• 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?

Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?


  • Total voters
    57

siti

Well-Known Member
That is why Islam went into a long slow decline after the Islamic Golden age whereas the West progressed. Once the Islamic world was the most advanced. Now progress is slowed and people are not free to have their own thoughts and beliefs.
Interesting thought on this that I picked up partly from the video you posted much earlier in this thread and partly from Jim al-Khalili's book Pathfinders - the Golden Age of Arabic Science - whilst it seems the acquisition of paper-making from China was one of the keys to the opening up of the golden age (because it made it easier for scholars to exchange information and communicate new findings and new ideas) it could also be that the reluctance to adopt the new technology of printing at the end of the middle ages (because the first printed Qur'ans had too many errors and could not be accepted) was one of the major factors that caused its decline by comparison to the west in more recent centuries. Exchange of information, and thereby, education were clearly at the mercy and pace of skilled scribes for much longer in the Islamic world whilst the dissemination of (not necessarily accurate, it has to be said) information and ideas accelerated astronomically from the mid-15th century.
 
Last edited:

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Interesting thought on this that I picked up partly from the video you posted much earlier in this thread and partly from Jim al-Khalili's book Pathfinders - the Golden Age of Arabic Science - whilst it seems the acquisition of paper-making from China was one of the keys to the opening up of the golden age (because it made it easier for scholars to exchange information and communicate new findings and new ideas) it could also be that the reluctance to adopt the new technology of printing at the end of the middle ages (because the first printed Qur'ans had too many errors and could not be accepted) was one of the major factors that caused its decline by comparison to the west in more recent centuries. Exchange of information, and thereby, education were clearly at the mercy and pace of skilled scribes for much longer in the Islamic world whilst the dissemination of (not necessarily accurate, it has to be said) information and ideas accelerated astronomically from the mid-15th century.

The willingness to adapt and embrace new technologies, particularly the printing press would have been an enormous factor as you say. Initially the Muslim empire under the Abbasids were concerned with what they could learn from other cultures along with the discovery of paper making from the Chinese. When the printing press was invented in Europe the Ulama banned it and so it took about 300 years for this ruling to change and allow a device that's so fundamental to the propagation of knowledge.
 
Last edited:

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
The West may dominate industrial and perhaps economic
But in terms of culture is definitely wrong
Otherwise, the mosques are closed and adultery and vice become

It is not possible to wipe out the culture of a whole nation that has a religion like Islam ...

The purpose of this thread is to intelligently investigate Muhammad's claim to be a Messenger of God to a largely sceptical Western audience. Obviously the Baha'is, like Muslims believe that Muhammad (PBUH) is a Messenger of God and the Holy Quran from God.

One of the biggest problems Islam has on this forum is when Muslims with poor communication skills post and present their faith in a negative light.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
It is not possible to wipe out the culture of a whole nation that has a religion like Islam ...
Fortunately, that will never happen.

The growth rates of the Abrahamic religions from 1910-2010 were as follows: Judaism .11%, Christianity 1.32%, Islam 1.97%, and Baha’i Faith 3.54%.
From 2000-2010 Islam became the fastest growing religion (1.86 %) and the Baha’i Faith was the second fastest growing religion (1.72%).
Statistics from: Growth of religion - Wikipedia
 

Sabour

Well-Known Member
abolition of slavery

4:92And never is it for a believer to kill a believer except by mistake. And whoever kills a believer by mistake - then the freeing of a believing slave and a compensation payment presented to the deceased's family [is required] unless they give [up their right as] charity. But if the deceased was from a people at war with you and he was a believer - then [only] the freeing of a believing slave; and if he was from a people with whom you have a treaty - then a compensation payment presented to his family and the freeing of a believing slave. And whoever does not find [one or cannot afford to buy one] - then [instead], a fast for two months consecutively, [seeking] acceptance of repentance from Allah . And Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.


58:3 And those who pronounce thihar from their wives and then [wish to] go back on what they said - then [there must be] the freeing of a slave before they touch one another. That is what you are admonished thereby; and Allah is Acquainted with what you do.

5:89 Allah will not impose blame upon you for what is meaningless in your oaths, but He will impose blame upon you for [breaking] what you intended of oaths. So its expiation is the feeding of ten needy people from the average of that which you feed your [own] families or clothing them or the freeing of a slave. But whoever cannot find [or afford it] - then a fast of three days [is required]. That is the expiation for oaths when you have sworn. But guard your oaths. Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses that you may be grateful.


90: 10-13

10 And have shown him the two ways? 11 But he has not broken through the difficult pass.12 And what can make you know what is [breaking through] the difficult pass? 13 It is the freeing of a slave 14 Or feeding on a day of severe hunger 15An orphan of near relationship 16 Or a needy person in misery

As for women in Islam, I would suggest the following link Women in Islam
 

Sabour

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 think you may find it in biographies about Muhammad peace be upon him.

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?)


I don't see how a Muhammad's (peace be upon him) initial reaction would discredit what he came up with for 23 years. We don't even know how angel Gabriel looks like. After all the prophet is still a human.

The way I see it is that you are reaching too many conclusions assuming that the initial reaction was the same for all the period of prophecy
 

Sabour

Well-Known Member
When I read that Passage I read that they did not Kill Christ. You can not Kill the Spirit from God.

When I first started looking for God, I had in my heart there was only One God.

I first found Muhammad when reading about the Baha'i Revelation. I then read the Koran. It was logical to me that the One God had many Messengers with many Names.

I see this life is more than flesh and I personally think this life is the illusion. Our true existence is in our spiritual state.

I see all the Messengers, who are one in the Holy Spirit, exist in Gods Kingdom. None of them have been killed. We are born when we accept their Message and live the life they have instructed.

Peace be with you

I stumbling block between you and me is that I see the verse to be literally and you see it metaphorically, let us leave that for the understanding of each reader.
 

Sabour

Well-Known Member
The main problem for Islam are the Ulama. That is why Islam went into a long slow decline after the Islamic Golden age whereas the West progressed. Once the Islamic world was the most advanced. Now progress is slowed and people are not free to have their own thoughts and beliefs.

I do agree that today we have many people who call themselves scholars and they are the problem itself because rather than reasoning with our people they just expect people to follow blindly. Some of them discourages asking questions and doubt the intent of the questioner. So I some how agree with that.


The idea that the gospels are so corrupted makes as much sense to Christians as if I were to tell you the Qur'an was swapped or had most of its verses altered and you don't have the real Qur'an anymore. When I hear Islamic apologists begin to explain how the gospel became corrupted they just seem to demonstrate their lack of basic knowledge about both the bible and history.

Each person is responsible for his own beliefs and deeds in front of God. I have seen lots of the bible and searched here and there and I am convinced that it is corrupted. I have read and studied the Quraan and I have reached the conclusion that it is the Word of God.

I don't know which parts you are referring to exactly in your mind when talking about muslims (they may be valid points or not), but there is no need to describe or judge them. As I said I don't agree with many of today's so called scholars regarding their attitude but that is that. For me I would say that you dodge the contradictions by saying that this verse or that verse are metaphorical in meaning. ( I am not saying you would do that on purpose but it is rather your belief). I don't agree with that but I respect that you do have your opinion.

It is good we agree on most of the key differences. I'm not too sure what you are referring to when you mention twisted stories about some of the prophets. Do mean stories that don't agree with the Qur'an's version of events?

An example would be that the bible portrays Noah peace be upon him as an alcoholic. That can't be true because prophet are examples to follow.

I think when you look at a verse for long enough and all the other Muslims believe this is what the verse means, it is hard to see it any other way.

I wasn't completely like that before, I used to doubt myself and my lack of understanding whenever I face serious questions that seemed to me to be agreed on. I had this problem like 60% inside of me and I often used to say that I should study more and that I am not putting the effort I should put.

Now believe me I am nothing like that.

do not see any verse in the Qur'an that refers to the version of the gospel that was around in Muhammad's lifetime as being corrupt.

Perhaps you are not getting my point you are expecting that I would quote a verse that explicitly says that the bible is corrupted. That is not the case. Not all the obvious is written down and handed to us. Sometimes we need our interpretation to reach the conclusion.

Quraan does explicitly states that there are scribes who would change the Word of God and say that this is from God when it is not.

Now knowing that there is an Injeel revealed from God, and seeing to many contradictions and mistakes in the bible ( that doesn't apply to you), I can safely conclude that the bible is corrupted. Simple and straightforward.

The verse you highlighted in red does sound literal because that's literally what happened. The Roman's did what Roman's do well and executed by crucifixion. Of course they did not crucify Christ's soul and His spirit lives on. But I suppose Muslims have believed for over a thousand years what that verse means. Tradition is a powerful determinant as to how we think whether we are Muslim or Christian.

Again I don't see that the verse is speaking about the soul. When they said we killed Jesus peace be upon him they were not talking about his soul. We all know what the intent was. When the Quraan follows their saying by contradicting it and saying they did not kill him it means his body and not soul. When Quraan says that he wasn't crucified it means he wasn't crucified.

Of course this is my understanding, and I repeat I respect that you have yours, but I don't agree with it.

Hope you the best.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I stumbling block between you and me is that I see the verse to be literally and you see it metaphorically, let us leave that for the understanding of each reader.

I am happy to do that, unless you wish to discuss where and how literal interpretation came to be and has its merits, from the Koran.

I always keep in mind that the Jews and Christains are yet to accept Muhammad and they also are literal in many interpretations. On the other Hand I know the Baha'i can except all the Messengers of God.

Is there any interpretaion of the Koran that is done metaphorically?

Peace be with you.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
@Sabour , I appreciate you taking the time to post here. Although we may have different opinions, your English is good, your answers clear and concise, and your manner respectful and courteous.

Each person is responsible for his own beliefs and deeds in front of God. I have seen lots of the bible and searched here and there and I am convinced that it is corrupted. I have read and studied the Quraan and I have reached the conclusion that it is the Word of God.

Once again, you need to be specific about what the verses you disagree with and why. Its too easy to say the bible is corrupted and not investigated the matter for yourself. If you have investigated then you should be able to refer to the relevant passages and why. That is the same for the Qur'an that we both agree is the Word of God.

We need to see through our own eyes and not the eyes of others, and know of our own knowledge and not the knowledge of our neighbour.

I don't know which parts you are referring to exactly in your mind when talking about muslims (they may be valid points or not), but there is no need to describe or judge them. As I said I don't agree with many of today's so called scholars regarding their attitude but that is that. For me I would say that you dodge the contradictions by saying that this verse or that verse are metaphorical in meaning. ( I am not saying you would do that on purpose but it is rather your belief). I don't agree with that but I respect that you do have your opinion.

The problem is a lack of meaningful open discussion. If I were a Muslim, I would have enormous pressure to believe certain verses have the meaning the Ulama claim. I respect your opinion and the opinion of the ulama but I don't respect that restriction on the independent investigation of reality.

An example would be that the bible portrays Noah peace be upon him as an alcoholic. That can't be true because prophet are examples to follow.

The verses you refer to in Genesis 9 are all symbolic. It is an allegoric tale after all, unless you are telling me that there literally was a flood that covered the whole earth.

I wasn't completely like that before, I used to doubt myself and my lack of understanding whenever I face serious questions that seemed to me to be agreed on. I had this problem like 60% inside of me and I often used to say that I should study more and that I am not putting the effort I should put.

Now believe me I am nothing like that.

It good that you have the skills and confidence to discuss and debate your faith on RF.

Perhaps you are not getting my point you are expecting that I would quote a verse that explicitly says that the bible is corrupted. That is not the case. Not all the obvious is written down and handed to us. Sometimes we need our interpretation to reach the conclusion.

Quraan does explicitly states that there are scribes who would change the Word of God and say that this is from God when it is not.

I do get your point, but do you get mine? It is not explicitly stated the Gospel is corrupt and it is a matter of interpretation of those verses. I have another interpretation based on my understanding of the Christian religion and the Bible.

It is fine to agree to disagree and no need to take the matter any further if you want.

Now knowing that there is an Injeel revealed from God, and seeing to many contradictions and mistakes in the bible ( that doesn't apply to you), I can safely conclude that the bible is corrupted. Simple and straightforward.

Once again, I doubt you properly understand the Bible and base your conclusions on popular Muslim belief rather than from your own investigations and understandings.

Again I don't see that the verse is speaking about the soul. When they said we killed Jesus peace be upon him they were not talking about his soul. We all know what the intent was. When the Quraan follows their saying by contradicting it and saying they did not kill him it means his body and not soul. When Quraan says that he wasn't crucified it means he wasn't crucified.

Of course this is my understanding, and I repeat I respect that you have yours, but I don't agree with it.

It is fine to agree to disagree about our different understandings and interpretations of the Holy Qur'an, the Word of God.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
While we’re on the topic of absurdity let’s more closely consider your theory that you appear to have gleaned and extrapolated from just one Hadith. Of all the testimonies from all who knew Muhammad find me one Hadith that supports your theory. Then find a reputable scholar that supports it.
This misses the point entirely. The Islamic tradition (and particularly the Baha'i rehashing due to Abdu'l Baha that you quoted in your OP) insists that the revelation occurred to Muhammad amidst the jahiliya (time of ignorance) of the immediately pre-Islamic period of Arabian history and was, predominantly - at least initially - directed towards correcting the barbarous, ignorant and polytheistic tribes of Arabs among whom Muhammad had grown up. It further insists that the transmission of elements of the Qur'anic revelation that happen to correspond to elements of Jewish and Christian traditions was miraculous and was not influenced (at all) by human transmission from Jews or Christians that Muhammad might have met and/or conversed with before or during the period of the revelation. And yet - here in the very tradition that makes these bold assertions* - the very first man to whom the revelation was made known was not only a Christian, but immediately - even according to the tradition that insists there was no such influence - starts linking Muhammad's reported experience to that of Moses!

This is perhaps not even the earliest suggestion that Muhammad may have learned about monotheistic religion and Jewish and Christian traditions from men. The Qur'an itself says that people were saying so (Qur'an 16:103).

And the idea that the source of "Muhammad's revelation" was in Jewish and/or Christian, or Jewish Christian traditions that were represented by Jews/Christians/Jewish Christians has a persistent presence throughout the modern period starting from John Toland, who wrote in 1722 "...you'll discover some of the fundamental doctrines of Mahometanism to have their rise...from the earliest monuments of the Christian religion." (Toland, Nazarenus, p.5) to the rather more recent work of scholars such as Patricia Crone, who concluded that Jewish Christians were the "most obvious candidates" for the transmission of a number of Qur'anic themes (Patricia Crone, "Jewish Christianity and the Qurʾān (Part One)," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 74, no. 2 (October 2015): 225-253. https://doi.org/10.1086/682212).

There is, in fact, a fairly well-established "revisionist school" in the field of Islamic studies and whilst not all of them concur on the "Jewish Christian" origins idea, there is an overall impetus to apply the same historical-critical methods of textual analysis to the Qur'an that have for much longer been the staples of much investigation into the origins of the Christian and Jewish revelations. I am guessing, since you seem to favour the historical-critical method for other religious texts, you would not object to this for the Qur'an - or, dare I even suggest, the writings of Baha'u'llah? Of course I'm not saying you have to agree with the findings - but Islam in general opposes the method irrespective of the findings by definition - because it has the hierarchy of Qur'an ... hadith .... sirah ... for answering such questions - rarely, if ever, would any other scholarly method or historical evidence be required - and especially so on matters pertaining to revelation.

The problem in their field (textual and historical criticism of the Qur'an) is that it is impossible to engage in such studies without being accused of taking sides - one way or the other. To support the idea that the Qur'an was influenced (at all by any other tradition) is to invite the ire of Muslims and to oppose the idea is tantamount to being a Muslim apologist in the eyes, not only of fundamentalist Christians, but even of other scholars. And obviously, no faithful and practicing Muslim is going to engage in historical-critical analysis of the text of the Qur'an - at least not without inviting the ire of his Muslim brothers or abandoning his faith altogether - at which point anything further he might say on the matter will immediately be labelled "apostasy" (and trust me - I know how that works, having been labelled "apostate" myself - thereafter, every word that seems to contradict the faith is met with "well he would say that wouldn't he" and "what else can you expect from someone who abandoned his faith"...and then completely unfounded accusations on some kind of imagined impropriety that has made one turn away from the faith). It is a fraught field of study to be sure.

But my point is that even within the tradition itself, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the "revelation" came in circumstances in which the influence of Jewish and/or Christian traditions was clearly present. If that were not the case, why did the Qur'an itself feel the need to refute such influence and why does the next most-trusted authority after the Qur'an have a Christian scribe as the very first man to accept the Prophet's status as messenger and why does it say it was this man (and Waraqa is generally revered in Islam as a companion of the Prophet) that mentions Moses - long before Muhammad ever recited any revelation about him?

*It is worth noting that all of your hadith quotes came from the same source as mine - the Sahih Bukhari - which itself was compiled 200 years after Muhammad's death and the oldest surviving manuscript seems to date to about 150 years after that - that's fully 350 years after the period of revelation it is discussing in the parts both you and I quoted from. This book - despite the couple of centuries separating the alleged quoters from the reported quotations - is considered to be second only to the Qur'an as an authoritative Islamic text.
 
Last edited:

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
The main problem for Islam are the Ulama. That is why Islam went into a long slow decline after the Islamic Golden age whereas the West progressed. Once the Islamic world was the most advanced. Now progress is slowed and people are not free to have their own thoughts and beliefs.

Of all the historic facts, the crucifixion of Christ is widely accepted as true by most scholars.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

The idea that the gospels are so corrupted makes as much sense to Christians as if I were to tell you the Qur'an was swapped or had most of its verses altered and you don't have the real Qur'an anymore. When I hear Islamic apologists begin to explain how the gospel became corrupted they just seem to demonstrate their lack of basic knowledge about both the bible and history.

The problem you have is explaining why almost every book in the NT refers to Christ's crucifixion and then the historic evidence.



It is good we agree on most of the key differences. I'm not too sure what you are referring to when you mention twisted stories about some of the prophets. Do mean stories that don't agree with the Qur'an's version of events?



Of course we both have our own opinions and we interpret the verses we both believe to be from God differently. Perhaps a crucial difference between us is I'm free to have a different interpretation from most Muslim. I can examine the facts and make statements contrary to mainstream Islamic view. I think when you look at a verse for long enough and all the other Muslims believe this is what the verse means, it is hard to see it any other way. I do not see any verse in the Qur'an that refers to the version of the gospel that was around in Muhammad's lifetime as being corrupt. What you see when you read the verses are centuries of being conditioned to see those verses a particular way because that is your culture.



The verse you highlighted in red does sound literal because that's literally what happened. The Roman's did what Roman's do well and executed by crucifixion. Of course they did not crucify Christ's soul and His spirit lives on. But I suppose Muslims have believed for over a thousand years what that verse means. Tradition is a powerful determinant as to how we think whether we are Muslim or Christian.
So Christians say Jesus died and rose again. Muslims say a body double was killed and then Jesus appeared and disappeared and then was taken alive to heaven?

Then about the gospels being corrupted? You and I have talked about how the writers wrote years later and probably were not eyewitnesses. So maybe the gospels say exactly what the writers wanted to say but was it what Jesus really said and what Jesus really did? And haven't you used that very argument yourself? But aren't there small additions and other changes in the various gospel fragments?

But of course the early church's interpretations are the biggest problem and probable corruption. By making Jesus God himself and the only way to gain salvation they put Christianity above all the other religions. And unlike Baha'is, they do believe in a Satan and many say all the other religions are part of Satan's deceptive plan. And Baha'u'llah and Muhammad get put into that category by many Christians. There is no question in the minds of those Christians that Muhammad is not a messenger of God but a false prophet. And Baha'is are up against the same problem.

Both religions have to take apart the traditional Christian beliefs and point out areas that point to Muhammad and Baha'u'llah. But that is exactly what Christians did to Judaism. They made the Law obsolete and redefined Judaism to fit the Christian model. Islam then did it to Christianity and the Baha'is have done it to Islam. But each religion lives on and is adapting to the changes in the world today. And, each can point out why the newer religions are wrong and why it is best to stay with the old one. Anyway, thanks for another great thread.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
I don't see how a Muhammad's (peace be upon him) initial reaction would discredit what he came up with for 23 years. We don't even know how angel Gabriel looks like. After all the prophet is still a human.

The way I see it is that you are reaching too many conclusions assuming that the initial reaction was the same for all the period of prophecy
No - I am not attempting to discredit anything - I am attempting to understand. And to be honest, I think the immediate knee-jerk response of objecting to any suggestion that these extraordinary spiritual experiences may have human mental origins rather than divine origins says more about how outdated our view of human mental health is than anything about our views of religion. Different mental experiences does not necessarily equate to invalid or faulty mental experience. It could be that in those moments of intense mental experience (for want of a better word but not one with negative connotations) we get a glimpse of a deeper (spiritual) reality. The problem is - if I am right - when we "come back down to earth" as it were, we can only share that experience by putting it in words and context that make sense to us and our audience. Those who are really skilled at doing that end up with a religious following as others are convinced that they have "been in touch" with the greatest reality of all...and perhaps they have. All that is speculation - but based on what I perceive as similarities between the reported experiences of some of the founders of the great (and some not so great) religions that I mentioned earlier.

Anyway, I am not attempting to discredit Islam, Muhammad or the Qur'an - I am rather trying to understand them better.

And by the way, if we rely on Islamic tradition, we do know what the Angel Gabriel looks like - at least some of the time - the Prophet Muhammad described him as sometimes appearing like a man sitting in a chair. (I'm not going to suggest that perhaps Muhammad was, in fact, talking to a man sitting in a chair - oops - I think I just have inadvertently suggested that!)
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
And the idea that the source of "Muhammad's revelation" was in Jewish and/or Christian, or Jewish Christian traditions that were represented by Jews/Christians/Jewish Christians has a persistent presence throughout the modern period starting from John Toland, who wrote in 1722 "...you'll discover some of the fundamental doctrines of Mahometanism to have their rise...from the earliest monuments of the Christian religion."

I think what is being missed here is that all the Messengers of God could quote any scripture they needed or wanted to do so.

Notice that Muhammad supports Mary and Jesus and then warns the Christians to do away with a doctrine of the Trinity.

Then Muhammad teaches that all humanity has but One God, who in the Koran is called Allah. This then becomes the benchmark for humanity to obtain to.

In this, I found Baha'u'llah the best source to show us how this can be so, as Baha'u'llah qoted many scriptures that no others knew about. In fact they had to go and do lots of research before they could even locate these ancient but then verified traditions. There is a quote from Baha'u'llah about this ability.

Their knowledge, given of God, is timeless. That they only revealed to mans capacity in the age of the Message, is a great indication of their great Humility.

Peace be upon you.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
I think what is being missed here is that all the Messengers of God could quote any scripture they needed or wanted to do so.

Notice that Muhammad supports Mary and Jesus and then warns the Christians to do away with a doctrine of the Trinity.

Then Muhammad teaches that all humanity has but One God, who in the Koran is called Allah. This then becomes the benchmark for humanity to obtain to.

In this, I found Baha'u'llah the best source to show us how this can be so, as Baha'u'llah qoted many scriptures that no others knew about. In fact they had to go and do lots of research before they could even locate these ancient but then verified traditions. There is a quote from Baha'u'llah about this ability.

Their knowledge, given of God, is timeless. That they only revealed to mans capacity in the age of the Message, is a great indication of their great Humility.
Slow down Tony - I'm not up to what the Qur'an says about Mary and Jesus yet - I'll get to that later. For the present, @adrian009 challenged me to name a scholar that agrees with what he called "my theory" that Muhammad might have learned about some of the traditions he recited from Jews or Christians he rubbed shoulders with...I was merely showing that far from being an outlandish idea of my own originality, it was even suggested before the Qur'an was complete, during the period it was being compiled and afterwards there are hints even within the very tradition that also claims that such was not the case...and now, since the late 20th century but building on scholarship dating back as far as the 18th, there is an entire school of serious scholarship based around investigating that very idea. And this is all quite pertinent to the discussion of Muhammad's status as Messenger of God. If it seems, after a reasonably rigorous investigation, that the text of the Qur'an and the historical background against which it emerged, might have been subject to "Judeo-Christian" influence, then surely that casts doubt on Muhammad's Divine Messenger status. I have only just begun - starting with what Islamic tradition itself says about the origins and circumstances of the revelation.

So far, I think it is only reasonable to agree that there were Jews and Christians (notably Waraqa) who were very familiar with Jewish and Christian tradition on hand right there in Arabia when the Qur'an began to be revealed.

That is my first point (in this sub-topic investigating the circumstances of the revelation). Can we agree?
 
Last edited:

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Both religions have to take apart the traditional Christian beliefs and point out areas that point to Muhammad and Baha'u'llah. But that is exactly what Christians did to Judaism. They made the Law obsolete and redefined Judaism to fit the Christian model. Islam then did it to Christianity and the Baha'is have done it to Islam. But each religion lives on and is adapting to the changes in the world today. And, each can point out why the newer religions are wrong and why it is best to stay with the old one. Anyway, thanks for another great thread.

Now you are beginning to see how it is not so easy to introduce the concept of One God and One Humanity to a world that has put up barriers since time began.

It is a promise in all those Holy Books that a day of unity, a day where there will be One God, will happen.

Personally I see the barriers are falling that prevent this happening. So many people desiring that we all work together, while the few hungry for power push the world ever closer to a catastrophic correction.

It will be an amazing future, when we eventually admit our unity. We have the bounty to aid in bringing it about, if we so choose to do so.

Peace be with you.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
I am happy to do that, unless you wish to discuss where and how literal interpretation came to be and has its merits, from the Koran.

I always keep in mind that the Jews and Christains are yet to accept Muhammad and they also are literal in many interpretations. On the other Hand I know the Baha'i can except all the Messengers of God.

Is there any interpretaion of the Koran that is done metaphorically?

Peace be with you.
The problem with making everything "symbolic" or "spiritual" is that it makes the supernatural event ordinary. If Jesus only rose in spirit, how is that different than anybody else? Don't you believe everybody has a spirit that lives on?

However, the problem with believing something like walking on water, parting of the sea, or rising from the dead is literal then, why aren't those thing happening today? Although I sure some people think those things are happening. But, for the more "modern" thinker, those things aren't happening, and they aren't real. They sound like myths and legends from superstitious people. The problem with that though, is it makes whole religion sound like it is false and made up also.

Baha'is have gotten around this problem by calling these supernatural events "symbolic". But who is Moses is he didn't part the sea? Who is Jesus if he didn't rise from the dead?
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That is my first point (in this sub-topic investigating the circumstances of the revelation). Can we agree?

Ha ha, me now slow down, me move to fast, me look around my troubled soul......:D

Yes we each must determine where Muhammad's knowledge came from. That is a given surety and neccessary foundation.

Peace be with you.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The problem with making everything "symbolic" or "spiritual" is that it makes the supernatural event ordinary. If Jesus only rose in spirit, how is that different than anybody else? Don't you believe everybody has a spirit that lives on?

However, the problem with believing something like walking on water, parting of the sea, or rising from the dead is literal then, why aren't those thing happening today? Although I sure some people think those things are happening. But, for the more "modern" thinker, those things aren't happening, and they aren't real. They sound like myths and legends from superstitious people. The problem with that though, is it makes whole religion sound like it is false and made up also.

Baha'is have gotten around this problem by calling these supernatural events "symbolic". But who is Moses is he didn't part the sea? Who is Jesus if he didn't rise from the dead?

How else can we introduce Muhammad as a Messenger of God to a Christain? They would have to reconsider how they see Biblical Passages.

I think the key here is, is to know that for each scripture this is one outward meaning and 70 hidden meanings.

Thus all stories have some material base in an event that took place on this earth, but it is writtten in language that opens up numerous more spiritual insights.

Jesus on the Cross at His crucifixion and His raising from the dead are great examples of this.

In the end what do these understandings make us become. Are we lovers of all Humanity, do we serve all Humanity in the knowledge and Love of what Jesus did for us? Or do we use this for the exclusive personal saviour club and damn the rest of humanity to hell? I came to the understanding that it is useless to talk faith, if it only makes more hostility.

I go to church each Sunday and some if the sermons about how Christains are the only people with the Truth, are not easy to sit through. How can I show them love for Muhammad?

Peace be with you
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
...
"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"...
Look at the part I highlighted in red. When they said we killed Jesus peace be upon him were they speaking metaphorically? In the Arabic language if you go on to say something and than denied it, than you are denying all which has come before unless you specify which is true. I mean the Quraan states that they wanted to kill him (of course not metaphorically) and than the Quraan says that didn't happen (they did not kill him). This means they did not kill him literally.
Since it was a bit off topic, I have created a new thread replying to your hypothesis here: Quran 4:157 and the literalist hypothesis
 
Top