Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

[ChristineM]

Ah, yes, Youtube, the pinnacle of scholarly information.


Well, one was apparently so bad he can't travel to some places because he's a hateful idiot. Wanna try again? Something with facts to back it up, like archaeology or something? Christian accounts can't be trusted because not only was their Jesus monopoly threatened, but the spice trade was profitable and they couldn't stand someone else making tons of money on it.

Historical fact: google it.


Well, except for the people walking up to it who aren't blind.


Then why does the NT call Satan the Father of Lies and the one who deceived Eve? None of those things are even remotely true. Thus, the NT is encouraging lying.


LOL, irony alert.


Yeah, it's like how the conquest of Canaan supposedly involved hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, who wouldn't have been able to fit in an area like that without skyscrapers and stuff. They just inflated numbers to make it seem more epic than it was.

Bad story: We had 50 soldiers with some sticks fight and kill about 40 other guys with swords.

Great story: We had 10 soldiers with sticks and the sun stopped and meteorites or something and whatever and we totally hacked the heads off maybe 10 million bad guys and we took their women and cows.

Edit:
*soldiers hold up a banner* MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

I frubled it funny because it is. Pity i can't give multiple frubles and even more of a pity they dont have a 'brilliant' frubal.

 

[stvdv]

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

That's why they give a specific God a specific name. I always make sure to call out by the correct name.
Especially in the beginning, I was a bit scared to get info from the wrong God. I was not good at filtering.
But now any God can give me a Message. I just run it through my spam-filter anyway. So I am safe now.

 

[stvdv]

Well, except for the people walking up to it who aren't blind.

You are missing the point here [of the "parable of the elephant"]

 

[siti]

You are missing the point here [of the "parable of the elephant"]

The point presumably being that blind people should be especially careful if they happen to be the one examining the tail...

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The reality is, we have no reliable sources about anything Muhammad may have said or done - if he really existed as the person attested to by Muslim tradition - from any earlier than 2 centuries after his "appearance". Do we?

Yes, it is called the Koran. Hadith varying in reliability to fiction.

All Hadith must be supported by the Koran in its entirity.

Peace be with you.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes - there is a technical term for this kind of approach: cherry picking.

The reality is, we have no reliable sources about anything Muhammad may have said or done - if he really existed as the person attested to by Muslim tradition - from any earlier than 2 centuries after his "appearance". Do we?

And the early interpretations of Islam and the Prophet's life, that, as you rightly point our, appeal more to testosterone than spirituality, are, in fact, the foundation upon which the Islamic Caliphates were established - aren't they?

And by the time the Abbasids had full control of their empire such that they could genuinely champion peace over violent oppression, Muhammad had been dead 200 years and nobody was really quite sure whether any of the tales that had been written about him between his lifetime and theirs was really true or not - let alone whether it was of divine origin or not - were they?

And it was for this reason that scholars in the Abbasid period invented the "science of hadith" - in an attempt to validate the confusing array of contradictory opinions about Muhammad's life and teachings that had built up over the preceding couple of centuries - isn't it?

And that is precisely what they did - cherry picked the accounts depending on their own interpretation of Islam and the Qur'an (the text of which we also have no extant copies from the first two centuries of Islam) - isn't it? Just as ibn-Ishaq and al-Zubayr et al had cherry-picked on behalf of the more bloodthirsty Umayyad Caliphs and their subjects a century or so earlier.

Bottom line - we have absolutely no idea what Muhammad really said or did so how can anybody make a convincing - let alone compelling - case for his "Divine Messenger" status?

The existence of Muhammad is not really in doubt anymore than the existence of Jesus is in doubt. The questions are about what actually happened rather than did Muhammad or Christ exist.

It is the work of scholars to make sense of the wealth of information available both about the life of Muhammad Himself and the Quran. You can call it cherry picking (I quite like cherries) but its just what any scholar would do.

The Quran is widely considered to be more authentic than the gospels due to the availability of early sources and the consistency of those sources.

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

While the existence of the figure Muhammad is proven by contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous historical records, attempts to distinguish between the historical elements and the unhistorical elements of many of the reports of Muhammad have not been very successful. As such the historicity of Muhammad, aside from his existence, is debated. The earliest Muslim source of information for the life of Muhammad, the Quran, gives very little personal information and its historicity has been questioned. Next in importance is the sīra literature and hadith, which survive in the historical works of writers from the second, third, and fourth centuries of the Muslim era (c. 700−1000 AD). There are also a relatively small number of contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous non-Muslim sources, which confirm the existence of Muhammad and are valuable both in themselves and for comparison with Muslim sources.

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

The main evidence for the Messenger of God status of Muhammad is the Quran itself and then to consider the enormous influence this book has had on the hearts and minds of so many for so long.

The problem many Westerners have with Muhammad as a Messenger of God is their expectation of someone who had nothing to do with conflict. The reality is conflict has been an inevitability of history and many theists, myself included, believe that God can and does choose Mesengers who will conquer their enemies. Muhammad's conquest of the Arabian Penisula occurred with relatively little blood shed. It could have been a great deal worse. Had Muhammad been a pacificist his followers would have almost certainly been totally destroyed and not too much would have changed.

 

[Vinayaka]

The reality is conflict has been an inevitability of history and many theists, myself included, believe that God can and does choose Mesengers who will conquer their enemies.

Enemy? Does that just mean one who disagrees with you? Most of the peoples who were taken over in genocidal attempts were people, not that much different than their aggressors. The 'enemy' part was just in the mind of the aggressor. Imagination at best, with some deranged need to even have an enemy.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Enemy? Does that just mean one who disagrees with you? Most of the peoples who were taken over in genocidal attempts were people, not that much different than their aggressors. The 'enemy' part was just in the mind of the aggressor. Imagination at best, with some deranged need to even have an enemy.

The main enemies for Muhammad were tribes such as the Quarysh that persued Him to Medina with the intent of annihilating Muhammad and many of His followers. He defended against them and when the Muslims returned to Mecca there was little bloodshed or resistance. He conquered through His Word and the sword. The Arabian tribes became united as Muslims.

The Quran is not the product of a derranged mind anymore than Muhammad uniting the disparate tribes of the Arabian penisula was the work of the devil.

The subsequent spread of Islam beyond Arabia occurred after the Muhammad's death.

 

[Vinayaka]

The main enemies for Muhammad were tribes such as the Quarysh that persued Him to Medina with the intent of annihilating Muhammad and many of His followers. He defended against them and when the Muslims returned to Mecca there was little bloodshed or resistance. He conquered through His Word and the sword. The Arabian tribes became united as Muslims.

The Quran is not the product of a derranged mind anymore than Muhammad uniting the disparate tribes of the Arabian penisula was the work of the devil.

The subsequent spread of Islam beyond Arabia occurred after the Muhammad's death.

Intent of annihilation versus intent of annihilation seems too much like fighting for fighting sake to me. It's sad. Historically, the scholars have always maintained that it was the other guys' fault. This happens from both sides. Not unlike two kids in the principal's office each pointing the finger at the other guy. Fact is we'll never know what really went down, as history gets re-worded, re-written, and in some cases is just incredibly one-sided. Sometimes one side didn't even have a written language. We see that in many of the European invasions cross this planet.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Enemy? Does that just mean one who disagrees with you? Most of the peoples who were taken over in genocidal attempts were people, not that much different than their aggressors. The 'enemy' part was just in the mind of the aggressor. Imagination at best, with some deranged need to even have an enemy.

I noted in the time of Muhammad, they tried to wipe all the new beleivers of the face of the earth. Intetestingly then it happened also with the Bab. But then we got Baha'u'llah and teachings that say the worst enemy is our own selves. I found and do find that to be very true, I am my worst enemy....

"The Cause is manifest, it shineth resplendent as the sun, but the people have become veils unto themselves. We entreat God that He may graciously assist them to return unto Him. He is, in truth, the Forgiving, the Merciful. (Baha’u’llah, Tablets of Baha’u’llah, p. 79)

It is also of interest that the worst enemies come from inside a faith, this is a very interesting thought for a Baha'i;

"One of the greatest problems in the Cause is the relation of the believers to each other; for their immaturity (shared with the rest of humanity) and imperfections retard the work, create complications, and discourage each other. (Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha’i Community, p. 449)

In the end it is up to each other to be at peace with our own selves and be peaceful to others.

Peace be upon you always.

 

[Vinayaka]

I noted in the time of Muhammad, they tried to wipe all the new beleivers of the face of the earth. Intetestingly then it happened also with the Bab. But then we got Baha'u'llah and teachings that say the worst enemy is our own selves. I found and do find that to be very true, I am my worst enemy....

"The Cause is manifest, it shineth resplendent as the sun, but the people have become veils unto themselves. We entreat God that He may graciously assist them to return unto Him. He is, in truth, the Forgiving, the Merciful. (Baha’u’llah, Tablets of Baha’u’llah, p. 79)

It is also of interest that the worst enemies come from inside a faith, this is a very interesting thought for a Baha'i;

"One of the greatest problems in the Cause is the relation of the believers to each other; for their immaturity (shared with the rest of humanity) and imperfections retard the work, create complications, and discourage each other. (Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha’i Community, p. 449)

In the end it is up to each other to be at peace with our own selves and be peaceful to others.

Peace be upon you always.

Sorry, the last thing I need is a Bahai proselytizing at me.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Sorry, the last thing I need is a Bahai proselytizing at me.

Well that was amazing response.

Greetings by the way.

Peace be with you.

 

[Vinayaka]

Well that was amazing response.

It's never surprising to me any more. Way too common of a pattern.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Intent of annihilation versus intent of annihilation seems too much like fighting for fighting sake to me. It's sad. Historically, the scholars have always maintained that it was the other guys' fault. This happens from both sides. Not unlike two kids in the principal's office each pointing the finger at the other guy. Fact is we'll never know what really went down, as history gets re-worded, re-written, and in some cases is just incredibly one-sided. Sometimes one side didn't even have a written language. We see that in many of the European invasions cross this planet.

There is the saying that the first casualty of war is the truth. In regards the Quarysh tribe and the Muslims there doesn't seem to be too much controversy about key details. The major contreversy is around a tribe with a similar name called Banu Qurayza where allegatioons and counter allegations erupt as Christian apologists have a crack at Islam.

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

Sorry, the last thing I need is a Bahai proselytizing at me.

Anthony joined RF last week. I'm not sure whether or not he's a Baha'i. Go easy on the poor guy lol.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I noted in the time of Muhammad, they tried to wipe all the new beleivers of the face of the earth. Intetestingly then it happened also with the Bab. But then we got Baha'u'llah and teachings that say the worst enemy is our own selves. I found and do find that to be very true, I am my worst enemy....

"The Cause is manifest, it shineth resplendent as the sun, but the people have become veils unto themselves. We entreat God that He may graciously assist them to return unto Him. He is, in truth, the Forgiving, the Merciful. (Baha’u’llah, Tablets of Baha’u’llah, p. 79)

It is also of interest that the worst enemies come from inside a faith, this is a very interesting thought for a Baha'i;

"One of the greatest problems in the Cause is the relation of the believers to each other; for their immaturity (shared with the rest of humanity) and imperfections retard the work, create complications, and discourage each other. (Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha’i Community, p. 449)

In the end it is up to each other to be at peace with our own selves and be peaceful to others.

Peace be upon you always.

You sound as if you have studied both Islam and the Baha'i faith. Do you have a religion?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You sound as if you have studied both Islam and the Baha'i faith. Do you have a religion?

I decided to come on to this forum without a lable as to what path I may have chosen and I will leave it that way.

In the end I let people see me how they so wish, we can only try to be kind and show that kindness embraces all peoples of all faiths and no faith.

My intent is to be positive about all faiths and if one has no faith, show that if we are positive in ones own self, that we will get more from life and that fulfillment only really comes when we give our life for all others.

My foundation belief was that I always thought that there is One God and I found in my search I see that One God in all Faiths, even if others do not see a God. It has been an amazing journey, with many highs and lows and this forum will teach me more, quickly it seems.

Peace be upon you and all.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It's never surprising to me any more. Way too common of a pattern.

My intent is to show I have a pattern of tolerance for all faiths, no faith and all people.

I should have got to know you it seems, I thought I was showing that tolerance.

Thus sorry, I will not post replies to you.

Peace be upon you.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I decided to come on to this forum without a lable as to what path I may have chosen and I will leave it that way.

In the end I let people see me how they so wish, we can only try to be kind and show that kindness embraces all peoples of all faiths and no faith.

My intent is to be positive about all faiths and if one has no faith, show that if we are positive in ones own self, that we will get more from life and that fulfillment only really comes when we give our life for all others.

My foundation belief was that I always thought that there is One God and I found in my search I see that One God in all Faiths, even if others do not see a God. It has been an amazing journey, with many highs and lows and this forum will teach me more, quickly it seems.

Peace be upon you and all.

Yes, you will learn quickly here no doubt lol.

I appreciate the position you have taken. I actually did the same for the first couple of months I was here.

My main goal on RF at the moment is to learn more about Islam so what better way than to start a few threads and see what unfolds.

Vinayaka is one of our resident Hindus on RF and we've been talking to each other for nearly a year and a half. He's a good guy when you to know him.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

You are missing the point here [of the "parable of the elephant"]

I understand the point. However, like many analogies, they fall apart once you break from the assigned "meaning" and start thinking about how life actually works.

The point presumably being that blind people should be especially careful if they happen to be the one examining the tail...

ROLFMAO

The main enemies for Muhammad were tribes such as the Quarysh that persued Him to Medina with the intent of annihilating Muhammad and many of His followers.

If people would start seeing the Way as important, and not the hired guide, then it wouldn't matter if the hired guide wasn't available, because the Way still exists.

 

[siti]

The existence of Muhammad is not really in doubt anymore than the existence of Jesus is in doubt. The questions are about what actually happened rather than did Muhammad or Christ exist.

There is almost zero information about what either of them really said or did - apart from Muslim and Christian tradition - aka, the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira for Muhammad and the Gospels (and not much else) in the case of Jesus. If these sources are not accurate, then Muhammad did not exist "as the person attested to in Muslim tradition" - which is exactly what I said but of course you cherry-picked the "exist" part of my sentence and ignored the rest.

The Quran is widely considered to be more authentic than the gospels...

Well that's not much of a recommendation quite frankly - and of course you know that very well - which is why you are making it a Qur'an vs Bible thing that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

...due to the availability of early sources and the consistency of those sources.

What early sources? There are only two or three manuscripts from before the 8th century including one of which the text varies considerably with the later standardized texts. It was the 3rd Caliph - Uthman - I believe that began the standardization of the text - about 650AD - but presumably you don't claim that Uthman was a Messenger of God - and yet the actual text we depend on today was apparently determined by him - or more accurately - a committee he set up to standardize the text...

...anyway, there are, I believe only a very small number (less than ten perhaps) of extant copies of parts of the Qur'an that date to earlier than 2 centuries into the Islamic period.

The main evidence for the Messenger of God status of Muhammad is the Quran itself

But the Qur'an tells us almost nothing about his life - only - if we can trust the text (but see above) - about messages he is believed to have received from God via the angel Gabriel.

...and then to consider the enormous influence this book has had on the hearts and minds of so many for so long.

Oh please Adrian - we have been over and over this so many times...first, far more people have been entirely unaffected and uninfluenced by it, second, there is no question that violence and subjugation were at the root of the spread of Islam just as it was for the spread of Christianity - and you surely cannot be recommending the Qur'an as a positive influence in the 20th and 21st centuries...have you watched the news or a read a newspaper recently?

The problem many Westerners have with Muhammad as a Messenger of God is their expectation of someone who had nothing to do with conflict.

Well I'm not "many westerners" - I'm just one and one that does not subscribe to a standard western view of the world. If God really told Muhammad to subjugate the Arabian peninsula at the point of a sword and chop the heads off people who chose non-compliance with the edicts of the book he himself dictated then fine - but I'm guessing that God didn't really tell him to do that...what do you think?