Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

[siti]

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.

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

And, of course, the one that brought Ali himself to power as the 4th Caliph - his faithful sidekick Malik al-Ashtar proclaiming his Caliphate with the words: "People, this is the Prophet's Regent. He has learnt the Prophet's knowledge. Allah's Book has mentioned his belief. Allah's Apostle has told him that he will enter al-Ridhwan Garden. His personality is perfect The people in the past and present are certain of his behaviour and knowledge."...and this after faithful Muslims had become dismayed at Uthmans behaviour as the 3rd Caliph and made a plea to their Muslim brothers "Muslims, come to us. And save the Caliphate. Allah's Book has been changed. And the Prophet's Sunnah has been changed. So, come to us if you believe in Allah and the Day of Judgement." - Compare the complaint and Malik's response with the Qur'an 3:104 and 4:60 (for example). It is pretty clear that these early "Shi'ites" interpreted Muhammad's intentions for his nominated successor as both religious and political leadership - how is that not a theocracy?

 

[siti]

...with many Messages, to me, telling us much the same story.

Well that's simply not true is it? There is no way that the Mahabharata, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad and Baha'u'llah are all telling the same story is there? And I can quite see why people of those other faiths object so strongly to Baha'i attempts to appropriate their cultural and religious distinctiveness and claim they all much of a muchness - they're just not - whatever they are, they are not "telling the same story" at all.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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

Well that's simply not true is it? There is no way that the Mahabharata, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad and Baha'u'llah are all telling the same story is there? And I can quite see why people of those other faiths object so strongly to Baha'i attempts to appropriate their cultural and religious distinctiveness and claim they all much of a muchness - they're just not - whatever they are, they are not "telling the same story" at all.

To keep this thread focused it would be useful to demonstrate how Muhammad was or wasn't telling a different story from Baha'u'llah.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

To keep this thread focused it would be useful to demonstrate how Muhammad was or wasn't telling a different story from Baha'u'llah.

Well that's simply not true is it? There is no way that the Mahabharata, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad and Baha'u'llah are all telling the same story is there?

Ahh, I do now see a trick with this forum, one must scroll back up to the heading to see what thread you are posting in , it is easy to mix up what you are posting to, especially if the same person is replying to you over multiple threads. ....

What I like is that it was claimed Muhammad just stole stories from the Jewish Tanakh and New Testament Bible. In fact each time a Messenger comes, they are accused of plagiarising other scriptures. That alone hints to the thoughts I offered above. If they are accused of this, the followers must see the Spirit in the New Writings.

"Some of Muhammad’s pagan opponents accused him of learning the Quran from a Roman blacksmith, a Christian who was staying on the outskirts of Mecca. A revelation of the Quran was sufficient to refute this charge:

"We know indeed that they say, “It is a man that teaches him.” The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear. (Quran 16:103)" http://tellmeaboutislam.com/misconceptions/prophet-muhammad-copied-the-quran-from-the-bible/

Thus a quick search turned up this one fellow; John WorldPeace, this quote which is duly noted as Copyright 1998 by John WorldPeace Houston, Texas USA

"..About 150 years ago, there appeared a man in Persia (Iran) by the name of Baha'U'llah. He is alleged by the Bahai's to be the World Savior for all religious faiths. A close examination of his available writings shows a man who was heavily influenced by Judaism, Christianity and especially Islam. Much of what he had to say, and much of what the Bahai's claim make him unique, are simply a repetition of the words of Muhammad.

So I see my thoughts supported by the exponents of all Faiths that see the power of the Message they follow and then accuse the new Messenger of stealing the ideas from their own book.. What better proof that they have a lot in common?

Peace be upon one and all.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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

In this thread I've tried to avoid including links to either Christian or Islamic apologists as I find them so biased. The paper by Kirk MacGregor unfortunately is no exception, though I found it an interesting read.

What we have amongst Christian and Islamic conservatives are similar narratives about the Bible and Qur'an being the inerrant word of God. I've listened to many a Christian tell me God literally wrote the Bible as if the writers were possessed of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps they were dictating word for word what God was whispering in their ear akin to the experience of Muhammad should we take literally His experience of receiving a message from the Angel Gabriel. These types of beliefs have been challenged and largely upended by modern biblical scholarship. That doesn't seem to have dampened the enthusiasm of Christian Evangelists insisting on literal interpretations of Genesis despite a mountain of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In fact liberal scholars have often faced ruthless persecution from conservatives at Theological colleges and Seminaries.

So when Kirk MacGregor introduces his paper criticising the Islamic scholars for doing exactly what the Christian scholars did and still do, runs rich with hypocrisy. When he writes:

As possession of an accurate understanding of Islam increasingly grew in significance for the West following World War II, scholars of religious studies have begun to subject the Qur’ān to the same methods of textual criticism which, empowered by the twin streams of historical and archaeological findings, have been fruitfully applied to the Bible since the late nineteenth century. For Judaism and Christianity, which maintained that God, contra divine dictation worked through the distinctive literary styles and personalities of human authors in inspiring the biblical autographa, the science of textual criticism proved a welcome ally for reconstructing those autographa with ever-higher levels of precision, since their theories of inspiration rendered the Bible a joint creation of God and humanity rather than an uncreated part or attribute of God.

I just roll my eyes at the irony and intellectual dishonesty of it all.

However Islamic scholars are going through a period of more honestly critiquing the history of the Quran just as Christians have done with the Bible. Conservative and fanatical Islamic clergy have been a great barrier for Muslim scholars and consequently there is somewhat of a division between scholars and clergy.

In regards the Sana'a Manuscript we have that lower text where radiocarbon dating places it between 578 and 669 based on 95%confidence intervals with radiocarbon dating. 669 is only 37 years after the prophet Muhammad passed away in 332!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript

Compare that to the earliest fragment of the New Testament:

The earliest manuscript of a New Testament text is a business-card-sized fragment from the Gospel of John, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which may be as early as the first half of the 2nd century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Earliest_extant_manuscripts

A tiny fragment in the second century compared to all we have available in the first century of the Islamic calendar. The Bible is never going to beat the Quran for authenticity regardless of the existence of God.

The lower case of the Sana'a manuscript was almost certainly an early version of the Quran before Uthman's version. He ordered the destruction of all other variants as you may recall for good reason. The variation does raise interesting questions though and that is a good thing. However I don't think any scholar is seriously saying the Qur'an is not reliable in portraying what Muhammad said. Its just not as reliable as the conservative Islamic apologists have been claiming.

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.

I'd want to hear what scholars other than a biased Christian apologist like Kirk MacGregor have to say before I became too excited over these missing Surah's, don't you think?

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.

I think you are letting your imagination run wild now.

In December 2015 Professor François Déroche of the Collège de France confirmed the identification of the two Birmingham leaves with those of the Paris Qur'an BnF Arabe 328(c), as had been proposed by Dr Alba Fedeli. Prof. Deroche expressed reservations about the reliability of the radiocarbon dates proposed for the Birmingham leaves, noting instances elsewhere in which radiocarbon dating had proved inaccurate in testing Qur'ans with an explicit endowment date; and also that none of the counterpart Paris leaves had yet been carbon-dated.

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

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?

You might be heading down a similar black hole as Crone and Cook....

In their book Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World, Patricia Crone and Michael Cook challenge the traditional account of how the Quran was compiled, writing that "there is no hard evidence for the existence of the Koran in any form before the last decade of the seventh century." Crone, Wansbrough, and Nevo argue that all the primary sources which exist are from 150–300 years after the events which they describe, and thus are chronologically far removed from those events.

It is generally acknowledged that the work of Crone and Cook was a fresh approach in its reconstruction of early Islamic history, but the theory has been almost universally rejected.Van Ess has dismissed it stating that "a refutation is perhaps unnecessary since the authors make no effort to prove it in detail ... Where they are only giving a new interpretation of well-known facts, this is not decisive. But where the accepted facts are consciously put upside down, their approach is disastrous."R. B. Serjeant states that "[Crone and Cook's thesis]… is not only bitterly anti-Islamic in tone, but anti-Arabian. Its superficial fancies are so ridiculous that at first one wonders if it is just a 'leg pull', pure 'spoof'."Francis Edward Peters states 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#Further_research_and_findings

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

I think you are clutching at straws to provide a compelling case that the Quran is based on anything other than the words of Muhammad and doubt if any serious scholar would try that. Even the myopic Christian apologist Kirk MacGregor believes:

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I cannot speak for Adrian, but I have no desire to convert anyone to the Baha’i Faith.

Your - and @adrian009 's - behaviour suggests otherwise.

Baha’u’llah wrote that the faith of no man can be conditioned by anyone else except himself, which means that everyone has to make their own decision what to believe. I would not want anyone to become a Baha’i unless they did the necessary investigation and made that decision for themselves. Thus I am not proselytizing, by the definition of the word:

Proselytize: convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another. https://www.google.com

I have no vested interest in assuming that what Baha'u'llah said on any particular topic was correct. I do think you're trying to convince people that the Baha'i faith is true and overcome people's objectives to converting to it.

Do you even realize how disrespectful it is to accuse people of proselytizing?

I recognize that proselytizing violates the tenets of the Baha'i religion, so I expect a nevative reaction when I point out the behaviour. However, I see nothing disrespectful in pointing out what you're doing. If you don't like what you see when you have a mirror held up to you, your problem is with yourself, not with the mirror.

When people say I am proselytizing, that is impugning a motive to me that I do not have. It is very arrogant for anyone to think they know the motives of another person and it is even worse when once that person has denied having that motive the accuser insists they know the motive – again. That is as much as calling that person a liar or at best telling that person you know them better than they know themselves...

So it's presumptuous of me to assume you mean to do what you're doing and aren't just going through the motions of proselytizing accidentally?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your truth is not my truth. You cannot confirm what you do not know.

I do not proselytize because I am not trying to convince or convert anyone to my religion.

You have no right to speak for me. This is not friendly advice. It is overstepping your bounds and it is disrespectful.

Do you have any posts here that aren't about explaining why you think the Baha'i faith is correct?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Your - and @adrian009 's - behaviour suggests otherwise.

I’ve started a thread with the purpose of discussing whether or not Muhammad is a Messenger of God. It’s an opportunity for anyone who wishes to explore the reality of Muhammad’s Life and Teachings. It does not matter to me one iota if anyone who takes the time to consider this highly challenging and controversial topic is interested in becoming a Baha’i or not. I’m here to learn just as much as I am to educate. We breathe in and out after all.

You are clearly a dedicated atheist whose posts focus on proving your world view is true and the views of theists are false. How is what you are doing different from what I’m doing?

 

[Vinayaka]

I recognize that proselytizing violates the tenets of the Baha'i religion, so I expect a nevative reaction when I point out the behaviour.

Bahai's just 'share'. Everyone outside of Bahai who has even a cursory glance knows it's totally about proselytizing. Helping the world is just code for converting everyone. But that is what they believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you have any posts here that aren't about explaining why you think the Baha'i faith is correct?

Why I think the Bahai Faith is correct is not proselytizing, not in any manner, shape or form.

In case you have not noticed, it is not me who instigates these posts.
Show me one thread I started that was about my religion, or about religion at all!

I do start threads about God but that is not the same thing.
I am not proselytizing for God, I do not even like God.
I start a thread about God and then other people start talking about my religion.
If people would stop bringing up my religion I would stop talking about it...
Then maybe I could have a life.

 

[Vinayaka]

Why I think the Bahai Faith is correct is not proselytizing, not in any manner, shape or form.

In case you have not noticed, it is not me who instigates these posts.
Show me one thread I started that was about my religion, or about religion at all!

I do start threads about God but that is not the same thing.
I am not proselytizing for God, I do not even like God.
I start a thread about God and then other people start talking about my religion.
If people would stop bringing up my religion I would stop talking about it...
Then maybe I could have a life.

See post #3 in this thread.

 

[Trailblazer]

I cannot speak for Adrian, but I have no desire to convert anyone to the Baha’i Faith.

Your - and @adrian009 's - behaviour suggests otherwise.

I cannot speak for anyone else except myself. I only know what I do and my motives for doing so...

Oh, and what is that behavior? Responding to posts posted to me constantly, asking me why I believe in God, asking me what the evidence is for God and Baha’u’llah? What am I supposed to say, go look in my garage for a pink unicorn, when I know the evidence is the Revelation of Baha’u’llah?

My husband knows that the last thing I want is all the posts I get on forums. I have not mowed the lawn in two years and the trees are growing into the house. That is just the tip of the iceberg regarding everything that has gone to pot since I started posting on forums about five years ago.

The TRUTH is that it is my responsibility to do “something” for my religion and given my life circumstances and my abilities the only thing I can do right now is post to people on forums, but I am so grateful on days when I do not get many posts.

I spent all day Saturday posting to my atheist friend on another forum, back and forth about God and Baha’u’llah, because it is my responsibility and because I care about him. He is at a point where he is saying that God might exist. “Hoping” that atheists who want to believe in God might come to believe in God by choice is not proselytizing. That is just responding to posts and discussing God and the only evidence for God that I have, which is Baha’u’llah.

I have no vested interest in assuming that what Baha'u'llah said on any particular topic was correct. I do think you're trying to convince people that the Baha'i faith is true and overcome people's objectives to converting to it.

Do I speak for you and tell you what your intentions are?

You are absolutely wrong. I have no interest in anyone becoming a Baha’i unless it is their choice to do so. I just impart information when it is related to what I am discussing or when people ask me questions. That is not proselytizing because there is no intent to convert, none at all. That means I would never want anyone to become a Baha’i unless it was their own choice. That does not mean that I would not be happy for them if they made that choice, but it has to be their own choice.

I recognize that proselytizing violates the tenets of the Baha'i religion, so I expect a nevative reaction when I point out the behaviour. However, I see nothing disrespectful in pointing out what you're doing. If you don't like what you see when you have a mirror held up to you, your problem is with yourself, not with the mirror.

You do not know my intentions. It is disrespectful and arrogant to think you do.

So it's presumptuous of me to assume you mean to do what you're doing and aren't just going through the motions of proselytizing accidentally?

I am not trying to convert anyone to the Baha’i Faith. How many times do I have to say that?

If you care so much about evidence all you have to do is go back through the threads I have been on and see what precipitated my posts about the Baha’i Faith. It is always other people.

 

[Trailblazer]

See post #3 in this thread.

What is that supposed to mean?
I was just responding to a post on the thread Adrian started.

Me being excited about the Baha'i Faith is not proselytizing. It is just me being excited.
Me having an opinion or a belief about Muhammad or Baha'u'llah is not proselytizing. It is just me having an opinion or a belief.

But you are going to think whatever you meant to think, so think away! What you or anyone else thinks cannot hurt me because I know my own intentions.
I explained those to Penguin: #572 Trailblazer, 11 minutes ago

 

[Vinayaka]

What is that supposed to mean?
I was just responding to a post on the thread Adrian started.

Me being excited about the Baha'i Faith is not proselytizing. It is just me being excited.
Me having an opinion or a belief about Muhammad or Baha'u'llah is not proselytizing. It is just me having an opinion or a belief.

But you are going to think whatever you meant to think, so think away! What you or anyone else thinks cannot hurt me because I know my own intentions.
I explained those to Penguin: #572 Trailblazer, 11 minutes ago

You claimed you didn't bring stuff up about your faith I merely pointed to where you did. Not my problem you don't see the obvious irony in that. After a couple of years discussing with Bahai on here, I know all the tactics.

 

[siti]

I think you are clutching at straws to provide a compelling case that the Quran is based on anything other than the words of Muhammad and doubt if any serious scholar would try that. Even the myopic Christian apologist Kirk MacGregor believes:

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.

I am not clutching at straws to prove anything - I am simply stating the fact that despite the Bahai swallowing hook, line and sinker the traditional Islamic tale about how the Qur'an has come down to us completely intact, this cannot possibly be verified and that there is considerable reason to doubt it.

In fact, according to Shi-ite tradition is it not true that the very person who was responsible for standardizing the text of the Qur'an as we know it today (the 3rd Caliph, Uthman) was himself accused by his fellow Muslims of "changing the Qur'an"?

And do we not understand from the same traditions that Uthman ordered the destruction of all Qur'ans that did not conform to the standard text? We therefore know, don't we, that there was, already - just a couple of decades after Muhammad's death - considerable variation among the copies of the Prophet's words that had been made by then (and even more variation among the already growing variety of hadiths) that this was already a major concern for the leaders of the nascent Islamic empire?

And do we not know from the same tradition that this concern was serious enough to lead to the assassination of Uthman himself?

And do we not know from the same tradition that it was, in fairly large measure, this very concern that brought Muhammad's cousin Ali to power as the 4th Caliph? Ali - presumably being a wise and politically savvy leader - seems to have decided not to interfere too much with the content of the Qur'an and Uthman's standardized text became the one on which future copies were made. But we have no way of knowing the full extent of the various texts that had come about - especially if they were - as the same tradition holds - destroyed during Uthman's Caliphate if they did not conform to the text as approved by his committee.

None of this is clutching at straws is it? None of this is my imagination is it? In fact, it is either true, or it is the imagination of the very Shi-ite "historians" of Islam that Baha'is depend on for their understanding of how the received text of the Qur'an came down to us as the intact words of the Prophet Muhammad, isn't it?

You can counter quote (out of context) all you like but the facts remain that there are very few copies of the Qur'an dating back earlier than a couple of centuries after Muhammad and what there are show considerable variation from the received text - whether or not they are the words of Muhammad - much less the words of God.

And of course the situation with the Bible is even worse - how that is relevant I don't know (except that you wanted to use argumentum ad hominen to discredit the author of the paper I quoted rather than disproving the content of what he wrote) - and it "runs rich with hypocrisy" (to use your own terminology) that you choose to include such a comparison immediately after censuring Antony and I for not focussing on Muhammad and Baha'u'llah! What was it Abdu'l Baha asked for - a "just judgement"? Well c'mon Adrian - neither of these tactics are fair are they - and how can we reach a "just judgement" on Muhammad if you refuse to play fair?

 

[Trailblazer]

You claimed you didn't bring stuff up about your faith I merely pointed to where you did. Not my problem you don't see the obvious irony in that. After a couple of years discussing with Bahai on here, I know all the tactics.

Who brought it up first? Did you see me bring it up? I just responded to what Adrian brought up. I has no tactics because I was not trying to accomplish anything.

Tactics? You cannot know what other peoples' motives are. Only they know what they are and God knows what they are.

Also, you've seen one Bahai you've see them all is no more logical then me saying that I have seen one atheist so I have seen them all and they are all alike.
I am very different from the other Baha'is because I do not even want to believe in God.

 

[siti]

You claimed you didn't bring stuff up about your faith I merely pointed to where you did. Not my problem you don't see the obvious irony in that. After a couple of years discussing with Bahai on here, I know all the tactics.

Who brought it up first? Did you see me bring it up? I just responded to what Adrian brought up. I has no tactics because I was not trying to accomplish anything.

Tactics? You cannot know what other peoples' motives are. Only they know what they are and God knows what they are.

Also, you've seen one Bahai you've see them all is no more logical then me saying that I have seen one atheist so I have seen them all and they are all alike.
I am very different from the other Baha'is because I do not even want to believe in God.

I think I agree with Trailblazer here - its not tactics - its cognitive dissonance. There is, for example, this thing where they make an appeal to tradition as authoritative and at the same time flatly deny the reliability of the same tradition.

That really is the nub of this whole discussion - Abdu'l Baha dismisses Muslim tradition as "unfounded" and "ignorant" (That's in the very first paragraph here http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-7.html) and then proceeds to appeal to the very same tradition as evidence for Muhammad's status as a bona fide Messenger of God and "great Educator" (same link later paragraphs).

It sticks out like a sore thumb to everyone except a faithful Bahai.

 

[Vinayaka]

Who brought it up first? Did you see me bring it up? I just responded to what Adrian brought up. I has no tactics because I was not trying to accomplish anything.

Tactics? You cannot know what other peoples' motives are. Only they know what they are and God knows what they are.

Also, you've seen one Bahai you've see them all is no more logical then me saying that I have seen one atheist so I have seen them all and they are all alike.
I am very different from the other Baha'is because I do not even want to believe in God.

Most Bahai's I have met make that very same claim ... "Oh, but I'm so different." Then, with extended conversations, you find it just ain't true. It's obviously true on an external level, where Bahai's are doctors, gardeners, cooks, etc., but on the Bahai theology, nope ... very similar. The differences are in writing skills, ability to have a sense of humour, things like that. But in the fundamentals, nah. Everyone signes the same declaration card, declaring the same beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

That really is the nub of this whole discussion - Abdu'l Baha dismisses Muslim tradition as "unfounded" and "ignorant" (That's in the very first paragraph here http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-7.html) and then proceeds to appeal to the very same tradition as evidence for Muhammad's status as a bona fide Messenger of God and "great Educator" (same link later paragraphs).

It sticks out like a sore thumb to everyone except a faithful Bahai.

"Now we come to Muḥammad. Americans and Europeans have heard a number of stories about the Prophet which they have thought to be true, although the narrators were either ignorant or antagonistic: most of them were clergy; others were ignorant Muslims who repeated unfounded traditions about Muḥammad which they ignorantly believed to be to His praise." Some Answered Questions, p. 18

No, referring to Americans and Europeans, Abdu'l-Baha dismisses "a number of stories about the Prophet which they have thought to be true" as"unfounded" and "ignorant."

Stories are stories.....
Story: an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment. https://www.google.com/search

But then Abdu'l-Baha concludes with some facts.

“In short, many Oriental peoples have been reared for thirteen centuries under the shadow of the religion of Muḥammad. During the Middle Ages, while Europe was in the lowest depths of barbarism, the Arab peoples were superior to the other nations of the earth in learning, in the arts, mathematics, civilization, government and other sciences. The Enlightener and Educator of these Arab tribes, and the Founder of the civilization and perfections of humanity among these different races, was an illiterate Man, Muḥammad. Was this illustrious Man a thorough Educator or not? A just judgment is necessary.” Some Answered Questions, p. 24

It sticks out like a sore thumb that Abdu'l-Baha is trying to contrast stories with facts, to everyone except those who either did not read that chapter carefully or someone who has an anti-Baha'i agenda.

 

[Trailblazer]

Most Bahai's I have met make that very same claim ... "Oh, but I'm so different." Then, with extended conversations, you find it just ain't true. It's obviously true on an external level, where Bahai's are doctors, gardeners, cooks, etc., but on the Bahai theology, nope ... very similar. The differences are in writing skills, ability to have a sense of humour, things like that. But in the fundamentals, nah. Everyone signes the same declaration card, declaring the same beliefs.

That is true, we all do believe in the same fundamentals of our religion, the same theology and teachings. If we didn't then we would be all split up and dis-unified like Christians and those who adhere to other older religions that have many sects and different beliefs in each sect. I do not see how that would be useful and it would not maintain the unity of the Bahai Faith, which is its primary goal.