Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

[Dawnofhope]

Interesting thing to say. People who start judging others are already in their graves. So easy to prove them wrong. Because arrogance is known to blind humans

God is the Creator of everyone. God calls humans "His Children". If God is not the perfect Father who is? I am 100% sure God will stand for all His Children !!!

@Prestor John: Do you call God stupid or something by claiming: "If you stand for everything, you stand for nothing.”

Before you start arguing this one, remember also this one: "God created Human in His Image"

If I start sounding like an authority on Hinduism or the Sai Baba movement it will soon become apparent how little I know. Same deal with the Church of the LDS. As a general rule, Faith adherents know much more about their Faiths than those who are not followers.

We have an opportunity to learn about each other's faith, do we not?

 

[stvdv]

If I start sounding like an authority on Hinduism or the Sai Baba movement it will soon become apparent how little I know. Same deal with the Church of the LDS. As a general rule, Faith adherents know much more about their Faiths than those who are not followers.

We have an opportunity to learn about each other's faith, do we not?

You never have given me the feeling you are an authority on Hinduism or Sai Baba.
Neither am I by the way. Only this quote "prestor john" gave was very easy proven wrong
[Sometimes God gives me a smart insight; so I happily used that here]

And "Prestor John" was belittling towards Bahai+God big time
And I like Bahaullah, so I just enjoyed giving a smart reply in return
[Of course Bahaullah+God don't mind being criticized, I know that]

As a general rule, Faith adherents know much more about their Faiths than those who are not followers.
Agreed. That's why it's good not to belittle each other I believe.
And when we don't belittle then we can learn, otherwise we can't

 

[Dawnofhope]

But that IS the question and it IS a very difficult one. We have almost zero reliable information about the actual lives and characters of either of them. What we have are the idealized accounts emerging from the religious traditions of those who venerated them. And very similar accounts could be given about Sun Myung Moon or Sai Baba - but we take such accounts with a large pinch of salt because we have other information - For Jesus and Muhammad we really don't have any other information aside from a few independent historical references that mention them but give no details. Yes we know they existed - but who they really were is almost completely unknown...and...

Of course you are overplaying the "we know next to nothing" card. Naturally it was those who venerated Jesus who wrote about Him. Those who were unmoved wouldn't have, and those who opposed Him had no doubt the small group of His followers would dissipate and fade into obscurity after Christ's crucifixion. The NT represents a wealth of information from those who wrote about him during the first century after His death and there was a great deal of quality material to choose from.

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

Beyond that we have many early Christian writers.

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

Outside of Christianity we have Tacitus and Josephus.

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

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

I'm sure you know all this so once again you are delibertately distorting your argument. How about aiming to be more balanced and fair? You're turning me into a Christian (not to mention Islamic ) apologist.

...of course the lack of reliable information is even more pronounced in the case of the OT prophets - we have no idea about any of them outside of religious tradition and it certainly seems like even more ancient tales of even more ancient sages and prophets and warriors were conflated with accounts of Moses, David etc...you need only read the Bible itself to figure that out - almost identical narratives but for two different central figures - there are a number of instances of this in the OT. We have no idea who Moses was and it is highly unlikely that any one person even closely resembling the person supposedly described in the OT ever actually existed.

It looks solid because you have been convinced that standardized text has survived - but there is no way of proving that the standardized text really was an accurate record of Muhammad's sayings - and what little evidence we do have from the very earliest decades of the Islamic period seem to suggest that there was a fair bit of interpretation going on in the early years. I'm not saying the Qur'an is not authentic - we can't tell for sure one way or the other - but there is reasonable cause for doubt and healthy skepticism. And there is no sound reason at all to make the unfounded assumption that the Qur'an is God's message to humankind.

The authenticity of the Quran isn't in doubt but naturally I expect an abundance of skepticism from you.

What commends it (Quran) so powerfully to the historian is its authenticity, not as the Word of God, of course, as the Muslims believe but as the secular historian cannot and should not, but rather as a document attesting to what Muhammad said at that time and place, early seventh-century Mecca. It is not a transcript, however; our present Quran is the result of an edition prepared under the orders of Uthman... but the search for significant variants in the partial versions extant before Uthman's standard edition, what can be called the sources behind our text, has not yielded any differences of great significance. Those Uthmanic clues are fragmentary, however, and large 'invented' portions might well have been added to our Quran or authentic material deleted. So it has been charged in fact by some Muslims who failed to find in the present Quran any explicit reference to the designation of a successor to the Prophet and so have alleged tampering with the original texts. But the argument is so patently tendentious and the evidence adduced for the fact so exiguous that few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is in fact what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Quran#Historical_authenticity

I suppose if we want to establish whether or not the Qur'an was God's Message to humankind, we'll need to take the time to study it, don't you think?

You are very perceptive.

LOL.

Which kind of brings us back to my argument that "there is no question that violence and subjugation were at the root of the spread of Islam" - don't you think?

Not at all. Violence and subjugation are undenial features of almost ALL past empires both Islamic, Christian, and anything else we might like to consider. Empires are largely political entities where propogation of religion is rarely the main concern. The root cause for the spread of Islam was the Quran and the influence it had on its followers, just as the Gospels were at the root of the spread of Christianity.

 

[Dawnofhope]

"Say, O [Muhammad], "I am only a man like you to whom it has been revealed that your god is but one God; so take a straight course to Him and seek His forgiveness." And woe to those who associate others with Allah -"

Surah 41:6

Muhammad's prophethood is a representation of divine providence which in itself can be seen as a manifestation of God. But one must be careful with the term [manifestation of God] which can see as some sort of anthromorphism. Muhammad belongs to a specific dispensation of individuals who were tasked to lead their respective communities.
​

Of the prophet Muhammad:

I am the noblest of the children of Adam, and this is not a boast.
(Ibn Majah)

Do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet and do not speak loudly to him as you would speak loudly to one another lest your deeds come to naught without you perceiving it. Surah 49:2

The Divine attributes in the Baha'i Faith refer to qualities such as love, mercy, and justice which Muhammad exemplifed.

http://www.bahai.org/beliefs/life-spirit/character-conduct/

 

[Tiapan]

Thanks for dropping by. I think you are comparing the stars with the moon and the sun but we are all entitled to our beliefs. We may revere whoever we will and I agree your prophets are all brilliant stars. However your words diminish the worth of the greatest luminaries in the heaven of understanding.

Time allows the enhancement of the deeds of men to the cult legends of gods. Eg Christians, Muslims, Jews. Are one variety of cults, no more or less valid than Hinduism, Taoism or buhddism or even the cannibals of New Guinea who regard eating their deceased relatives as a sign of respect. All provide operational cooperative societies ruled by legends.
I don't think my words diminished the worth of these philosophers in fact I believe I reluctantly boosted their worth to a similar level of those others I mentioned who have had even greater impact on the improvement of the human condition.
Cheers

 

[Prestor John]

That is true in regards a prophet. The history of prophets is that they have often been misunderstood, ridiculed, and even put to death. So while Prophets may have special insight as far as the Lord has provided, we may repeat the errors of history where many have imagined their prophet to be false, whereas He just didn't meet their expectation.



While I believe Jesus to have been the Jewish Messiah, 'Son of God' John 3:3, and to have brought a New Covenant, I am skeptical as to merits of your Church beyond any other Christian denomination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

I'm willing to learn more though.



Agreed.



There is a wealth of sacred writings to refute this belief:

1 John 4:12
"No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."

Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

1 KIng 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Scripture seems to imply that Jesus can not possibly be God incarnate. It would be better to think of Jesus as being a perfect image or reflection of Gods' divine attributes?

Colossians 1:15 in regards to Jesus
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature"

John 5:19
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

John 8:28
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.



That is a tenuous belief based on scripture, not on any fact in the phenomenal world. John 1:1 is the most commonly cited verse to support the idea but it can be easily proven the verse as a more logical meaning based on the way the word 'logos' was used by Philos a Hellenized Jew. The word meant mediator between God and man.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo's_view_of_God#The_Logos



The verses above account for the Divinity of Christ in regards to His being an image of the Divine attributes of God we all have. They were present in Christ to the highest degree of perfection.



I don't think so

Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq narrates that when Maryam was grown, she would go into the mihrab and put a covering so no one saw her. Zechariah went into the mihrab and found that she had summer fruit in the winter and winter fruit in the summer. He asked "From whence is this?" She said, "It is from Allah. Indeed, Allah provides for whom He wills without account"[3:37]

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



That is the problem. We rely on hearsay without investigating the truth for ourselves. People prejudge Islam as they do your Church.



Islam certainly exalts Christ as an important prophet alongside Muhammad Himself. Recognition of all the prophets is necessay for salvation, Christ included and not just Muhammad.

Say, "We have believed in Allah and in what was revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [submitting] to Him."
Surah 3:84



Agreed.



It is completely relevant because we confuse what we perceive to be true for what IS true.



That's not saying much though!

Believing that Muhammad is not a prophet does not take away from the reality He is a prophet.
Believing Jesus is physically God incarnate does not take away from he fact He isn't.

See the problem. They are just statements of believe that take us no further ahead.



Same problem as above. I've provided proof above that Jesus is NOT God incarnate. You need to provide proof that He is. That's how discussions and debates work.



Except the book of Mormon is anything but a clear example of God revealing Himself elsewhere. That is your belief but other than statements like "I believe it to be true", where is the proof and foundation for that belief?

Muhammad has proven Himself in that we have the Qur'an, we have a sizeable worldwide community whose lives are positively transformed by His message when compared to Christianity. The civilising power of the Qur'an is evident with the advent of the Islamic Golden Age.



So what is clear about it and how does your Christian denomination prove Muhammad to be a false prophet?



So lets hear your LDS proof that Muhammad isn't a prophet.



What an ignorant thing to say. You clearly know next to nothing about either Islam or the Baha'i Faith. Why don't you do some research and stop making baseless statements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahá'í_Faith

http://www.bahai.org/

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



You don't have anything more to say because you have avoided learning about Islam and the Baha'i Faith. You probably live in an LDS bubble. I'm prepared to learn about the LDS and have taken the time to invite missionaries into my home. That courtesy works both ways.

I have no incentive to continue since you have become belligerent and accusatory.

Besides, nothing you shared changed the fact that Muhammad denied the divinity of Christ and Mankind's reliance on Him for salvation.

Since I have come to believe that these are absolute truths through the witness of the Holy Spirit, I cannot accept Muhammad as a true prophet.

It really is that simple.

I would enjoy going over the Biblical verses you quoted, as well as the other Bible verses that contradict them.

I also would have enjoyed sharing the teachings of the LDS Church, but I do not deal in "proofs" and would never claim that what I shared "proved" anything one way or the other.

That would be ignorant and naïve.

Your recent behavior and demand for such leads me to believe that you may not be capable of having this type of discussion.

I also believe this discussion would have gotten even more heated after I shared my beliefs that nothing has had a more positive impact on the world than the teachings of Christ and that there never was any "Islamic Golden Age".

 

[Dawnofhope]

I have no incentive to continue since you have become belligerent and accusatory.

Besides, nothing you shared changed the fact that Muhammad denied the divinity of Christ and Mankind's reliance on Him for salvation.

Since I have come to believe that these are absolute truths through the witness of the Holy Spirit, I cannot accept Muhammad as a true prophet.

It really is that simple.

I would enjoy going over the Biblical verses you quoted, as well as the other Bible verses that contradict them.

I also would have enjoyed sharing the teachings of the LDS Church, but I do not deal in "proofs" and would never claim that what I shared "proved" anything one way or the other.

That would be ignorant and naïve.

Your recent behavior and demand for such leads me to believe that you may not be capable of having this type of discussion.

I also believe this discussion would have gotten even more heated after I shared my beliefs that nothing has had a more positive impact on the world than the teachings of Christ and that there never was any "Islamic Golden Age".

For us to have an interfaith discussion there has to be mutual respect and courtesy as well as a commitment to being fair and reasonable. Otherwise it will lead to more heat than light which is not good for either of us. Put another way, when two people argue about religion they are both wrong.

I wish you well and thank you for dropping in.

 

[siti]

He didn't need to spell out the obvious, He wasn't dealing with a bunch of moronic imbeciles

No he wasn't...but...

We go to war against evil dictatorships to liberate people...
...Preemptive war is also good...we may need to teach Iran a lesson very soon...It's perfectly OK to defend peace with lethal force...Christians are not ignorant morons, we are smart and we rule the world. We will conquer the whole world very soon.

...I agree it seems like he is now! And where do you find justification for such extreme views in the Bible?

PS - do you really believe all this? "the Christian West" and all that?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

...I agree it seems like he is now!

PS - do you really believe all that

Turn the other cheek got lost somewhere?

On the other hand, Justice compels us to consider that any and all tyrants, need to be subdued.

Thus can we now see the wisdom and nessessity of Just and Lawful war, as taught by Muhammad? After all Christains support it in upholding their values.

May Peace be the Mind of all Humanity.

 

[siti]

The authenticity of the Quran isn't in doubt but naturally I expect an abundance of skepticism from you.

Adrian, I might reply later on the rest, but the most important part is that you are depending on information regarding the Qur'an that is a couple of decades out of date. You may be aware that one of the earliest fragments is the Sanaa manuscript that was discovered in 1972 but once Islamic scholars started to uncover the variations in the text, they made it extremely difficult for independent scholars to access the information about them. Access to the Sanaa manuscript has been severely restricted by the Yemeni authorities for the last two decades, but as information inevitably emerges, it has become increasingly clear that the earliest (pre-Uthman) copies had far more variation than has ever been admitted in Islamic circles. Here are a couple of quotes from scholars who have managed to access some fragments:

The historical evidence from the Qurra and the manuscript evidence from Sana’a indicate
that the traditional text of the Qur’ān as it exists today, while generally reliable, departs in crucial
respects from the Arabic text as it was originally recited by the Prophet Muhammad.

Kirk R. MacGregor, The State of Islamic Textual Criticism, 2013 conference paper

Their variant readings and…these manuscripts say that the…history of the Qur’ānic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected: the text was less stable…than has always been claimed.

Andrew Rippin, The Qur’ān and Its Interpretative Tradition (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001), xxxi.
​

If you don't believe these statements, you can always look up these references: the first is available online here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319128113_The_State_of_Islamic_Textual_Criticism

You might also try and look up Suras 115 and 116 in your copy of the Qur'an - but you won't find them - they were missed out of the standardized text that we now have.

Then there is the more recent discovery of the Birmingham manuscript - which is now believed to be the oldest fragment of a Qur'an in existence. The problem with this one is that it seems to date from a very early period - in fact so early that some of the words attributed to the divine revelation seem to have been written down even before they were divinely revealed to Muhammad. Of course we can say the dating must be wrong - and that may be so - but certainly this manuscript casts significant doubt on the traditional account of the Third Caliph "canonizing" the text of the Qur'an - clearly the text was already written down - with some significant variation but perhaps even more significant similarity - before Islamic tradition suggests.

The question is, of course, who really composed the messages of the Qur'an? Could it be that it contains elements of pre-Islamic poetry - composed by the barbaric Arab tribes that both Islam and Baha'is delight in giving Muhammad credit for reforming? Could it be that very early followers of Muhammad added their own bits and took away some of the parts Muhammad really said? Why were the last two Suras in the Sanaa manuscript omitted from later versions? Did Muhammad really say these words or not?

Of course we can't answer any of these questions - and that is my point.

​

 

[siti]

On the other hand, Justice compels us to consider that any and all tyrants, need to be subdued.

Thus can we now see the wisdom and nessessity of Just and Lawful war, as taught by Muhammad?

Certainly not. First, who decides who is a tyrant - what are the criteria? Muhammad's followers think Donald Trump and Teresa May are tyrants bent on imposing "Western" imperialist values on the Islamic world. George W Bush and Tony Blair were convinced that Sadam was a dangerous tyrannical maniac wielding weapons of mass destruction - many thousands died on the basis of that misinterpretation. Justice, lawful, necessity, tyrant...these are all subjective determinations that have been used to "justify" the needless excesses of unnecessary warfare through the ages. In any case, Muhammad was certainly no the first, or the last, to come up with the idea of "just war"...and hardly surprising, given his propensity for shedding the blood of his opponents, that he supported the idea.

Anyway, even in your own Bahai world - would Krishna take credit for "just war" theory - isn't that what Mahabharata is about? Or is it really about the paradox of the inevitability and futility of war? Is it really, when read in full context, telling the story of how men are often torn between doing what's "right" and doing what's "best" - and how so very, very often that fails. Is it not true that many Hindus interpret the central message to be that of the preferability of ahimsa over warfare? Is it not true that the establishment of the world's largest "non-tyrannical" government to date was the result not of a "just war" but of non-violent protest?

 

[CG Didymus]

No he wasn't...but...

...I agree it seems like he is now! And where do you find justification for such extreme views in the Bible?

PS - do you really believe all this? "the Christian West" and all that?

Since the Jews were said to be expecting a warrior messiah to come in and overthrow the Romans, I wonder why Jesus didn't take up arms against the evil empire?

 

[CG Didymus]

You never have given me the feeling you are an authority on Hinduism or Sai Baba.
Neither am I by the way. Only this quote "prestor john" gave was very easy proven wrong
[Sometimes God gives me a smart insight; so I happily used that here]

And "Prestor John" was belittling towards Bahai+God big time
And I like Bahaullah, so I just enjoyed giving a smart reply in return
[Of course Bahaullah+God don't mind being criticized, I know that]

As a general rule, Faith adherents know much more about their Faiths than those who are not followers.
Agreed. That's why it's good not to belittle each other I believe.
And when we don't belittle then we can learn, otherwise we can't

If Sai Baba is a manifestation or the reincarnation of a previous prophet/sage or an avatar, then, ultimately, the Baha'i Faith is not in agreement with your beliefs. As with the Mormons, most Baha'is try to downplay the beliefs of Joseph Smith, but he claims the Book of Mormon is another revelation from God. I really don't think Baha'is agree with that. And it could be the same with your religion.

You and they might have many beliefs in common, but the source of your religions and beliefs about the founders of your religions contradict each other. How do you overcome that? Who is greater Sai Baba or Baha'u'llah? Or, are they equal and sent at about the same time to accomplish the same thing... bringing a new age of peace and love?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Certainly not. First, who decides who is a tyrant - what are the criteria? Muhammad's followers think Donald Trump and Teresa May are tyrants bent on imposing "Western" imperialist values on the Islamic world. George W Bush and Tony Blair were convinced that Sadam was a dangerous tyrannical maniac wielding weapons of mass destruction - many thousands died on the basis of that misinterpretation. Justice, lawful, necessity, tyrant...these are all subjective determinations that have been used to "justify" the needless excesses of unnecessary warfare through the ages. In any case, Muhammad was certainly no the first, or the last, to come up with the idea of "just war"...and hardly surprising, given his propensity for shedding the blood of his opponents, that he supported the idea.

Anyway, even in your own Bahai world - would Krishna take credit for "just war" theory - isn't that what Mahabharata is about? Or is it really about the paradox of the inevitability and futility of war? Is it really, when read in full context, telling the story of how men are often torn between doing what's "right" and doing what's "best" - and how so very, very often that fails. Is it not true that many Hindus interpret the central message to be that of the preferability of ahimsa over warfare? Is it not true that the establishment of the world's largest "non-tyrannical" government to date was the result not of a "just war" but of non-violent protest?

That decision is for the Majority. I see in a Baha'i world as you call it, that the majority would also make that decision. As the world will still have elected governments.

From what I have read, Baha'u'llah has claimed the hearts of men to become one and serve each other, I see that would be a Baha'i world, while men have also been given the reign to rend unto Ceasar what is Ceasars. I have read enough to know that the call for Monarchy and Just Government is in Baha'u'llahs writings.

I thus do not see an issue that many have exposed on this and various other threads. Maybe they have not looked into it in detail.

Peace be with you and all.

 

[siti]

That decision is for the Majority. I see in a Baha'i world as you call it, that the majority would also make that decision. As the world will still have elected governments.

Well that's not the same thing is it? What happens at present in "democratic" countries is the having of elected governments - the majority do not decide who is or is not a tyrant - the elected government makes that call and it is not always in line with the majority view. If Brexit taught us anything it is surely that elected governments can easily misread the "majority view". I'm not trying to divert into politics here, just to demonstrate that "elected government" does not necessarily equate to "majority rule" and having a referendum on every issue is impractical (although I don't see why it should necessarily continue to be so with the proliferation of IT devices).

Anyway, you are correct that Baha'u'llah advocated democratic government - but he was hardly the first to do so. Muhammad, on the other hand, advocated theocratic rule and unquestioning devotion thereto. So who was right? Or is God bipolar?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Well that's not the same thing is it? What happens at present in "democratic" countries is the having of elected governments - the majority do not decide who is or is not a tyrant - the elected government makes that call and it is not always in line with the majority view. If Brexit taught us anything it is surely that elected governments can easily misread the "majority view". I'm not trying to divert into politics here, just to demonstrate that "elected government" does not necessarily equate to "majority rule" and having a referendum on every issue is impractical (although I don't see why it should necessarily continue to be so with the proliferation of IT devices).

Anyway, you are correct that Baha'u'llah advocated democratic government - but he was hardly the first to do so. Muhammad, on the other hand, advocated theocratic rule and unquestioning devotion thereto. So who was right? Or is God bipolar?

I can see that we have got it wrong. It is all part of growing up, man has gone through adolescence, now it is time to mature.

As to what is right, you have that choice as I do mine.

Peace be with you always.

 

[stvdv]

I really don't think Baha'is agree with that. And it could be the same with your religion.

My religion is not about finding out which religion is "right or wrong".

You and they might have many beliefs in common, but the source of your religions and beliefs about the founders of your religions contradict each other. How do you overcome that?

My religion is not about finding out which religions contradict each other

Who is greater Sai Baba or Baha'u'llah. Or, are they equal?

My religion is not about finding out whose prophet is the greater/equal prophet.

Or, are they equal and sent at about the same time to accomplish the same thing... bringing a new age of peace and love?

I am not sure if they bring a new age of peace and love. But for me they bring peace and Love and joy. And having met my Master was the best experience ever in my life.

 

[siti]

I can see that we have got it wrong. It is all part of growing up, man has gone through adolescence, now it is time to mature.

Yes that seems to be a common theme in Bahai reinterpretations of previous belief systems - but it doesn't really work very well because the idea of democracy is much older than either Muhammad or Baha'u'llah - as is the "just war" meme. God seems to oscillate between one view and another - advocating non-violence at one time and righteous warfare at another, religious tolerance (e.g. in Zoroastrian Persia) at one point and "exclusive devotion" at another, and it goes back and forth - e.g. on the tolerance thing the OT clearly painted God as an overbearing tyrant who tolerated no opposition, Zoroastrianism was, by all accounts, much more tolerant, Christ taught the "narrow path" and Muhammad supposed that the unbelievers would meet "grievous punishment" for their lack of faith - although Muslims were not supposed to forcibly convert people (apparently) and then back again to a more tolerant view of dissenting opinions in the Bahai dispensation. So is it really a maturity thing - or is it really more of a failed attempt at syncretizing disparate religious viewpoints?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Anyway, you are correct that Baha'u'llah advocated democratic government - but he was hardly the first to do so. Muhammad, on the other hand, advocated theocratic rule and unquestioning devotion thereto. So who was right? Or is God bipolar?

Its not clear to what extent Muhammad advocated a theocracy and if He did how widespread it should be.

Probably the most important document is the constitution of Medina which was a way of uniting some of the various tribes in 622 AD.

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

The Caliphates had theocratic elements and were an essential feature of the majority Sunni's, but Baha'is support the Shi'ite position of the rightly guided Imams starting with Ali.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_state#Early_Islamic_governments

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

An example of a Shi'ite theocracy is of course the one created in Iran after the Iranian revolution in 1979.

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

To what extent this is based on the clergy seizing power for themselves or what Muhammad genuinely envisaged is another story.

Muslims of course believe the Qur'an to be God's guidance to all humanity for eternity and that Muhammad was the 'seal of the prophets' meaning there could be no prophet after Him. Baha'is reject this interpretation of the Qur'an of course.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes that seems to be a common theme in Bahai reinterpretations of previous belief systems - but it doesn't really work very well because the idea of democracy is much older than either Muhammad or Baha'u'llah

Well, I see no difference in these Messengers. I see what I offered in what Christ said and that you say Baha'u'llah has said much the same, makes me even more happy.

Jesus said inJohn 5:19 "Jesus gave them this answer: "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."

This is a reflection of humanity growing from Adam until this day, with many Messages, to me, telling us much the same story.

The day of the Lord/ Father/God was promised by Christ, it is logical the Son in turn becomes the Father.

Peace be with you