To what extent did Muhammad meet the Messianic Requirements of Judaism and Christianity?

[j1i]

Only God knows each of our hearts brother. Who can truly know the mind of God and His plans?

And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah. (Surah Al-Imran, 54)

which says no one knows the unseen but God
Only who wants

26 The Knower of the Invisible; He does not disclose His Invisible to anyone.

27 Except to a Messenger of His choosing. He then dispatches guards before him and behind him.

This is what the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) warned against him
The Dajjal will come out and say that he is a prophet
Then he says that he is the Son of God
Then he will say I am God

Baha'i al-Din is the indirect idea of creating a quack

 

[Dawnofhope]

which says no one knows the unseen but God
Only who wants

26 The Knower of the Invisible; He does not disclose His Invisible to anyone.

27 Except to a Messenger of His choosing. He then dispatches guards before him and behind him.

This is what the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) warned against him
The Dajjal will come out and say that he is a prophet
Then he says that he is the Son of God
Then he will say I am God

Baha'i al-Din is the indirect idea of creating a quack

The Quran does not directly mention Dajjal but there are many references in the Hadiths. Best to get your facts straight. It’s easy to point a finger and say Dajjal but if your accusations are false then a finger points at you.

“And whoever commits a fault or a sin, then accuses of it one innocent, he indeed takes upon himself the burden of a calumny and a manifest sin.” Qur’án 4:112

 

[Dawnofhope]

Best I can tell, you did not answer my question.

Ok. Let’s try another answer... No.

 

[siti]

I would expect you to question the way I see it in the following observations

Of course...and you might, if you had actually examined it rather than simply accepting the intended implications from a blindly-faithful Baha'i perspective, also have expected me to start with this...

Have you seen this Genealogy Chart? Genealogy of Shoghi Effendi

Yes I have - and if you trace the Davidic line backwards from Baha'u'llah to Jeconiah - that's about 1800 CE to about 600 BCE or 2400 years - there are only 11 or 12 named descendants of David between them whereas there should have been at least 70 or 80 generations - IOW there are somewhere between about 50 to 60 missing generations (at least). Not terribly convincing - and add to that, there is no supporting evidence even for the ones that are mentioned - I doubt any but the three or four immediately prior to Baha'u'llah are attested to in any independently verifiable records. Prior to Jeconiah, the record depends entirely on the scriptural tradition of the Jews and Christians, which, as Adrian has very recently reminded us (for the umpteenth time), was already corrupted and in dire need of correction by the time of Muhammad - hence the need for his appearance - partly, it seems, to provide a correction to the false assumptions of Judaism and Christianity in regard to the coming of the Messiah in David's line.

So basically, that genealogical chart is a load of old rubbish - based, as it mostly is in the davidic lineage part - on an outdated and apparently corrupted version of an incorrectly transmitted revelation that was superseded 1400 years ago and yet which faithful Baha'is still want to invoke as proof of Baha'u'llah's status.

You have to ask yourself - how weak is the case if we have to clutch at straws like this?

PS - if you work backwards, knowing that you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-great grandparents and so on...and make a reasonable allowance for marriages of relatively close cousins, by the time you go back about thirty (or even fewer) generations the number of your direct ancestors exceeds the entire population of the world. If you think about that, what this means - in Baha'u'llah's case, if King David really existed and if his genetic line survived, almost everyone in the entire world - and especially in the middle east - would be descended from him at some point in their family tree. So even if were true, it is nothing special. No more special than it is for me to know that there is an 80% possibility that I am descended from King Edward III.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

If Mohammed were a liar, he would not be able to reach this success

As there are plenty of rich and famous liars, you might not want to use "success" as a rubric.

Its important to remember that Muhammad, Jesus, and Buddha all brought a Message that transcended the people they taught and the cultural context.

The message spread, in part, due to coercion. I'd be more impressed if people just kinda absorbed their message without learning of them specifically.

The message of Judaism was not intended to be universal, not initially at least.

Not at all even now, if watching what's going on in Israel is any inclination.

Muhammad did not materially come through the line from David, whereas Baha'u'llah Did.

In all seriousness, how can relation to David be proven without DNA comparisons to prove it? We're only just recently able to look at DNA for ancestral cues, but even then, we would need David's to have any real evidence. Of course, if we believe the bible, half the region is probably related to David since he couldn't keep it in his pants.

 

[siti]

The version of Barnabas, the oldest of Muhammad's coming, is in Turkey
The laboratory proved that the version dates back to the time before Muhammad

With all due respect it is easy to repeat claims like this - but where is the evidence of this to be found? I am not aware of any extant copy of the Gospel of Barnabus being dated to any earlier than the late middle ages - long after Muhammad's life time.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You have to ask yourself - how weak is the case if we have to clutch at straws like this

I do not have to clutch at straws like this, I offer them only for you to consider, as it sems you need the full list of proofs.

Personaly I found Faith in One God by reading a book called God Loves Laughter and needed from there to find my own self and I am still on that journey.

All the rest is a bonus for me.

Peace be with you.

 

[Vinayaka]

I do not have to clutch at straws like this, I offer them only for you to consider, as it sems you need the full list of proofs.

Personaly I found Faith in One God by reading a book called God Loves Laughter and needed from there to find my own self and I am still on that journey.

All the rest is a bonus for me.

Peace be with you.

For a faith who claims to love laughter, the Baha'i I have met on-line sure seem to be a serious bunch.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

In all seriousness, how can relation to David be proven without DNA comparisons to prove it? We're only just recently able to look at DNA for ancestral cues, but even then, we would need David's to have any real evidence. Of course, if we believe the bible, half the region is probably related to David since he couldn't keep it in his pants

Personally I offer no disrespect to any Prophet and I also do not need these types of proofs.

They come up as others seem to need to find a door to their path, so they are offered as a gift for further though.

Peace be with you Kelly.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

For a faith who claims to love laughter, the Baha'i I have met on-line sure seem to be a serious bunch.

Ha ha, life is not a forum debate site. I would love to meet you in person, you seem to be a very decent member of the human race.

Peace be with you.

 

[siti]

I do not have to clutch at straws like this, I offer them only for you to consider, as it sems you need the full list of proofs.

Sorry Tony - I really meant "you" as in "one" - not you personally. I was really suggesting that the person who sat down to devise a genealogy of Shoghi Effendi was clutching at straws in doing that - he/she might have perfectly sound reasons for faith otherwise - as I am sure you do. But this is (as I am wont to remind people now and again) a debate forum, and if one presents unfounded "evidence" one must be prepared for it to be dismissed as such.

For me - perhaps I do require more in the way of proof than many. I am by nature skeptical - as you may have noticed. But at present, in terms of discussing Muhammad's status as a fulfillment of Jewish and Christian Messianic prophecy, I'll gladly settle for a single piece of credible evidence - let alone "all the proofs" - of which not one has been suggested so far that gets anywhere near crossing the threshold of barely believable never mind "proof"!

 

[Vinayaka]

Ha ha, life is not a forum debate site. I would love to meet you in person, you seem to be a very decent member of the human race.

Peace be with you.

So true. The people I have met in person that I first met on line were totally different than what I had expected. Some worse, some better.

Words on a screen don't convey much at all in that regard. Having browsed several ex-_______ sites on this gadget, I can honestly say 'no sense of humour' or 'no fun' as a relatively common reason for leaving. Many religionists (not a word, I know) do take themselves too seriously.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Sorry Tony - I really meant "you" as in "one" - not you personally. I was really suggesting that the person who sat down to devise a genealogy of Shoghi Effendi was clutching at straws in doing that - he/she might have perfectly sound reasons for faith otherwise - as I am sure you do. But this is (as I am wont to remind people now and again) a debate forum, and if one presents unfounded "evidence" one must be prepared for it to be dismissed as such.

For me - perhaps I do require more in the way of proof than many. I am by nature skeptical - as you may have noticed. But at present, in terms of discussing Muhammad's status as a fulfillment of Jewish and Christian Messianic prophecy, I'll gladly settle for a single piece of credible evidence - let alone "all the proofs" - of which not one has been suggested so far that gets anywhere near crossing the threshold of barely believable never mind "proof"!

All good Siti, I do know it was not personal. It was I that replied in the singular and faith requires the removal of I from life, to the good of all of us. I am still working on that

I see that proof is a great thing and each of us searches for this in a different way. I was thinking we need to have a list of messianic expectations from the Old and New Testaments and then verify the list.

I would suspect that one would find Christ and Muhammad would not tick many of the boxes on that list, if we just looked at them in a material way. But at least we could then discuss what would be a viable metaphorical interpretation.

Peace be with you and all.

 

[siti]

I was thinking we need to have a list of messianic expectations from the Old and New Testaments and then verify the list.

I would suspect that one would find Christ and Muhammad would not tick many of the boxes on that list

I would expect that Jesus would get a few more ticks than Muhammad on account of his story having been written by someone holding the scroll of Isaiah in one hand and a pen in the other as they sketched the "biographical" details of the "Messiah's" life and teachings.

The author of the Qur'an seems to have had some apocryphal Christian tales and some Arabic poetry (in mind if not to hand) and seems to have been more concerned with poetic style than either historical veracity or prophetic fulfillment - which is perfectly sensible for a religious text - but which fact seems lost on adherents in recent centuries. It was left to the hadith story writers and later biographers to put Muhammad's life in the context of his revelation.

Anyway, in the current discussion, I think either a literal or more poetic interpretation of the Qur'an would render the question of Muhammad being the Messiah of the Jewish or Christian tradition completely irrelevant - have I mentioned that before?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Anyway, in the current discussion, I think either a literal or more poetic interpretation of the Qur'an would render the question of Muhammad being the Messiah of the Jewish or Christian tradition completely irrelevant - have I mentioned that before?

Well I would agree with you that Christ and Muhammad are not the Later day Messiah. Personally I see that is clear in the scriptures of the Jews and Christians.

I was exploring what it was to be the Messiah, to me that is a timeless calling that has no barrier of names.

Peace be with you.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The message spread, in part, due to coercion. I'd be more impressed if people just kinda absorbed their message without learning of them specifically.

It is undeniable that coercion and violence have been part of the history and development of both Christianity and Islam. However most Christians and Muslims in the West follow these religions of their own volition.

Not at all even now, if watching what's going on in Israel is any inclination.

The Jewish peoples are often an enigmatic group with many outstanding qualities. It would be a mistake to underestimate them. Judaism is the starting point for the Abrahamic faiths, the Baha'is included. To their credit, as a group they do tend to engage in key religious topics on RF well and have the good sense when to remain silent.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Just to bring the focus back to the OP question, despite overwhelming opinion to the contrary I believe the sacred scripture of both Judaism and Christianity have verses applicable to all Manifestations of God whether Christ, Muhammad, the Bab or Bahá’u’lláh. Furthermore there are verses that specifically refer to one Manifestation and not another.

For example the verses in the Olivet discourses (Matthew 24) regarding the stars falling from heaven, the Sun being dimmed, and the moon no longer shedding its light are symbolic for the conditions of religion when in decline and accompanying the coming of a Messianic type figure. These verses could be applicable to Muhammad or indeed any future Messiah. The same verses are in the book of Isaiah.

On the other hand verses that refer specifically to Islam and Muhammad could be found in the book of Daniel and Revelation.

 

[siti]

I would agree with you that Christ and Muhammad are not the Later day Messiah

So Messianic eschatology (in wither Jewish or Christian tradition) has nothing to do with Muhammad whatsoever - except that he might (perhaps) be another in a long line of prophets who echo some of that eschatology. But certainly neither he nor any of his followers would claim that he was the Messiah.

And then, in that case, you completely disagree with your fellow believer when he claims:

For example the verses in the Olivet discourses (Matthew 24) regarding the stars falling from heaven, the Sun being dimmed, and the moon no longer shedding its light are symbolic for the conditions of religion when in decline and accompanying the coming of a Messianic type figure. These verses could be applicable to Muhammad or indeed any future Messiah. The same verses are in the book of Isaiah.

On the other hand verses that refer specifically to Islam and Muhammad could be found in the book of Daniel and Revelation.

Because the Olivet discourse and the prophetic passages of Daniel and Revelation that I guess he is referring to are quite overtly and explicitly eschatological (i.e. referring the "last days").

But I see what he is trying to do here - make a case for a "last days" fulfillment at the end of the (legitimate) "Christian dispensation" which was then closed to make way for the Islamic dispensation...and ultimately (at least for the time being) the Baha'i Dispensation which eventually followed that. But surely the sun darkened over Islam long before the 1850s? What was God doing for the best part of a 1000 years during which the purity of Muhammad's revelation was bound in spiritual darkness?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

o Messianic eschatology (in wither Jewish or Christian tradition) has nothing to do with Muhammad whatsoever - except that he might (perhaps) be another in a long line of prophets who echo some of that eschatology. But certainly neither he nor any of his followers would claim

I did not say that Siti, I voted Muhammad was the Messiah. In Muhammads case it nearly all relates to a spititual unfolding. I see that this station of Muhammad is clothed in sackcloth. All this to me, the outward unfolding and the illusion of metephorical discourse, is contained in and explained about in the Kitabi-iqan.

I thought I had explained my view above, but maybe you do not see those posts?

So in a Spiritual sense all Gods Messengers are a Messiah. In regards to the outward unfolding of Prophecy, they all have a patlrticular station and preordained message to deliver and a set time given.

Thus Christ and Muhammad are both a Messiah, they are not the Later day Messiah in the Physical sense. In the Spiritual realm, they share this station as we see no difference in God's Messengers.

Peace be with you.

 

[Dawnofhope]

So Messianic eschatology (in wither Jewish or Christian tradition) has nothing to do with Muhammad whatsoever - except that he might (perhaps) be another in a long line of prophets who echo some of that eschatology. But certainly neither he nor any of his followers would claim that he was the Messiah.

And then, in that case, you completely disagree with your fellow believer when he claims:

Because the Olivet discourse and the prophetic passages of Daniel and Revelation that I guess he is referring to are quite overtly and explicitly eschatological (i.e. referring the "last days").

But I see what he is trying to do here - make a case for a "last days" fulfillment at the end of the (legitimate) "Christian dispensation" which was then closed to make way for the Islamic dispensation...and ultimately (at least for the time being) the Baha'i Dispensation which eventually followed that. But surely the sun darkened over Islam long before the 1850s? What was God doing for the best part of a 1000 years during which the purity of Muhammad's revelation was bound in spiritual darkness?

Islam appears to have gone through a long slow decline from the end of the Islamic Golden age and has been slow to embrace modernity. The Islamic Golden age appears to have been (at least in part) the catalyst for the European Renaissance. The European renaissance has enabled the Gospel to be spread through all the nations (Matthew 24:14) coinciding with the Jewish diaspora ending (Luke 21:24) in the 19th century.