Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

[stvdv]

So we have early transcripts that clearly relate closely if not exactly to the Quran that's present now.

It only proves "Koran did not change much or at all". Which in itself of course is remarkable. But this does not prove it's from "God". Some can be, some might not be.

Everyone seems to think the Qur'an is a record of what Muhammad said.

I can believe the Koran to be a record of what Muhammad said. But I am not convinced Koran is 100% revealed to him by the Divine

Everyone does not seem to think this at all do they? Most (but not all) Muslims, most Bahai's. Most everyone else would rather say that the Qur'an appears to be a reasonably authentic transmission of what some of his early followers claimed he said - wouldn't they? I very much doubt you could find an independent scholar who would make the direct claim that these were the authentic words of Muhammad himself and - as I said - and far more importantly from a Bahai perspective (I hope) - much less an independent scholar who would even suggest that there is anything like compelling evidence to take the Qur'an as an "authentic repository" of divine revelation.

We are, of course, as usual in these discussions, all repeating ourselves ad nauseum at this stage. I don't think I have anything further to add unless you have any other compelling evidence in favour of Muhammad's divine messenger status.

After all these centuries we can not prove with certainty which verses were "given by the divine". It's all heresay I would say. You can believe it or not. No facts.

For me it's much more likely that the Koran had verses added by humans. I don't know about their history, but wasn't there an emperor/king in the time of Muhammad. Or was Muhammad the emperor? Normally the emperor decides what will be allowed within his kingdom. A little smart emperor would see how conventient it is to use "a divine scripture" and add new verses "for war etc". So we get a "holy war". The Koran had already verses I see as "emotional manipulative".

Muhammad could put in "war verses" himself. I just read that He put also in a verse that He was exempted from having a maximum of 4 wives.

Of course nothing can be proven. But I know a bit about humans being sneaky to say the least. Barbarian will be barbaric sneaky, making obvious how the violent verses came into existence. They just use the koran to their advantage. Of course if you can prove that my idea is false then Koran becomes more reliable, but till then I rather use my "Common Sense" with scriptures "revealed to and interpreted by barbarians who were divine inspired"

"All is fair in love and war" they say. So my common sense advises me to take such old scriptures with a grain of salt

Fact is, that a medium must be pure to interpret a divine revelation pure/correct. How pure was a barbarian? Koran might have been sufficient info for barbarians at that time, not for now!

Bible same. Fishermen are well known for exaggerating caught fish's size. 30 cm easily becomes 100 cm, or Jonah in the whale. Once a fishermen always a fishermen, right?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

How pure a barbarian is? Koran might be sufficient info for barbarians at that time, not for me now!

It could be this age was no better, or even worse.

Peace be with you.

 

[stvdv]

It could be this age was no better, or even worse.
Peace be with you.

At least it's much different, so for sure we do need "new scripture" if we want to follow "scripture".

 

[siti]

In this particular case to the particular audience Abdu’l-Baha is talking to yes, but that is not to say that all Muslims are ignorant, or that everything ever said by Muslims was unfounded

No, it is referring to ignorant Muslims, not to people of demonstrated knowledge, and there is no reference in it to Sirat Rasul’ullah that you are reading into it.

Now you are cherry picking too.

Anyway, here is the relevant paragraph from an English translation of ibn-Ishtaq's Sirat Rasul Allah (its in Chapter 18)

The apostle of Allah imprisoned the Qurayza in Medina while trenches were dug in the market‑place. Then he sent for the men and had their heads struck off so that they fell in the trenches. They were brought out in groups, and among them was Kab, the chief of the tribe. In number, they amounted to six or seven hundred, although some state it to have been eight or nine hundred. All were executed. One man turned to his people and said, 'It matters not! By God's will, the children of Israel were destined for this massacre!’ Then he seated himself and his head was struck off.​

The idea that infanticide was either particularly widespread or particularly brutal in pre-Islamic Arabia is unfounded and seems to trace back to the 8th century Islamic historian al Haytham ibn 'Adi (as far as I can tell). He is not well-renowned - even in Islamic circles - for historical accuracy and there is fairly strong evidence in pre-Islamic Arab poetry (for example) that women were respected and even venerated at least in some tribes and that whilst some Arab tribes did indeed bury newborn daughters alive (for various reasons and against which the Qur'an strongly objects), they were far from being alone in practicing female infanticide in particular or infanticide generally - the practice being in evidence in ancient Greek, Roman, Phoenician, Indian...and...importantly for Abdu'l Baha's argument, Inuit and various indigenous American peoples' cultures. In some cases the process was far more brutal even than burial - Eskimo infants were sometimes simply left outside to freeze to death (a practice that seems to even have survived as late as the early 20th century) and in ancient Sparta I seem to recall they put babies into a vat of wine and if they survived it was taken as a sign of fortitude - otherwise, they had gotten rid of a burdensome weakling! In other cultures, infants were sacrificed to deities. The Arabs seem to have been no better and no worse than other cultures in this respect and some of the tribes had even seem to have taken a stand against infanticide before Muhammad brought the sword (oops - I mean word) of God to bear on the subject. For example, the Shi'ite poet al-Farazdaq recorded in verse the exploits of his grandfather who succeeded in buying the lives of 66 infants whose lives would otherwise have been terminated due to destitution before the advent of the "Messenger of God". Ibn Duraid even claims that this man, Sa'sa'a (who evidently met Muhammad personally according to other accounts) "embraced Islam before the Prophet" on account of his opposition to the practice of infanticide. So who was really educating whom? There is certainly room for reasonable doubt.

Anyway, the point is there is far less reason for Abdu'l Baha to believe ibn 'Adi than to believe ibn-Ishtaq - and far more reason to respect the views of al-Farazdaq about the immediately pre-Islamic period of Arabia, yet he goes the opposite way round and the only reason I can discern for this is that he was keen to play down the elements of Islamic tradition that were "not to [Muhammad's] praise" and play up those elements that were "to His praise" - in the context of late 19th/early 20th century western cultural sensitivities and completely regardless of how flimsy the evidence actually was.

 

[siti]

have you ever read the 'Tablet of the Universe'?

I have now - its a longer version of the argument he makes in the SAQ chapter on Muhammad. Its a claim that a couple of very obscure verses in the Qur'an are intended to indicate the truth of the heliocentric model that Copernicus proposed hundreds of years later...but from a Baha'i perspective this argument makes no sense - as I have previously pointed out - because this interpretation of the verses in question - completely escaped all eleven of the "rightly guided" Imams whose divinely assigned task was to correctly transmit and interpret the Prophet's words - with divine insight and the very words of God at their disposal, they still had to wait several centuries before an infidel scientist in a foreign land (who couldn't even read Arabic as far as we know) revealed the truth!

 

[siti]

In regards the Qur'an being the "authentic repository" of the Word of God, that would be another discussion based on studying of the Quran. Up to you if you want to do that, and what would the best starting point.

A chapter I'm particularly interested in is the Surah of Joseph.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_(surah)

The Bab provided a commentary on this chapter to Mulla Hussein when the Bab first declared His Mission on the evening of 22nd May 1844.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selections_from_the_Writings_of_the_Báb#Qayyúmu'l-Asmá'

http://bahai-library.com/writings/bab/qayyum.taherzadeh.html

OK - I'll bite. How is this almost straight lift from Jewish tradition of 1000 years earlier or its interpretation by the Bab 1000 years later evidence of the divine origin of the Qur'an?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I have now - its a longer version of the argument he makes in the SAQ chapter on Muhammad. Its a claim that a couple of very obscure verses in the Qur'an are intended to indicate the truth of the heliocentric model that Copernicus proposed hundreds of years later...but from a Baha'i perspective this argument makes no sense - as I have previously pointed out - because this interpretation of the verses in question - completely escaped all eleven of the "rightly guided" Imams whose divinely assigned task was to correctly transmit and interpret the Prophet's words - with divine insight and the very words of God at their disposal, they still had to wait several centuries before an infidel scientist in a foreign land (who couldn't even read Arabic as far as we know) revealed the truth!

That did not compute with my question - It was science based - But it is now off topic, I do not wish to dwell on it.

Here is the link if you would like to read - https://bahai-library.com/abdulbaha_lawh_aflakiyyih It does also reference the Koran, thus ties back into Muhammad.

Peace be with you.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

OK - I'll bite. How is this almost straight lift from Jewish tradition of 1000 years earlier or its interpretation by the Bab 1000 years later evidence of the divine origin of the Qur'an?

I've got biscuits and cheese and a cup of coffee, waiting for this answer Its a delicious bite!

Peace be with you always.

 

[Dawnofhope]

OK - I'll bite. How is this almost straight lift from Jewish tradition of 1000 years earlier or its interpretation by the Bab 1000 years later evidence of the divine origin of the Qur'an?

I'm not a fisherman dangling bait in front of a fish LOL. I was simply inviting you to investigate the Qur'an with me, a book that is revered and considered God's Word by a quarter of the world's population, and along with the Bible, one of the most influential books on the planet.

According to Islamic tradition the Surah of Joseph was revealed a few years before Muhammad's Hijrah from Mecca to Medina. It was probably a time of great sorrow for the Prophet. His wife Khadijah (He only had one wife up until that point) had died and she had been the first to recognise Muhammad's claim to prophethood. His Uncle Abu Talid had died, His Uncle had provided protection from the other tribes for Muhammad and the Muslims. Now the Quarysh wanted to test Muhammad as they disbelieved He was a prophet. The story of Joseph was known to the Christians and Jews but not to the Quarysh tribe. So some tested His Prophethood by asking Him to tell stories of those before Him who had suffered, so the story of Joseph was told. The story is considered allegorial in regards the suffering a prophet must go through in being rejected initially by His own people but eventually after great hardship being accepted. Soon the Muslims would have to flee and face a time of great hardship. Eventually they would return to Mecca triumphant.

The opening verses are:

Alif, Lam, Ra. These are the verses of the clear Book.
Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an that you might understand.
We relate to you, [O Muhammad], the best of stories in what We have revealed to you of this Qur'an although you were, before it, among the unaware.
[Of these stories mention] when Joseph said to his father, "O my father, indeed I have seen [in a dream] eleven stars and the sun and the moon; I saw them prostrating to me."

https://quran.com/12

 

[Dawnofhope]

It only proves "Koran did not change much or at all".

That was the point of the previous argument, not to prove Muhammad's prophethood.

I can believe the Koran to be a record of what Muhammad said. But I am not convinced it's all revealed to him by the Divine

The purpose of investigating the Quran now, is to discover the truth or otherwise of the allegedly Divine origins of the Quran.

After all these centuries we can not prove with certainty which verses were "given by the divine". It's all heresay I would say. You can believe it or not. No facts.

To a degree yes. It is simply a test for the pure in heart. It can't be any other way. That doesn't mean we have to be believers to study it.

Why did Jesus speak in parables?

The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" He replied,
"The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand."

Matthew 13:10-17

Fishermen are well known for exaggerating caught fish's size. 30 cm easily becomes 100 cm, or Jonah in the whale. Once a fishermen always a fishermen, right?

That is the point Abdu'l-Baha was making in regards some early Muslims Boasting of their hero and prophet Muhammad. The alleged story of Muahmmad chopping off the head of 900 Banu Qurayza men has been greatly exaggerated.

 

[stvdv]

The purpose of investigating the Quran now, is to discover the truth or otherwise of the allegedly Divine origins of the Quran.

I had a vision last week. I saw an emperor who had a few requests to be put in the Koran, hence the Koran is not 100% of Divine origin. Interesting idea.
Totally hearsay of course. But thinking about it, using common sense, this makes sense to me. But like everything about that period impossible to prove.

The alleged story of Muahmmad chopping off the head of 900 Banu Qurayza men has been greatly exaggerated.

Also greatly exaggerated can be the claim "Koran is 100% Divine inspired". If that claim is proven wrong would be good. Common sense will be used more [less blind faith]

 

[Dawnofhope]

I had a vision last week. I saw an emperor who had a few requests to be put in the Koran, hence the Koran is not 100% of Divine origin. Interesting idea.
Totally hearsay of course. But thinking about it, using common sense, this makes sense to me. But like everything about that period impossible to prove.

Just out of interest have you studied the Qur'an much?

Also greatly exaggerated can be the claim "Koran is 100% Divine inspired". If that claim is proven wrong would be good. Common sense will be used more [less blind faith]

The story is part of an early biography of Muhammad called the Sirat written by Ibn Ishaq born over 70 years after Muhammad died.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ishaq#Biography_of_Muhammad

 

[stvdv]

Just out of interest have you studied the Qur'an much?

No not at all. In 1989 I read the Koran once, but never studied it. Here on RF I did read a few verses again to check about negative Koran claims made. So I was surprised why God granted me this vision. The only other thing I had with Islam was when my Guru once showed me a Muslim girl to marry in 1999. In a way I am glad I did not know or studied anything about Koran. My vision was not something I read. I did not even know about Emperors. I did Google and read about Heraclius who became Emperor 1 year before Muhammad started writing. So first I thought "wow I found it" maybe that is the Emperor in my vision (didn't get a name), but he was Roman if I read correct, so that made no sense. I did read this morning that He was mentioned in the Koran though.

Now all makes more sense. Quite a few verses I could not believe "being from Divine origin". This solves it for me. Now I skip "bad feeling verses" even more easy

The story is part of an early biography of Muhammad called the Sirat written by Ibn Ishaq born over 70 years after Muhammad died.

After I had this vision, I wrote it down immediately [few hours later]. If I don't do that, within a week or so some words will be lost. Sometimes I want to find back a post on RF but I can't find it anymore [just 4 month ago; maybe dementia is starting already]. So reading your link I would be surprised if these barbarians remember all correct. Maybe in these years they had better memory though.

 

[Muffled]

If he was a messenger of a god, it wasn't any god I'd want to have a message from.

I believe and yet Jesus calls it good news.

 

[Muffled]

I don't like to belittle anyone because of their beliefs.

If they adhere to something that justifies hate and violence, I object to it, and try to get people to see there is something seriously wrong with that!

I believe if you are little how can you do anything other than be little.

 

[Muffled]

I don't trust Muslims to tell me their version of events because the Koran tells you guys it's OK to lie to us infidels. I only believe independent accounts of history, Islamic scholars accuse the Christians of changing the Bible three times but they can't tell us what was actually changed so that exposes them as liars.

I simply don't trust Muslims because Mohammad said it was OK to lie, it is forbidden for us Christians to lie because it doesn't glorify our God.

I believe there must be some context to that concept of telling Muslims to lie. We are told not to bear false witness which is not the same thing as lying. Saying the Bible has been changed is definitely false witness.

 

[siti]

That did not compute with my question - It was science based - But it is now off topic, I do not wish to dwell on it.

Here is the link if you would like to read - https://bahai-library.com/abdulbaha_lawh_aflakiyyih It does also reference the Koran, thus ties back into Muhammad.

Then I clearly did not understand your question - or the relevance of the Tablet of the Universe to this discussion. It is, however, not off topic, because the Tablet gives an expanded version of the very same argument (one of only two that AB presents) used to prove that Muhammad was a Messenger of God - and that IS the topic. Despite your reluctance to "dwell on it" I am going to summarize the facts again - it is helping me if no-one else.

One of the verses from the Qur'an that Abdu'l Baha cites in the Tablet of the Universe is the exact same verse he uses in the chapter from Some Answered Questions that Adrian linked to in the OP. It is the same obscure verse that says something along the lines of the sun moving in a fixed place...it remains unclear to scholars to this day exactly what the writer intended by this verse and we have already discussed this at some length including a huge array of possible English translations of the verse, none of which clarified the meaning at all. In the Tablet and the SAQ chapter AB attempts to use this verse to prove that the Qur'an (and therefore Muhammad by divine revelation) knew that the earth revolved around the sun several hundred years before this was postulated by Copernicus and later conformed by observation by Gallileo. That IS AB's argument in both documents and he thereby seeks to establish Muhammad's Divine Messenger status by claiming that he had access to information about the correct view of how the solar system works hundreds of years in advance of the rest of humanity. But this simply is not true.

First, as I have suggested already, the verse is obscure and not one of the 11 "rightly guided" Imams of the the Shi'i Islamic tradition on which the Baha'i faith is really founded seems to have twigged the correct understanding. Indeed, as AB himself admits, the "Doctors of Islam" (as he calls Islamic scholars in SAQ) were rather "compelled" to "explain away" this verse - pretending that it didn't mean that sun stands still (which of course it doesn't anyway - but perhaps AB did not know that). In reality of course, the "Doctors of Islam" were almost certainly correct in suggesting that this verse had nothing to do with how the solar system works and had a more mystical, spiritual, or possibly even eschatological (end times prophetic) intent and therefore provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever in support of Muhammad as a Messenger of God.

Second, Islamic science in all its glory failed to grasp the notion of heliocentrism despite the fact that they had access to Arabic translations of the works of Aristarchus, the Pythagorean School and Indian scholars such as Aryabhata and Brahmagupta who had all either explicitly promoted a heliocentric model or at least suggested that the earth revolved on its axis or moved through the heavens - key elements of the Copernican model that subsequently replaced the Ptolemaic model that almost all Islamic astronomers remained committed to right through the Golden Age of Islam.

Third, whilst there is no question that Copernicus benefitted enormously, and even copied, from the great astronomers and mathematicians of the Islamic world (such as al-Tusi and al-Shatir), as far as anyone can tell, not one of these scholars had either abandoned the Ptolemaic system or gained any insight on heliocentrism directly from the Qur'an or from scholarly interpretations of the verses cited by Abdu'l Baha or any other teaching of the "rightly guided" Imams. Even Copernicus at first followed the Maragha astronomers by attempting to modify the received wisdom of the Ptolemaic model rather than abandoning it in favour of a more realistic heliocentric one.

Anyway, the point (again) is that the facts of history prove Abdu'l Baha's argument wrong.

The connections between the Islamic Golden Age and more ancient scientific knowledge - from Greece, China and India (probably to some extent via pre-Islamic Persia) and between the Golden Age and the later European Renaissance are fascinating subjects in their own right. If you are at all interested, I recommend the books/publications of George Saliba (he is a world-leading expert on this part of the history of astronomy) - here's a link to one of his books:

https://archive.org/details/GeorgeS...ingOfTheEuropeanRenaissanceTransformationsStu

Another interesting read is Jim al-Khalili's book Pathfinders: The Golden Age of Arabic Science (I am reading this right now).

 

[siti]

I'm not a fisherman dangling bait in front of a fish LOL. I was simply inviting you to investigate the Qur'an with me, a book that is revered and considered God's Word by a quarter of the world's population, and along with the Bible, one of the most influential books on the planet.

According to Islamic tradition the Surah of Joseph was revealed a few years before Muhammad's Hijrah from Mecca to Medina. It was probably a time of great sorrow for the Prophet. His wife Khadijah (He only had one wife up until that point) had died and she had been the first to recognise Muhammad's claim to prophethood. His Uncle Abu Talid had died, His Uncle had provided protection from the other tribes for Muhammad and the Muslims. Now the Quarysh wanted to test Muhammad as they disbelieved He was a prophet. The story of Joseph was known to the Christians and Jews but not to the Quarysh tribe. So some tested His Prophethood by asking Him to tell stories of those before Him who had suffered, so the story of Joseph was told. The story is considered allegorial in regards the suffering a prophet must go through in being rejected initially by His own people but eventually after great hardship being accepted. Soon the Muslims would have to flee and face a time of great hardship. Eventually they would return to Mecca triumphant.

The opening verses are:

Alif, Lam, Ra. These are the verses of the clear Book.
Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an that you might understand.
We relate to you, [O Muhammad], the best of stories in what We have revealed to you of this Qur'an although you were, before it, among the unaware.
[Of these stories mention] when Joseph said to his father, "O my father, indeed I have seen [in a dream] eleven stars and the sun and the moon; I saw them prostrating to me."

https://quran.com/12

Adrian, I have read the Surah al Yusuf and skimmed through the Bab commentary you linked to. I have now read your summary and how it might parallel some things that happened to the early Muslims and Muhammad. I am still struggling to see how interpreting the Jewish traditional story about Joseph (which Muslims do not take as purely allegorical as I recall) as a fable or parable helps to prove that Muhammad was a Messenger of God.

For what its worth, I agree that the story may have been intended as allegorical and certainly can usefully be use an allegory...like David and Goliath, Noah and the Ark, Adam and Eve...etc. etc. We all go through Joseph moments in our lives - times when we are betrayed by those we love and trust, times when we are wrongly accused, times when we are imprisoned by circumstances (if not literally) and unable to escape the boundaries that life has erected around us...and such stories can be helpful in building up the mental attitudes of perseverance and patience that will give us the fortitude to survive until the day of "redemption" when the "prison walls" crumble and we are able to raise ourselves to a new level of life and see the blue sky again...I get that.

But what does any of that have to do with Muhammad being a Messenger of God? The story was not of his originality. And he surely already knew he would be persecuted for introducing a new monotheistic religious paradigm in a belligerent and polytheistic culture - he surely didn't need divine revelation to figure that out. So I'm struggling to see this Surah as anything other than Muhammad plagiarizing what he knew of Jewish folklore to suit his current circumstances. That, I think, is the least fanciful and most sensibly mundane interpretation.

In all fairness, I had great difficulty following the Bab's "commentary" - it seemed fragmented and disjointed and didn't seem to be addressing any particular "flow" of ideas at all to me. Maybe I'm just not cut out for this mystical stuff - but it was more "babble" (confusion) than "Bab" (gateway) to me.

 

[CG Didymus]

For all intents and purposes its a lifetime appointment. Very rarely does anyone new get in, if at all.

The Universal House of Justice is elected through secret ballot and plurality vote in a three-stage election by adult Bahá'ís throughout the world. The House of Justice is elected without nominations or campaigning and all adult male members of the Bahá'í Faith are eligible for election to the House.[8] The body is elected every five years during a convention of the members of the various National or Regional Spiritual Assemblies (NSAs) across the world. Each member of the various NSAs, who were themselves elected by the Bahá'ís of their country, votes for nine adult male Bahá'ís. Absentee ballots are mailed or carried by delegates. The nine people who have the most votes are elected onto the Universal House of Justice.
​

I looked at a couple of, no doubt, "fake sites" and they agreed with you. It is virtually a lifetime appointment. One site said that it is a "selection" not an "election" to get into the UHJ after being appointed to some teaching center by the UHJ. Thanks

 

[Vinayaka]

The Universal House of Justice is elected through secret ballot and plurality vote in a three-stage election by adult Bahá'ís throughout the world. The House of Justice is elected without nominations or campaigning and all adult male members of the Bahá'í Faith are eligible for election to the House.[8] The body is elected every five years during a convention of the members of the various National or Regional Spiritual Assemblies (NSAs) across the world. Each member of the various NSAs, who were themselves elected by the Bahá'ís of their country, votes for nine adult male Bahá'ís. Absentee ballots are mailed or carried by delegates. The nine people who have the most votes are elected onto the Universal House of Justice.
​

I looked at a couple of, no doubt, "fake sites" and they agreed with you. It is virtually a lifetime appointment. One site said that it is a "selection" not an "election" to get into the UHJ after being appointed to some teaching center by the UHJ. Thanks

Yeah there has to be some sort of back room dealing. The 'fake sites' correctly predict who is next in line. Always from the teaching center, and well conditioned.