Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

[Vinayaka]

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.

At one time there were a couple of sects, as I understand it, but once the other side of the family was declared Covenant Breakers, that stopped that movement. I think it is good for small sects to be of one mind. My small Hindu sampradaya is similar in that regard.

 

[CG Didymus]

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?

In the U.S. I think Baha'is elect representatives who then elect the National Spiritual Assembly. I don't know how they elect their UHJ men, but I got a feeling it is some form of representatives. But right now, two people could easily throw the whole world into war with their tweets.

 

[CG Didymus]

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?

If God is really the one who is behind all the different religions, he might be more than bipolar.

 

[CG Didymus]

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


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


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


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.

Good for you and your Master. But, not too many other religions do that. They do compare and then say theirs is the right one or at least the best one or current right one... making all others obsolete.

 

[Vinayaka]

In the U.S. I think Baha'is elect representatives who then elect the National Spiritual Assembly. I don't know how they elect their UHJ men, but I got a feeling it is some form of representatives. But right now, two people could easily throw the whole world into war with their tweets.

For all intents and purposes its a lifetime appointment. Very rarely does anyone new get in, if at all.

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

 

[Trailblazer]

At one time there were a couple of sects, as I understand it, but once the other side of the family was declared Covenant Breakers, that stopped that movement. I think it is good for small sects to be of one mind. My small Hindu sampradaya is similar in that regard.

As you may know or may not know, Baha’is do not consider Covenant-breakers to be a sect of the Baha’i Faith, since the Baha’i Faith is according to what Baha’u’llah revealed, and there was never to be more than one Baha’i Faith. That is the whole point of the Covenant of Baha'u'llah, which is unique in the annals of religious history.

All the older religions have sects since they had no written Covenant from the Prophet Founder clearly delineating the succession of authority within the religion after the Prophet died, as we see in the Baha’i Faith. It is not that sects are necessarily bad, that is just what we find because of how those religions developed over the course of time. All the sects bring something to the religion and it is not necessarily problematic unless it causes dissension between the followers of the various sects.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

In that other thread, you said that Baha'is believe that the Umayyads and the Abbasids were the evil beasts and dragons of the Book of Revelation. Where do the Shi'ite's fit in?

 

[siti]

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.

"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.

Perfect example TB - thanks for underlining my point so emphatically!

 

[Vinayaka]

As you may know or may not know, Baha’is do not consider Covenant-breakers to be a sect of the Baha’i Faith, since the Baha’i Faith is according to what Baha’u’llah revealed, and there was never to be more than one Baha’i Faith. That is the whole point of the Covenant of Baha'u'llah, which is unique in the annals of religious history.

All the older religions have sects since they had no written Covenant from the Prophet Founder clearly delineating the succession of authority within the religion after the Prophet died, as we see in the Baha’i Faith. It is not that sects are necessarily bad, that is just what we find because of how those religions developed over the course of time. All the sects bring something to the religion and it is not necessarily problematic unless it causes dissension between the followers of the various sects.

I know there is a great deal of controversy regarding this, yes. Out of my own curiousity, I have read non-Bahai sources. It was Effendi's method of getting rid of opponents. I think most Baha'is are oblivious to any controversy, though, which may be a good thing. It can be heartbreaking to discover stuff.

 

[CG Didymus]

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

In Christianity and I think also Islam, there is an evil spirit being. The followers of most Christian groups believe this evil being is very real. Baha'is do not. But it was the supposed words of Jesus that caused this belief. Do know if Muhammad spoke as if Satan was real... along with the other evil spirits beings? If so, the messages are very different than the Baha'i message.

 

[Vinayaka]

All the older religions have sects since they had no written Covenant from the Prophet .

Hinduism has no founder, so that is obvious. In Guru paramparas (lineages) the line of succession is sustained by each new Guru appointing the next before he passes. It's done by spiritual qualifying ways, not by blood lines, as in the Baha'i and some others. So the best person for the job based on their spiritual qualifications is selected. But of course there can be no blood lines anyway, as traditionally Gurus are celibate.

In Baha'i, despite directions from the prophet for all Baha'i to have wills, His grandson didn't bother, hence the creation of the UHJ.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Hi Trailblazer, I haven't seen your posts for awhile. I've missed you. Now for the questions... Christians were unified for several centuries. Just like the Baha'is, those that didn't believe the "correct" Christian way were called heretics. For Baha'is they are called covenant breakers. But why did Islam break up? And why are the Shi'ites right? Or are they? Or are they mostly right but a little wrong too?

 

[siti]

"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)"

What a curious verse - and a curious argument...I mean suppose it were true that Muhammad got his teachings from a Roman blacksmith who was a Christian - certainly Muhammad would have relayed the message in Arabic to the people who wrote it down in Arabic - this verse certainly smacks of an appeal to ignorance on the part of the readers wouldn't you say? Or what? Is the fact that the verses were composed in Arabic prove that they are the word of God? Does God speak Arabic? Well that's a preposterous idea - every good protestant Christian knows very well that God speaks English - King James English to be precise!

I must say, I am beginning to agree with @adrian009 when he said that to determine whether the Qur'an is the word of God we have to read it. I'm guessing you wouldn't argue that God makes silly arguments.

 

[Trailblazer]

Perfect example TB - thanks for underlining my point so emphatically!

 

[Trailblazer]

In Christianity and I think also Islam, there is an evil spirit being. The followers of most Christian groups believe this evil being is very real. Baha'is do not. But it was the supposed words of Jesus that caused this belief. Do know if Muhammad spoke as if Satan was real... along with the other evil spirits beings? If so, the messages are very different than the Baha'i message.

The followers of the religions do not represent what Jesus or Muhammad revealed. They misinterpreted the original teachings, changed them, distorted them. That explains the discrepancies between them and the Baha'i message...

There was never a being called Satan. It is symbolic of the lower self, the selfish materialistic nature of man, what Baha'u'llah referred to as the Satanic Self.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

In Christianity and I think also Islam, there is an evil spirit being. The followers of most Christian groups believe this evil being is very real. Baha'is do not. But it was the supposed words of Jesus that caused this belief. Do know if Muhammad spoke as if Satan was real... along with the other evil spirits beings? If so, the messages are very different than the Baha'i message.

You will find this reference to Evil in all Scriptures in one way or another.

In the end I know who made my choices in all the things I have faced and done, it was me.

When I know that, I read all the warnings as a guide to change my thoughts so as not to influence others, I do beleive the mind of man is connected and thus we must be on guard as others can influence us.

The evil is from our own selves and this is Gods Creation. The Bible says it very clear.

Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

We are made in God's Image, All the light and all the lack of light is within us, the human race. We must call for each other to be the light.

Peace be with you and all.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

There is no reputable scholar I'm aware of that would seriously advocate the Quran does not reliably represent what Muhammad taught. I provided an example of two scholars Patricia Crone and Michael Cook whose efforts to prove the Qur'an as unreliable was almost universally rejected.

Of course there are degrees of reliability. We would expect variations and changes with oral traditions, small changes in recollections as those are spread throughout a rapidly enlarging empire and then written down in different settings, cultures, languages and dialects.

The Baha'is do not take the Islamic historic view as you say. We simply believe the Qur'an is the 'authentic repository' of God's Word. The rest is a matter for scholars to ascertain.

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"?

The Shi'ite and Sunnis both believe the present Qur'an is authentic.

The Shia view of the Qur'an differs from the Sunni view, but the majority of both groups believe that the text is identical. While some Shia disputed the canonical validity of the Uthmanic codex,the Shia Imams always rejected the idea of alteration of Qur'an's text. Only seven Shia scholars have believed in omissions in the Uthmanic codex.

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

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?

I would have thought it was a self evident phenomenon of transmission orally until standardised through Uthman's decree.

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

This is an argument used by Christian apologetics. An example of an Islamic response that I don't necessarily agree or disagree with:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/other_books.htm

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.

This is an important point. To support an argument that Uthman corrupted the text you would need definitive statements from Ali to that effect. If Ali is the recognised Caliph and Imam after Uthman and he didn't express any concerns about the Qur'an then both Sunnis and Shi'ites are in agreement as to the authenticity of the Qur'an.

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?

Hopefully I've provided further clarification as to what I see as the tenuousness of your position. I'm trying to be fair and can't see any strong case for discounting the authenticity of the Quran.

The paper you provided was useful but needs to put in context of a longstanding and intractably divisive dispute between Christians and Muslims since the seventh century.

Baha'is are not Muslims and we are open to different narratives as to how the Quran came about. Of course we don't think its been corrupted. We don't believe the gospel has been corrupted either and consider the Muslims to be in error when they promulgate such claims.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hi Trailblazer, I haven't seen your posts for awhile. I've missed you. Now for the questions... Christians were unified for several centuries. Just like the Baha'is, those that didn't believe the "correct" Christian way were called heretics. For Baha'is they are called covenant breakers. But why did Islam break up? And why are the Shi'ites right? Or are they? Or are they mostly right but a little wrong too?

I have missed you too. I thought you fell off the face of the earth.
I have been around here but I have mostly been having on the new thread I started, Questions for Atheists and Agnostics. I sent you some long posts on another thread we wee both on a while ago, so I hope you got those.

You cannot draw parallels between early Christianity and early Bahai because the Christians had no clear instructions from Jesus as to the succession of authority after His death. By contrast, Baha'u'llah had a Will and He made a Covenant with His followers so we know what His intentions were. Anyone who goes against His intentions is a Covenant-breaker.

What was the "correct" Christian way and who decided that? The Church held councils like Nicaea and decided on the doctrines but that does not make what they decided the truth. Some of the Christians that the Trinitarians called heretics were closer to the truth about Jesus but they got squelched by the Trinitarians who became the majority.

Unfortunately, I know very little about Islam, but I imagine it split up into sects for the same reason as Christianity. There was no written Covenant passing down the succession of authority.

 

[Dawnofhope]

In that other thread, you said that Baha'is believe that the Umayyads and the Abbasids were the evil beasts and dragons of the Book of Revelation. Where do the Shi'ite's fit in?

The Biblical books Daniel and Revelations depict empires using symbols that include animals. Its important to realise the books are written from a Judeo-Christian perspective. So how would these empires affect the Holy Land. How would they affect the Jews, the Church or Christian community. Just because one of the beasts is a multi-headed dragon, we shouldn't assume that everything about the empires was evil. Baha'i would view the seven headed dragon as representing the empires of the Caliphates, beginning with the Umayyads.

Shi'ite Islam is represented in the book of Revelation 11 as the two witnesses (Muhammad and Ali) that prophesy for 1260 days (years).

 

[TransmutingSoul]

In Baha'i, despite directions from the prophet for all Baha'i to have wills, His grandson didn't bother, hence the creation of the UHJ.

From what I have read, that statement is incorrect, but to give a correction is not for this thread.

Peace be with you.