Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

[Dawnofhope]

Lets consider that many of the great innovators through both the Islamic Golden age and the Renaissance placed high value on both spiritual/moral attributes and intellectual attainments.

The acquisition of knowledge, the independant investigation of reality, humility, the capacity to consider what we learn or discover judiciously and wisely are not just intellectual attributes but spiritual ones to.

The Baha'i writings are very strong on the importance of acquiring knowledge and capacities both spiritual and intellectual, but so too is the Quran.

One of the purposes of our being created is that we may discern and know God:

“And Allâh has brought you out from the wombs of your mothers while you know nothing. And He gave you hearing, sight, and intellects that you might give thanks"
Surah 16:78

Reading and recitation are as keys to knowledge:

“Read! In the Name of your Lord Who has created all that exists.
He has created man from a clinging substance.
Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous.
Who has taught by the pen.
He has taught man that which he knew not”
Surah 96:1-5

Muhammad teaches that first we should have knowledge and warns against acting without knowledge:

“And follow not that of which you have no knowledge. Verily, the hearing, and the sight, and the heart of each of those ones will be questioned”
Surah17:36

Muhammad asks we have knowledge and fear of God

“It is only those who have knowledge among His slaves that fear Allâh”
Surah 35:28

Muhammad says being both learned and believer occupies a noble status:

“Allâh will exalt in degree those of you who believe, and those who have been granted knowledge”
Surah 58:11

Because of the importance of knowledge, Muhammad has asked we seek more of it:

“and say: ‘My Lord! Increase me in knowledge’”
Surah 20:114

The learned are exalted:

“Say: ‘Are those who know equal to those who know not?’ It is only men of understanding who will remember ”
Surah 39:9

Those who have knowledge may be the amongst those who readily understand the truth from God and believe in it:

“And that those who have been given knowledge may know that it is the truth from your Lord, so that they may believe therein, and their hearts may submit to it with humility”
Surah 22:54

Through God's Teachings our hearts can become purified and we can attain to wisdom,

Certainly did Allah confer [great] favor upon the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from themselves, reciting to them His verses and purifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom, although they had been before in manifest error.
Surah 3:164

There is no goodness in knowledge which is not confirmed by action, or words which are not adorned by deeds:

“O you who believe! Why do you say that which you do not do?
Most hateful it is with Allâh that you say that which you do not do”
Surah 61:2-3

In regards knowledge, we are asked to consider even the celestial realm as this too is God's Creation:

Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding.
Who remember Allah while standing or sitting or [lying] on their sides and give thought to the creation of the heavens and the earth, [saying], "Our Lord, You did not create this aimlessly; exalted are You [above such a thing]; then protect us from the punishment of the Fire.
Surah 3:190-191

My hope in posting these verses on knowledge is to provide a sense of the importance Muhammad placed on knowledge and learning, but the attitudes towards its acquisition and practice. The video I posted above provides a sense of how the culture of Islam was imbued with these qualities but then arrogance and complacency led to a closed minded attitude when the West developed new technologies and inventions, particularly the printing press.

...it is a well-known fact that the works of the ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle, Ptolemy, Aristarchus...etc. and Indian scholars such as Brahmagupta and Aryabhata were among the first works to be translated into Arabic in the Islamic era...and Islamic scholars debated, argued, observed and did experiments to verify, refute, amend and improve on what they learned from these sources...and they did a brilliant job of moving science forward...

The European renaissance and the scientific revolution were indeed ignited and illuminated by the Islamic Golden Age - but the knowledge that was passed on was derived from scientific observation and scholarly ingenuity not divine revelation. Copernicus does indeed seem to have been aware of, borrowed from and built on, the work of al-Tusi and other later Golden Age Islamic scholars but Muhammad, as far as we can tell from the words he is supposed to have received as recorded in the Qur'an, had absolutely no idea about any of this science. In what sense then, in regard to the examples Abdu'l Baha chose to highlight, was he "a great Educator" as Abdu'l Baha claimed?

I'm pleased you have the appreciation of what Islam contributed to the European Renaisance. The contribution of Indian scholars is another interesting thread, bearing in mind that both Krishna and Buddha emerged from India.

Of course the discovery of Greek and Indian works and their translation into Arabic was enormously important.

We may need to agree to disagree about the extent that the Quran positively influenced and stimulated both moral and intellectual capacities.

Perhaps the great physician and thinker Avicenna best exemplifies how may Islamic thinks valued both spiritual and intellectual attributes.

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

For the record @adrian009 you mentioned infanticide in passing on page 1 and highlighted it as a particular point page 2 - fully 9 pages before I decided to pick up on it - as up to then it was the only comment you had made that was relevant to the topic you posted!

Well that's rich! "Strawman"? - did Abdu'l Baha not mention the "fixity of the sun" in Sura 36:38 as proof that Muhammad was a "great Educator"? In fact it was the closing argument in the talk you specifically asked us to comment on - was it not? How is that a "strawman"?

For me, Abdu'l-Baha was simply encouraging us to investigate Muhammad, Islam, and the processes of civilisation building. To presume he's providing a scholarly expose and then criticise his brief talk as if he was is the strawman.

I find his mention of heliocentricity clever because he's encouraging us to investigate the relationship between Divine revelation, science, and civilisation.

You did indeed mention the Golden Age and specifically its importance in ushering in the European renaissance - and the topic of heliocentrism is a fitting aspect of this process that - if investigated properly and independently (of religious bias) - shows that such "revolutions" of human knowledge were based on science not revelation. Abdu'l Baha would have been well-advised to research this topic more thoroughly before making the claims he did on behalf of Muhammad.

I readily admit I have not yet conclusively proven that Islamic scholars derived specific inspiration in regards heliocenric models from the Quran, but can not see that you have disproved it either. It would be intellectual dishonest for either of us to make that claim. I have bias of course being a Baha'i but you have your biases too.

Please read the links you posted properly - Jafar al-Sadiq (the 6th Imam) apparently challenged the Ptolemaic model but did not develop a heliocentric model; Abu Mashar went to India for ten years to study astronomy; al-Biruni wrote that he couldn't prove whether or not the earth rotated as al-Sijzi had suggested - and although he apparently favoured a rotating earth, he also makes reference (in a commentary on Indian astronomy) to a work in which he refutes heliocentrism (but the work he refers to has apparently been lost); al-Razi quoted Seleucus of Seleucia - who, following Aristarchus - promoted a heliocentric model (in the 2nd century BC) which is known only from the Arabic translation of his work (its pretty obvious that al-Razi got the idea from Seleucus not Muhammad...but in any case, as far as I am aware, al-Razi did not specifically support a heliocentric model anyway...

I read the links properly and readily admit these Islamic scientists gained their work in part from others before them, in part from their own research, and there were different models and versions of cosmological models. To properly answer the question as to what role if any the Quran played would probably require someone who has expertise in this field. They would need to be fluent in Arabic, be familiar with the main works of these scientists, and have a sound grasp of fields of knowledge including science, philosophy, and Islamic theology. Do you agree? Regardless it is beyond my area of expertise at this stage. I'm sure as I more thoroughly investigate, new insights will emerge. As Muhammad said in one of those excepts from the Quran above:

“And follow not that of which you have no knowledge. Verily, the hearing, and the sight, and the heart of each of those ones will be questioned”
Surah17:36

 

[siti]

To properly answer the question as to what role if any the Quran played would probably require someone who has expertise in this field. They would need to be fluent in Arabic, be familiar with the main works of these scientists, and have a sound grasp of fields of knowledge including science, philosophy, and Islamic theology. Do you agree?

Yes. So maybe we can get a Baha'i with the requisite skills to translate this very short passage from Allameh Tabataba'i's major exegetical work Tafsir al-Mizan:

قوله تعالى : « وَالشَّمْسُ تَجْرِي لِمُسْتَقَرٍّ لَها ذلِكَ تَقْدِيرُ الْعَزِيزِ الْعَلِيمِ » جريها حركتها وقوله « لِمُسْتَقَرٍّ لَها » اللام بمعنى إلى أو للغاية ، والمستقر مصدر ميمي أو اسم زمان أو مكان ، والمعنى أنها تتحرك نحو مستقرها أو حتى تنتهي إلى مستقرها أي استقرارها وسكونها بانقضاء أجلها أو زمن استقرارها أو محله.

وأما جريها وهو حركتها فظاهر النظر الحسي يثبت لها حركة دورية حول الأرض لكن الأبحاث العلمية تقضي بالعكس وتكشف أن لها مع سياراتها حركة انتقالية نحو النسر الواقع.

http://lib.eshia.ir/12016/17/89

Tabataba'i was one of the most influential Shia scholars of the twentieth century - there is no question that he was a highly respected authority on the interpretation of the Qur'an. Here, referring to the same verse that Abdu'l Baha selected Surah 36:38, I believe he attests both to the ambiguity or "meaninglessness" of the verse as it reads and the fact the "stability" of the sun (in any view) is contradicted by scientific research. All of which is to say that the verse just doesn't say what Abdu'l Baha wants it to say - it has, in fact, nothing to do with science at all.

If you want a more general view of the true nature of the connections between Islamic science and the European renaissance, I recommend reading some of George Saliba's publications for example:

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

I agree that

We may need to agree to disagree about the extent that the Quran positively influenced and stimulated both moral and intellectual capacities.

I suspect the direct influence of the Qur'an was rather neutral overall - although the primary motivation for many of the Islamic scholars investigations might have been religious or spiritual. There does not seem to have been the same religion versus science opposition in the Islamic world that so quickly emerged in the European case. I think perhaps the key "accelerants" underpinning the Islamic "scientific revolution" were the collections of more ancient knowledge (especially of Greek philosophy) carefully preserved by the Persians (which Baha'is would surely want to play up if only they were aware of it), the close connections Islamic scholars had with India and, perhaps most importantly of all, the existence of a rulership regime that valued and sponsored human learning - which arguably may have been an indirect outcome of some of the Qur'anic verses you quoted in your post, but could just as easily have been a more enlightened humanistic outlook derived from knowledge of earlier Persian and Greek approaches to learning, or perhaps even more likely, it was just the realization that an educated society was a stronger society - there is a Muslim tradition that prisoners captured in battle were given their freedom if they could teach ten Muslims to read in a language they felt was valuable - so in a sense, it was more a process of appropriating the culture and learning of conquered peoples, just as the "west" subsequently did to some extent with the "reconquista" that began the transfer of Islamic science to Europe, and that was not entirely unprecedented when the Islamic Caliphate did it - compare Daniel 1:3-4 for example. Whatever the original motivation, it is surely a pity that such politically-sponsored devotion to learning did not last.

The question to ask here is - all other things being equal - could Islamic science have reached the same heights without the Qur'an. Obviously its hypothetical - but I honestly don't think one could come up with any genuine evidence suggesting that any verse of the Qur'an was indispensable to any of the discoveries of Islamic Golden Age science. Unfortunately, to get back on topic, that is precisely what Abdu'l Baha attempted to do - prove that the Qur'an and its author were indispensable to the process of scientific discovery (And this is not a strawman - if you want to assess this, I can parse Abdu'l Baha's argument - but in a separate post following this). We can agree to disagree on that, but it is a poor argument that fails even to establish its own premise - let alone its conclusion. Like I said - I don't have to prove that its untrue - you asked us to comment on whether Abdu'l Baha's commentary on Muhammad's status as a "Messenger of God" was "reasonable" - and my answer is no - it fails to establish reasonable grounds for belief.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes. So maybe we can get a Baha'i with the requisite skills to translate this very short passage from Allameh Tabataba'i's major exegetical work Tafsir al-Mizan:

قوله تعالى : « وَالشَّمْسُ تَجْرِي لِمُسْتَقَرٍّ لَها ذلِكَ تَقْدِيرُ الْعَزِيزِ الْعَلِيمِ » جريها حركتها وقوله « لِمُسْتَقَرٍّ لَها » اللام بمعنى إلى أو للغاية ، والمستقر مصدر ميمي أو اسم زمان أو مكان ، والمعنى أنها تتحرك نحو مستقرها أو حتى تنتهي إلى مستقرها أي استقرارها وسكونها بانقضاء أجلها أو زمن استقرارها أو محله.

وأما جريها وهو حركتها فظاهر النظر الحسي يثبت لها حركة دورية حول الأرض لكن الأبحاث العلمية تقضي بالعكس وتكشف أن لها مع سياراتها حركة انتقالية نحو النسر الواقع.

http://lib.eshia.ir/12016/17/89

Tabataba'i was one of the most influential Shia scholars of the twentieth century - there is no question that he was a highly respected authority on the interpretation of the Qur'an. Here, referring to the same verse that Abdu'l Baha selected Surah 36:38, I believe he attests both to the ambiguity or "meaninglessness" of the verse as it reads and the fact the "stability" of the sun (in any view) is contradicted by scientific research. All of which is to say that the verse just doesn't say what Abdu'l Baha wants it to say - it has, in fact, nothing to do with science at all.

If you want a more general view of the true nature of the connections between Islamic science and the European renaissance, I recommend reading some of George Saliba's publications for example:

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

I agree that
I suspect the direct influence of the Qur'an was rather neutral overall - although the primary motivation for many of the Islamic scholars investigations might have been religious or spiritual. There does not seem to have been the same religion versus science opposition in the Islamic world that so quickly emerged in the European case. I think perhaps the key "accelerants" underpinning the Islamic "scientific revolution" were the collections of more ancient knowledge (especially of Greek philosophy) carefully preserved by the Persians (which Baha'is would surely want to play up if only they were aware of it), the close connections Islamic scholars had with India and, perhaps most importantly of all, the existence of a rulership regime that valued and sponsored human learning - which arguably may have been an indirect outcome of some of the Qur'anic verses you quoted in your post, but could just as easily have been a more enlightened humanistic outlook derived from knowledge of earlier Persian and Greek approaches to learning, or perhaps even more likely, it was just the realization that an educated society was a stronger society - there is a Muslim tradition that prisoners captured in battle were given their freedom if they could teach ten Muslims to read in a language they felt was valuable - so in a sense, it was more a process of appropriating the culture and learning of conquered peoples, just as the "west" subsequently did to some extent with the "reconquista" that began the transfer of Islamic science to Europe, and that was not entirely unprecedented when the Islamic Caliphate did it - compare Daniel 1:3-4 for example. Whatever the original motivation, it is surely a pity that such politically-sponsored devotion to learning did not last.

The question to ask here is - all other things being equal - could Islamic science have reached the same heights without the Qur'an. Obviously its hypothetical - but I honestly don't think one could come up with any genuine evidence suggesting that any verse of the Qur'an was indispensable to any of the discoveries of Islamic Golden Age science. Unfortunately, to get back on topic, that is precisely what Abdu'l Baha attempted to do - prove that the Qur'an and its author were indispensable to the process of scientific discovery (And this is not a strawman - if you want to assess this, I can parse Abdu'l Baha's argument - but in a separate post following this). We can agree to disagree on that, but it is a poor argument that fails even to establish its own premise - let alone its conclusion. Like I said - I don't have to prove that its untrue - you asked us to comment on whether Abdu'l Baha's commentary on Muhammad's status as a "Messenger of God" was "reasonable" - and my answer is no - it fails to establish reasonable grounds for belief.

Thank you for your constructive and well considered response. The George Saliba book looks excellent.

I know enough about Christian exegesis to realise how varied interpretations and the necessity of being acquainted with the bible as a whole to derive the best conclusions. Looking at one scholar and one verse will not provide the best answers anymore than drawing hasty concusions to John 1:1 and John 14:6 based on just one or two verses. I could rub the genie bottle and summon Aladdin (IT) to translate but may explore some less challanging Qur'anic themes first.

Its probably time to start a new thread that explores the Islamic Golden Age more careful with consideration to history, science, and the influences of Muhammad and the Qur'an.

The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAB/sab-45.html

 

[siti]

Looking at one scholar and one verse will not provide the best answers...I could rub the genie bottle and summon Aladdin (IT) to translate...

Perhaps not, but I chose it because it is the most directly relevant couple of sentences from the reference IT himself suggested as providing support for the idea that the early Muslims understood heliocentrism based on Surah 36:38. And that has been my approach in this thread - with the exception of the George Saliba book (which I came across by accident) I have merely read and interpreted the references provided by you and IT.

Its probably time to start a new thread that explores the Islamic Golden Age more careful with consideration to history, science, and the influences of Muhammad and the Qur'an.

I agree with that - my interest is particularly piqued in the origins of the Golden Age - how ancient Egyptian, Babylonian and Greek knowledge was so carefully preserved by the Persians and thereby transmitted to the Islamic scholars...that and the Indian connection (which I know very little about but which seems to be rather important).

 

[Prestor John]

I would like to begin by saying that I am not at all interested in offending anyone and I have nothing but love for you and others.

Be that as it may, I still believe that being frank and business-like when discussing these matters is the best approach at being accurate and avoiding confusion.

The manner of my speech has led many people to become offended in the past.

Even though my words were not offensive, they decided to become offended. It was their choice and I believe they chose wrong.

Proof that proselytizing and Blasphemy can have "heated and destructive consequence" is proved by the following:

The sharing of what I believe to be true about prophets and the Lord Jesus Christ in answer to this question was not “proselytization” or “blasphemy” of any kind.

“Proselytizing” requires an attempt at converting someone to another religion while “blasphemy” is too subjective to be used outside of one’s own faith.

Me sharing my opinion is not “proselytization” and other people not agreeing with my personal beliefs does not make me guilty of “blasphemy”.

Yesterday Pakistan politician said "I will nuke Holland for Muhammad Cartoon Contest"
[RF member (from Pakistan I think) believed this man will go through with this] and he sounded convincing to me

Someone choosing to make threats or actually committing acts of violence because they hear or see something they do not like is not right and should not be tolerated, excluding what is done in defense against such things.

The blame for any “heat” or “destruction” is on the one who threatened or committed the violence, not on the person who exercised their freedom of expression to say or do the thing that they did not like.

“Proselytizing” and “blasphemy” cannot cause violence. Only people cause violence. They choose to commit acts of violence.

All your example proves is that this Pakistani politician is irrational, crazy or a fanatic of a flawed system of belief. Or all of the above.

I can keep it short and just answer your reply, because I have explained in detail before why "belittling is not a good thing"

I am unaware of such an explanation and remain unconvinced that the sharing of one’s personal belief leads to the “belittling” of anyone.

You reply: "I was not trying to belittle anyone's religion" [don't get me wrong, I do appreciate your effort]

There has been a misunderstanding. Let me be more clear.

As I said before, I have no interest in offending anyone. This would include “belittling” anyone. However, the reverse is also true. I also have no interest in avoiding to offend or “belittle” anyone as well.

So, when I said that “I was not trying to belittle anyone’s religion” I did not mean that I had expended any effort to try and avoid offending or “belittling” anyone, what I meant was that it was simply not my intent to belittle anyone.

My only intention was to share what I believe to be true.

My personal beliefs about prophets and the Lord Jesus Christ are independent from what other people think, believe or feel.

I do not care if anyone chooses to be offended or feel “belittled” after reading my answer to the question. I have the right to have my beliefs and voice them whenever I wish. Just as they have the right to decide to be offended by it.

No one can force another person to take offense or feel “belittled.” It is the choice of the individual.

Just to reiterate, there was absolutely no “effort” expended on my part to not “belittle” or offend anyone.

My reply: "But you did belittle".

That would be impossible because I cannot force anyone to feel anything.

If someone felt “belittled” after they read my post, then that was their choice.

I would like to tell anyone that felt “belittled” that, “If you cannot talk about other people’s personal beliefs without becoming offended, then you probably are not prepared to have those kinds of discussions.”

According to the logic that someone can make someone else feel “belittled” by sharing what they believe to be true, than I could flip this on you and say that you are right now attempting to “belittle” me because you are sharing ideas with me that I do not agree with.

Only trying "doesn't do the trick usually" [I am Just trying to inspire Christians to this next level]

I do not believe you are “inspiring” Christians to do anything. Rather, you are trying to manipulate them into no longer living by their religion.

At the core of being a Christian is the life-changing witness of the Holy Spirit that testifies to the heart and mind that Jesus is the Christ, the very Son of God, Savior of the world and Redeemer of Mankind.

This same witness actually inspires Christians to share their testimony with others.

Not only that, but it is a basic tenet of the Christian faith to do so, by way of commandment from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself to share His Gospel with all the world.

However, you seem to be in favor of those of other (non-Christian) faiths being able to live by their religion. So I detect a double-standard.

Hint: Ask yourself "Why I belittle, knowing I upset others.

This question is absurd.

By this logic, you are blaming the people who drew the Muhammad cartoons for the Pakistani politician’s threat of nuclear attack.

That’s exactly like telling a woman that it was her fault she got raped because of how she dressed or because she led the guy on.

I cannot agree with this kind of logic.

Why I keep saying `I was not trying to belittle`

I admit I said that, but I did not mean how you interpreted it to mean.

I just want to make it clear one more time that I expended absolutely no effort to not “belittle” anyone.

Why I not just stop this?"

You are asking me to stop living my religion.

My sharing of my personal belief does not force anyone to be offended or become upset. That is their choice.

The solution is very simple:
1: Praise Jesus all day long, no one will object. I will encourage even
2: Just don't imply anything negative about others' religion; that is sufficient

I never once implied anything negative about anyone else’s religion.

My not believing that Muhammad was a true prophet is not me implying anything negative about the Islamic faith.

No Muslim would agree that many of the men I believe to be prophets are actually prophets, so would you claim that that would be them implying something negative about my religion?

Of course not! They are entitled to their beliefs just as much as I am.

*: You are free to speak what you want; don't start crying when world gets `nuked` because people insist to upset others [can't tell Jesus I didn't know]

You are again blaming the rape victim for their rape. I can never agree with that.

*: It's okay to criticize acts done in name of religion. Just don't do your "Ad Hominem Attacks" [criticize religion instead of `bad acts in name of religion`]

An ad hominem attack is attacking a person, not an idea or system of belief.

Criticizing a religion for what you believe are flaws in the system of belief or doctrine is not an ad hominem attack.

Maybe I am very smart, but this is my personal conclusion, how I feel about it:

Again, I am not interested in offending anyone, but I disagree verily strongly with your conclusions and believe they are not built on intelligence, but upon ignorance.

For me there is not much difference in "Evangelize and Proselytize".

There is literally no difference between the two. Both require an attempt at conversion.

My giving my personal opinion when asked to give it is not “evangelizing” or “proselytizing.”

When someone does this then I and many others get this feeling/impression of you

Again, you choose to feel that way or make that impression of me.

It is literally impossible for me to force you to feel anything.

I still never did either of those things.

They both show know respect for others' religion. Even if they tell "I try to tell in a nice way your religion sucks (you into Hell) or whatever they say or imply"

You cannot honestly believe this because you are right now trying to convert me over to your way of thinking.

Does this mean you are not showing me and my religion any respect?

Why Christians "belittle" so much (on purpose or no aware)

I cannot speak for all Christians, but simply sharing what I believe to be true does not “belittle” anyone unless they choose to be “belittled.”

Why do you act as though other religions do not try to convert others? All religions do this, why do you single Christians out?

I just want you to understand that what you have been saying about Christians could be argued as you attempting to “belittle” them.

You do not even live by the same false standard you are asking me to by.

Christian rule number 1 "Go out and evangelize the whole world"

Actually, I would say the first rule is to have faith in Jesus Christ the Lord.

I have the feeling that this is the reason "Christians don' try very hard NOT to belittle" IMHO

Sharing what you believe to be true does not “belittle” anyone and trying to convert others also does not “belittle” anyone, unless they choose to feel that way.

For example, you have just said some unflattering things about Christians, and I chose not to be offended by any of it.

You have every right to believe the way you do, even if I believe that your viewpoint is ignorant, hypocritical and bigoted.

Now, my opinion of what you have shared can only offend you if you choose to be offended.

So, what are you going to do?

 

[stvdv]

Sharing what you believe to be true does not “belittle” anyone and trying to convert others also does not “belittle” anyone, unless they choose to feel that way.

If you say "My religion is better than your religion" then as per English language you "belittle" the other religion
If you say "My prophet is better than your prophet" then as per English language you "belittle" the other prophet
If you say "My wisdom is better than your wisdom" then as per English language you "belittle" the other's wisdom

 

[Danny1988]

Muhammad claimed to be a Messenger from God and this claim is now accepted by over 1.5 billion Muslims world wide.

The Baha'i Faith arguably the newest Abrahamic Faith emerged out of Persia, now Iran during the nineteenth century. The Founder, Baha'u'llah claimed also to bring a new Revelation from God. This was well received by many in Persia. In nineteenth century Shi'ite Islam there was an intense Messianic expectation similar to Judaism during the time of Christ. The Bab, the forerunner to Baha'u'llah was seen by tens of thousands to fulfil the Madhi prophecy in Shi'ite Islam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi#Bábí_and_Bahá'í_Faiths

Religious and governmental leaders viewed these developments with disdain and the Bab was excecuted by a militia of His own countrymen on 9th July 1850 along with many of His followers. Baha'u'llah was imprisoned and eventually exiled to Akka, the great fortress city of the Ottomon Empire. When Baha'u'llah passed away in 1892 His son Abdu'l-Baha became the leader of the Baha'i Faith. Eventually many Westerners embraced the Baha'i Faith and visited Abdu'l-Baha in Akka where he often remained a prisoner. During the early 20th century He educated the pilgrims about a wide variety of topics. During one of these talks he explained about the life of Muhammad and invited his audience to consider whether or not Muhammad was a Messenger of God. Most Westerners at the time knew little about Islam.

A copy of Abdu'l-Baha's talk is included for anyone to read and obviously presents the life of Muhammad in a favourable light.

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

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

Comments and questions as you will.

History has recorded that Mohammad was a mass murderer, who personally beheaded over 900 people, we also know that he terrorized entire towns and killed everyone and stole their belongings, we also know that he forced people to convert to Islam and killed them if they refused, we also know that he had sex with children so he was a pedophile as well.

Yeah he's a prophet alright but not of God, his life demonstrates that he was evil so it's safe to say that he was a prophet from Satan

 

[Dawnofhope]

We should refrain from speaking that which we know not, we should not slander others and be fair in our judgment.

History has recorded that Mohammad was a mass murderer, who personally beheaded over 900 people

we also know that he terrorized entire towns and killed everyone and stole their belongings

we also know that he forced people to convert to Islam and killed them if they refused

we also know that he had sex with children so he was a pedophile as well.

So what is the 'proof' that He did any of these things?

Yeah he's a prophet alright but not of God, his life demonstrates that he was evil so it's safe to say that he was a prophet from Satan

Judge not, lest we be judged.

Matthew 7:1-4

I look forward to hearing you establish proof that Muhammad did indeed do any of the things you accuse Him of.

 

[Danny1988]

We should refrain from speaking that which we know not, we should not slander others and be fair in our judgment.










So what is the 'proof' that He did any of these things?



Judge not, lest we be judged.

Matthew 7:1-4

I look forward to hearing you establish proof that Muhammad did indeed do any of the things you accuse Him of.

They are historical facts, there's plenty of information about all of those things. I will give you some links if you're too lazy to look into it yourself, just give me a bit of time. I learned about his life many years ago, one youtube documentary comes to mind, called "Islam what the west needs to know"

Have a look at that doco and I'm sure it will cover all those points but there's much more information available if you're willing to look.

 

[stvdv]

They are historical facts, there's plenty of information about all of those things. I will give you some links if you're too lazy to look into it yourself, just give me a bit of time. I learned about his life many years ago, one youtube documentary comes to mind, called "Islam what the west needs to know"

"Islam what the west needs to know": NOT as good as you thought according to Robert Spencer [He is a big critic of Islam; he comments on this youtube]

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/06/islam-what-the-west-needs-to-know-right-but-wrong

 

[Dawnofhope]

They are historical facts, there's plenty of information about all of those things. I will give you some links if you're too lazy to look into it yourself, just give me a bit of time. I learned about his life many years ago, one youtube documentary comes to mind, called "Islam what the west needs to know"

Have a look at that doco and I'm sure it will cover all those points but there's much more information available if you're willing to look.

Of course there is a great deal that has been written and said about Muhammad over the last 1400 years since He claimed a Revelation from God in 610. Some of it is true and some false. There are half truths and propaganda put out by people of different faiths including Muslims themselves but especially Christian fundamentals. I’m asking you what YOUR sources of information are that give veracity to the claims YOU have made.

 

[Dawnofhope]

"Islam what the west needs to know": NOT as good as you thought according to Robert Spencer [He is a big critic of Islam; he comments on this youtube]

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/06/islam-what-the-west-needs-to-know-right-but-wrong

I”m interested in books and materials that are fair, balanced, and moderate. Robert Spencer doesn’t make the cut and would in all likelihood be banned from my country for good reason.

His viewpoints have been described as anti-Islamic or Islamophobic, Spencer describes himself as "the “good” kind of Islamophobe."In 2013 the UK Home Office has barred Spencer and Geller from travel to the UK for 3 to 5 years for "making statements that may foster hatred that might lead to inter-community violence".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spencer_(author)

 

[stvdv]

I”m interested in books and materials that are fair, balanced, and moderate. Robert Spencer doesn’t make the cut and would in all likelihood be banned from my country for good reason.

His viewpoints have been described as anti-Islamic or Islamophobic, Spencer describes himself as "the “good” kind of Islamophobe."In 2013 the UK Home Office has barred Spencer and Geller from travel to the UK for 3 to 5 years for "making statements that may foster hatred that might lead to inter-community violence".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spencer_(author)

"Islam what the west needs to know"
I thought this 1h38m movie was negative about the Islam because of this reply: https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/was-muhammad-a-messenger-of-god.210265/page-21#post-5708213

So I googled and saw that EVEN Robert Spencer said that this movie was not given correct facts about Islam

Are you now saying that this movie is good after all, and Islamophobe Spencer made a good movie look bad?
Is it worth looking then after all in your opinion. I didn't because if Spencer, being Islamophobe, says already it's biased I thought it's just fake news

 

[Danny1988]

Of course there is a great deal that has been written and said about Muhammad over the last 1400 years since He claimed a Revelation from God in 610. Some of it is true and some false. There are half truths and propaganda put out by people of different faiths including Muslims themselves but especially Christian fundamentals. I’m asking you what YOUR sources of information are that give veracity to the claims YOU have made.

I've heard many highly respected historical scholars give lectures about the life of Mohammad. There are too many to list, all you need to do is google them and you can spend the next six months listening and reading

 

[Prestor John]

I'm not trying to offend, but I am going to be frank.

Why can't there be more than one truth?

This question is absurd.

God either is or He isn't. Things either are or they are not. There is nothing in between.

Either Jesus Christ is the Son of God or He isn't.

Muhammad was either a true prophet or a false one. There is nothing in between.

That is just how truth works.

Each of us can have our own preferences and perceptions of what is truth, but those preferences and perceptions do not make or change reality.

Either what we believe in is right or it is wrong. It really is that simple. No reason to muddle things up.

Does it make sense that there is only one religion that is true and God does not care about all the other people in the world? What kind of God would that be, certainly not a loving God.

Either one religion is true or they are all wrong. Two religions, with differing doctrines, cannot both be true.

That is simple reason.

The idea of there being only the one true religion does not mean that God does not love His children who have flocked to other religions.

Are you claiming that while God spoke with Moses and led the Israelites out of Egypt that He hated the Egyptians and all other peoples?

You believe that God loved only His covenant people, the Israelites, and cared for no others?

I don't believe that God and His plan for His children is as simple and one-dimensional as you paint it.

God loves us all, yet He also promised that we would be free to choose for ourselves. We are free to answer His call or refuse. We are free to set up our own religions if we cannot find the truth or cannot agree with the truth.

God keeps His promises, therefore, Men are free to choose for themselves. They are free to choose the one truth or any of the infinite falsehoods.

This is one of the reasons why, in my opinion, God sent His Son to dwell with Man, to live and suffer like they do and to ultimately sacrifice Himself in order to save all of Mankind.

Even though we will not always choose the right, we can still be made pure and whole before God through the merits and grace of Jesus Christ the Lord.

Besides, Jesus did not want anyone to be left behind. About that one lost sheep and He said...

And God His Father shares that same desire. However, because of the promises made to Man by a Being that cannot lie, we are free to reject the truth and become lost.

This does not mean that the Lord will not always be reaching out to those that are lost, for He will always offer a means for the wayward to return to the fold.

He simply will not force them to return because He has given to Man his agency and freedom to choose.

He will always care for and love us, even if we hurt Him through our actions. Yet, He will never force salvation on anyone.

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Even though I agree with the sentiment, I believe this verse is Christ speaking about a branch of Israel that had been broken off to whom He would also need to go to and preach His Gospel.

I believe that He did this very thing after His ascension and an account of which has been recorded in the Book of Mormon.

 

[Dawnofhope]

"Islam what the west needs to know"
I thought this 1h38m movie was negative about the Islam because of this reply: https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/was-muhammad-a-messenger-of-god.210265/page-21#post-5708213

So I googled and saw that EVEN Robert Spencer said that this movie was not given correct facts about Islam

Are you now saying that this movie is good after all, and Islamophobe Spencer made a good movie look bad?
Is it worth looking then after all in your opinion. I didn't because if Spencer, being Islamophobe, says already it's biased I thought it's just fake news

I’m saying it’s just one Islamophobe commenting on another Islamophobes work because yet another Islamophobe has posted on this thread.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'm not trying to offend, but I am going to be frank.

That is good to know.

This question is absurd.

God either is or He isn't. Things either are or they are not. There is nothing in between.

I agree that truth is one but there are many perceptions of that One truth.

Its a little like the parable of the elephant where each has a part of the elephant and makes his conclusions accordingly, The blind man holding the tail believes it to be a snake. The man with his arms around a leg belives it to be the trunk of a tree.

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

Either Jesus Christ is the Son of God or He isn't.

Jesus is the 'Son of God' but not in the manner that you and I would have a child.

Muslims believe in the virgin birgin birth and see Mary the mother of Jesus as the greatest woman of her time. A whole chapter of the Quran is dedicated to her.

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

Some Muslim scholars argue that Jesus was not physically the 'son of God' but spiritually the 'Son of God'. Muslims are obliged to believe in the all the prophets that have gone before with special emphasis on Moses and Jesus.

Muhammad was either a true prophet or a false one. There is nothing in between.

I believe He is a true prophet for the same reason I believe Moses and Jesus to be true prophets. Each brought a Revelation from God that utterly transformed the lives of their followers for many generations. Each revelation is recorded in a book for us to study. That is the Torah, Gospel, and Quran. Each though born at very different times in remarkably different civilisations, were nonetheless outstanding in the manner they lived their lives. Because of all of this, they are more than mere prophets. They are Manifestations of God Himself, each with a designated title to highlight their uniqueness and specialness. Moses was the friend of God, Jesus the Son of God, and Muhammad the Messenger of God.

Each of us can have our own preferences and perceptions of what is truth, but those preferences and perceptions do not make or change reality.

Agreed. That is what the parable of the elephant is about.

Either what we believe in is right or it is wrong. It really is that simple. No reason to muddle things up.

Some of us have a mixture of true and false beliefs. We are human are we not? I think you are being too black and white.

Either one religion is true or they are all wrong. Two religions, with differing doctrines, cannot both be true.

That is simple reason.

Both Christans and Muslims have had major disagreements and even schisms over differences of belief. It is our perception that differs, not the fundamental underlying truths.

The idea of there being only the one true religion does not mean that God does not love His children who have flocked to other religions.

Are you claiming that while God spoke with Moses and led the Israelites out of Egypt that He hated the Egyptians and all other peoples?

You believe that God loved only His covenant people, the Israelites, and cared for no others?

I don't believe that God and His plan for His children is as simple and one-dimensional as you paint it.

God in His love for the whole of humanity has guided different peoples at different times. We would agree on Moses and Jesus being examples of His guidance. We disagree on Muhammad. You believe Jesus visited America and the claims of Joseph Smith. Baha'is believe in Baha'u'llah. The Baha'i Faith and Mormonism are not the main point of disussion here. We are talking about Muhammad and Islam.

God loves us all, yet He also promised that we would be free to choose for ourselves. We are free to answer His call or refuse. We are free to set up our own religions if we cannot find the truth or cannot agree with the truth.

God keeps His promises, therefore, Men are free to choose for themselves. They are free to choose the one truth or any of the infinite falsehoods.

This is one of the reasons why, in my opinion, God sent His Son to dwell with Man, to live and suffer like they do and to ultimately sacrifice Himself in order to save all of Mankind.

Even though we will not always choose the right, we can still be made pure and whole before God through the merits and grace of Jesus Christ the Lord.

Baha'is are good with Jesus the Jewish Messiah, Saviour, Son of God, Lordship of Christ, and purity of Christ.

Let's focus on Muhammad and the Quran and why He is or isn't the Messenger of God whom He claimed to be.

 

[stvdv]

Each of us can have our own preferences and perceptions of what is truth, but those preferences and perceptions do not make or change reality.

Agreed. That is what the parable of the elephant is about.

1 other very important lesson I learn from this parable "None can see the full truth/glory of God (elephant)"
This insight humbles. When only people realize and learn this lesson, the fighting between them will stop.

 

[Prestor John]

If you say "My religion is better than your religion" then as per English language you "belittle" the other religion

I suppose we disagree on a fundamental level.

I will attempt to explain my position from another angle. One of preference.

For example, I am a heterosexual man, therefore I am only attracted to members of the opposite sex. This is my preference.

According to your logic, as far as I understand it, you would argue that my preference toward members of the opposite sex would be me declaring that my preference is "better" than someone else's preference.

If I continue to follow your logic, me living as an openly heterosexual man causes me to inadvertently "belittle" anyone of a different preference than I.

Therefore, I have been "belittling" everyone that has a non-heterosexual preference ever since I entered the dating field.

Not only this, but I am also a married heterosexual man who has pledged his undying love to only the one woman and has entered into an everlasting covenant of marriage with her.

I have therefore, by living my life according to my preference, declared that my wife is the choice pick and is "better" than all other women and have thus "belittled" them as well.

To delve even further into this logic, by having three children with my most favorite person, according to my preference, and have in no uncertain terms claimed that they are the brightest, most beautiful and best of all children, I have "belittled" all the other children of the world!

I'M SUCH A MONSTER!

Or...

Living according to my preference does not "belittle" anyone.

All of us are walking around blind in this world following the "truth" that resonates with us.

My religion is just as personal and sacred to me as my marriage and I don't care if me living according to my preference upsets anyone.

If anyone is upset by how I have chosen to live my life, then they made that choice. I did not force them to be upset. They are the one with the problem, not me.

It is my life and I have a right to live it the way I want.

Just because I am an active member of the LDS Christian Church does not mean that I am telling anyone that my religion is "better" than theirs.

Just because I do not completely agree with everything about other faiths does not mean I am "belittling" anyone's religion.

The Islamic world would disagree with my beliefs about Jesus Christ and prophets being in the world today.

Them living according to their preference is not them claiming that their religion is "better" than mine. It does not "belittle" me.

I could go into how your argument is hypocritical considering that members of varying faiths have claimed that their religion, prophet, wisdom, etc. is better than mine.

I could also speak at length about your obviously bigoted views about Christianity, but I'm going to end it here.​

 

[stvdv]

22 jul 2018 stvdv 019 33 info
I try to explain why "My religion is better than Atheism" equals to "belittling" Atheism [Of course I know the Atheist won't feel belittled, being smart. But still it is "belittling"]

If you say "My religion is better than your religion" then as per English language you "belittle" the other religion

When you tell someone: "My religion is better than your religion" you imply to him "Your religion is less good than my religion", this is called "belittling".
When you tell someone: "My preference is Christian religion" then you imply NOTHING about HIS religion. Just your preference. No comparison. Hence no "belittling"

I suppose we disagree on a fundamental level.

That was my guess also. That is why I kept it to 3 lines in my previous reply.

For example, I am a heterosexual man, therefore I am only attracted to members of the opposite sex. This is my preference.

Good example. Because it will show exactly the same, but maybe you see it when using "sex" as example.

According to your logic, as far as I understand it, you would argue that my preference toward members of the opposite sex would be me declaring that my preference is "better" than someone else's preference.

No that is so totally NOT my logic. Here you misunderstand me completely, meaning 180 degrees wrong.

you would argue that my preference toward members of the opposite sex would be me declaring that my preference is "better" than someone else's preference.

You are hetero (as am I). So our preference is towards women. No problem so far. Now using your analogy:

So we have A: Preference "man/woman" +Preference "Jesus"
So we have B: Preference "man/man" +Preference "Jesus"
So we have C: Preference "man/woman" +Preference "Buddha"
So we have D: Preference "man/man" +Preference "Buddha"

How I would argue:
I choose option "C" today. So I say "I prefer as a man to have sex with a woman" + "I prefer as a man to pray to Buddha"

I do not think any further than this [no better than in my mind]:
In my mind does not exist the phrase "straight sex is better than gay sex" ==> do you think "straight sex is better than gay sex"
In my mind does not exist the phrase "gay sex is better than straight sex"

In my mind does not exist the phrase "Buddha is better than Jesus"
In my mind does not exist the phrase "Jesus is better than Buddha" ==> do you think "Jesus is better than Buddha"
Hence:
In my mind does not exist the phrase "My religion is better than Your religion" ==> do you think "Your religion is better than My religion"

Those Ideas [better than] did exist only in your mind, not in my mind:
Hence your remark "I suppose we disagree on a fundamental level"
On my simple statement "My religion is better than your religion" then as per English language you "belittle" the other religion

You are not the first Christian who really could not see this.
I think I know how this happened
When from young age you were always told "Jesus is the only way", "My religion, Christianity, is better than other religions"
Then after a few years for you it has become a fact "My religion is better than your religion"
And you don't even see it as "belittling" anymore, because it is a fact for you
Fact meaning "That what is true for you MUST be true for all humans"

But I can assure you that on RF if we are going to do a poll, that I am not the only one in this
At least @PopeADope will support me on this [to be sure of this, I did not use Muhammad in my example]

And if I extend it to "My religion is better than Atheism" then as per English language you "belittle" Atheism
At least @ChristineM will support me on this [Of course she will not feel belittled, that is a totally different issue. But as per definition it is "belittling"]