Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

[duvduv]

Well, let's first investigate the significance of ancient manuscripts after testing the ink and the parchment since in those days parchments were reused after removing the text. Then there is the matter of whether the Sa'ana text is actually from the Quran itself or could be selections that may have been later incorporated into the Quran. This is problematic because official Islamic doctrine states that the Quran today is the same as what was revealed to Muhammad.
Especially since as an ostensibly divine document one would not expect to find words or verses mixed up, and given the interesting fact that many suras are traceable to the Midrash Rabba and Pirkei Rabbi Eliezer in the educated Jewish circles.
Then there is the matter of the inscriptions of the Haram Al-Sharif mosque in Jerusalem that refer to No God but Allah, with no mention of Muhammad.

Lets look at the historicity of the Quran then:

What commends it (Quran) so powerfully to the historian is its authenticity, not as the Word of God, of course, as the Muslims believe but as the secular historian cannot and should not, but rather as a document attesting to what Muhammad said at that time and place, early seventh-century Mecca. It is not a transcript, however; our present Quran is the result of an edition prepared under the orders of Uthman... but the search for significant variants in the partial versions extant before Uthman's standard edition, what can be called the sources behind our text, has not yielded any differences of great significance. Those Uthmanic clues are fragmentary, however, and large 'invented' portions might well have been added to our Quran or authentic material deleted. So it has been charged in fact by some Muslims who failed to find in the present Quran any explicit reference to the designation of a successor to the Prophet and so have alleged tampering with the original texts. But the argument is so patently tendentious and the evidence adduced for the fact so exiguous that few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is in fact what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Quran#Historical_authenticity

The earliest version of the Quran available is the Sana'a Manuscript. We have the lower text where radiocarbon dating places it between 578 and 669 based on 95%confidence intervals with radiocarbon dating. 669 is only 37 years after the prophet Muhammad passed away in 632.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript

That should get us started.....

 

[siti]

That's not true. The Bab's wife Khadijah Bagum was the first to recognise Him, just as Muhammad's wife Khadijah bint Khuwaylid was the first to recognise Him.

...oh yes - as recorded by Haji Mirza Habibu’llah Afnan - her grand-nephew, who wasn't even born until 30 years after his "appearance"...so, in fact, it is even worse than I suspected - not only was it not recorded until long after the Bab's appearance, but it wasn't even a first hand account!

 

[Dawnofhope]

Well, let's first investigate the significance of ancient manuscripts after testing the ink and the parchment since in those days parchments were reused after removing the text. Then there is the matter of whether the Sa'ana text is actually from the Quran itself or could be selections that may have been later incorporated into the Quran. Especially since as an ostensibly divine document one would not expect to find words or verses mixed up, and given the interesting fact that many suras are traceable to the Midrash Rabba and Pirkei Rabbi Eliezer in the educated Jewish circles.
Then there is the matter of the inscriptions of the Haram Al-Sharif mosque in Jerusalem that refer to No God but Allah, with no mention of Muhammad.

The lower case of the Sana'a manuscript was almost certainly an early version of the Quran before Uthman's version (order during his reign as the 3rd Caliphate during the period 644 to 656 AD). He ordered the destruction of all other variants presumably to standardising the text. Too many variants were emerging because of the different dialects of the Arab people. You may be aware that the parchment used was often reused. The original lower case text (pre-Uthman) was erased and a newer version written on top. The variation does raise interesting questions though which is a good thing. However I'm not aware any reputable scholar seriously saying the Qur'an is unreliable in portraying what Muhammad said. Whether or not He had a message from God is another story. Presumably we have the Christian apologetics and no doubt proponents of your faith advocating it is not reliable. I'm aware of such extreme bias with some Christian apologists that its hard to take them seriously. It would be interesting to hear the criticisms the Jews have about the Qur'an's authenticity.

Please tell me more about the associations with educated Jews and Rabbis.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'm not sure - I am looking into the similarities that have accompanied this type of sudden astonishing appearances of supernatural "beings" that have accompanied the opening up a new "revelation". I am thinking of Moses and the burning bush, Jesus in the wilderness, Muhammad, Baha'u'llah, Joseph Smith - all of them were completely alone - the Bab's "first revelation" seems to have been in a room with just two people including himself - they never seem to happen when more than one or two people are around to see it - and even when God's voice occurs when there is a crowd around, only one person - e.g. Moses at Sinai, Jesus when he was praying before his capture and crucifixion - hears a voice - everyone else just thinks it thundered. I'll be very happy to learn of exceptions and I am still in the early stages of investigating this aspect but it does seem that isolation is a key component.

I have read that Baha'u'llah was in prision chained to many others when He saw His Vision.

At the baptisim of Jesus, it was said the dove descended upon him.

What I have read is this is again just outward symbolism of a far greater spiritual event, as each of the Messengers are born of the Holy Spirit, they are from a young age known to be extraordinarily different from us that are born of the Human Spirit.

It was the symbolisim of the Virgin birth of Jesus that first introduced this understanding to us.

Peace be upon you.

 

[Dawnofhope]

...oh yes - as recorded by Haji Mirza Habibu’llah Afnan - her grand-nephew, who wasn't even born until 30 years after his "appearance"...so, in fact, it is even worse than I suspected - not only was it not recorded until long after the Bab's appearance, but it wasn't even a first hand account!

Nor was the Sahih al-Bukhari's recounting of what Aisha may or may not have said about what Muhammad may or may not recounted of His early experience in the cave of Hira. Yet you seem to want to treat it as reliable and my source that is based on a first hand account as unreliable.

 

[siti]

Nor was the Sahih al-Bukhari's recounting of what Aisha may or may not have said about what Muhammad may or may not recounted of His early experience in the cave of Hira. Yet you seem to want to treat it as reliable and my source that is based on a first hand account as unreliable.

You know very well that's not the case - you know very well that I don't accept al-Bukhari's retelling of the "first revelation" story as a reliable account - you know very well that if I did believe it I would be a Muslim...but here we are examining the traditional accounts and alleged "proofs" of Muhammad's Messenger of God status - we can't do that without looking into what Islamic tradition says because Islamic tradition is the ONLY evidence there is for Muhammad as a Messenger of God. So if you want to throw that out, then you have no choice but to concede the argument and admit that there is NO EVIDENCE to support your argument for Muhammad as a Messenger of God. You know very well that that has been my argument from the start.

 

[j1i]

Christians believe in a real evil spirit being called Satan. By what you have said, so do Muslims. But Baha'is do not. Is there a way that the Baha'is are correct in saying Satan is only symbolic and not real? Or, does the Quran state that Satan is very real and out to deceive people?

Satan is mentioned as a creature of jinn darkness
Lucifer is the devil in Arabic Iblis
Lucifer is not the creatures of angels
but he was the rank of the angels


But he was cursed and expelled for refusing to prostrate to Adam
Prostration is not a prostration of worship but a prostration of respect
Prostration to God but passed through Adam in honor of him

after that
Yet God offered repentance to Lucifer And his soldiers of the him, those who are disobedient from the jinn
the Lucifer said, When Adam was alive I did not prostrate to him
so you want me prostrate to him when he is dead
I will not prostrate nor repent

God warned man against the evil behavior of Satan
In how to draw him to do sin
god says in quran
Did I not covenant with you, O Children of Adam, that you shall not serve the devil? That he is your sworn enemyDid I not covenant with you, O Children of Adam, that you shall not serve the devil? That he is your sworn enemy
Satan wants revenge and wants to make people become his slaves
So he suggested a lot of lies
One of the greatest lies is the idea of the Trinity
God with Satan (lucifer) and with the Dajjal (666) THE FALSE LIAR
Trinity idea means

there a lot of verses
O you who believe! Enter into submission, wholeheartedly, and do not follow the footsteps of Satan; he is to you an outright enemy.

Satan promises you poverty, and urges you to immorality; but God promises you forgiveness from Himself, and grace. God is Embracing and Knowing.

That is only Satan frightening his partisans; so do not fear them, but fear Me, if you are believers.

Have you not observed those who claim that they believe in what was revealed to you, and in what was revealed before you, yet they seek Satanic sources for legislation, in spite of being commanded to reject them? Satan means to mislead them far away.


and this very important verses

116 God will not forgive that partners be associated with Him; but will forgive anything less than that, to whomever He wills. Anyone who ascribes partners to God has strayed into far error.
117 They invoke in His stead only females. In fact, they invoke none but a rebellious devil.
118 God has cursed him. And he said, "I will take to myself my due share of Your servants."
119 "And I will mislead them, and I will entice them, and I will prompt them to slit the ears of cattle, and I will prompt them to alter the creation of God." Whoever takes Satan as a lord, instead of God, has surely suffered a profound loss.
120 He promises them, and he raises their expectations, but Satan promises them nothing but delusions.
121 These-their place is Hell, and they will find no escape from it.

Baha'a al - Din is a demonic thinking
He wants to pave the way for accepting the Dajjaal (666) THE FALSE LIAR
God does not belong to us
God does not worshiped in something He created
If you are a king
Would you accept to be embodied in a frog in front of people or mosquitoes?
Or be a mole
What is the need for that and you are king
How do you think that God, the Creator, is embodied in man? every times?
Irrational things are all plans and tricks of Satan

Have you seen a scientist go to study in the first grade with children

 

[siti]

I have read that Baha'u'llah was in prision chained to many others when He saw His Vision.

At the baptisim of Jesus, it was said the dove descended upon him.

What I have read is this is again just outward symbolism of a far greater spiritual event, as each of the Messengers are born of the Holy Spirit, they are from a young age known to be extraordinarily different from us that are born of the Human Spirit.

It was the symbolisim of the Virgin birth of Jesus that first introduced this understanding to us.

On the first part, I did not claim anything about the circumstances of Baha'u'llah's revelation except his mental condition as reported by himself - I have no idea whether he was alone or chained to others at the time - I'm not sure there is any record that confirms this either way.

I also didn't mention anything about Jesus' baptism - although I can see it might be linked to the topic in the sense of it marking the point at which Jesus is identified as God's Messenger - but by whom? According to the synoptic Gospels, it was God's voice that made the announcement, but, it seems, only Jesus heard it...in John's Gospel John the Baptist testifies that he saw the dove symbolizing the presence of the "Son of God"...and the (non-canonical and hypothetical) Gospel of the Nazarenes has the persuading the other way round - i.e. it was John that persuaded Jesus to be baptized. Of course there is no way of confirming any of this but...

...it is interesting to me that, (according to religious traditions), Muhammad's supernatural experience was put into a religious context by the aged and religiously knowledgeable Waraqa (his cousin), Jesus' experience may have been influenced by John (his cousin), Moses by the Midianite priest Jethro (his father-in-law), the Bab's by Mulla Husayn (his fellow and ardently faithful Shaykhi)...and so on...

 

[j1i]

Thank you for your thoughts in regards the schism in Islam between Sunni and Shi’a. Do you have Hadiths in your tradition that you would consider the most reliable?

Of course I am a Baha’i and am proud to be considered such. Although I believe Muhammad to be a Messenger of God and the Holy Quran to be the authentic repository of the Word of God, I have no desire to bear the name Muslim.

“Perhaps you hate a thing that is best for you, and you love a thing that is bad for you. Allah knows, while you know not.” – [Quran, 2:216]

The practices of some Shiite sects are incompatible with Islam and the quran
The Bahá'í Faith is different from Islam and it exists to accept the Dajjaal (666) as God

God will send Jesus at the end of time to kill him and will be one of the Muslims

God does not belong to man or Baha'i

Read the last post written for the other member

If you are a king
Will you embody a frog or a mosquito in front of people and you will say I am the great king

If you are a Great scientist, you will go to study in school with baby children
a c c d e f j
or
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

[j1i]

Let me quote form the Quraan.

4:157

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

Is it belong, or is it Submission to God?

Peace be with you.

The practices of some Shiite sects are incompatible with Islam and the quran
The Bahá'í Faith is different from Islam and it exists to accept the Dajjaal (666) as God

God will send Jesus at the end of time to kill him and will be one of the Muslims

God does not belong to man or Baha'i

Read the last post written for the CG Didymus
If you are a king
Will you embody a frog or a mosquito in front of people and you will say I am the great king

If you are a Great scientist, you will go to study in school with baby children
a c c d e f j
or
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

[Dawnofhope]

You know very well that's not the case - you know very well that I don't accept al-Bukhari's retelling of the "first revelation" story as a reliable account - you know very well that if I did believe it I would be a Muslim....

I don't consider al-Bukhari's Hadith reliable either. My belief that Muhammad is a Messenger of God has absolutely nothing to do with that Hadith.

...but here we are examining the traditional accounts and alleged "proofs" of Muhammad's Messenger of God status - we can't do that without looking into what Islamic tradition says because Islamic tradition is the ONLY evidence there is for Muhammad as a Messenger of God.

The Hadith's are acknowledged to be of limited reliability. The Qur'an in its entirety is the evidence, not the Hadith and certainly not a single hadith.

So if you want to throw that out, then you have no choice but to concede the argument and admit that there is NO EVIDENCE to support your argument for Muhammad as a Messenger of God. You know very well that that has been my argument from the start.

I didn't know that was your argument and it seems absurd to assess the merits or otherwise of Islam on any one hadith, but go ahead.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You know very well that's not the case - you know very well that I don't accept al-Bukhari's retelling of the "first revelation" story as a reliable account - you know very well that if I did believe it I would be a Muslim...but here we are examining the traditional accounts and alleged "proofs" of Muhammad's Messenger of God status - we can't do that without looking into what Islamic tradition says because Islamic tradition is the ONLY evidence there is for Muhammad as a Messenger of God. So if you want to throw that out, then you have no choice but to concede the argument and admit that there is NO EVIDENCE to support your argument for Muhammad as a Messenger of God. You know very well that that has been my argument from the start.

Do you not find it obvious, that those who try to exterminate a Faith, would also choose not to note down the History and if they did make note of it, falsify the records in their warped frame of mind?

I think from my search so far the best evidence of this are the Faiths of the Bab and Baha'u'llah. It is recent and we can see what happened to a new Faith.

For gosh sake they even destroy gravesites and all the places that this Faith held holy.

I think one really needs to be fair here, the best evidence is from those that only wanted to offer Love and hope from a new belief, Faith that required nothing but honesty.

Peace be with you.

 

[siti]

I didn't know that was your argument and it seems absurd to assess the merits or otherwise of Islam on any one hadith, but go ahead.

My argument is that there is ONLY Islamic tradition to attest to Muhammad's status as Messenger of God. The Qur'an "in its entirety" is a product of Islamic tradition so I think it behooves anyone investigating to ask how the same Islamic tradition suggests that the revelation came about. And it turns out that the very second person (after his wife) that Muhammad went to for advice after his supernatural experience was a cousin who just happened to be a Christian scribe or copyist. Who better to teach him about Moses and Joseph etc? But no - you insist - the Prophet was illiterate - he could only have got it by divine revelation! And you call my argument "absurd"?

But OK then - lets take the Qur'an "in its entirety"...

...so far, you have suggested the Surah al Yusuf as evidence - but that Surah says nothing whatsoever about Muhammad's divine messenger status and there is every indication in Islamic tradition that long before Muhammad "revealed" this Surah (the content of which had been well-known to both Christians and Jews for centuries before he "revealed" it) Muhammad had had direct dealings - including discussions about religion - with Christians (and probably Jews) who were not only known to him personally but who were related to him and his wife and were living right there where he was. There is nothing in the Surah al Yusuf, not a single word, that Muhammad could not easily have obtained through the simple and mundane strategy of talking to his friends and family. How can that possibly be evidence of divine messenger status? And you call my argument "absurd"?

You offer a link to a "commentary" on this Surah allegedly composed in one night by "the Bab" whilst the only observer was in an ecstatic trance. So what does this 19th century "revealer" have to say about Muhammad based on his divinely inspired understanding of the Surah al Yusuf? Nothing. Not a single word about Muhammad in the parts that are in the abridged English translation you linked to. It does refer to the martyrdom of Husayn (the Prophet's grandson), but nothing about Muhammad. And very little about Joseph or the content of the Surah itself for that matter. and you offer this as evidence of Muhammad's divine messenger status and call my argument "absurd"?

So - up to now, you have given us a Surah that doesn't speak about Muhammad and a commentary that barely comments on either the content of that Surah or Muhammad as evidence for Muhammad's divine messenger status.

And yet there you are in all boldness suggesting that my argument is "absurd"?

What am I missing here? What logical disconnect connects the pieces together for you? What cognitive dissonance resonates with your worldview? What leap of blind credulity am I missing that would enable me to join the dotty picture (pun definitely intended) together into the blissful(ly ignorant) panorama that you evidently see without any evidence?

 

[siti]

Faith that required nothing but honesty.

As far as I can tell this is an oxymoron. If anything, faith seems to require dishonesty. And therein lies the problem.

The truth is this: Abdu'l Baha was dishonest (either deliberately or by neglect) in his appraisal of both Islamic tradition and history. For example, he claims knowledge of the circumstances of the pre-Islamic Arabs that is known ONLY from Islamic tradition - the same tradition that he also denounces as "ignorant". And you and the other Baha'is in this discussion are doing the same thing - over and over again. That is not honesty - but you are faithful - I'll grant you that. If Baha'u'llah or Abdu'l Baha said it, you accept it without question and faithfully set about the time-honoured religious tradition of altering history to suit the tenets of religious faith you have had handed down to you. Honest it isn't. Faith it is. Blind, credulous, unfounded and often profoundly ignorant faith (my God, I sound like Richard Dawkins - I wonder if he ever had a conversation with a Baha'i - could explain his obvious frustration with religion) - and don't get pissed at me for saying "ignorant" - if Abdu'l Baha can say it, why shouldn't I? What's sauce for the religious goose is sauce for the irreligious gander - wouldn't you agree?

 

[siti]

If you are a Great scientist, you will go to study in school with baby children
a c c d e f j

No, indeed! But it might be a good idea to brush on the alphabet now and again!

 

[j1i]

No, indeed! But it might be a good idea to brush on the alphabet now and again!

Do you not find it obvious, that those who try to exterminate a Faith, would also choose not to note down the History and if they did make note of it, falsify the records in their warped frame of mind?

I think from my search so far the best evidence of this are the Faiths of the Bab and Baha'u'llah. It is recent and we can see what happened to a new Faith.

For gosh sake they even destroy gravesites and all the places that this Faith held holy.

I think one really needs to be fair here, the best evidence is from those that only wanted to offer Love and hope from a new belief, Faith that required nothing but honesty.

Peace be with you.

​

sometimes we are human beings and have limited powers and abilities
Our memory has been erased with times because we became elders
But you understand my intention (its clear) hahha
If man is in the power of mental and motor activity
Will he need to go to study with the children?


We do not measure ourselves by the Creator and We make God belong to us
The Creator does not materialize )Embodied materially(
God does not belong to anyone
Or God has no need for incarnation
These are all satanic Malicious tools
Only to satisfy your spiritual appetite

This is nonsense
Everyone will say that God visited me and drank with coffee and I feel that I have abilities
This is contrary to logic and reason

 

[siti]

Everyone will say that God visited me and drank with coffee and I feel that I have abilities

But except for the coffee bit, that's exactly what Muhammad is reported to have said isn't it?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

As far as I can tell this is an oxymoron. If anything, faith seems to require dishonesty. And therein lies the problem.

The truth is this: Abdu'l Baha was dishonest (either deliberately or by neglect) in his appraisal of both Islamic tradition and history. For example, he claims knowledge of the circumstances of the pre-Islamic Arabs that is known ONLY from Islamic tradition - the same tradition that he also denounces as "ignorant". And you and the other Baha'is in this discussion are doing the same thing - over and over again. That is not honesty - but you are faithful - I'll grant you that. If Baha'u'llah or Abdu'l Baha said it, you accept it without question and faithfully set about the time-honoured religious tradition of altering history to suit the tenets of religious faith you have had handed down to you. Honest it isn't. Faith it is. Blind, credulous, unfounded and often profoundly ignorant faith (my God, I sound like Richard Dawkins - I wonder if he ever had a conversation with a Baha'i - could explain his obvious frustration with religion) - and don't get pissed at me for saying "ignorant" - if Abdu'l Baha can say it, why shouldn't I? What's sauce for the religious goose is sauce for the irreligious gander - wouldn't you agree?

No I can not agree as my search has found otherwise.

Muhammad was a Messenger of Allah. Baha'u'llah and Abdul'baha were unsurpassed in their knowledge of the Koran and Traditions. This can not be refuted and you would have to prove Baha'u'llah and Abdul'baha were ignorant. Remember they were banished as no one could refute the arguments Baha'u'llah put forward, too many saw the divinity in Him and were embracing the Faith. Abdul'baha was seen as a perfect reflection of His Father and even the greatest enemies of them acknowledged their great knowledge.

My search has been over many years and over those years I have read much about Muhammad, the Koran and the Baha'i Faith and admire that this is more recent history. I am satisfied that history is mainly distorted by the persecutors, not the persecuted.

My search has uncovered that no person could ever enter Baha'u'llah's presence and even present a sound argument and in the case of Abdul'baha he conversed with people of all faiths and all professions and all had something to learn, this was also the case for Baha'u'llah. Even those that went to assassinate Baha'u'llah became dumfounded and lost the ability to carry out their intent. The last thing they can be called is ignorant.

Thus if we want to learn about Muhammad and the Koran, I have found no better source than Baha'u'llah and Abdul'baha. I am accepting they had the authority of Allah.

Peace be with you.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

​

sometimes we are human beings and have limited powers and abilities
Our memory has been erased with times because we became elders
But you understand my intention (its clear) hahha
If man is in the power of mental and motor activity
Will he need to go to study with the children?


We do not measure ourselves by the Creator and We make God belong to us
The Creator does not materialize )Embodied materially(
God does not belong to anyone
Or God has no need for incarnation
These are all satanic Malicious tools
Only to satisfy your spiritual appetite

This is nonsense
Everyone will say that God visited me and drank with coffee and I feel that I have abilities
This is contrary to logic and reason

Hi jIi, I would offer we are all limited in power and ability, All power is of Allah and Allah's to give.

Knowledge in scriptures, does not guarantee knowledge of the Spirit given by Allah as Allah gives connection to that Spirit to whoever Allah chooses to give it to.

What is nonsense, is that we argue over our one God, Allah and as such we become ignorant.

Peace be with you.

 

[j1i]

But except for the coffee bit, that's exactly what Muhammad is reported to have said isn't it?

Mohammed did not talk about coffee
I wrote this as an expected example of the image of chaos
Not ridicule and mockery
The theme of the incarnation of God, is a waste
God does not accept this and has warned us that our punishment will be in the Fire
this is what I meant
My words are simple and clear
That's my belief
You have the freedom to believe
I will pray to God and pray for you and enlighten your way
Bye