Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

[Vinayaka]

18.000 replies. Wow, and still not everything was said. God/Messengers must be great. Keep you all on your toes for 18.000 posts is proof enough

Stupidly, I was a main contributor. it went in circles.

 

[Dawnofhope]

1: That was exactly my first thought; oh my God, going backwards and forwards. Specially if I were to start today on this thread from page 1).
2: I can imagine: a)Krishna needed a bit more God in it [not just Messenger] + b)Buddha needed not so much God-association probably

Something like that.

One criticism was that of cultural misappropriation. That is the Baha'is has misappropriated the Founders of the different world religions and made them part of the Baha'i Faith.

Another criticism was that the Baha'i Faith being Abrahamic didn't really work for a Dharmic paradigm.

Then of course the obvious problem that the Baha'i Faith believes in One God yet in Hinduism there are many gods, and in Buddhism there may not be any God.

Having not been part of an interfaith discussion forum before, it provided me with an opportunity to learn a lot more about Buddhism, Hinduism, and paganism, as well as seeing criticisms and concerns others had about the Baha'i Faith.

The experience resulted in my becoming a member of the interfaith community of my city.

This thread for me is an opportunity to learn more about Islam, as well as make better sense of the Islamic roots of the Baha'i faith.

You have an opportunity to explore Islam here too.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Just a thought I had:

Middle Ages: Man were just very barbaric. At least my History lessons said so. Makes sense also, even some nowadays still have a bit left.

Suppose you walk into an arena with wolves, or even better tigers. What happens? Seems a silly question, but is it?

Can a saint live amid all barbaric people. Seems strange to me. Would God choose a pussycat to convert tigers?

So it seems not logical to me that Muhammad was a pussycat. He should be more like a tiger. [Story Goliath and David (killed lions with bare hands) comes to mind]

So with all the Barbaric people I think He was the same or worse. Otherwise He would have been dead in a second. He live relatively quite long till age 60

So I am not surprised of all the violent verses in the Quran. I would be surprised if they were clean verses though.

You can only remove a thorn with another thorn. So I don't say it was bad that Muhammad was allegedly cruel. I'd say it was needed at that time.

Please `shoot` me if I am totally wrong here. But I think it is not any more simple than this.

Muhammad and Quran verses are cruel, because that was needed at that time. Is that needed in this time? Don't think so. Ergo.

= = =

Other thought "How come the New Testament seems so clean and without violence"
Was 700 years earlier. Must have been worse I think. Curious if original verses were that clean and non violent

I think you are onto something here. A figure such as Jesus simply wouldn't have survived as a Messenger of God amidst the Barbaric Nomadic Arab tribes. It was a time of turmoil. Muhammad and His Followers were driven out of Mecca by the Quraysh tribe and fled to Medina. The Quraysh later attempted to invade and attack the Muslims but Muhammad repelled their attack. Later Muhammad and His followers returned to Mecca to gain control with relatively few casualties.

If Muhammad had been defeated by the Quraysh tribe it appears likely that many of the men would have been killed and the women and children taken as slaves. So it was defeat your enemies or be defeated.

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

The violent verses in the Quran emerged out of the times of conflict Muhammad faced against His adversaries.

During the time of Christ, it was very different. Christ advised His followers not to fight against the Romans whereas the Jews wanted a Messiah who would be like King David. During His last sermon Jesus counselled His followers to flee Jerusalem to protect themselves against the imminent destruction of that city.

In harsh times God has empowered warrior type figures to enable them to conquer those that would harm their people. Unfortunately in times past it was a world of kill or be killed.

 

[stvdv]

Something like that.
1: One criticism was that of cultural misappropriation. That is the Baha'is has misappropriated the Founders of the different world religions and made them part of the Baha'i Faith.
2: Another criticism was that the Baha'i Faith being Abrahamic didn't really work for a Dharmic paradigm.
3: Then of course the obvious problem that the Baha'i Faith believes in One God yet in Hinduism there are many gods, and in Buddhism there may not be any God.
Having not been part of an interfaith discussion forum before, it provided me with an opportunity to learn a lot more about Buddhism, Hinduism, and paganism,
as well as seeing criticisms and concerns others had about the Baha'i Faith.
The experience resulted in my becoming a member of the interfaith community of my city.
This thread for me is an opportunity to learn more about Islam, as well as make better sense of the Islamic roots of the Baha'i faith.
You have an opportunity to explore Islam here too.

Thank you for the summary. I appreciate that.
1 hour ago I just read the first page of that 882 pages long thread and quick calculation learned me it would take 150 hours. You saved me 6 days 24 hours/day reading

1: "Unity in Diversity" is not easy to accomplish. I believe it is about "Heart to Heart" connection, more than Religion to Religion" connection
2: I get that. Dharma[righteousness] is all about respecting each others' Dharma [Swadharma is individual Dharma even], something Abrahamic still has to work on IMO.
3: Hinduism leaves all free to practice their own. 0 Gods [No mind, no God, Turya]. 1 God ["only God exists", or "there is only 1 God"]. 2+++ Gods [if 2 is followed 3 is no problem

I also came here to see "Unity in Diversity". Learning to fully respect choice of others, not just in word but also get rid of judgmental thoughts is my goal. Needs practice, hence RF

I have been looking into Islam. Even posted one important issue on Quran Forum. Quite a few looked, but no one dared to answer the question. Was a very good and important question. But when one believes Quran is error free then one can not answer this question. So this Quran=ErrorFree dilemma closes down communication IMO

 

[Dawnofhope]

But both Constantine I and Valentinian had outlawed infanticide in Christendom in the 4th century - were they Messengers of God? It is not about me awarding myself points - we are considering evidence that Abdu'l Baha claims sets Muhammad apart as a divinely commissioned "educator of humanity". In any case, I believe the facts about the prevalence of infanticide in pre-Islamic Arabia are very obscure - and the image of barbarous and ignorant tribes wandering in spiritual darkness is only know to us from Islamic tradition. There is very little, if any, factual evidence to support the idea (boldly repeated by Abdu'l Baha) that such practices were any more prevalent in pre-Islamic Arabia than they were in other societies - before, during or after Muhammad's time. It may be true that Muhammad's teaching stamped out infanticide - especially among his own Arab people - but that just means he was one of very many people throughout history who have spoken against such barbarity - it is nowhere near being compelling evidence of a divine commission. So we can put that one aside.

I believe we can quite reasonably do the same with the heliocentrism thing - Muhammad simply had no idea - to judge by his words as reported in the Qur'an - whether the earth went round the sun or the sun went round the earth. And that's fine - nobody would expect him to know that - he never claimed to be an astronomer or cosmologist as far as I know. But the vague references in the Qur'an to the sun moving obviously do not suggest that he thought it stands still - as Abdu'l Baha seemed to imagine it did.

I am now - for the third time by my reckoning - asking you to pinpoint which other evidence that Abdu'l Baha presents is convincing enough to make a genuine case in favour of Muhammad's divine messenger status?

Infanticide being abolished in the relatively civilised Roman empire doesn't equate with it being abolished by a prophet of God where tribalism was the norm amidst much less civilised peoples. Nor did any Roman emperors who abolished slavery produce works that compare to the Quran. In fact I can't see too much Godly about Valentinian. Muhammad united various tribes and within a relatively brief span of time the Abbasid Caliphate would go on to establish Bahgdad what would become the Centre of learning within the Islamic Golden age.

Rejecting history because it is written by Muslims is simply prejudice as far as I can see. You wouldn't do it to Western historians because they were Christian, would you?

 

[stvdv]

Stupidly, I was a main contributor. it went in circles.

Circles in creation are good. Circles in the mind are questionable. When you learn from something I don't call it stupid [I did not see other 18.000 post threads anymore]

 

[Vinayaka]

Circles in creation are good. Circles in the mind are questionable. When you learn from something I don't call it stupid [I did not see other 18.000 post threads anymore]

I learned all I need to know in the first 1000 posts, probably less. Once a lesson is learned, if one is wise, they take that lesson and move on. I didn't.

 

[Vinayaka]

But when you believe Quran is error free then they can not answer this question. So this Quran=ErrorFree dilemma closes down communication IME.

Just like the infallibility issue in Baha'i'. The founder, his son, his grandson, and now the UHJ are all infallible, which means: I AM NEVER WRONG! Good luck with this.

 

[Muffled]

Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

There is absolutely no doubt that Muhammad** did not claim to be a god, he claimed to be only a prophet/messenger** of G-d*, and that he certainly was, else G-d* would have caught him from his neck and caused him to be killed. Right, please?
Muhammad was rather the last prophet/messenger of G-d* in status. Right, please?

Regards
____________
[3:3]Allah is He beside Whom there is no God, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/3
**[3:145]And Muhammad is only a Messenger. Verily, all Messengers have passed away before him. If then he die or be slain, will you turn back on your heels? And he who turns back on his heels shall not harm Allah at all. And Allah will certainly reward the grateful.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/3:145

I believe it is a rare thing when God eliminates a false prophet. At least he escapes that by not having any new prophecies.

I believe it appears he is the last to receive the word of God later written in the Qu'ran. Prophecy is a spiritual gift in Christianity and for that reason probably negates the need for a prominent prophet.

I don't remember him saying "only."

 

[Muffled]

Replacing it with genocide?

I believe that was not Mohamed but Ali.

 

[stvdv]

There is absolutely no doubt that Muhammad** did not claim to be a god, he claimed to be only a prophet/messenger** of G-d*

Very happy you don't claim
he claimed to be only a prophet/messenger
More happy you don't claim
he claimed to be only the prophet/messenger
Most happier you don't claim
he claimed to be the only prophet/messenger

But not sure if what you say is what you mean
Because
he claimed to be only a prophet/messenger
Might imply
There can come another prophet/messenger

and that he certainly was, else G-d* would have caught him from his neck and caused him to be killed. Right, please?

caught him from his neck = what a nice expression; this kind of God I like
caused him to be killed = not so nice expression; this kind of God not so my favorite
Right, please? = NO. If God had to kill all the bad guys, NOT 1 WOULD SURVIVE, Right, please?

Muhammad was rather the last prophet/messenger of G-d* in status. Right, please?

Muhammad was rather the last prophet/messenger of G-d = NO, even a Prophet/Messenger knows not God's Plan. You of all People, Muslim, should know. It's blasphemy.
Right, please? = NO wrong. You better re-read your Quran correctly [and don't be lazy and ask me which verses, please!]

 

[stvdv]

Just like the infallibility issue in Baha'i'. The founder, his son, his grandson, and now the UHJ are all infallible, which means: I AM NEVER WRONG! Good luck with this.

Hinduism I love because they very inclusive towards other religions as far as I experienced.
After 10 years in an ashram teaching "There is one caste, the caste of humanity"
I was very disappointed finding out that the religions outside the ashram were "different"
I tried many churches/mosques/denomination of them/Bahai etc. But alas.

But God is infallible, so probably "this is exactly how it is supposed to be". At least I can practice not to judge those that judge me. Could not do it without them

Ganesha played a nice word joke: the UHJ are all infallible, which means: "I AM" ... "NEVER WRONG!" Good luck with this

 

[Muffled]

Well of course they're all God..."Thou art God. I am God. All that groks is God".

I believe that is illogical.

 

[stvdv]

I learned all I need to know in the first 1000 posts, probably less. Once a lesson is learned, if one is wise, they take that lesson and move on. I didn't.

You are very honest, that is good. You are not the only "not moving on" #MeToo.

After 10 years India, seeing "Unity in Diversity" I went to a Baptist Church four years. But they were judgmental, stayed judgmental and will die judgmental.
The good thing: I was optimistic hoping to find "common ground" between the different Messengers/devotees". The lesson I was unrealistic so got desillusioned??
I knew it after 2 days I think. But kept on going for 4 years. Then I understood "Fata Morgana", it will never happen. At least I gave it a really good try [my last try]

At least I know that my "gut" feeling is quite good.

 

[stvdv]

Well of course they're all God..."Thou art God. I am God. All that groks is God".

I believe that is illogical.

Knowing is from the heart. Logic is from the mind.

So it's logical and correct to say "I believe that it's illogical"

Meaning "Thou art God" is Correct when experienced in the Heart

 

[siti]

You see how that verse is translated differently by each translator. It seems to me none of them got it completely right, or did not know what this verse is alluding to. How can an Arabic verse be translated in so many different ways?
The thing is, even today, probably most people do not know the Sun is fixed, but moving along its axis. So, these translators, most likely were unaware if this fact. They were thinking of apparent movement of Sun rise and sun set, and with that in mind, they translated this verse.

Exactly! So the verse is not particularly educational in regard to heliocentrism then is it? Presumably, if Muhammad had understood the heliocentric nature of the solar system and was divinely commissioned to "educate humanity" (as @adrian009 put it) about this - he could have chosen a less ambiguous way of expressing it - couldn't he?

BTW - the sun is not, in fact, fixed - just in case you (like Abdu'l Baha seems to have been) were unaware of that. And since - as you claim - most people even today are unaware of the true nature of the sun's motion - can I claim to be a Divine Messenger if I post a more accurate explanation?

 

[siti]

Rejecting history because it is written by Muslims is simply prejudice as far as I can see. You wouldn't do it to Western historians because they were Christian, would you?

I certainly would if their interpretations of history were religiously motivated. For example, I don't believe for one minute that the entire structure of Jewish leadership in 1st century Palestine was as woefully corrupt as the NT and its supportive interpreters would have us believe. I take such accounts with a pinch of salt - as I do any other kind of hype.

Infanticide being abolished in the relatively civilised Roman empire doesn't equate with it being abolished by a prophet of God where tribalism was the norm amidst much less civilised peoples. Nor did any Roman emperors who abolished slavery produce works that compare to the Quran. In fact I can't see too much Godly about Valentinian. Muhammad united various tribes and within a relatively brief span of time the Abbasid Caliphate would go on to establish Bahgdad what would become the Centre of learning within the Islamic Golden age.

And you call me prejudiced? Are you seriously comparing the Abbasid Caliphate with the Roman Empire? Do you know anything about history outside of the twisted versions of the Baha'i library? Sorry Adrian but that paragraph really takes the biscuit! How, for instance, do you suppose the Roman Empire became "civilized"? How do you suppose it progressed from Caligula to Constantine? Of dear, oh dear, oh dearie, dearie me! I am incredulous that an obviously well-educated man can make such preposterous comparison and claim it as evidence for "divine education".

 

[siti]

Well of course they're all God..."Thou art God. I am God. All that groks is God".

I believe that is illogical.

Knowing is from the heart. Logic is from the mind.

So it's logical and correct to say "I believe that it's illogical"

Meaning "Thou art God" is Correct when experienced in the Heart

"Thou art God. I am God. All that groks is God" is a quote from Robert A. Heinlein's 1961 sci-fi novel "Stranger in a Strange Land".

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Muhammad claimed to be a Messenger from God and this claim is now accepted by over 1.5 billion Muslims world wide.

The Baha'i Faith arguably the newest Abrahamic Faith emerged out of Persia, now Iran during the nineteenth century. The Founder, Baha'u'llah claimed also to bring a new Revelation from God. This was well received by many in Persia. In nineteenth century Shi'ite Islam there was an intense Messianic expectation similar to Judaism during the time of Christ. The Bab, the forerunner to Baha'u'llah was seen by tens of thousands to fulfil the Madhi prophecy in Shi'ite Islam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi#Bábí_and_Bahá'í_Faiths

Religious and governmental leaders viewed these developments with disdain and the Bab was excecuted by a militia of His own countrymen on 9th July 1850 along with many of His followers. Baha'u'llah was imprisoned and eventually exiled to Akka, the great fortress city of the Ottomon Empire. When Baha'u'llah passed away in 1892 His son Abdu'l-Baha became the leader of the Baha'i Faith. Eventually many Westerners embraced the Baha'i Faith and visited Abdu'l-Baha in Akka where he often remained a prisoner. During the early 20th century He educated the pilgrims about a wide variety of topics. During one of these talks he explained about the life of Muhammad and invited his audience to consider whether or not Muhammad was a Messenger of God. Most Westerners at the time knew little about Islam.

A copy of Abdu'l-Baha's talk is included for anyone to read and obviously presents the life of Muhammad in a favourable light.

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

Is Abdu'l-Baha's commentary reasonable? Should Muhammad be considered a Messenger of God?

Comments and questions as you will.

What possible use could an immanent being, able to know everyone and make itself known to everyone (not just one or two, or a few at a time) have of a "messenger?" This was always, even when very young, my first clue that everything I was "told about God" (presumably gleaned from one messenger or another) could be summarily relegated to the dustbin. If an omnipotent omniscience can't let me know what I need to know without having to hire Her Majesty's Post (or other delivery system) then clearly it ain't what it seems to claim to be.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Exactly! So the verse is not particularly educational in regard to heliocentrism then is it? Presumably, if Muhammad had understood the heliocentric nature of the solar system and was divinely commissioned to "educate humanity" (as @adrian009 put it) about this - he could have chosen a less ambiguous way of expressing it - couldn't he?

BTW - the sun is not, in fact, fixed - just in case you (like Abdu'l Baha seems to have been) were unaware of that. And since - as you claim - most people even today are unaware of the true nature of the sun's motion - can I claim to be a Divine Messenger if I post a more accurate explanation?

No, what you are missing is, when God chose Muhammad as His messenger, and revealed the Quran to Him, He also appointed 12 Imams to who He gave the knowledge of interpretation of the Quran. God asked everyone to learn interpretation of Quran only from these imams, as He made only them free from error. So, there is no vagueness. All they needed was to go and ask the imams, what the particular verse is talking about.
Unfortunately, most translators of Quran, did not use the traditions of the imams to know the correct interpretations. They used their own imaginations, or asked the wrong people. Thus you see, so many different translation for just a simple and clear verse.