Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

[siti]

I'm not insisting on anything. The whole area of study around the apocraphyl gospels, their origins and history, along with how it ties in with early Christian history appears a fascinating area of study in its own right, regardless of what extent it intersects with Islam. Its definitely useful to analyse the first section of the Surah of Mary as it relates to the story of Mary and Jesus and consider similarities and differences between different gospels. Hopefully I'll find some time over the weekend to study it more closely.

OK then.

Actually the first section of the Surah al Maryam is about Zechariah and John the Baptist (the prophet Yahya in Islam - it more or less follows the same outline as the canonical Gospel although much briefer in terms of details although it does add a little about John's extraordinary character and devotion - which possibly might betray a Sabian (as the Qur'an calls them) or Mandaean (perhaps) influence. The Mandaeans still exist and revere John the Baptist as a prophet greater than Jesus. I'm thinking that influence - which emerged in late antiquity (i.e. pre-Islamic times) in southern Mesopotamia may be evident in the elevation of Yahya (and in Islam Zakariya too - not sure about Mandaean or Sabian views of Zechariah - I haven't got that far yet) to prophethood equal (or nearly equal) to that of Jesus. (in fact, according to Islamic tradition, when the Mandaeans were called before the Caliph during the Muslim conquest of Mesopotamia, it was due to the reverence for John the Baptist that they were included with the Sabians as "People of the Book" and accorded the same protections as Jews, Christians and Sabians). I believe Baha'u'llah refers to the Mandaeans as Sabaeans somewhere in his writings as well - but you might have to look that up for me (if you don't mind) - I can't seem to locate the reference.

Anyway, that's all covered in the first few verses of the Surah al Maryam (and there is a little more detail regarding Zechariah and Mary in the Surah al Imran (Quran 3:35-37) - Imran of course being Joachim - the father of Mary whose story also derives (as far as we know) from the Christian apocrypha...this time the Gospel of James - but again, I haven't investigated the parallels between them in detail yet...but the Muslim tradition makes the mothers of both John and Jesus sisters (daughters of Imran). Anyway, this too is an interesting study.

Anyway, Zakariya and John take up the first 15 verses of the Surah al Maryam. Mary's story is in verses 16-34 followed by a commentary on the error of elevating Jesus to the status of the Son of God (more Sabian/Manaean influence perhaps?) which I have already commented on.

Then from verse 41-58 mention (and not much more) is made of Abraham, Moses, Ishmael and Enoch - an interesting (as I sit here writing this) list because these (from what I have read so far) were prophets that the Mandaeans did not recognize - indeed, it seems, they classified Abraham, Moses and Jesus (in particular) as "false prophets" - which is the point I believe Baha'u'llah has made somewhere pinpointing their "error". Anyway, that's another interesting line of study I think.

The rest of the Surah seems to be a bit more polemical - denouncing the idea of Allah having a Son a couple more times and prognosticating adverse judgement for the unfaithful and entry into "the garden" for the true believers.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I think the important thing here is to do a thorough unbiased investigation into the matter using ones own mind and intelligence.

Don’t just believe everything you read. It’s so easy to be gullible and naive instead of vigilant when it comes to being on high alert against misinformation, prejudice and bias which so many websites are spreading regarding Muhammad.

Just as there are negative accusations also too there is plenty of proof showing Muhammad to be a pure soul with an impeccable character and to indeed be a Messenger of God.

If one is unbiased and fair they should look at all the arguments not only the negative ones.

 

[siti]

I think the important thing here is to do a thorough unbiased investigation into the matter using ones own mind and intelligence.

Don’t just believe everything you read. It’s so easy to be gullible and naive instead of vigilant when it comes to being on high alert against misinformation, prejudice and bias which so many websites are pushing regarding Muhammad.

Just as there are negative accusations also too there is plenty of proof showing Muhammad to be a pure soul with an impeccable character and to indeed be a Messenger of God.

If one is unbiased and fair they should look at all the arguments not only the negative ones.

How is saying there are "negative accusations" as opposed to "plenty of proof" not biased LH? You have presented zero evidence either way and yet you have already determined in your mind that any evidence that might suggest Muhammad got at least some information from mundane sources are "negative accusations". That is the definition of "prejudice" and "bias".

In any case, is there anything that I have written that you can show to be untrue by reference to genuinely independent sources? So far, all the positive evidence has been derived from either Baha'i sources or cherry-picked from Muslim tradition. That's not an "unbiased investigation" is it? That is - as you put it - being "gullible and naive".

Anyway, as I said at the end of one of my earlier posts - I am not trying to "prove" anything - I am just showing that the Surah al Maryam - the one we are discussing at present - has numerous parallels in non-Muslim traditions that were known to be in circulation before and during the time the Qur'an was being compiled. We can all draw our own conclusions from that fact.

 

[loverofhumanity]

How is saying there are "negative accusations" as opposed to "plenty of proof" not biased LH? You have presented zero evidence either way and yet you have already determined in your mind that any evidence that might suggest Muhammad got at least some information from mundane sources are "negative accusations". That is the definition of "prejudice" and "bias".

In any case, is there anything that I have written that you can show to be untrue by reference to genuinely independent sources? So far, all the positive evidence has been derived from either Baha'i or Muslim sources. That's not an "unbiased investigation" is it? That is - as you put it - being "gullible and naive".

Anyway, as I said at the end of one of my earlier posts - I am not trying to "prove" anything - I am just showing that the Surah al Maryam - the one we are discussing at present - has numerous parallels in non-Muslim traditions that were known to be in circulation before and during the time the Qur'an was being compiled. We can all draw our own conclusions from that fact.

Hi Siti

I was just posting a general comment on the topic of Muhammad and how I think we should approach seeking out the truth of whether He was a Messenger or not.

 

[siti]

Just a note here - I am absolutely amazed that after more than 50 people have voted more than 40 percent believe that Muhammad either was or might have been a Messenger of God!

 

[siti]

I was just posting a general comment on the topic of Muhammad and how I think we should approach seeking out the truth of whether He was a Messenger or not.

Yes but your post was clearly biased in the way it was worded - that's what I was pointing out. I am sure you know that I am neither gullible nor naive - and also that I don't simply reproduce stuff from the internet without checking the veracity first. I know that you didn't direct the post at me - but the intended effect of your post seems to have been to cast doubt on any information presented that is contrary to what you have already decided constitutes overwhelming "proof showing Muhammad to be a pure soul with an impeccable character and to indeed be a Messenger of God". In fact, what you seem to want is for people to search out positive data that supports that hypothesis - that's called "confirmation bias" - its a standard proselytizing tactic but in the case of Baha'is I'm honestly not sure whether you even know you're doing it! It certainly isn't subtle enough to catch anyone but the most "gullible and naive" but still - it makes me suspicious of both your motive and your ability to investigate independently. Anyway, I'm not taking offense at all - just trying to balance your lop-sided approach.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yes but your post was clearly biased in the way it was worded - that's what I was pointing out. I am sure you know that I am neither gullible nor naive - and also that I don't simply reproduce stuff from the internet without checking the veracity first. I know that you didn't direct the post at me - but the intended effect of your post seems to have been to cast doubt on any information presented that is contrary to what you have already decided constitutes overwhelming "proof showing Muhammad to be a pure soul with an impeccable character and to indeed be a Messenger of God". In fact, what you seem to want is for people to search out positive data that supports that hypothesis - that's called "confirmation bias" - its a standard proselytizing tactic but in the case of Baha'is I'm honestly not sure whether you even know you're doing it! It certainly isn't subtle enough to catch anyone but the most "gullible and naive" but still - it makes me suspicious of both your motive and your ability to investigate independently. Anyway, I'm not taking offense at all - just trying to balance your lop-sided approach.

I’ve done a thorough independent investigation and found out what’s true and what’s not.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes but your post was clearly biased in the way it was worded - that's what I was pointing out. I am sure you know that I am neither gullible nor naive - and also that I don't simply reproduce stuff from the internet without checking the veracity first. I know that you didn't direct the post at me - but the intended effect of your post seems to have been to cast doubt on any information presented that is contrary to what you have already decided constitutes overwhelming "proof showing Muhammad to be a pure soul with an impeccable character and to indeed be a Messenger of God". In fact, what you seem to want is for people to search out positive data that supports that hypothesis - that's called "confirmation bias" - its a standard proselytizing tactic but in the case of Baha'is I'm honestly not sure whether you even know you're doing it! It certainly isn't subtle enough to catch anyone but the most "gullible and naive" but still - it makes me suspicious of both your motive and your ability to investigate independently. Anyway, I'm not taking offense at all - just trying to balance your lop-sided approach.

I appreciate your stance. I like it you search all things.

In the end I think what you note about Baha'i, is an strong foundation in what each person has found in Faith. When one is certain of what they have found to be true, it is hard to give a view that is not based in that certainty. Many Baha'i that choose to post, may have been doing study for many decades and this has only added to the certainty and what better foundation than to know that Muhammad is confirmed as a Messenger of God by Baha'u'llah and that Baha'u'llah practiced that Faith prior to giving His Message. There is no greater certainty ,that the One God Muhammad taught about in the Koran, is the Same God of all Faiths. It is a message that suits this age as man searches for their unity.

Now in the case of the Baha'i and them putting a view forward, it would have to be proved that the writings offered by Baha'u'llah on this subject were not accurate about Islam, that is if we want to refute what He has offered. The issue here is that even the best of the Muslim Scholars could not do this, they could not fault his knowledge and they one and all had resign to the fact that Baha'u'llahs knowledge on this subject was unsurpassed. The greatest scholar of the time was sent to refute the cause of Baha'u'llah and soon found that he was no match and ended as a great scholar in the Baha'i cause.

Do you feel that is a fair stance?

Peace be with you.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Lets consider the some points you have raised more closely.

OK - so can we now move on to the second Surah you suggested - the Surah al Maryam (Qur'an 19).

It is fairly obvious that whilst the general gist of the narrative - the annunciation, virgin birth, flight to Egypt and so on - follows a broadly similar trajectory to that of the canonical Gospels, the account departs from the standard Gospel accounts quite significantly in details and theology. So it might be useful if we could investigate where the account in the Qur'an might have come from (assuming only for the sake of investigation that it was not miraculously revealed - which of course it might have been).

So the Surah of Mary starts out telling us the story of John the Baptist and the prayer of his father Zechariah who asks God to provide him an heir. The Lord, Allah is seen as Merciful and One who answers the prayers of His faithful servants. He is One who has power over the world of nature and can enable John's elderly parents to conceive a child. John is to be freed from bodily defects as a symbol of purity. He will be righteous, compassionate, wise and free from sin. He will be dutiful and obedient to his parents and will be risen to new life when his earthly life expires.

After this touching and beautiful tribute to John and his parents who exemplify noble and spiritual characteristics, Mary the mother of Jesus is introduced in verse 16.

And mention in the Book (the Qur'an, O Muhammad, the story of) Maryam (Mary), when she withdrew in seclusion from her family to a place facing east.
She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent to her Our Ruh [angel Jibrael (Gabriel)], and he appeared before her in the form of a man in all respects.
She said: "Verily! I seek refuge with the Most Beneficent (Allah) from you, if you do fear Allah."
(The angel) said: "I am only a Messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a righteous son."
She said: "How can I have a son, when no man has touched me, nor am I unchaste?"
He said: "So (it will be), your Lord said: 'That is easy for Me (Allah): And (We wish) to appoint him as a sign to mankind and a mercy from Us (Allah), and it is a matter (already) decreed, (by Allah).' "
So she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a far place (i.e. Bethlehem valley about 4-6 miles from Jerusalem).

These verses are all about Mary and how she is a recipient of a Great Bounty. She is unable to comprehend what has happened but like John is pure, noble and righteous. She despairs at her circumstances but is assisted by God whose Mercy to her, is extended to all mankind through her Son Jesus.

So while the history may be similar to the Gospels, the main emphasis is on Mary in relation to God.

We come now to verses that depart dramatically from the Gospels.

And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a date-palm. She said: "Would that I had died before this, and had been forgotten and out of sight!"
Then [the babe 'Iesa (Jesus) or Jibrael (Gabriel)] cried unto her from below her, saying: "Grieve not! Your Lord has provided a water stream under you;
"And shake the trunk of date-palm towards you, it will let fall fresh ripe-dates upon you."
"So eat and drink and be glad, and if you see any human being, say: 'Verily! I have vowed a fast unto the Most Beneficent (Allah) so I shall not speak to any human being this day.'"

Once again the focus is on Allah, Mary, and their relationship. The story is allegorical too and in rich imagery speaks of our relationship with God during times of tribulations and difficulties.

You have mentioned similarities with some of these Qur'anic verses in the apocraphyl gospel of pseudo-Matthew.

The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew

I suppose we would need to study the style and content of this text to appreciate to what extent this work may relate to Muhammad and the Qur'an. We would need to know to what extent these verses were part of the oral and then written traditions of what churches in which regions. We would need to have a sense of how the establishment of Biblical canon were established in the 4th century and in turn affected the propogation of tradtions that were later considered heretical such as the gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. Its seems like a fascinating area of enquiry to persue. Could this work have been used amongst Christians of the Arabian Penisula that Muhammad and the Quarysh tribe came into contact with?

As you say, if there were indeed Jews and Christians among those that Muhammad reportedly taught - and even more especially if there were indeed "Jewish Christians" (by which I mean either Judaizing Christians or - perhaps fairly recent - Jewish converts to Christianity) among them - then a fair amount of the theological departures from the Christian tradition as we understand it - Jesus being a prophet rather than the "son of God" and so on - would seem to be perfectly logical inclusions. I mention this because it is difficult to figure out why these would have been so important to emphasize - as the Qur'an quite obviously does, for example, in verses 35-37 - if the main target audience were polytheistic pagans:

It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight. But the sects differ among themselves: and woe to the unbelievers because of the (coming) Judgment of a Momentous Day!
(Qur'an 19:35-37, Abdullah Yusuf Ali Translation)

So what do we know about the Christians on the Arabian Penisula during the early seventh century during the period of Muhammad's prophethood from 610 - 632 of indeed from 570 to 610 when He might have been influenced by Christian beliefs?

Arab Christians - Wikipedia

How about Abyssinia where the followers of Muhammad allegedly fled to escape the persecution of the Muhammad's own tribesman?

Christianity in Ethiopia - Wikipedia

Abyssinian people - Wikipedia

We know that Islam was established in Ethopia early as a remnant community remained after some of the participants of the first Hegira returned to Mecca and Medina.

Migration to Abyssinia - Wikipedia

While the city of Medina, north of Mecca, ultimately became the new home of most of the exiles from Mecca, a 7th-century cemetery excavated inside the boundaries of Negash shows the Muslim community survived their departure.

Islam in Ethiopia - Wikipedia

How about the Jewish Christians?

Jewish Christian - Wikipedia

To what extent was their presence know within the Arabian Penisula during the sixth and seventh centuries?

If you have any good articles to explore these questions, please feel free to share them.

Returning to our central theme, the Surah of Mary, we have an allegory for the pagans who view Muhammad's preoccupation with Abrahamic traditions with disdain.

Then she brought him (the baby) to her people, carrying him. They said: "O Mary! Indeed you have brought a thing Fariya (an unheard mighty thing).
"O sister (i.e. the like) of Harun (Aaron) [not the brother of Musa (Moses), but he was another pious man at the time of Maryam (Mary)]! Your father was not a man who used to commit adultery, nor your mother was an unchaste woman."
Then she pointed to him. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?"

The next part of this story is simply stunning as we have the baby Jesus providing a theological assessment of Christianity.

"He ['Iesa (Jesus)] said: Verily! I am a slave of Allah, He has given me the Scripture and made me a Prophet;"
"And He has made me blessed wheresoever I be, and has enjoined on me Salat (prayer), and Zakat, as long as I live."
"And dutiful to my mother, and made me not arrogant, unblest.

The concept of the a Prophet with a Revelation (Moses and the torah, Christ and the Gospel) is introduced and is a central Qur'anic theme.

Gospel in Islam - Wikipedia

"And Salam (peace) be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!"
Such is 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary). (it is) a statement of truth, about which they doubt (or dispute).
It befits not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son [this refers to the slander of Christians against Allah, by saying that 'Iesa (Jesus) is the son of Allah]. Glorified (and Exalted be He above all that they associate with Him). When He decrees a thing, He only says to it, "Be!" and it is.
['Iesa (Jesus) said]: "And verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord. So worship Him (Alone). That is the Straight Path. (Allah's Religion of Islamic Monotheism which He did ordain for all of His Prophets)." [Tafsir At-Tabari]
Then the sects differed [i.e. the Christians about 'Iesa (Jesus)], so woe unto the disbelievers [those who gave false witness by saying that 'Iesa (Jesus) is the son of Allah] from the meeting of a great Day (i.e. the Day of Resurrection, when they will be thrown in the blazing Fire).

This theological analysis gives consideration to such weighty themes as the resurrection, the Sonship of Christ, and references to sects and divisions within Christianity.

These verses go much further than the Surah of Joseph. It also offers an insight as to why a new Revelation is necessary and the people are not simply called to follow Judaism or Christianity.

Who, for example, were the "sects" referred to in this passage? Could it be that, in fact, the main audience was not, after all, the polytheistic pagan tribesmen (as depicted by tradition), but Christian "sects" who seemed to the author to have departed from a true monotheism by elevating Jesus to the status of a "Son of God"?

Certainly it seems that Muhammad was aware, not only of the presence of Christians amongst the people he taught but was also cognizant of (at least the broad outlines of) their various sectarian beliefs.

So now we begin to explore an historic context for these verses as well as their content. I would argue they were intended for a wider audience beyond the tribes of the Arabian Penisula to embrace the people of book such as Christians.

What do you think?

 

[Dawnofhope]

...continuing on the Surah al Maryam...

Verses 22-26 relate the miraculous provision of water and fruits as Mary rests under a date palm during her flight to Egypt (Yusuf Ali's translation, my bold):

So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: She cried (in her anguish): "Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!" But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm-tree): "Grieve not! for thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee; "And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: It will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee. "So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, 'I have vowed a fast to (Allah) Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into not talk with any human being'"
This is most interesting not so much for what it says but for what it leaves out. What are these "rivulets" for example.

It turns out (again) there is a parallel account in the Christian pseudepigraphal Gospel of pseudo-Matthew:

And it came to pass on the third day of their journey, while they were walking, that the blessed Mary was fatigued by the excessive heat of the sun in the desert; and seeing a palm tree, she said to Joseph: Let me rest a little under the shade of this tree. Joseph therefore made haste, and led her to the palm, and made her come down from her beast. And as the blessed Mary was sitting there, she looked up to the foliage of the palm, and saw it full of fruit, and said to Joseph: I wish it were possible to get some of the fruit of this palm. And Joseph said to her: I wonder that thou sayest this, when thou seest how high the palm tree is; and that thou thinkest of eating of its fruit. I am thinking more of the want of water, because the skins are now empty, and we have none wherewith to refresh ourselves and our cattle. Then the child Jesus, with a joyful countenance, reposing in the bosom of His mother, said to the palm: O tree, bend thy branches, and refresh my mother with thy fruit. And immediately at these words the palm bent its top down to the very feet of the blessed Mary; and they gathered from it fruit, with which they were all refreshed. And after they had gathered all its fruit, it remained bent down, waiting the order to rise from Him who bad commanded it to stoop. Then Jesus said to it: Raise thyself, O palm tree, and be strong, and be the companion of my trees, which are in the paradise of my Father; and open from thy roots a vein of water which has been hid in the earth, and let the waters flow, so that we may be satisfied from thee. And it rose up immediately, and at its root there began to come forth a spring of water exceedingly clear and cool and sparkling. And when they saw the spring of water, they rejoiced with great joy, and were satisfied, themselves and all their cattle and their beasts. Wherefore they gave thanks to God.
(Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew chapter 20, From: Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 8 1886 ed. Alexander Roberts, Sir James Donaldson, Arthur Cleveland Coxe - 1886 - my bold)

Obviously the details differ, but the essential elements of a miraculous provision of fruits and water as Mary rested under the shade of a date palm are common. It is also interesting that the order of the provision of fruits and water is reversed in the respective accounts - which perhaps suggests that the author of one was familiar with the other but clearly not quoting directly...perhaps it had been related to him orally and some of the details had been lost in transmission - e.g. Joseph being present in one and not the other etc.

I think its a plausible theory about oral traditions and that is why I was careful in my post a few days ago not to discount the possibility completely. I suspect given we're considering oral traditions in the seventh century it may be impossible to prove or disprove one way or another. We could explore the connections from alternative perspectives. For example, given the popularity of infancy gospel material, is it possible that Qur'anic stories had influence on the oral traditions of some Christian communities? How about a common source for Divine Revelation? Perhaps Jung's theory of the collective unconsciousness had some merit?

Collective unconscious - Wikipedia

Whatever, it is difficult to imagine how a mostly illiterate pagan Arab audience could possibly have made any sense of the Qur'anic version of this tale. But I think it would be fair to suggest that perhaps a hearer/reader familiar with the Christian tradition would have had a fairly reasonable chance of recognizing their own traditional story from the outline (reportedly) recited by Muhammad. Perhaps the writer felt justified in leaving out much of the detail because he knew his audience (like himself) were familiar with the Christian tradition already?

So how could uneducated pagans make sense of the Surah of Mary let alone the Qur'an itself? Isn't that part of the purpose of Divine Revelation, to bring out a new paradigm and way of being? If if we remove Divine Revelation from the picture, Muhammad still had a profound, far reaching affect in changing the hearts and minds of His people. 1400 years on and He has more than 40% of those participating in the OP poll that He really was a Messenger of God. That is an incredible achievement in itself. It does seems hard to believe His initial audience were just uneducated pagans.

My point, just to emphasize, is not to prove anything - just to point out that there are fairly convincing indications that the target audience for (at least some key parts of) the Qur'anic text seems to be people who were very familiar with the Jewish and Christian tradition already.

Its an interesting line of enquiry to consider the extent Meccans may have inteacted with Jews and Christians. I think with the trade going on there was an exchange of cultures, especially with the Quraysh who were merchants. Perhap it was the varied cultured influences that brought the Meccans to the precipice of such a dramatic shift towards monotheism.

Quraysh - Wikipedia

Bearing in mind that this Surah was (reportedly) revealed while Muhammad was still in Mecca, this seems at variance with the traditional assumption that the Prophet's earliest preaching was intended to dissuade pagan Arabs from their polytheistic religion and was rather targeted at people whom he knew to be very familiar with Christian theology and tradition - much more familiar than the average professed Christian of the early 21st century I might add.

As previously stated we often need to start from a simplistic narrative, then build our understanding to appreciate the rich tapestry of cultural influences. The difficulty we have is achieving certainty as so much was based on oral, not written traditions.

And that, I would argue, puts an entirely different slant on the entire "revelation" and the history of its conversion into a world religion. It calls into question how much Muhammad (assuming it is really a record of his recitation) really knew about Judaism and Christianity and from what source. And all that, in turn, throws wide open the question of whether the Qur'an itself can possibly be interpreted as evidence of Muhammad's Divine Messenger status.

In exploring history its about looking at what we know and developing the most sensible narrative based on that knowledge. That can be wholly secular, it can incorporate as aspect of Divine Revelation or even something in between where we are all inspired spiritually to some extent. The most important aspect is we have a conversation that entails a genuine exploration of reality. Providing we are guided by a moral compass and are sincere, kind and truthful then the outcome is likely to be positive.

PS - I am aware that we have only covered a few verses from three Surahs so far - but a picture does seem to be emerging from a slightly more critical evaluation of the texts - don't you think?

If we are both learning and respectful of each others perspective then this discussion is useful.

 

[Prestor John]

I usually enjoy pointing out the flawed logic, hypocrisy and self-righteousness conveyed by those who claim to be reasonable and fair, but this argument has wearied me.

I have given you opportunities to make amends and to go on in our discussion, but unless you recognize your error I will not continue.

You sound offended and this is one of a number of posts from you on this thread denouncing someones character or point of view.

No, I am not offended.

I was simply pointing out that it has been your behavior, use of frivolous arguments and lack of accountability that drove this discussion into the ground.

To be clear, to “denounce” means to openly “condemn” or “censure” someone or declare that they are “evil” or “wrong”.

When have I “condemned” anyone’s character or point of view?

Are you suggesting that my disagreeing with someone’s point of view is me “denouncing” it or claiming that it is “wrong”?

My critique of the content of one’s post is me “censuring” that person?

My judgment of someone’s behavior is a claim that they are “evil”?

The first and fourth links you shared are rather long so I would ask you to directly quote where you believe I did those things.

The second link is my response to Kelly where I claimed that she had been “belligerent” in her post and all that means is that I thought she had been “hostile and aggressive.”

I made a judgment on the content of her post, not the content of her character or point of view.

The third link is my response to your claim that I was ignorant of my personal experiences with members of the Islam and Baha’i faiths.

I never claimed that you or your point of view were “wrong” or “evil”. Nor did I “condemn” or “censure” you.

I simply stated that your unreasonable claim that I was ignorant of my own personal experiences was “hostile and aggressive” (belligerent) and that you had indicated that I had “done something wrong” (accusatory) when I had not.

It is perfectly acceptable for a person to disagree with someone else without it being a “denouncement” of either their character or point of view.

It is perfectly acceptable for a person to be critical of what someone else has said without it being a “denouncement” of either their character or point of view.

It is perfectly acceptable for a person to be critical of how someone else conducts themself without it being a “denouncement” of either their character or point of view.

My intention in starting this thread is to generate informed discussion about Islam.

This has not been my experience here. Rather than wanting civil discussion you have attempted to cause heated argument about my personal experiences.

I have no intent to give offence as I try to avoid taking offence. I appreciate the topic of Islam is challenging to many and can generate strong feelings.

I have not conveyed any “feelings” about Islam. All I did was share my opinion, formed by my personal experiences, as well as debated facts.

The only “feelings” I have had have been in response to your behavior and the content of your posts concerning me.

No one appreciates being called ignorant, especially when there is no basis for such a claim.

You also claimed that I lived “in a bubble” simply because you disagreed with the opinion I formed about the Baha’i faith after meeting with members of that faith.

You did not attempt to understand how I came to my conclusions. You never asked me about what led me to believe as I do.

You jumped to a conclusion, made an unfair assumption, and you have continued to maintain it.

I don’t mind anyone challenging my opinion, or offering counter-arguments, but making assumptions about me and then sharing a link does not dispute my opinion.

I also acknowledge that initially through this thread you have responded well to differences of opinion and largely avoided personal attacks.

I still have no desire to offend anyone and believe that I have avoided personal attacks. Although, if I haven’t, I apologize.

What I have attempted to do is combat the content of your posts and your conduct while presenting your arguments which I find inappropriate.

You have also made statements to the affect that you are disinterested in learning about Hinduism, Islam and the Baha'i Faith.

I do not see how you came to this conclusion.

Neither of the links you shared contain anything that would lead a reasonable person to believe that.

Could you directly quote the portions of these posts that led you to believe this?

Unfortunately in some of those comments you have made gratuitous criticisms of both Islam and the Baha'i Faith and made comments that were incorrect and misleading.

What is “incorrect” or “misleading” about any of these things I said?

If I do not believe that Muhammad was a true prophet, it would stand to reason that I would also believe that the religion based on his teachings would also not be true.

I never claimed that Islam was “wrong” or “evil”, I simply cannot believe that it has a foundation of truth.

I have also already shared information about Islamic claims to Mary’s age at the time she gave birth to Christ, which you have been unable to contest.

Your links and “copied and pasted” posts on this topic never disputed the Islamic idea that she was only a child at the time.

Also, concerning what I said about the Baha’i faith, I made it clear that my opinion was based on my personal experiences.

You have every right to challenge my opinion, but claiming that I am ignorant of my own personal experiences is silly to say the least.

I do not see where I said anything “incorrect and misleading” about the Baha’i faith and none of the links you shared have convinced me that my opinion is wrong.

I concede the use of the words 'ignorant' and 'LDS bubble' could be perceived as being offensive but you have not given me any reason to retract them.

I didn’t take offense, but I do find your use of those words to contradict your supposed intention for having this discussion at all.

Trying to shut someone down without even trying to figure out why they believe what they do?

This idea that I need to somehow “prove” that I know something is an absurd double-standard.

What have you shared to convince me or anyone else that you yourself are not ignorant of Islam or the Baha’i faith?

All you have done is shared links and copied and pasted from Wiki sites. Anyone can do that.

I could easily make the claim that you do not know what you are talking about and then set up a subjective standard you would have to achieve in order for me to accept that you are not ignorant and live in a bubble.

So, before I somehow “prove” my worthiness to discuss these things, how about you first “prove” that you are capable?

 

[Prestor John]

For example as well as the extreme personal attacks...

I don’t understand how my pointing out the hypocrisies in your arguments are “extreme personal attacks.”

The fact that you maintain those hypocrisies after they have been pointed out to you would lead any reasonable person to believe that you may not be capable of having the discussions you claim to want.

you have indirectly compared Islam to the KKK.

That is quite the stretch!

The only comparison I made was between the KKK and Black Lives Matter.

I chose an organization that people (in general) would reject in order to introduce the concept of “deal-breakers” into my argument.

No one needs to have extensive knowledge of the doctrines and workings of the KKK in order to find the “deal-breaker” that would cause them to reject the organization.

Just like I don’t need to look any further into Islam to reject it because I have already found my “deal-breaker”, which I have shared here extensively.

This is not the same as saying that I don’t know anything more about Islam, or that I do not have any desire to learn about Islam or that I consider Islam to be unimportant.

I just don’t need to know everything about it in order to know that I cannot accept it on a fundamental level.

I compared the KKK to Islam….Please… FAKE NEWS!

You have quoted from WikiIslam, a website dedicated to anti-Islamic propoganda.
https://www.quora.com/How-credible-is-wikiislam-net#

What is Quora?

Isn’t that just another one of those “Question and Answer” sites?

When I typed, “Is Quora credible?” into Google I got, “Quora is not a source of information or an editor of information. Quora is a forum, just like yahoo answers. So basically Quora is neither credible and neither not credible.”

Aren’t you trying to fight fire with fire? We can play this “your source is not credible” game forever.

If someone were to reference an “anti-Mormon” site to me, I would also point that out to them, however, I would also go about disputing whatever false claim they were making.

So, instead of simply dismissing my argument on the basis that you don’t agree with the source, why don’t you dispute the content of my argument?

I would also like you to consider that if wikiislam is truly an “anti-Islamic” site, then doesn’t the fact that they are disputing this “Christian God is a pedophile” argument mean that it is an argument used by Islam?

You may believe that no Islamic apologist would use this argument, but they do.

I already know from personal experience that there are Muslims out there that use this argument. I have encountered it numerous times.

Personally, I believe your best option would be to retract and apologise for the remarks you have made about both Islam and the Baha'i Faith.

Why is that? Nothing you have shared dispute what I have shared.

Islamic belief concerning Mary’s age may not be completely agreed upon, but there are those Islamic scholars that do contend that she was as young as ten years old at the time that she gave birth to Christ. That is a fact.

Aisha’s age may also not be completely agreed upon, but no one disputes that she was still a child at the time that Muhammad married her. That is a fact.

I am not using either of these facts to say anything negative about Muhammad or Islam. These ideas are honestly not “deal-breakers” for me.

You may not like what I believe concerning the Baha’i faith (which I claimed was my opinion based on personal experiences), but that does not mean that I am wrong and nothing you have shared has convinced me that I am wrong.

I see no reason to retract anything I said, but I would feel inclined to apologize about being so critical if you were to take more responsibility for the degradation of this discussion.

Islam isn't anything like a broken clock that is right twice a day, nor the KKK.

I never compared Islam to the KKK and, to me, Islam is like a “broken clock” because I cannot accept Muhammad as a true prophet, yet it does have some truth in it

The Baha'i Faith doesn't stand for everything.

That was the impression I got based on my personal experiences.

Feel free to try and change my mind, but nothing you have shared so far has given me reason to.

I'm not holding my breath expecting you will. In the interim you just seem to be digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Even though I do get busy and can’t comment all the time. I do try to finish my discussions.

I honestly do not see how I am in any “hole.” I have not shared any false information about either Islam or the Baha’i faith.

I feel that the problem we are having is that you simply do not like the things I have said and you disagree with my opinion.

You would rather paint me as ignorant and bigoted because you cannot dispute my arguments.
​

 

[OtherSheep]

The idea of "divine messengers" as understood in Abrahamic religions doesn't translate very well into my religious tradition. The Abrahamic religions seem to assume only certain special people ever receive messages from the gods (pardon, God in their case). My tradition assumes that everyone receives messages from the gods and everyone is a "messenger."

Could someone help me understand why only certain special people would be considered conduits for God in Abrahamic traditions? Why isn't this accessible to everyone in these religions as it is in my own?

Hu Gadarn was Japheth, wasn't he? At least that's what I've always thought. Is there a modern movement of Drudism that says something different?

 

[Prestor John]

The idea of "divine messengers" as understood in Abrahamic religions doesn't translate very well into my religious tradition. The Abrahamic religions seem to assume only certain special people ever receive messages from the gods (pardon, God in their case). My tradition assumes that everyone receives messages from the gods and everyone is a "messenger."

Could someone help me understand why only certain special people would be considered conduits for God in Abrahamic traditions? Why isn't this accessible to everyone in these religions as it is in my own?

In short, everyone, as children of the same God, have the ability to receive inspiration from Him for themselves and on behalf of those they have responsibility over. Namely, our families.

However, only His authorized servants can receive revelation on the behalf of others.

In full, Our Father's Kingdom is one of wisdom in order. There is a place for everything and everything is in its place. Although, we know from scripture, that He is also a God of delegation.

The Lord Jesus Christ - His Only Begotten Son in the flesh, the Firstborn in the spirit, being the perfect image of His Father - Created all things in the physical universe. He did this after He received the authority and direction from the Father.

Likewise, before this world was formed, the Lord Jesus Christ called the most noble and great from among His spirit siblings to positions of authority and responsibility, because of their obedience and faithfulness.

After all the preparations were made for the children of God to enter into mortality, there were those selected among the noble and great to fulfill specific missions upon the Earth during their mortal life. The first of these being Adam and Eve, who were our First Parents. They were also the first mortal servants of God to share His revelations to their children.

Moses is another example of a son of God being called to a position of authority which led him to being responsible for the whole of Israel. He received revelation that applied to all of Israel. He received revelation on their behalf, because they were within his sphere of influence and responsibility.

From the very beginning anyone could receive inspiration and instruction from God through faithful living and prayer. They could receive inspiration for themselves as well as for those who they were directly responsible for, such as a spouse, child, servant etc.

However, if they had not been called to be an authorized servant of God, then they would not have the ability to receive inspiration or instruction for those outside of their sphere of influence or responsibility. In other words, just because you might have received some spiritual instruction for you and your family, that does not mean that same instruction applies to your neighbor or community.

The inspiration you receive is for you. Receiving inspiration does not mean that you have been given authority to speak on His behalf. You cannot go around saying, "Thus sayeth the Lord..." and then try to apply what you received for you to everyone else.

This is because, as I said before, God's Kingdom is one of wisdom and order. If He wishes to direct the affairs of the world outside the sphere of the family, then He will call someone to be an authorized servant from among the noble and great and they will perform the work with His aid.

For example, Abraham is one of the greatest of men mentioned in scripture, a true servant of God and definitely one of the most noble and great, however, we never saw him receive any revelation on the behalf of those outside of his sphere of influence.

Literally everything he did revolved solely around his family, friends and servants. We do not need to be called to positions of authority within our families. They come naturally to us. Thus we can receive inspiration and instruction for ourselves and for those we are responsible for.

However, after all the promises had been made to Abraham and his descendants multiplied as slaves in Egypt, Moses was the one to whom the Lord gave authority to lead Israel by receiving revelation on their behalf.

Abraham, although he is the Patriarch of Israel and the Father of the Covenant, had not been given authority to receive revelation outside of his sphere of influence. For this purpose, he never acted as a prophet, going about calling people to repentance or collecting tithes. In fact, Abraham paid tithes to the High Priest Melchizedek because he recognized the authority that the High Priest had been given to preside over others. Or in other words, to bear the responsibility of others and direct the affairs of the Church.

So, the natural or "default" setting is that anyone can receive inspiration from Heaven for themselves and for those they are directly responsible for. However, when it comes to matters involving God's Kingdom on Earth a person must be called of God, by prophecy and the laying on of hands, in order to preside and receive revelation for others.

These authorized servants, depending on what position they are called to, can receive revelation for a community, region, nation or even the entire world.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Actually the first section of the Surah al Maryam is about Zechariah and John the Baptist (the prophet Yahya in Islam - it more or less follows the same outline as the canonical Gospel although much briefer in terms of details although it does add a little about John's extraordinary character and devotion - which possibly might betray a Sabian (as the Qur'an calls them) or Mandaean (perhaps) influence. The Mandaeans still exist and revere John the Baptist as a prophet greater than Jesus. I'm thinking that influence - which emerged in late antiquity (i.e. pre-Islamic times) in southern Mesopotamia may be evident in the elevation of Yahya (and in Islam Zakariya too - not sure about Mandaean or Sabian views of Zechariah - I haven't got that far yet) to prophethood equal (or nearly equal) to that of Jesus. (in fact, according to Islamic tradition, when the Mandaeans were called before the Caliph during the Muslim conquest of Mesopotamia, it was due to the reverence for John the Baptist that they were included with the Sabians as "People of the Book" and accorded the same protections as Jews, Christians and Sabians). I believe Baha'u'llah refers to the Mandaeans as Sabaeans somewhere in his writings as well - but you might have to look that up for me (if you don't mind) - I can't seem to locate the reference.

You may find this reference interesting. It’s covers just about everything in regards the Sabians and Mandaeans from a Baha’i perspective.

http://irfancolloquia.org/pdf/lights13_uhj_sabaeans.pdf

 

[Dawnofhope]

I usually enjoy pointing out the flawed logic, hypocrisy and self-righteousness conveyed by those who claim to be reasonable and fair, but this argument has wearied me.

I have given you opportunities to make amends and to go on in our discussion, but unless you recognize your error I will not continue.

Matthew 7:1-4 appears relevant here.

If I do not believe that Muhammad was a true prophet, it would stand to reason that I would also believe that the religion based on his teachings would also not be true.

I never claimed that Islam was “wrong” or “evil”, I simply cannot believe that it has a foundation of truth.

Do you have any facts to support your opinion?

I have also already shared information about Islamic claims to Mary’s age at the time she gave birth to Christ, which you have been unable to contest.

Your links and “copied and pasted” posts on this topic never disputed the Islamic idea that she was only a child at the time.

Muslims view the Qur'an as the authoritative inerrant Word of God. Mary is mentioned over 30 times in the Quran but there is no mention of Mary's age and certainly nothing to suggest she was a child when she became pregnant with Jesus.

Muslims and Christians have many diverse beliefs, but we need to look towards the Qur'an to appreciate what Muhammad taught just as we need to read the Bible to appreciate what Jesus taught.

Just because a Christian holds a particular belief does not mean that belief is supported by the Bible. Exactly the same principle applies in regards the Quran, or should we apply a different standard to Muslims?

Also, concerning what I said about the Baha’i faith, I made it clear that my opinion was based on my personal experiences.

Are you aware Baha'is don't believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet?

If someone were to reference an “anti-Mormon” site to me, I would also point that out to them, however, I would also go about disputing whatever false claim they were making.

My point in posting the wikipedia link that was critical of Mormonism was to remind you that 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'. You had criticised my faith.

This thread is about Muhammad. You mentioned you didn't believe in Muhammad because He doesn't agree with your belief about the Divinity of Christ. I referenced the Bible to examine the question of the Divinity of Christ but you never replied.

1 John 4:12
"No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."

Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

1 KIng 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Scripture seems to imply that Jesus can not possibly be God incarnate. It would be better to think of Jesus as being a perfect image or reflection of Gods' divine attributes?

Colossians 1:15 in regards to Jesus
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature"

John 5:19
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

John 8:28
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Remember?

I would also like you to consider that if wikiislam is truly an “anti-Islamic” site, then doesn’t the fact that they are disputing this “Christian God is a pedophile” argument mean that it is an argument used by Islam?

I'm sure it is an argument made by some Muslims. Some Muslims have beliefs that have nothing to do with what Muhammad said just as Christians have beliefs that have nothing to do with what Christ said. As there is no mention of Mary's age in the Qur'an I don't see how its relevant other than to criticise Islam.

Islamic belief concerning Mary’s age may not be completely agreed upon, but there are those Islamic scholars that do contend that she was as young as ten years old at the time that she gave birth to Christ. That is a fact.

You would need to reference a reputable Islamic scholar not WikiIslam as a proof.

The detailed accounts of Mary in the Qur'an are 3:35-47 and 19:16-34.

There are certainly apocryphal Christian accounts that refers to Mary as being 12 -14 years old but these are not considered authoritative.

Some apocryphal accounts state that at the time of her betrothal to Joseph, Mary was 12–14 years old, and he was ninety years old, but such accounts are unreliable.[62] According to ancient Jewish custom, Mary could have been betrothed at about 12.[63] Hyppolitus of Thebes claims that Mary lived for 11 years after the death of her son Jesus, dying in 41 AD.[64]

Mary, mother of Jesus - Wikipedia

Aisha’s age may also not be completely agreed upon, but no one disputes that she was still a child at the time that Muhammad married her. That is a fact.

That is not true and I provided you with information about the opinion of a range of views including an Iranian scholar who believes Aisha may have been in her late teens when she married Muhammad.

Aisha - Wikipedia

Remember?

I am not using either of these facts to say anything negative about Muhammad or Islam.

I think that's exactly what you're doing.

You would rather paint me as ignorant and bigoted because you cannot dispute my arguments.

Why not post actual arguments then rather than personal attacks and opinion?

 

[j1i]

In short, everyone, as
These authorized servants, depending on what position they are called to, can receive revelation for a community, region, nation or even the entire world.

Matthew 7:1-4 appears relevant here.



I think that's exactly what you're doing.



Why not post actual arguments then rather than personal attacks and opinion?

​

thank you brother
It is true that the birth of Jesus is a miracle, but is that mean that he is God ?

Yes I have no right to do what is special to God
But there is no proof that there is God with God as a partner
Muhammad was sent to fight slavery
make people worship God without seek refuge (worship) creatures

God does not need those who do His place and be God
It is possible that a prophet holds a message and says this is the way to the Lord

God is the light of the heavens and the earth
How can we reason to worship a man who is not enlightened and lives like a normal person and sleeps in darkness?

There is no evidence even in the Scriptures writings say 'worship me with God
I affirm that there is no scripture in Scripture saying, worship me I am God with God
Under two lines (worship me)

This is video to my cousin Jacob Israel

 

[duvduv]

That is an interesting comment given Muhammad and the Koran are recent history compared to older scriptures.

Could not one say the same thing about all the Prophets of the Tanakh?

Peace be with you.

Could you elaborate? Do you want to start a new thread on that topic? There can be no way to confirm that the Sa'ana manuscript was from the earlier century at all or even part of the Quran.

 

[duvduv]

The lower case of the Sana'a manuscript was almost certainly an early version of the Quran......
Please tell me more about the associations with educated Jews and Rabbis.

Check a book by Abraham Katsh called Judaism and Koran. He examines a set of suras in the Quran and shows their source in the rabbinic midrashim.

 

[OtherSheep]

The Lord Jesus Christ - His Only Begotten Son in the flesh, the Firstborn in the spirit, being the perfect image of His Father - Created all things in the physical universe. He did this after He received the authority and direction from the Father.

Abraham, although he is the Patriarch of Israel and the Father of the Covenant, had not been given authority to receive revelation outside of his sphere of influence. For this purpose, he never acted as a prophet, going about calling people to repentance or collecting tithes. In fact, Abraham paid tithes to the High Priest Melchizedek because he recognized the authority that the High Priest had been given to preside over others. Or in other words, to bear the responsibility of others and direct the affairs of the Church.

My finite mind says that the Father does give the direction, as far as we can tell by how Jesus on Earth interacted with His Father; the Son speaks things into existence, as the active principle; and the Holy Spirit is the channel between the two, operating like the ladder which Jacob saw.

They say that Melchizedek was none other than Seth. If this is true, then Abraham paid honors to the patriarch of his family. It used to be that the fathers of families were the only priests.