Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

[Dawnofhope]

I certainly would if their interpretations of history were religiously motivated. For example, I don't believe for one minute that the entire structure of Jewish leadership in 1st century Palestine was as woefully corrupt as the NT and its supportive interpreters would have us believe. I take such accounts with a pinch of salt - as I do any other kind of hype.

And you call me prejudiced? Are you seriously comparing the Abbasid Caliphate with the Roman Empire? Do you know anything about history outside of the twisted versions of the Baha'i library? Sorry Adrian but that paragraph really takes the biscuit! How, for instance, do you suppose the Roman Empire became "civilized"? How do you suppose it progressed from Caligula to Constantine? Of dear, oh dear, oh dearie, dearie me! I am incredulous that an obviously well-educated man can make such preposterous comparison and claim it as evidence for "divine education".

We all have our biases and prejudices. I’m just making an observation about your commentary. Comparing the Roman Empire with the Arabic tribes that Muhammad taught is simply comparing apples and oranges. There is no comparison to be made at all. I’m astounded and now you are having a crack at me about my knowledge of history.

The Roman Empire wasn’t civilised but it was a great deal more civilised than the Arabs in the 7th century. A fairer comparison would be comparing those Arabs to the American Indians and African tribes as Abdu’l-Baha did in what you describe as being twisted Baha’i history.

The question of how we went from Caligula to Constantine appears irrelevant. Why did you raise this? Of far great importance if we were discussing Islam is how did we get from the Arabs in Muhammad’s time to the Islamic golden age. That’s why I mentioned the Abbasids.

You want to deny infanticide amongst Arab tribes because the Muslims take on history is biased. Cool. Stop being so dismissive and provide evidence for an alternative narrative.

 

[siti]

No, what you are missing is, when God chose Muhammad as His messenger, and revealed the Quran to Him, He also appointed 12 Imams to who He gave the knowledge of interpretation of the Quran. God asked everyone to learn interpretation of Quran only from these imams, as He made only them free from error. So, there is no vagueness. All they needed was to go and ask the imams, what the particular verse is talking about.
Unfortunately, most translators of Quran, did not use the traditions of the imams to know the correct interpretations. They used their own imaginations, or asked the wrong people. Thus you see, so many different translation for just a simple and clear verse.

Ah! I see! So can you please point me to any evidence that any of the 12 Imams promoted heliocentrism based on their interpretation of the Qur'an?

They mostly didn't write about heliocentrism at all of course - except maybe for the sixth Imam Jafar al-Sidiq. In fact in the earlier part of the rise of Islamic culture, Ptolemy's Syntaxis (complete with his geocentric model) was one of the first Greek works to be translated into Arabic and it was given the Arabic title Al Majisti - "the Greatest". Other early works to be translated from Greek into Arabic included those of Aristarchus - who - it turns out, promoted a heliocentric model that was discredited by Aristotle but - evidently - convinced some of the Muslim cosmologists. If Jafar al-Sidiq promoted a heliocentric model, it is far more likely that he got the idea from the pagan ancient Greek philosopher Aristarchus than a divinely illuminated understanding of obscure verses in the Qur'an.

 

[siti]

You want to deny infanticide amongst Arab tribes

I did not deny it - I simply pointed that the only reason we have for assuming it to have been prevalent is Islamic tradition. Is that true or not?

You brought up the infanticide thing because Abdu'l Baha apparently wrongly thought that infanticide was very uncommon anywhere other than pre-Islamic Arabia and that nobody before Muhammad had thought of making it illegal. Not so. Infanticide was common in many parts of the world before, during and after the time of Muhammad. If we take infanticide as evidence of being a divine educator, then Constantine and Valentinian were both divine educators too

BTW - Caligula was the first Roman Emperor to take power after Christ's ministry - that's why I picked him - you were comparing the progress made from pre-Islamic Arabia to the pinnacle of the Abassid Caliphate - a period of about 300 or so years - with that of Rome - I just chose two Emperors about 300 or so years apart whose reigns marked the time between "revelation of Christ" to the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire. A fair comparison and not particularly flattering for either Jesus or Muhammad as divine messengers as far as I can see - but at least both cultures did outlaw infanticide so nothing to choose between them there.

I am still waiting for you to suggest a more compelling line of evidence.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I did not deny it - I simply pointed that the only reason we have for assuming it to have been prevalent is Islamic tradition. Is that true or not?

I don't think we should be anymore surprised that Muslims have been writing their own history than Christians have been writing theirs. As Western civilisation has been dominated by Christianity, most of our history has been written by Christians up until the nineteenth century. The reason we can dissect the history of Western civilisation more closely is we have an abundance of archaeological and written materials that tells us about Roman and Greek history, and before that the history of the Persians and Babylonians. As far as Judeo-Christianity is concerned it all gets murky before that. So of course there isn't a great deal of objective evidence to support the Hebrew people living in Egypt or to support any of the stories in the Torah for that matter.

When studying Arabic tribes as with any primitive cultures our knowledge becomes even less clear. The lack of literacy and reliance on oral traditions cuts out our main source of information. We are left with archaeological evidence which is simply not going to answer many questions we would like to investigate. So other than Islamic sources of history there's probably not too much we have to go on.

You brought up the infanticide thing because Abdu'l Baha apparently wrongly thought that infanticide was very uncommon anywhere other than pre-Islamic Arabia and that nobody before Muhammad had thought of making it illegal. Not so. Infanticide was common in many parts of the world before, during and after the time of Muhammad. If we take infanticide as evidence of being a divine educator, then Constantine and Valentinian were both divine educators too

I think you need to let this go. Abdu'l-Baha did not mention infanticide in other cultures and it was besides the point. As already explained Abdu'l-Baha used hyperbole to assist his audience understand the state of the Arab people. Associating the American Indians and Africans with Plato is a big clue. One example of the uncivilised state of the Arabic tribes in Muhammad's time was the practice of infanticide. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples if we dug a little deeper. The comparison to the African tribes and American Indians is because these two groups were well known to his audience. Beyond that we should just agree to disagree and move on.

BTW - Caligula was the first Roman Emperor to take power after Christ's ministry - that's why I picked him - you were comparing the progress made from pre-Islamic Arabia to the pinnacle of the Abassid Caliphate - a period of about 300 or so years - with that of Rome - I just chose two Emperors about 300 or so years apart whose reigns marked the time between "revelation of Christ" to the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire. A fair comparison and not particularly flattering for either Jesus or Muhammad as divine messengers as far as I can see - but at least both cultures did outlaw infanticide so nothing to choose between them there.

Islam was established and spread much more rapidly than Christianity. The Rushidun (632- 661) and then the Umayyad Caliphates (661-750) extended into Africa, Europe and Asia. The Umayyad Caliphate was particularly brutal and in many ways Islam did spread through the sword as Christianity did after Constantine. However a deeper influence on the hearts and minds of the inhabits of these newly conquered lands required more than coercion. Attempts to reduce humanities decisions to choose religion based on force alone fail to understand both human nature and religion.

I am still waiting for you to suggest a more compelling line of evidence.

I've mention both the Quran and Islamic Golden Age.

 

[siti]

I've mention both the Quran and Islamic Golden Age.

What about them provides evidence for Muhammad as a Messenger of God?

 

[Dawnofhope]

What possible use could an immanent being, able to know everyone and make itself known to everyone (not just one or two, or a few at a time) have of a "messenger?" This was always, even when very young, my first clue that everything I was "told about God" (presumably gleaned from one messenger or another) could be summarily relegated to the dustbin. If an omnipotent omniscience can't let me know what I need to know without having to hire Her Majesty's Post (or other delivery system) then clearly it ain't what it seems to claim to be.

So because God doesn't conform to your expectations as to how He should exist you reject that He does exist?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Islam Infanticide is explicitly prohibited by the Qur'an."And do not kill your children for fear of poverty; We give them sustenance and yourselves too; surely to kill them is a great wrong."Together with polytheism and homicide, infanticide is regarded as a grave sin (see 6:151 and 60:12). Infanticide is also implicitly denounced in the story of Pharaoh's slaughter of the male children of Israelites (see 2:49; 7:127; 7:141; 14:6; 28:4 ;40:25).

Well, I can go with that, but then the bible turns around in that same story and has no ethical problems with firstborn Egyptian kids being killed off.

[My first thought: Jesus said: `people` go to hell. But Jesus was not `people`[normal], He was divine (so maybe He escaped Hell on this one)]

It entertains me to think that Jesus had to live with the consequences of his teachings.

2c: Hypothetical: Jesus is into "saving people from going to hell". I think His best place to get them is in Hell. So He need not worry "going to Hell", it's His working place

LOL, true. Hell is where the need is, after all.

Suppose you walk into an arena with wolves, or even better tigers. What happens? Seems a silly question, but is it?

Depends on how cool you are.

One criticism was that of cultural misappropriation. That is the Baha'is has misappropriated the Founders of the different world religions and made them part of the Baha'i Faith.

Yeah, but any Abrahamic faith saying that would be extremely hypocritical. All religions borrow from something else. There is nothing new under the sun, after all.

"Unity in Diversity" is not easy to accomplish.

Yes, how Vulcans managed is astounding.

Nor did any Roman emperors who abolished slavery produce works that compare to the Quran.

I dunno. Julius Caesar, while being a pronounced jerk of epic proportions, still wanted some things for the empire that would've been quite progressive.

I certainly would if their interpretations of history were religiously motivated. For example, I don't believe for one minute that the entire structure of Jewish leadership in 1st century Palestine was as woefully corrupt as the NT and its supportive interpreters would have us believe. I take such accounts with a pinch of salt - as I do any other kind of hype.

Indeed. As I grew older and started watching or reading news (didn't start caring about politics until my teen years), I started watching modern Israel and how it treated both the people it liked and the people it didn't like and I ran through the bible again and I saw with eyes opened just how much horrendous propaganda is in there.

To this day, I've seen people "justify" what happens to various civs in the bible by saying they did evil things, but the thing is, our media promotes "if you're black, you're a thug; if you're brown, you're a terrorist", etc. Just because someone tells a story doesn't make it true. I've been in arguments with racists who say blacks are statistically more likely to be criminals. I shoot back, "No, they are more likely to get arrested. Plenty of whites do those things too, but cops just let it slide most of the time."

God asked everyone to learn interpretation of Quran only from these imams, as He made only them free from error.

And how does one verify this? Do you typically ask the drug company if their drug works better than the drug of the competitor?

You brought up the infanticide thing because Abdu'l Baha apparently wrongly thought that infanticide was very uncommon anywhere other than pre-Islamic Arabia and that nobody before Muhammad had thought of making it illegal. Not so. Infanticide was common in many parts of the world before, during and after the time of Muhammad. If we take infanticide as evidence of being a divine educator, then Constantine and Valentinian were both divine educators too

I mean, the bible specifically tells parents to kill their bratty kids. How Jesus survived to adulthood is mind-boggling.

I don't think we should be anymore surprised that Muslims have been writing their own history than Christians have been writing theirs.

Exactly. They all spun things. If you research Rameses 2 versus the Hittites, how well their battles went would depend on whether you're reading the Egyptian (Rameses was so uber cool he made the gods blush) or the Hittite (these liberal wonks just got totally pwnd) versions.

 

[siti]

Abdu'l-Baha did not mention infanticide in other cultures and it was besides the point.

Yes he did - he said (my underline):

"These Arab tribes were in the lowest depths of savagery and barbarism, and in comparison with them the savages of Africa and wild Indians of America were as advanced as a Plato. The savages of America do not bury their children alive as these Arabs did their daughters, glorying in it as being an honorable thing to do."

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-7.html#fn1​

In fact, it was Abdu'l Baha's opening salvo (after an opening paragraph or two in which he excused Muhammad's polygamy and complained about him having been persecuted) - as indeed it was yours - in attempting to demonstrate the Muhammad was God's Messenger. In fact, it is known that some tribes of indigenous Americans (the Mohave for example) did indeed bury newborn children alive - especially in times of famine - and the Mariame Indians in what is now Southern Texas, sometimes killed so many of their daughters that young braves later had to go to neighboring tribes to find wives. You can look this up if you don't believe me - Abdu'l Baha was wrong. And before you ask me to "let it go" again - remember it was you that brought the subject up here:

The various clans were barbaric and one group prided themselves on burying female babies alive.

and again here:

Infanticide appeared to be a significant problem amongst the Arabs that Muhammad put an end to.

I have mentioned in previous discussions - you cannot, especially in a debate forum, make false, inaccurate or misleading claims, expect them go unchallenged and then insist that we "drop it" when the evidence inconveniently speaks against it. Remember what your original post asked us to comment on:

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

I think we can answer this now - don't you?

 

[stvdv]

Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

If Messenger means "He got Divine inspiration" then I would say yes
If Messenger means "He was perfect" then I would say no
If Messenger means "His Quran was Divine inspired" then I would say yes
If Messenger means "His Quran has no errors" then I would say no

I believe "Divine Inspiration" has nothing to do with "errors or not"
God granted man "free will" implying "errors can be made". Would be funny to give an "error free Book"

God granted "Sun" not much freedom, lucky for us [after "hang-over" sun still has to "rise and shine"]

Interesting question: Why are (religious) people so hung up that their scripture/Messenger MUST be error-free?

 

[siti]

OK - so whilst I am reading through Abdu'l Baha's talk, I note that apart from bringing up the barbarity of the pre-Islamic Arab tribes and noting that Muhammad and his followers were persecuted, his next line of evidence is really more of an excuse for the violent excesses of early Islam. He says:

"Muḥammad received the Divine Revelation among these tribes, and after enduring thirteen years of persecution from them, He fled. 2 But this people did not cease to oppress; they united to exterminate Him and all His followers. It was under such circumstances that Muḥammad was forced to take up arms. This is the truth: we are not bigoted and do not wish to defend Him, but we are just, and we say what is just. Look at it with justice. If Christ Himself had been placed in such circumstances among such tyrannical and barbarous tribes, and if for thirteen years He with His disciples had endured all these trials with patience, culminating in flight from His native land—if in spite of this these lawless tribes continued to pursue Him, to slaughter the men, to pillage their property, and to capture their women and children—what would have been Christ’s conduct with regard to them?...

...If Christ had been placed in similar circumstances, it is certain that with a conquering power He would have delivered the men, women and children from the claws of these bloodthirsty wolves."​

If as Abdu'l Baha recommended we should follow Muhammad's advice and

"...accept the Pentateuch and the Gospel, and ... believe in Christ and in Moses"​

Ought we not to accept the Gospel's testimony when it claims that Jesus, when he was faced with persecution, said (for example):

"My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

John 18:36
​

So wrong on the character of Christ and the content of the Gospel I reckon too. But perhaps that is just more hype-rbole?

Abdu'l Baha closes with the scientific evidence (heliocentrism) and cultural progress (the Golden Age that Adrian has mentioned a couple of times). I have already dealt with the heliocentrism* thing in my response to @InvestigateTruth and those comments apply equally to the Golden Age thing. Did the elevation of learning in the Islamic world of the 8th and 9th centuries result from a study of the Qur'an (and the Pentateuch and the Gospels as recommended by Muhammad)? Or is it more accurate to say it resulted from their rediscovery of Greek philosophy? How much science could they really have gleaned from the Qur'an or the Bible? Is it not really more accurate to suggest that the scholarly part of the Golden Age of Islam owed more to Aristotle, Aristarchus, Ptolemy, Pythagoras and Plato than it ever could to Muhammad? Well I guess you'd have to read at least some of the Muslim scholars and compare in order to answer that. I'm off to look for an English translation of al-Kindi.

*Although I have already dealt with this earlier, I neglected to mention that as late as the 11th century the Muslim scholar al-Biruni was refuting the claims of the Indian scholars Aryabhata and Brahmagupta (who was a contemporary of Muhammad) that the earth moves. Clearly he was one of the "doctors of Islam" who Abdu'l Baha claims was attempting to explain away verses in the Qur'an that he claimed supported heliocentrism. In reality, they were explaining away ancient Greek and Indian philosophers from whom they got (but failed to grasp) the ideas of a moving earth and heliocentrism. It is more likely, I reckon, that they felt obliged to do so precisely because they thought heliocentrism, a moving earth and the "fixity" of the sun were contrary to, rather than supported by, the Prophet's ambiguous words.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes he did - he said (my underline):

"These Arab tribes were in the lowest depths of savagery and barbarism, and in comparison with them the savages of Africa and wild Indians of America were as advanced as a Plato. The savages of America do not bury their children alive as these Arabs did their daughters, glorying in it as being an honorable thing to do."

You conveniently did not underline 'glorying in it as being an honorable thing to do'. I guess its human nature to emphasise or exagerate one piece of information at the expense of the other to amke a point. The practice goes as far back as the Greeks and they even gave it a name. Hyperbole!

You are right, Abdu'l-Baha did make a specific reference to the savages of America.I grant you that.

In fact, it was Abdu'l Baha's opening salvo (after an opening paragraph or two in which he excused Muhammad's polygamy and complained about him having been persecuted) - as indeed it was yours - in attempting to demonstrate the Muhammad was God's Messenger.

I have no problem with Muhammad's polygamy as I have no problem with the polygamy that is rife in the OT. It was the custom of tribal leaders to have marry wives from neighbouring tribes as a way of bring the tribes together and having peace. Muhammad certainly succeeded in uniting the Arabian tribes. I would imagine part of the deal was marrying woman from different tribes. Before He was a leader of His own tribe, the Muslims, He had just one wife, Khadijah.

In fact, it is known that some tribes of indigenous Americans (the Mohave for example) did indeed bury newborn children alive - especially in times of famine - and the Mariame Indians in what is now Southern Texas, sometimes killed so many of their daughters that young braves later had to go to neighboring tribes to find wives. You can look this up if you don't believe me - Abdu'l Baha was wrong. And before you ask me to "let it go" again - remember it was you that brought the subject up here:

Here we go again.

Of course some of the American tribes practiced infanticide though to what extent we don't know for certain as their history was relayed through oral traditions. Did any of these tribes glory in it being the honorable thing to do? I don't know. Did Christian missionaries exagerate the savagery of the Indian tribes? Almost certainly. Did other tribes people and Westerners rape woman of another tribe causing another motivation for infanticide? No doubt. Were the American Savages like nobles compared to the Arabian tribes? Very unlikely. Was one group any better or worse than the other? We don't know.

Should I be taking the words of Abdu'l-Baha's table talk literally and replicating what Christians and Muslims do with the words of their Teacher? Of course not.

Regardless, we can be reasonably certain Muhammad taught against Infanticide and His Teachings influenced the hearts of many who believed in Him. This was important as the Arabs practiced infanticide. That was Abdu'l-Baha's point afterall.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I can admire the goals of lots of people without wanting to follow them. I don't even like my own messiah all that much anymore, but I don't blame the Way for this.

Where do you think it all unravelled?

Which is a shame because I feel orthodoxy was less accurate on this belief.

Arius emphasised Jesus as the 'Son of God' which is easier to reconcile with Islam than 'Jesus is God'. 'Son of God' is a Messianic title and perhaps similar to Moses being the 'friend of God' and Muhammad being the 'Messenger of God'.

Well, I can go with that, but then the bible turns around in that same story and has no ethical problems with firstborn Egyptian kids being killed off.

I don't think there is any evidence to support the story of the Egyptians or Herod's slaughter of the innocents as being anymore than a story. .

Yeah, but any Abrahamic faith saying that would be extremely hypocritical. All religions borrow from something else. There is nothing new under the sun, after all.

Each Faith builds on the lessons learnt from the previous Faiths. That is certainly true for Christianity, Islam and Buddhism.

I dunno. Julius Caesar, while being a pronounced jerk of epic proportions, still wanted some things for the empire that would've been quite progressive.

I suppose most people have a few good qualities. Its a question of degrees when considering the likes of Moses, Christ and Muhammad.

Exactly. They all spun things. If you research Rameses 2 versus the Hittites, how well their battles went would depend on whether you're reading the Egyptian (Rameses was so uber cool he made the gods blush) or the Hittite (these liberal wonks just got totally pwnd) versions.

There is a lot of spinning going on in this thread from all sorts of directions. That's not always a bad thing.

 

[Dawnofhope]

If Messenger means "He got Divine inspiration" then I would say yes

Agreed.

f Messenger means "He was perfect" then I would say no

What does being perfect mean to you? What are the imperfections of Muhammad?

If Messenger means "His Quran was Divine inspired" then I would say yes

Agreed.

If Messenger means "His Quran has no errors" then I would say no

What errors do you see in the Quran?

I believe "Divine Inspiration" has nothing to do with "errors or not"

Probably not but it might be a question of 'degrees' of perfection.

God granted man "free will" implying "errors can be made". Would be funny to give an "error free Book"

The words of my teacher:

As to thy question concerning the additions to the Old and New Testament: Know thou, verily, as people could not understand the words, nor could they apprehend the realities therein, therefore they have translated them according to their own understanding and interpreted the verses after their own ideas and thus the text fell into confusion. This is undoubtedly true. As to an intentional addition: This is something uncertain. But they have made great mistakes as to the understanding of the texts and the comprehending of the references and have therefore fallen into doubts, especially in regard to the symbolical verses.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/TAB/tab-653.html

God granted "Sun" not much freedom, lucky for us [after "hang-over" sun still has to "rise and shine"]

Interesting question: Why are (religious) people so hung up that their scripture/Messenger MUST be error-free?

It would be useful then to examine the life and teachings of Muhammad and see what we mean by 'error'.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Circles in creation are good. Circles in the mind are questionable. When you learn from something I don't call it stupid [I did not see other 18.000 post threads anymore]

Just like the infallibility issue in Baha'i'. The founder, his son, his grandson, and now the UHJ are all infallible, which means: I AM NEVER WRONG! Good luck with this.

If we stay with the topic, which is about the life and teachings of Muhammad, we avoid this problem.

If Baha'is recognise their beliefs are just that...beliefs, we avoid this problem.

Sometimes Baha'is can be like evangelical Christians. We shouldn't be, but sometimes we are despite the best efforts of our teachers.

 

[Dawnofhope]

What about them provides evidence for Muhammad as a Messenger of God?

If a bird looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks and flies like a duck then he probably is a duck.

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

Muhammad Claims that an angel Gabriel spoke to Him and taught Him the Quran. Verses in Quran affect my heart in much the same way that veres in OT, NT and Baha'i writings do. Muhammad was illiterate and so the Quran are the verses remembered by His followers, passed on through oral traditions and eventually written down. The verses are filled with wisdom and insight that call men to worship God and follow in His ways. They have enabled peoples from diverse backgrounds for centuries to live better lives. The Teachings have stimulated the intellectual and moral faculties latent within many. This has enabled individuals, families, communities, nations, and even civilisations to flourish. The Islamic civilisation represents the greatest pinnacle or highest point in Islam's history. The life changing power in the verses of the Quran are still as apparent today as they were over 1,400 years ago when the Quran was first revealed.

 

[stvdv]

I believe "Divine Inspiration" has nothing to do with "errors or not"

God granted "Sun" not much freedom, lucky for us [after "hang-over" sun still has to "rise and shine"]

What does being perfect mean to you? What are the imperfections of Muhammad?

In India you had Poorna Avatars, they incarnated with Divine Attributes [upto 16]. They follow Dharma to the tee. Pure Mind. So then you come close to prefect IMO
There are also enlightened beings on earth. Not sure if they are perfect. But at least their mind is much purer.
A Messenger is a normal person (not perfect) living normal life before. Chosen by God to help in God's mission like Muhammad/Bahaullah. Specific for that purpose IMO
There is not need to look for imperfections because that is not important. Also no need to look if He was perfect or not. That is not important IMO

What errors do you see in the Quran?

I was just told that we had a thread of 18.000 posts. Probably some errors have passed there. Again for me not interesting. Common Sense says "Errors 99% chance"
I found one big problem in Quran which Muslims do not follow. Put it on Quran forum debate few month back; 150 viewed, not one dared reply. Guess I found an error.
I found 1 inconsistency, that is enough for me. So I have proof Quran is not 100% perfect. Good to stay humble IMO

Probably not but it might be a question of 'degrees' of perfection.

The words of my teacher:
As to thy question concerning the additions to the Old and New Testament: Know thou, verily, as people could not understand the words, nor could they apprehend the realities therein, therefore they have translated them according to their own understanding and interpreted the verses after their own ideas and thus the text fell into confusion. This is undoubtedly true. As to an intentional addition: This is something uncertain. But they have made great mistakes as to the understanding of the texts and the comprehending of the references and have therefore fallen into doubts, especially in regard to the symbolical verses.

Exactly, the Bible has flaws in it. Common Sense. Christians won't admit easily [understandable]. In same line Quran has flaws in it. Bahai/Muslims won't easily admit.
Sai Baba clearly stated "1 purpose of the Sai Poorna Avatar is to correct the errors that snuck in the scriptures" + "Muslim will come last" [not easy to admit flaws I guess]

 

[stvdv]

Just like the infallibility issue in Baha'i'. The founder, his son, his grandson, and now the UHJ are all infallible, which means: I AM NEVER WRONG! Good luck with this.

It would be useful then to examine the life and teachings of Muhammad and see what we mean by 'error'.

Just similar errors as your teacher showed in the Bible. Using common sense, it's almost unavoidable when humans write stuff down. No need to proof, Muhammad is dead now.

If Baha'is recognise their beliefs are just that...beliefs, we avoid this problem.
Sometimes Baha'is can be like evangelical Christians. We shouldn't be, but sometimes we are despite the best efforts of our teachers.

That is a very healthy attitude IMO. I don't care if Bahai evangelize, if they just admit it. Then all is fine for me. That is why I like you, you are honest about it.
Sai Baba said on this "Evangelizing is one cause people become Atheists". Easy proven to be true. I like atheist for not belittling others. When an atheist belittles me, I can easily forgive. It's because Christians belittled them in the first place, so they got irritated.

For me the below 3 quotes are good ingredients to achieve what Bahaullah came for "Unity in Diversity"
There is 1 religion, the religion of Love [Bible gives us the 2 greatest Commandments]
There is 1 caste, the caste of Humanity [Bible tells us, all are children of God]
There is 1 language, the language of the Heart [Bible tells us, Babylon is not the best option to get understanding]

 

[Vinayaka]

If we stay with the topic, which is about the life and teachings of Muhammad, we avoid this problem.

If Baha'is recognise their beliefs are just that...beliefs, we avoid this problem.

Sometimes Baha'is can be like evangelical Christians. We shouldn't be, but sometimes we are despite the best efforts of our teachers.

Indeed. But see the second paragraph in post #1.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Ah! I see! So can you please point me to any evidence that any of the 12 Imams promoted heliocentrism based on their interpretation of the Qur'an?

They mostly didn't write about heliocentrism at all of course - except maybe for the sixth Imam Jafar al-Sidiq. In fact in the earlier part of the rise of Islamic culture, Ptolemy's Syntaxis (complete with his geocentric model) was one of the first Greek works to be translated into Arabic and it was given the Arabic title Al Majisti - "the Greatest". Other early works to be translated from Greek into Arabic included those of Aristarchus - who - it turns out, promoted a heliocentric model that was discredited by Aristotle but - evidently - convinced some of the Muslim cosmologists. If Jafar al-Sidiq promoted a heliocentric model, it is far more likely that he got the idea from the pagan ancient Greek philosopher Aristarchus than a divinely illuminated understanding of obscure verses in the Qur'an.

It is well known the Imams got their knowledge from Muhammad and Quran. All their lives they promoted Quran, and if you search, you sure will find that they understood those verses of Quran to teach Heliocentric model.
Your idea of the Imams reading or learning from pagans or greeks has no basis or evidence whatsoever.
Moreover if Quran was teaching other than Heliocentric model, why would the Imams, such as Sadiq, go with something that is different than Quran? They could stick with Quran. Have you not seen the young creationalists who even today still stick with young earth idea, despite, now big bang is well known?
I could point you out to how the Imams interpreted the verses, but they are in Arabic, so no point.
But you did a good search about imam Sadiq. Well done!

 

[InvestigateTruth]

And how does one verify this? Do you typically ask the drug company if their drug works better than the drug of the competitor?

This is another subject you are asking.
What we were talking about, was, Quranic verses have been translated and interpreted in so many different ways. How can we know which interpretation and translation was intended by the Author of Quran?
The answer is given by Quran: the interpretation which is given by Muhammad and 12 Imams is officially Islamic view.
Now, with these interpretation one can study Quran and decide if it is a divinely ordained Book or not.
But the problem has been, often people interpret Quran in ways other than how Muhammad and Imams interpreted, and when it does not make sense, they say, the Quran is false. But what Quran says, is: use the correct interpretation, then you will see it is a Book without error.