Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

[stvdv]

14 jul 2018 stvdv 017 58

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

Not so strange. Year 0000, year 0700 they did not have internet, planes, cars, drones and stuff. So took a while to cover such a big distance seems to me. Walking and Boot
Year 1850, not yet internet, they had bicycle just invented. But Boats had 1000 years extra the time to reach [+bring the good news Krishna/Buddha] from East to the West.
So yes it does makes sense to me, common sense, that Bahaullah 1817-1892 included Buddha and Krishna [steamboat invented 1818 AD and 1819 crossing the Atlantic]
[Wonderful how God had Bahaullah born 1 year before the steamboat invention; Great planning I would call this; plenty of time to include Eastern Avatars in His Book]

By the way, Moses was around 1300 BC. So I kind of understand He did not mention Buddha, because Buddha still was not born for another 800 years

Jesus died around 35 AD. Very short lifespan, He did not walk towards Buddha and back. So not mentioning Buddha seems common sense to me also.

Now with internet and stuff, we have so many more Avatars from India and Saints from China. So next Messenger probable need a Big Book to mention them all

2012 it took a Dutch girl age 14 2 years to sail around the world. Understandable year 0000 it took much more time.
Starting at the age of 14 Laura set off on a journey to sail solo around the world, blessed by parents but not of the Dutch government. Laura completed her journey when she was 16 years old which made her the youngest person to ever sail around the world singlehanded.

1819 First Steam boat crossing atlantic: Miracle that Bahaullah even mentioned Buddha and Krishna in the year 1850
SS Savannah was an American hybrid sailing ship/sidewheel steamer built in 1818. She is notable for being the first steamship to cross the Atlantic Ocean, transiting mainly under sail power from May to June 1819.

Chinese started sailing 200 AD, but regular 960 AD; Understandable Jesus didn't mention Buddha. Boats didn't sail that much in those years
Junk is a type of ancient Chinese sailing ship that is still in use today. Junks were used as seagoing vessels as early as the 2nd century AD and developed rapidly during the Song dynasty (960–1279). They evolved and were used throughout Asia for extensive ocean voyages.

First ship sailing 1300 BC:
The oldest discovered sea faring hulled boat is the Late Bronze Age Uluburun shipwreck off the coast of Turkey, 1300 BC. The Phoenicians, the first to sail completely around Africa, and Greeks mastered navigation at sea aboard triremes, colonizing Mediterranean via ship.

First Boats 10.000 years ago; this canoe is in dutch museum in the Netherlands [some Christians told me Adam was born 6000 years ago]
The oldest recovered boat in the world, the Pesse canoe, found in the Netherlands, is a dugout made from the hollowed tree trunk of a Pinus sylvestris that was constructed somewhere between 8200 and 7600 BC. This canoe is exhibited in Museum in Assen, Netherlands.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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

Muhammad speaks about Christians and Jews as peoples of the book, so these groups have generally been protected. This perception extended to Buddhism early on in the history os Islam as the Caliphate Empires extended into Asian to occupy territories where Buddhists lived. Buddha clearly taught a higher ethical standard and there are clear records of their sacred teachings. Islam also extended into India in the late 7th century. The relationship has often been problematic with Muslims persecuting Hindus, in part fuelled by negative perceptions because of practices such as the polytheism of many Hindus.

The Baha’i Faith clearly recognises Buddha and Krishna as Manifestations of God and are enjoined to associate with peoples of all faiths in a spirit of love and fellowship.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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

I doubt if any of us feels belittled by a John because we’ve heard it all before so many times before. My friend @stvdv and I were encouraging John to think a little more deeply and broadly about the issues at hand. Saying ‘I believe X is true and anyone who doesn’t is wrong’ isn’t saying much.

 

[Trailblazer]

I wonder how our new female Bahai' member does with the gender bias in the UHJ, let alone the Baha'i inheritance laws.

I take no issue whatsoever with the UHJ being comprised only of men. Think about it... All Prophets so far have been men and all the 12 Apostles of Jesus were men. All of the 18 disciples of the Bab were men except Tahirih. So I logically conclude that God must have a reason for this, although it could change in the future. I have heard that the next Prophet could be a woman but that is just hearsay.

I do not know about the Bahai inheritance laws. Keep in mind I have been a Bahai for over 47 years but for all but the last five years or so I had nothing much to do with the Faith. Then when I decided to take it seriously, I was more concerned about reading the important Writings I need to know than about anything else.

 

[Trailblazer]

Obviously, there is only one truth.

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

Why can't there be more than one truth?

Does it make sense that there is only one religion that is true and God does not care about all the other people in the world? What kind of God would that be, certainly not a loving God.

Besides, Jesus did not want anyone to be left behind. He cared about that one lost sheep and He said...

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

 

[stvdv]

14 jul 2018 stvdv 017 59

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

Feet are very special in Hindu culture. Lot of respect. Never ever step on someone's foot [except of course an Avatar can put His foot on yours, then you are immensely blessed]

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

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

Speak for yourself please. Maybe you need to mature and become more sensitive and grow a softer skin.

No, I do not, for there is no need.
I am free to have my opinion and to express it whenever, wherever and to whomever I desire.

I hope you don't use your big foot to step insensitive and without empathy on others, though. Because that feeling I get from your writing

My Master says "Only speak if it improves the silence, when it is not hurting the other. Speaking obligingly when you can not oblige"
I like my Master His view way better than I like your view. Your words feel insensitive. Not very spiritual. Probably due to a thick skin [as per your words]

You don't seem to understand spirituality IMHO. Growing a thicker skin means becoming less sensitive, less empathy/feeling. So less Divine Connection. You really want that?
That is fine if you want that for yourself. But I do NOT follow your advice. I choose to become a sensitive, feeling, compassionate, empathetic human being.
I rather "use less of this given freedom to give my opinion" thereby becoming "more of a loving and respected person"

 

[stvdv]

14 jul 2018 stvdv 017 60

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

Agreed you put it correctly as "your opinion".
So you just have a "belittling opinion". That is your right. That only says something about yourself. Has nothing to do with the Truth or other people of course.

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

I would not expect anything else from "Vinayaka". The thick skinned elephant will never feel belittled.

It is funny though. I think there are not many creatures with such a thick skin as the elephant. But the elephant is very sensitive.

So the proverb "Grow a thick skin" is totally bull IMHO. Better "Grow a Big Understanding or so"
[So thanks for the reply @Vinayaka , that gave me this enlightening insight; thanks "Ganesha"]

I doubt if any of us feels belittled by a John because we’ve heard it all before so many times before. My friend @stvdv and I were encouraging John to think a little more deeply and broadly about the issues at hand. Saying ‘I believe X is true and anyone who doesn’t is wrong’ isn’t saying much.

Agreed. And it does say a lot about the person [lack of Love IMHO]. Indeed it does say nothing about "truth" or the one being belittled.

My Master [Sai Baba] says "Welcome being criticized. Because the people who criticize you take your bad karma by doing so [probably getting thick skin in the process]"
[But I am a very friendly person, so I rather warn them. I don't want them to get all my bad karma. But if they keep insisting they can have it all; don't say I didn't warn you though]

 

[Dawnofhope]

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your interesting and informative post. Good to hear you don’t feel negatively towards all theists. So what brings you to RF?

It would be hard to consider the history of humanity and weight up the origins of our laws and their effectiveness. I hadn’t heard of the code of hummurabi. It has a similar feel to Mosaic law and I note that it was thought to originate from a Babylonian god of justice. It appears to have emerged about 250 - 500 years before the Torah was revealed.

The language in the West has become very secular and freed somewhat from the language of religion that much is true. That is natural as the main world religions appear increasingly out of step with modernity.

Will religion be as relevant in the future as it has been in the past? I believe so but that’s another story.

 

[CG Didymus]

14 jul 2018 stvdv 017 58

Not so strange. Year 0000, year 0700 they did not have internet, planes, cars, drones and stuff. So took a while to cover such a big distance seems to me. Walking and Boot
Year 1850, not yet internet, they had bicycle just invented. But Boats had 1000 years extra the time to reach [+bring the good news Krishna/Buddha] from East to the West.
So yes it does makes sense to me, common sense, that Bahaullah 1817-1892 included Buddha and Krishna [steamboat invented 1818 AD and 1819 crossing the Atlantic]
[Wonderful how God had Bahaullah born 1 year before the steamboat invention; Great planning I would call this; plenty of time to include Eastern Avatars in His Book]

By the way, Moses was around 1300 BC. So I kind of understand He did not mention Buddha, because Buddha still was not born for another 800 years

Jesus died around 35 AD. Very short lifespan, He did not walk towards Buddha and back. So not mentioning Buddha seems common sense to me also.

Now with internet and stuff, we have so many more Avatars from India and Saints from China. So next Messenger probable need a Big Book to mention them all

2012 it took a Dutch girl age 14 2 years to sail around the world. Understandable year 0000 it took much more time.
Starting at the age of 14 Laura set off on a journey to sail solo around the world, blessed by parents but not of the Dutch government. Laura completed her journey when she was 16 years old which made her the youngest person to ever sail around the world singlehanded.

1819 First Steam boat crossing atlantic: Miracle that Bahaullah even mentioned Buddha and Krishna in the year 1850
SS Savannah was an American hybrid sailing ship/sidewheel steamer built in 1818. She is notable for being the first steamship to cross the Atlantic Ocean, transiting mainly under sail power from May to June 1819.

Chinese started sailing 200 AD, but regular 960 AD; Understandable Jesus didn't mention Buddha. Boats didn't sail that much in those years
Junk is a type of ancient Chinese sailing ship that is still in use today. Junks were used as seagoing vessels as early as the 2nd century AD and developed rapidly during the Song dynasty (960–1279). They evolved and were used throughout Asia for extensive ocean voyages.

First ship sailing 1300 BC:
The oldest discovered sea faring hulled boat is the Late Bronze Age Uluburun shipwreck off the coast of Turkey, 1300 BC. The Phoenicians, the first to sail completely around Africa, and Greeks mastered navigation at sea aboard triremes, colonizing Mediterranean via ship.

First Boats 10.000 years ago; this canoe is in dutch museum in the Netherlands [some Christians told me Adam was born 6000 years ago]
The oldest recovered boat in the world, the Pesse canoe, found in the Netherlands, is a dugout made from the hollowed tree trunk of a Pinus sylvestris that was constructed somewhere between 8200 and 7600 BC. This canoe is exhibited in Museum in Assen, Netherlands.

If Baha'is believe that the one and same God sent all the messengers of all the major religions, and that they were all in a progression, I would think each should have mentioned the previous one and built off those teachings. Theoretically, it should have only been the "social" laws that got changed and updated. But that's not what has happened. So Baha'is have to explain why the religions are so different and contradictory. Their answer is that God's message given to the prophets got mistranslated, misinterpreted, misunderstood, or changed by the followers. So pretty much any belief in any previous religion that doesn't agree with the Baha'i Faith is explained away.

Each new religion should have replaced the older religions, but that hasn't happened. There are very legitimate reasons why people hold on to their Scriptures and beliefs and reject the newer religions. Like in this case, should Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and any other religions considered by the Baha'is to be from God, have left their old religion and adopted the new one? What did Jews that converted to Christianity gain? Baha'is say most all the doctrines of Christianity are wrong? Same thing with Christians. What would they have gained by converting to Islam? How was Muhammad message better than the one from Jesus?

 

[stvdv]

If Baha'is believe that the one and same God sent all the messengers of all the major religions, and that they were all in a progression, I would think each should have mentioned the previous one and built off those teachings. Theoretically, it should have only been the "social" laws that got changed and updated. But that's not what has happened. So Baha'is have to explain why the religions are so different and contradictory. Their answer is that God's message given to the prophets got mistranslated, misinterpreted, misunderstood, or changed by the followers. So pretty much any belief in any previous religion that doesn't agree with the Baha'i Faith is explained away.

Each new religion should have replaced the older religions, but that hasn't happened. There are very legitimate reasons why people hold on to their Scriptures and beliefs and reject the newer religions. Like in this case, should Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and any other religions considered by the Baha'is to be from God, have left their old religion and adopted the new one? What did Jews that converted to Christianity gain? Baha'is say most all the doctrines of Christianity are wrong? Same thing with Christians. What would they have gained by converting to Islam? How was Muhammad message better than the one from Jesus?

I fully agree with what you said, except the first line.
Hindu scripture teach a lot about different incarnations. Poorna [full] Avatars incarnate with 16 divine characteristics, but sometimes Avatars incarnate with 12 divine characteristics. It all depends what is needed at the time. Avatars have this Omniscience thing with them. Bahaullah, Muhammad are not Avatars, they are messengers. They only know a little compared to Avatars. So that's why I explained that knowledge of previous messengers was available because of infra structure. I did not suggest in anyway that they got this knowledge from divine whispers.

My guru, Sai Baba, says that all religions lead to God. He advices to NOT change your religion. All have Love in them, and Love is the way to go. That is why he stated "atheists and humanist living respectfully with nature/creation need not change into a religion to reach the goal". I like this view much better. Stops the discrimination and judgments. Reading Bahullah myself I got the same feeling from His Book [from the part I read]. He was all about respecting other religions. But I am not an expert on Bahaullah. I am glad that so far I only read positive about him.

I am also realistic. Old scriptures will be less accurate than newer ones. Now we have audio recording and video even [can read lips even]. Computers to digitize the words. Luckily I have my conscience and when I purify my mind/heart/senses inside I will know many answers. This I find more trustworthy than blindly relying on old scriptures. But also okay to rely blind on your scripture is you wish. As long as you don't impose on others, then I see no problem.

It seems a human trait to think their scripture is the best. This causes all the problems in the world IMO. So I understand what you wrote. I always had the same questions.

 

[siti]

You also asked how I would translate the verse.
It is like this:

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

Right - so like I said earlier, this verse - the very one Abdu'l Baha chose to prove that the Qur'an taught about the "fixity of the sun" and others have taken as an indication of heliocentrism - is completely ambiguous - in reality, no further forward than the Psalmist who, more poetically, wrote about God setting "a tabernacle for the sun" for it to race back to across the sky - a fixed place to and from which it moves according the commandment of God (Psalms 19:4). That's the first point - the Qur'an simply does not say what Abdu'l Baha wants it to say.

So, at least here we have a Muslim explaining the verse similar to Abdulbaha.

Yes - a Muslim who was writing during the late 19th/early 20th century and...

I had added another reference later...http://lib.eshia.ir/12016/17/90/"وَالشَّمْسُ_تَجْرِي_لِمُسْتَقَرٍّ"

...Again you are attempting to use the testimony of 20th century scholar - this time Muhammad Husayn Tabataba'i who wrote his main work - which is what you referenced - Tafsir al-Mizan - between the 1950s and 1970s. On the pages that relate to the verse in question he does indeed make reference to the modern understanding of the solar system and - quite correctly - attributes this understanding to modern science, not a single reference in the entire section to any of the Twelve Imams and the only references other than to other parts of the Qur'an are to the exegeses of the 11th century scholar al-Raghib - but these are completely devoid of any hint about the "fixity" of the sun, the motion of the planets or anything to do with heliocentrism.
It is fascinating to look into these references and I have enjoyed reading around these topics - but enough is enough - are you able to cite a single genuine reference - in any language - to support your contention that the 12 Imams taught heliocentrism? Yes or No?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Right - so like I said earlier, this verse - the very one Abdu'l Baha chose to prove that the Qur'an taught about the "fixity of the sun" and others have taken as an indication of heliocentrism - is completely ambiguous - in reality, no further forward than the Psalmist who, more poetically, wrote about God setting "a tabernacle for the sun" for it to race back to across the sky - a fixed place to and from which it moves according the commandment of God (Psalms 19:4). That's the first point - the Qur'an simply does not say what Abdu'l Baha wants it to say.

Yes - a Muslim who was writing during the late 19th/early 20th century and...

...Again you are attempting to use the testimony of 20th century scholar - this time Muhammad Husayn Tabataba'i who wrote his main work - which is what you referenced - Tafsir al-Mizan - between the 1950s and 1970s. On the pages that relate to the verse in question he does indeed make reference to the modern understanding of the solar system and - quite correctly - attributes this understanding to modern science, not a single reference in the entire section to any of the Twelve Imams and the only references other than to other parts of the Qur'an are to the exegeses of the 11th century scholar al-Raghib - but these are completely devoid of any hint about the "fixity" of the sun, the motion of the planets or anything to do with heliocentrism.
It is fascinating to look into these references and I have enjoyed reading around these topics - but enough is enough - are you able to cite a single genuine reference - in any language - to support your contention that the 12 Imams taught heliocentrism? Yes or No?

Abdulbaha, also says this verse is an 'allusion'. He does not say this is a detailed and clear scientific book about fixity of the sun and movement around the axis.
However I think with correct translation, it can be understood, that the Author of Quran is thinking the Sun has a fixed location. Abdulbaha is simply stating that, although Muhammad was illiterate, yet He had correct knowledge of things that people in His time and location did not.
Regardless if I find an evidence from Imams or not, this point still holds. Just as you would not be able to fine any saying from Imams to state that the Sun is actually moving in an orbit and the earth is fixed.
You are saying the reference i provided from Muslim sources is from 20th century or so. But other translations which you found from your link are not any earlier either. So, how come they did not get it in this way?!

 

[siti]

if you search, you sure will find that they understood those verses of Quran to teach Heliocentric model.

Regardless if I find an evidence from Imams or not, this point still holds.

No IT - you cannot have both of these. Either you are sure that the Imams taught heliocentrism or you are not sure that is the case. If you are unable to provide any evidence at all, then how can you be sure that this is true? Because somebody told you. OK - how about I tell you that it is not true. In fact, if you examine the real evidence, the early Islamic scholars did not subscribe to heliocentrism and most of their attention - even as late as the 13th century polymath al-Tusi - whose work Copernicus clearly built on in order to develop his heliocentric model - was focused on modifying the Ptolemaic geocentric model (as indeed Copernicus himself did to begin with) - you can look all this up if you have a mind to - start by googling the phrase "Tusi couple" and "Copernicus" see where it goes - independent investigation of truth and all that...

...anyway, the more telling argument against Abdu'l Baha's contention that Muhammad was a "thorough educator" (in regard to heliocentrism" are the Prophet's own words - if he knew that the sun was the unmoving center of the universe - which of course we now know it isn't but Abdu'l Baha didn't know that - why in God's name did he say it was "moving" - and not a single translation (including your own) of verse 38 of Surah Ya-Sin that I have seen so far can get around that. It simply does not say what you want it to say.

Now - just to be clear - what I am not saying. I am not saying that Islamic "Golden Age" science and scholarship were not key factors in establishing both the renaissance and the age of scientific discovery in Europe. Certainly Copernicus was well aware of Islamic science - al-Tusi's was translated into Greek and copies have been found in Europe - Copernicus even uses identical arguments in his own works. And the Islamic scholars were doing science before anyone in Europe even knew what science was - they did not - as is popularly believed - simply rediscover Greek science and philosophy - they did very original work (no question about that). But they did get their kick start from translation of Greek works - including those of Ptolemy - into Arabic. They did not get the idea of heliocentrism - at all as far as I can tell (even though they unquestionably had access to Arabic translations of Aristarchus who was - as far as we know - the first to promote a heliocentric model in the 3rd century BC - and the writings of the Indian scholars Aryabhata and Brahmagupta suggesting a rotating earth) - but even if they did they certainly didn't get the idea from Muhammad.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

No IT - you cannot have both of these. Either you are sure that the Imams taught heliocentrism or you are not sure that is the case. If you are unable to provide any evidence at all, then how can you be sure that this is true? Because somebody told you. .

Don't worry, I do not say you have to believe what I believe. I simply don't think it is worth it for me to spend a lot of time looking for evidence. But you also have not been able to find evidence disproving it. So, we can leave it as that.


.

OK - how about I tell you that it is not true. In fact, if you examine the real evidence, the early Islamic scholars did not subscribe to heliocentrism and most of their attention - even as late as the 13th century polymath al-Tusi - whose work Copernicus clearly built on in order to develop his heliocentric model - was focused on modifying the Ptolemaic geocentric model (as indeed Copernicus himself did to begin with) - you can look all this up if you have a mind to - start by googling the phrase "Tusi couple" and "Copernicus" see where it goes - independent investigation of truth and all that...
.

I like your idea of independent investigation of truth.
But what are you trying to prove here really? That Muhammad is not really messenger of God? Or Bahai belief is false?

.

...anyway, the more telling argument against Abdu'l Baha's contention that Muhammad was a "thorough educator" (in regard to heliocentrism" are the Prophet's own words - if he knew that the sun was the unmoving center of the universe - which of course we now know it isn't but Abdu'l Baha didn't know that - why in God's name did he say it was "moving" - and not a single translation (including your own) of verse 38 of Surah Ya-Sin that I have seen so far can get around that. It simply does not say what you want it to say.

.

To me you are going beyond what the messengers of God' mission was. I do not believe that Quran is a scientific book, or the mission of Muhammad was to teach science or astronomy. Neither Abdulbaha is saying Muhammad was teaching that the Sun is the center, or fixed. To me You are simply misinterpreting the intention of Abdulbaha to something that you can easier disprove.
Abdulbaha is simply telling us that, there are allusions in Quran that the Sun is rotating around its axis and not moving like the earth or the moon around other planets. He is just pointing out that messengers of God have innate knowledge.
If the verse is translated correctly it states the Sun moves in a fixed place. The word used in the verse denotes that the Sun has a place and is not going anywhere else. Now if it is saying this relative to other planets in solar system then it is correct. It is beyond the mission or intention of a revelation to teach details of science.
Let's think why would Muhammad states in Quran the Sun moves in a fixed place, if the Arabs around Him believed the Sun is not fixed? Look, one of the things Quran keeps asking the people, is to think about its verses, because there is a proof of divinity in them, meaning there are signs in them, rather than explicit. So, when you think about it, you see a sign in this verse that the author of Quran had a knowledge beyond the people of His time. But, the verses are written in suchwise to give you the chance to deny its divinity.
So, if want to say that this verse is wrong, you can.

 

[siti]

But what are you trying to prove here really? That Muhammad is not really messenger of God? Or Bahai belief is false?

What am I trying to prove? Go back to the OP and see what Adrian asked for us to discuss:

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

Out of that talk, the Baha'is involved in this thread, following Abdu'l Baha's lead, chose to highlight the outlawing of infanticide and the introduction of a heliocentric model of the solar system as the the main evidence in favour of Muhammad's "Messenger of God" status.

Following the Baha'i principle of "independent investigation", I have concluded that Abdu'l Baha's commentary is not reasonable for the following reasons:

1. He was either mistaken or lying about the prevalence of infanticide among the indigenous peoples of North America and he was quite probably overstating the case regarding the prevalence of infanticide in pre-Islamic Arabia basing his "facts" solely on Muslim tradition - which, incidentally, he has just roundly condemned stating at the outset of his talk: "others were ignorant Muslims who repeated unfounded traditions about Muḥammad which they ignorantly believed to be to His praise." Even if I am wrong, neither AB nor anyone in this thread was able to provide any independently verifiable evidence regarding this, so at best, his comments have to go down as hearsay.

2. He was dead wrong about the Qur'an indicating heliocentrism - there is no evidence whatsoever that any Muslim scientist was guided to the notion of heliocentrism based on Muhammad's words. Worse yet, there is no evidence that any Muslim scientist - guided by any evidence - reached a heliocentric model of the solar system at any time before Copernicus. The "Doctors of Islam" that Abdu'l Baha referred to flatly denied heliocentrism and their efforts went rather into attempting to modify Ptolemy's geocentric system to better explain the apparent motion of the sun and the planets about the earth.

3. I have repeatedly asked Baha'is to explain what other compelling evidence Abdu'l Baha brought out that might clinch it in favour of Muhammad's "Messenger" status. None has been forthcoming.

Abdu'l Baha closed his talk by asking: "Was this illustrious Man a thorough Educator or not? A just judgment is necessary." For a just judgement, is hearsay and repeated tradition sufficient? For a just judgement, is ignorance of the true circumstances of indigenous American peoples or pre-Islamic Arabia sufficient? For a just judgement, is glossing over the fact that - even if early Muslim scholars did buy into a rotating earth and heliocentrism - the fact that they could much more easily have got those ideas from Aristarchus or Aryabhata (whose works we know were translated into Arabic quite early in the Islamic era) than from obscure and ambiguous verses in the Qur'an? For a just judgement, is it acceptable to claim "sure" knowledge that the 12 Imams taught heliocentrism when there is not one jot of evidence to support such a claim?

This thread is, frankly, an insult to the very notion of "independent investigation of truth" and "just judgement".

And you ask, what am I trying to prove? I have nothing to prove - I am making no claim - I am simply posting the results of my own independent investigation of the questions Adrian raised in the OP. And I find that Abdu'l Baha is a thoroughly discredited witness and if Muhammad should be considered a "Messenger of God" it is not for any of the reasons he stated in his talk.

 

[Trailblazer]

If Baha'is believe that the one and same God sent all the messengers of all the major religions, and that they were all in a progression, I would think each should have mentioned the previous one and built off those teachings.

The Messengers did mention the previous ones and build off His teachings.

Theoretically, it should have only been the "social" laws that got changed and updated. But that's not what has happened.

No, that is not exactly what happened. Two things changed: (1) the social laws and teachings and (2) the “primary message” which was connected to the mission of that Messenger for the particular age in which He appeared. Do you think that God would send a “new” Messenger just to update the social laws and teachings? Perhaps, but that is not what happened.

“These Manifestations of God have each a twofold station. One is the station of pure abstraction and essential unity. In this respect, if thou callest them all by one name, and dost ascribe to them the same attributes, thou hast not erred from the truth. Even as He hath revealed: “No distinction do We make between any of His Messengers.” For they, one and all, summon the people of the earth to acknowledge the unity of God, and herald unto them the Kawthar of an infinite grace and bounty. They are all invested with the robe of prophethood, and are honored with the mantle of glory. Thus hath Muḥammad, the Point of the Qur’án, revealed: “I am all the Prophets.” Likewise, He saith: “I am the first Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus.” Similar statements have been made by Imám‘Alí. Sayings such as these, which indicate the essential unity of those Exponents of Oneness, have also emanated from the Channels of God’s immortal utterance, and the Treasuries of the gems of Divine knowledge, and have been recorded in the Scriptures. These Countenances are the recipients of the Divine Command, and the Day Springs of His Revelation. This Revelation is exalted above the veils of plurality and the exigencies of number. Thus He saith: “Our Cause is but One.” Inasmuch as the Cause is one and the same, the Exponents thereof also must needs be one and the same. Likewise, the Imáms of the Muḥammadan Faith, those lamps of certitude, have said: “Muḥammad is our first, Muḥammad is our last, Muḥammad our all.”

It is clear and evident to thee that all the Prophets are the Temples of the Cause of God, Who have appeared clothed in divers attire. If thou wilt observe with discriminating eyes, thou wilt behold Them all abiding in the same tabernacle, soaring in the same heaven, seated upon the same throne, uttering the same speech, and proclaiming the same Faith. Such is the unity of those Essences of Being, those Luminaries of infinite and immeasurable splendor! Wherefore, should one of these Manifestations of Holiness proclaim saying: “I am the return of all the Prophets,” He, verily, speaketh the truth. In like manner, in every subsequent Revelation, the return of the former Revelation is a fact, the truth of which is firmly established….

The other station is the station of distinction, and pertaineth to the world of creation, and to the limitations thereof. In this respect, each Manifestation of God hath a distinct individuality, a definitely prescribed mission, a predestined revelation, and specially designated limitations. Each one of them is known by a different name, is characterized by a special attribute, fulfils a definite mission, and is entrusted with a particular Revelation. Even as He saith: “Some of the Apostles We have caused to excel the others. To some God hath spoken, some He hath raised and exalted. And to Jesus, Son of Mary, We gave manifest signs, and We strengthened Him with the Holy Spirit.”

It is because of this difference in their station and mission that the words and utterances flowing from these Well Springs of Divine knowledge appear to diverge and differ. Otherwise, in the eyes of them that are initiated into the mysteries of Divine wisdom, all their utterances are, in reality, but the expressions of one Truth. As most of the people have failed to appreciate those stations to which We have referred, they, therefore, feel perplexed and dismayed at the varying utterances pronounced by Manifestations that are essentially one and the same.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 50-53

The first part of the Religion of God which refers to spiritual truth is the same in every religion. The second part of the Religion of God which refers to material things is different in each religion. It changes in each prophetic cycle to accommodate the needs of the times.

In the following passage, the Law of God refers to the divinely revealed religion of God. The spiritual message (spiritual virtues and divine qualities) are the same in all the great world religions:

“the Law of God is divided into two parts. One is the fundamental basis which comprises all spiritual things—that is to say, it refers to the spiritual virtues and divine qualities; this does not change nor alter: it is the Holy of Holies, which is the essence of the Law of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá’u’lláh, and which lasts and is established in all the prophetic cycles. It will never be abrogated, for it is spiritual and not material truth; it is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy. It shows mercy to the poor, defends the oppressed, gives to the wretched and uplifts the fallen......

These divine qualities, these eternal commandments, will never be abolished; nay, they will last and remain established for ever and ever. These virtues of humanity will be renewed in each of the different cycles; for at the end of every cycle the spiritual Law of God—that is to say, the human virtues—disappears, and only the form subsists.

The second part of the Religion of God, which refers to the material world,and which comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries—this part of the Law of God, which refers to material things, is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times.” Some Answered Questions, pp. 47-48

In addition to these two parts of the Religion of God, we have the primary mission of each Messenger, which changes from age to age; and it is progressive, each mission building upon the previous one. Jesus focused on a high standard of morality and discipline into man, as the fundamental unit in human society. Muhammad focused on nation building, and Baha’u’llah focused on world unity and the oneness of mankind. Each one of these was a necessary building block that enabled the next one to take place. Mankind’s spiritual evolution develops gradually, proceeding step by step, and that is why God reveals religious Truth in various stages over time, called Progressive Revelation.... For example:

“The Revelation associated with the Faith of Jesus Christ focused attention primarily on the redemption of the individual and the molding of his conduct, and stressed, as its central theme, the necessity of inculcating a high standard of morality and discipline into man, as the fundamental unit in human society. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find any reference to the unity of nations or the unification of mankind as a whole. When Jesus spoke to those around Him, He addressed them primarily as individuals rather than as component parts of one universal, indivisible entity.......

The Faith of Islám, the succeeding link in the chain of Divine Revelation, introduced, as Bahá’u’lláh Himself testifies, the conception of the nation as a unit and a vital stage in the organization of human society, and embodied it in its teaching. This indeed is what is meant by this brief yet highly significant and illuminating pronouncement of Bahá’u’lláh: “Of old [Islamic Dispensation] it hath been revealed: ‘Love of one’s country is an element of the Faith of God.’” This principle was established and stressed by the Apostle of God, inasmuch as the evolution of human society required it at that time. Nor could any stage above and beyond it have been envisaged, as world conditions preliminary to the establishment of a superior form of organization were as yet unobtainable. The conception of nationality, the attainment to the state of nationhood, may, therefore, be said to be the distinguishing characteristics of the MuHammadan Dispensation, in the course of which the nations and races of the world, and particularly in Europe and America, were unified and achieved political independence.....

“One of the great events,” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá has, in His “Some Answered Questions,” affirmed, “which is to occur in the Day of the manifestation of that Incomparable Branch [Bahá’u’lláh] is the hoisting of the Standard of God among all nations. By this is meant that all nations and kindreds will be gathered together under the shadow of this Divine Banner, which is no other than the Lordly Branch itself, and will become a single nation. Religious and sectarian antagonism, the hostility of races and peoples, and differences among nations, will be eliminated. All men will adhere to one religion, will have one common faith, will be blended into one race, and become a single people. All will dwell in one common fatherland, which is the planet itself.” The Promised Day Is Come, pp. 119-121

(Continued on next post)

 

[Trailblazer]

So Baha'is have to explain why the religions are so different and contradictory. Their answer is that God's message given to the prophets got mistranslated, misinterpreted, misunderstood, or changed by the followers. So pretty much any belief in any previous religion that doesn't agree with the Baha'i Faith is explained away.

Simply put, the reason religions are different is because each Messenger had a different mission thus a different message. These messages are successive and build upon the previous message but they do not contradict each other. The original intent (message) of the New Testament was all messed up by the Church interpretation of scriptures and the doctrines that resulted. That is why the message of Christianity “appears” to contradict messages of all the other religions! By trying to make Christianity unique and special, and Jesus the “only way,” Christianity made religion static and religion was ripped from the context of progressive revelation. However, if one looks at the intent of the New Testament, it fits perfectly within the framework of progressive revelation. Clearly, Jesus prepared the way for Baha'u'llah and He was the Herald of the Kingdom of God on earth:

“Jesus created a power of perceiving God which was new, and in order that it might operate clearly, had to cleanse the spirit of man from all worldly encumbrances. Virtue becomes detachment from the world, sin attachment to it. Jesus demanded this sacrifice — losing the life of the world for the life of the spirit, but He made God so attractive, so joyous, loving, powerful, that the Christian was ready to abandon all for Him, and for Christ Who revealed Him.

Thus the tremendous and fearsome Deity of the Old Testament wins men's hearts in the New. We read of the poor sparrow whose fall was watched by a loving Father, of the flower of the field and the bird of the air, and the tenderest stories that ever have won men's hearts — the prodigal son and the good Samaritan.

A new quality of love now characterizes the Kingdom, a love which united the believers not only with God, but with each other, and even extended to enemies and "them that hate you." "That ye love one another" became the test of Christian discipleship.

The supreme ideal of this love was, as shown in John, the relationship between Christ and the Father, and though revealed in the most simple language and the plainest words, stands as the highest expression of Divine love in scripture.

The result was that Jesus' teachings let loose upon the soul and heart of man a spiritual power such as never had been known in the world before. Historians have said that Jesus' teaching has done more to elevate human nature and civilization than all the laws of legislators and the disquisitions of philosophers combined. By releasing religious energies measured to the needs of the hour and the people, He opened the way to the Kingdom of God in men's hearts. New affections and aspirations, hopes and loyalties were brought into being and the whole moral world was carried into a state of flux.”
Christ and Baha'u'llah, Chapter 4

Each new religion should have replaced the older religions, but that hasn't happened. There are very legitimate reasons why people hold on to their Scriptures and beliefs and reject the newer religions. Like in this case, should Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and any other religions considered by the Baha'is to be from God, have left their old religion and adopted the new one?

According to Baha’u’llah they should have and the primary reason that adherents of older religions should recognize and adhere to the newest religion is because God sent a new Messenger with a new message, so by turning away from the new Messenger one fails to get the new message God wants everyone to have. Also, since the Messengers are really all one Spirit of God (as the passage in the previous post explains), turning away from the new Messenger is akin to turning away from all the previous Messengers:

“Be thou assured in thyself that verily, he who turns away from this Beauty hath also turned away from the Messengers of the past and showeth pride towards God from all eternity to all eternity.” Bahá’u’lláh, Tablet of Ahmad

There is another reason why they should have turned to the new Messenger, in this day Baha’u’llah:

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172

What did Jews that converted to Christianity gain? Baha'is say most all the doctrines of Christianity are wrong? Same thing with Christians. What would they have gained by converting to Islam? How was Muhammad message better than the one from Jesus?

Jews who converted to Christianity gained a belief in Jesus. Unfortunately, that also gained the false doctrines of the Church. Christians who converted to Islam gained a belief in Muhammad and what He taught that was new and they also gained an appreciation for progressive revelation and the correct understanding of the nature of Jesus and His mission. So those Christians gained a whole lot.

The message of Muhammad was not “better” than the message of Jesus. None of the messages of any Messenger of God were better than any other messages, according to Baha’i beliefs.

As Baha’is, we are not to prefer any of the Messengers of God over any other, because we believe God is One and all his religions were all revealed by the One True God. Each Messenger had a specific purpose and mission that was prescribed by God and it was “pertinent” to the day in which He appeared. Some of them such as Jesus and Baha’u’llah had a more important mission but we are not to elevate any of the Messengers over any other.

"Beware, O believers in the Unity of God, lest ye be tempted to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of His Cause, or to discriminate against the signs that have accompanied and proclaimed their Revelation. This indeed is the true meaning of Divine Unity, if ye be of them that apprehend and believe this truth. Be ye assured, moreover, that the works and acts of each and every one of these Manifestations of God, nay whatever pertaineth unto them, and whatsoever they may manifest in the future, are all ordained by God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated His signs, and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 59-60

 

[Dawnofhope]

To your credit, you are the only one here who has taken the time to actually critique what I asked. Obviously we have different perspecectives and will have to agree to disagree.

For perspective we need to remeber we are considering a talk given by Abdu'l-Baha in Akka at a table to Westerners who knew little about Islam and Muhammad. The talk would have last no longer than 10 - 15 minutes. It was not a scholarly work that looks in any detail at Islam. The purpose was simply to encourage and stimulate further investigation, not to make a set of definitive statements that would make any further study unnecessary. For a more scholarly Baha'i work on Islam consider:

H M Balyuzi - Muhammad and the course of Islam

https://www.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTGu_vHfw6d1sFPpRHHflMMkmTO2eIGusjZ1rpJwMm_CEFuG_qE&imgrefurl=https://books.google.com/books/about/Mu%E1%B8%A5ammad_and_the_Course_of_Isl%C3%A1m.html?id=t7kbAAAAMAAJ&source=kp_cover&h=400&w=275&tbnid=2LN8_1fy3_AtTM:&q=balyuzi+muhammad+and+the+course+of+islam&tbnh=160&tbnw=109&usg=__ISnQBqFtxJADgQpGORqNs1danyk=&vet=10ahUKEwjxvJ_H7KfcAhXCKZQKHfO-B78Q_B0IeTAK..i&docid=jR7VOiISOwVAMM&itg=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxvJ_H7KfcAhXCKZQKHfO-B78Q_B0IeTAK

http://www.holy-writings.com/?a=SHOWTEXT&d=/en/Bahai+Faith/2+-+Bahai+Studies/H.M.+Balyuzi/Muhammad+and+the+Course+of+Islam.txt

Out of that talk, the Baha'is involved in this thread, following Abdu'l Baha's lead, chose to highlight the outlawing of infanticide and the introduction of a heliocentric model of the solar system as the the main evidence in favour of Muhammad's "Messenger of God" status.

It was you who chose infanticide and heliocentricity.

<a href="https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/was-muhammad-a-messenger-of-god.210265/page-13#post-5692186">Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?</a>

Remember?

Following the Baha'i principle of "independent investigation", I have concluded that Abdu'l Baha's commentary is not reasonable for the following reasons:

1. He was either mistaken or lying about the prevalence of infanticide among the indigenous peoples of North America and he was quite probably overstating the case regarding the prevalence of infanticide in pre-Islamic Arabia basing his "facts" solely on Muslim tradition - which, incidentally, he has just roundly condemned stating at the outset of his talk: "others were ignorant Muslims who repeated unfounded traditions about Muḥammad which they ignorantly believed to be to His praise." Even if I am wrong, neither AB nor anyone in this thread was able to provide any independently verifiable evidence regarding this, so at best, his comments have to go down as hearsay.

We've discussed this at length. We agree to disagree.

2. He was dead wrong about the Qur'an indicating heliocentrism - there is no evidence whatsoever that any Muslim scientist was guided to the notion of heliocentrism based on Muhammad's words. Worse yet, there is no evidence that any Muslim scientist - guided by any evidence - reached a heliocentric model of the solar system at any time before Copernicus. The "Doctors of Islam" that Abdu'l Baha referred to flatly denied heliocentrism and their efforts went rather into attempting to modify Ptolemy's geocentric system to better explain the apparent motion of the sun and the planets about the earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology_in_medieval_Islam#Early_heliocentric_models

There were certaily a number of medieval Islamic scientists who explored theories of heliocentricity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Zakariya_al-Razi

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Biruni

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Sijzi

To what extent if any their studies were inspired by the Quran is a question for scholars to address.

As stated by another, the purpose of Abdu'l-Baha's reference in regards this theory is to highlight the innate knowledge of God's Manifestations.

3. I have repeatedly asked Baha'is to explain what other compelling evidence Abdu'l Baha brought out that might clinch it in favour of Muhammad's "Messenger" status. None has been forthcoming.

I referred to the Quran and the Islamic Golden age as evidence, that you have largely ignored in preference of a strawman of your own invention.

Of course you are not going to be convinced. You are a skeptic and cynic.

Abdu'l Baha closed his talk by asking: "Was this illustrious Man a thorough Educator or not? A just judgment is necessary." For a just judgement, is hearsay and repeated tradition sufficient? For a just judgement, is ignorance of the true circumstances of indigenous American peoples or pre-Islamic Arabia sufficient? For a just judgement, is glossing over the fact that - even if early Muslim scholars did buy into a rotating earth and heliocentrism - the fact that they could much more easily have got those ideas from Aristarchus or Aryabhata (whose works we know were translated into Arabic quite early in the Islamic era) than from obscure and ambiguous verses in the Qur'an? For a just judgement, is it acceptable to claim "sure" knowledge that the 12 Imams taught heliocentrism when there is not one jot of evidence to support such a claim?

I'm not convinced and am still open to exploring further. You have made your judgment. I accept that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ja'far_al-Sadiq

Understandably, most of the earliest Arab astronomers accepted the then dominant Ptolemy’s geocentric model, though there were important exceptions. One of these exceptions is Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (8th century). Jafar was probably one of those few earliest Quranic commentators who were bold enough to refute Ptolemaic geocentric model. He suggested a heliocentric theory that was based on his view that every object in the Universe is in eternal motion, in which Earth’s rotation on its axis causes day and night and its rotation around the Sun explains seasonal variations. The Afghan astronomer al-Balkhi (9th century) developed a planetary model which can be interpreted as a heliocentric model (the Sun at the centre of our planetary system). Later, Alhazen (11th century) raised serious doubts on Ptolemy and proposed the Earth’s rotation on its axis. Then several Arab scholars, al-Hashimi, al-Biruni, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Sinjari, Qutb al-Din, and Maragha astronomers like al-Qazwini, Urdi, Ibn al-Shatir and others – partly under the influence of Indian astronomers like Aryabhata – gradually developed a heliocentric idea and a mathematical model.

https://lampofislam.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/heliocentric-concepts-in-the-quran/

This thread is, frankly, an insult to the very notion of "independent investigation of truth" and "just judgement".

Harsh words indeed.

And you ask, what am I trying to prove? I have nothing to prove - I am making no claim - I am simply posting the results of my own independent investigation of the questions Adrian raised in the OP. And I find that Abdu'l Baha is a thoroughly discredited witness and if Muhammad should be considered a "Messenger of God" it is not for any of the reasons he stated in his talk.

OK, then.

 

[siti]

For the record @adrian009 you mentioned infanticide in passing on page 1 and highlighted it as a particular point page 2 - fully 9 pages before I decided to pick up on it - as up to then it was the only comment you had made that was relevant to the topic you posted!

I referred to the Quran and the Islamic Golden age as evidence, that you have largely ignored in preference of a strawman of your own invention.

Well that's rich! "Strawman"? - did Abdu'l Baha not mention the "fixity of the sun" in Sura 36:38 as proof that Muhammad was a "great Educator"? In fact it was the closing argument in the talk you specifically asked us to comment on - was it not? How is that a "strawman"?

You did indeed mention the Golden Age and specifically its importance in ushering in the European renaissance - and the topic of heliocentrism is a fitting aspect of this process that - if investigated properly and independently (of religious bias) - shows that such "revolutions" of human knowledge were based on science not revelation. Abdu'l Baha would have been well-advised to research this topic more thoroughly before making the claims he did on behalf of Muhammad.

Please read the links you posted properly - Jafar al-Sadiq (the 6th Imam) apparently challenged the Ptolemaic model but did not develop a heliocentric model; Abu Mashar went to India for ten years to study astronomy; al-Biruni wrote that he couldn't prove whether or not the earth rotated as al-Sijzi had suggested - and although he apparently favoured a rotating earth, he also makes reference (in a commentary on Indian astronomy) to a work in which he refutes heliocentrism (but the work he refers to has apparently been lost); al-Razi quoted Seleucus of Seleucia - who, following Aristarchus - promoted a heliocentric model (in the 2nd century BC) which is known only from the Arabic translation of his work (its pretty obvious that al-Razi got the idea from Seleucus not Muhammad...but in any case, as far as I am aware, al-Razi did not specifically support a heliocentric model anyway...

...it is a well-known fact that the works of the ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle, Ptolemy, Aristarchus...etc. and Indian scholars such as Brahmagupta and Aryabhata were among the first works to be translated into Arabic in the Islamic era...and Islamic scholars debated, argued, observed and did experiments to verify, refute, amend and improve on what they learned from these sources...and they did a brilliant job of moving science forward...

The European renaissance and the scientific revolution were indeed ignited and illuminated by the Islamic Golden Age - but the knowledge that was passed on was derived from scientific observation and scholarly ingenuity not divine revelation. Copernicus does indeed seem to have been aware of, borrowed from and built on, the work of al-Tusi and other later Golden Age Islamic scholars but Muhammad, as far as we can tell from the words he is supposed to have received as recorded in the Qur'an, had absolutely no idea about any of this science. In what sense then, in regard to the examples Abdu'l Baha chose to highlight, was he "a great Educator" as Abdu'l Baha claimed?

 

[Dawnofhope]

An interesting video on the rise and fall of the Muslim world from the perspective of the invention of paper and the printing press.