the same circumstances.
Second of all, let me ask you if there were a couple of people of that time as witnesses, would have it made any difference regarding that point?
The evaluating criteria here is not whether he had anybody there to confirm it. We are not living in the time of the prophet peace be upon him to ask for witnesses. For me an evaluation criteria would be for example studying Islam as a whole and see how it answers the questions we have and see if the Quraan does in fact qualify to be the Word of God.
Can you explain more? I didn't really understand
That is because all the prophets and all the revelations were from God and all of them had the same message which is worshiping God alone and associating any partners with Him. Moses peace be upon him received the Torah and Jesus peace be upon him received the Injeel. And in every revelation God would mention or describe the next Messenger that would come so the followers of the book would know that he is a true prophet and messenger of God.
This is my point though. The reason that Muslims believe the gospels are corrupted is because it appears to conflict with what the Qur'an says. The Quran at no point indicates the gospels were corrupted. The Ulama have assumed they must be corrupted as a way of explaining away the apparent contradictions with the Quran.
What are some of the main points of difference?
I explored this in another thread recently.
What are the Key Theological Differences between Islam and Christianity Regarding Concepts of God
In summary:
The divinity of Christ
The Trinity
The Sonship of Christ
Salvation
The Resurrection
The crucifixion
None of these verses indicate the gospels have been corrupted and can be interpreted in other ways.
Muslims need to ask themselves why God would guide His people through Christ and leave them bereft of His teachings by providing a false gospel. It doesn't make any sense.
4:157
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
The verse you quoted above can be interpreted metaphorically rather than literally. For example, they killed Him but they didn't kill His Spirit.
Lets look at the historicity of the Quran then:
What commends it (Quran) so powerfully to the historian is its authenticity, not as the Word of God, of course, as the Muslims believe but as the secular historian cannot and should not, but rather as a document attesting to what Muhammad said at that time and place, early seventh-century Mecca. It is not a transcript, however; our present Quran is the result of an edition prepared under the orders of Uthman... but the search for significant variants in the partial versions extant before Uthman's standard edition, what can be called the sources behind our text, has not yielded any differences of great significance. Those Uthmanic clues are fragmentary, however, and large 'invented' portions might well have been added to our Quran or authentic material deleted. So it has been charged in fact by some Muslims who failed to find in the present Quran any explicit reference to the designation of a successor to the Prophet and so have alleged tampering with the original texts. But the argument is so patently tendentious and the evidence adduced for the fact so exiguous that few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is in fact what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Quran#Historical_authenticity
The earliest version of the Quran available is the Sana'a Manuscript. We have the lower text where radiocarbon dating places it between 578 and 669 based on 95%confidence intervals with radiocarbon dating. 669 is only 37 years after the prophet Muhammad passed away in 632.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript
That should get us started.....
Do you see science must also play a part in Faith?
If so, if Jesus did not die in the flesh. Where is the body and can science support the answer?
Consider to answer this, Jesus was a Messenger just as Muhammad was and we know what Jesus says about the flesh.
Yes I also believe in One God, the God Muslims call Allah, but we know God has many Names.
Peace be with you
Please explain using verses from the Qur'an how Muhammad promoted the abolition of slavery and the equality of men and women.
That's not true. The Bab's wife Khadijah Bagum was the first to recognise Him, just as Muhammad's wife Khadijah bint Khuwaylid was the first to recognise Him.
Khadíjih-Bagum - Wikipedia
Baha'i Stories: The story of how the Bab’s wife, Khadijih Bagum, became a believer
siti
Well-Known Member
No - but I haven't got that far yet - perhaps you could assist by indicating where I can find information about the circumstances surrounding subsequent revelations?
I'm not sure - I am looking into the similarities that have accompanied this type of sudden astonishing appearances of supernatural "beings" that have accompanied the opening up a new "revelation". I am thinking of Moses and the burning bush, Jesus in the wilderness, Muhammad, Baha'u'llah, Joseph Smith - all of them were completely alone - the Bab's "first revelation" seems to have been in a room with just two people including himself - they never seem to happen when more than one or two people are around to see it - and even when God's voice occurs when there is a crowd around, only one person - e.g. Moses at Sinai, Jesus when he was praying before his capture and crucifixion - hears a voice - everyone else just thinks it thundered. I'll be very happy to learn of exceptions and I am still in the early stages of investigating this aspect but it does seem that isolation is a key component.
Yes - I agree - but I decided to start at the beginning of the revelation and see what that tells us.
'Begin at the beginning, the King said, very gravely, and go on till you come to the end: then stop.' ~ Lewis Carroll
This was about the Prophet being deeply disturbed at the revelation. This also seems to be a common thread in these first revelation experiences. Here are a few examples:
Muhammad was so disturbed that he contemplated suicide and when he went home to his wife he was shaking with fear. (see the Bukhari hadith quote in my previous post)
Jesus also seems to have been tempted to "throw himself down from the Temple" - although the language is not framing this as any suicidal tendency on his part, the fact is that at the beginning of his "ministry" he went through a very disturbing experience in the wilderness. (Matthew 4:1-11)
Joseph Smith was (by the various accounts) deeply troubled both before and during the experience of his first vision. He was, by his own 1942 account, in a moment of "great alarm", ready "to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction" (Times and Seasons, April 1, 1842)
Baha'u'llah was "engulfed in tribulations" when he received the vision of the Maiden (Summons of the Lord of Hosts, Bahá'í Reference Library - The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, Pages 3-54)
Arjuna was "bewildered and astonished, his hair standing on end" when Krishna's "true form" was revealed to him (Bhagavad Gita 11:14)
So there are two points I am intrigued by in relation to this.
First, if the only witness to an event is, by their own account, deeply disturbed in the mind by what they have witnessed, how genuinely reliable is the account? Is the mental anguish they seem to have suffered a result of the supernatural sight they have seen - or might it be - at least to some extent the other way round? (Of course I don't know, I was not present for any of them and even if I have such an experience myself, I still could not be certain - could I?)
Second, even if we agree that the mental anguish was caused by (and not the cause of) the supernatural vision, the content of that vision and revelation has to be related within the limitations of the human faculties - IOW, what the beholder of the vision relates is not the vision itself, but his/her mental impression of that vision. And given that the majority of them also report severe mental anguish at the time, how much of the divinely revealed message is left intact in their retelling of it?
Last edited: