Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

[TransmutingSoul]

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.

Great advice, I have read it, I found it a challenge, but had no doubt as to its source.

Peace be with you.

 

[siti]

OK let me alleviate your confusion by quoting old AB directly...please do "read the chapter carefully" for yourself so you can satisfy yourself that what I am quoting is correct...

AB opens by stating "Americans and Europeans have heard a number of stories about the Prophet which they have thought to be true..."

From where did they get these "stories"? AB answers that at least some of the stories came from "...ignorant Muslims who repeated unfounded traditions about Muḥammad which they ignorantly believed to be to His praise."

He continues: "Thus some benighted Muslims made His polygamy the pivot of their praises and held it to be a wonder, regarding it as a miracle..." Note he does not deny Muhammad's polygamy but rather suggests that it is not "to His praise". Oh dear! Poor old Muhammad got something wrong already and we are only up to the second sentence of our "careful" reading.

OK - next example AB please: "...a foolish man said to a clergyman that the true proof of greatness is bravery and the shedding of blood, and that in one day on the field of battle a follower of Muḥammad had cut off the heads of one hundred men! This misled the clergyman to infer that killing is considered the way to prove one’s faith to Muḥammad, while this is merely imaginary." Actually it was 900 heads that Muhammad was said to have cut off - this is the famous episode of the Banu Quarayza Jews who were, according to tradition, (namely the biographical account of Muhammad's life written by ibn-Ishaq in the 8th century), decapitated one by one for reneging on a treaty they had concluded with Muhammad - of course the historicity of this account is doubted (at least as much as accounts of Russian collusion in the election of Donald Trump) but we'll give AB the doubt here and agree that it is indeed "merely imaginary". But with that goes most of the early biographical information we have about Muhammad because if we dismiss that part as unreliable we dismiss the reliability of the entire biography on which much that is "known" about Muhammad's life is based.

The next few lines focus on Muhammad's persecutions at the hands of his own tribesmen...and how do we know about this - well essentially from two sources - Muhammad's own reported words in the Qur'an and the same biographical information we just discredited as "merely imaginary".

Then we come to the first key evidence in favour of Muhammad's Messengership: "These Arab tribes were in the lowest depths of savagery and barbarism, and in comparison with them the savages of Africa and wild Indians of America were as advanced as a Plato. The savages of America do not bury their children alive as these Arabs did their daughters, glorying in it as being an honorable thing to do." OK there's a lot wrong with this bit - first of all - how do we know that the Arab tribes were "in the lowest depths of savagery"? Answer - from the very same Muslim traditions that AB has just denounced as "unfounded", "ignorant" and "merely imaginary"...there is almost zero corroborating evidence for this statement outside of Muslim tradition and that tradition is based on the very same sources - the Qur'an itself (i.e. Muhammad's own words if that is in fact what the Qur'an consists of) and the biographical information that is not to be trusted. And in fact it is also untrue that the "savages of America" did not "bury their children alive" - they did do that and in some cases to such a degree that a few years after deciding not to have too many daughters, there so few young women that the you men of some tribes had to look to other tribes to find wives. AB just got his facts wrong here - and we can forgive him for that - but this line of evidence simply doesn't cut it in Muhammad's favour at all.

OK - moving on, AB babbles on about the mistreatment of women in pre-Islamic Arabia and how difficult it was for Muhammad to correct this but he ultimately succeeded (reportedly)...and then about how nicely Christians were treated by Muhammad and his successors - including the second Caliph, Umar, - who you may recall was not considered a legitimate successor to Muhammad and is not revered by Shi'a Muslims - but never mind - if he said the right thing in some edict despite wrongfully occupying the seat of the true Imam, Ali, who cares?

Anyway, just to be clear AB insists again that "all the narrations of the Muslims, Christians and others [about Muhammad that do not correspond to the sanitized reading that AB himself projects] are simply fabrications, which have their origin in fanaticism, or ignorance, or emanate from intense hostility." and again that Muslim traditions such as the bit about Muhammad cleaving the moon in two "are pure fanaticism. Also the traditions which the clergy quote, and the incidents with which they find fault, are all exaggerated, if not entirely without foundation." Please be clear that he is talking about Muslim clergy here - i.e. the same people who were responsible for passing down details of Muhammad's life and the "barbarous" and "savage" peoples among whom He founded Islam. Oh yes - and the Qur'an - of course.

And now, having dismissed almost the entire body of Islamic tradition as "unfounded" and "ignorant", he then sets Muhammad's message in stark contrast: "In such a country, and amidst such barbarous tribes, an illiterate Man produced a book in which, in a perfect and eloquent style, He explained the divine attributes and perfections, the prophethood of the Messengers of God, the divine laws, and some scientific facts", among which "scientific facts" he chooses to highlight the idea that the sun is fixed (which it isn't) and that the earth moves (which it does) and that Muhammad had got the idea of heliocentrism first (which he didn't because it had already been suggested by Greek and Indian scholars centuries earlier) and recorded this in the Qur'an (which he also didn't because the Qur'an, on any fair reading, doesn't even say that anyway).

And - to cap all that - the only reason we have any reason to believe that Muhammad even composed the Qur'an - with or without divine inspiration or dictation - is based solely on the very same Islamic tradition that he has just so roundly discredited as "unfounded", "ignorant" and "fanatical" and the "ignorant" and "benighted" Muslims on whose integrity the intergity of the transmission of the Qur'an depended. That's called "cherry picking" if you want to put it nicely and "cognitive dissonance" if you want a more clinical diagnosis. But what it certainly isn't is logical or rational.

And that just about sums up the first 30 pages of (relevant) evidence in this thread. I hope it has also cleared your confusion somewhat.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Opponents? If the Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha was authentic, there could be no legitimate opponents. The authenticity of the Will was verified.

I am not afraid of controversy. I would be happy to discover anything that is the truth because I do not want to live a lie. I would not be sorely disappointed if I discovered that the Bahai Faith is not the truth, as this is a difficult life that comes with a lot of responsibility.

That said, I have to go with logic and the best evidence. When one looks at both, it becomes clear that there are a lot of people who oppose the Baha'i Faith and the reasons are easy to understand. The main reason is that they are attached to their older religions and they see Baha'i as competition and replacive (mainly Christians, but also Jews and Muslims). As for the Covenant-breakers, they all had one thing in common -- the desire for power and fame (e.g., Mason Remey). One does not need a degree in psychology to figure out why people oppose the Bahai Faith, although I have one.

It all fits together if you look at it as a whole, so unless there is some legitimate new information from an objective source I see no reason to believe those who are obvious detractors. I discussed this Baha'i conspiracy theory with an atheist forum owner on another forum for years and it is really rather lame. He said the UHJ was hiding the Writings from Baha's but he had no evidence to support that. He said there are all these non-Baha'i sources that depict the real truth, and then he came up with a book written by Miller, a Christian missionary in Persia, as if that is in any way objective evidence. That man was running scared because he was losing converts to the Baha'is. He deliberately mixed truths with half-truths hoping the uninformed and unsuspecting reader would not know the difference.

 

[Vinayaka]

Opponents? If the Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha was authentic, there could be no legitimate opponents. The authenticity of the Will was verified.

I am not afraid of controversy. I would be happy to discover anything that is the truth because I do not want to live a lie. I would not be sorely disappointed if I discovered that the Bahai Faith is not the truth, as this is a difficult life that comes with a lot of responsibility.

That said, I have to go with logic and the best evidence. When one looks at both, it becomes clear that there are a lot of people who oppose the Baha'i Faith and the reasons are easy to understand. The main reason is that they are attached to their older religions and they see Baha'i as competition and replacive (mainly Christians, but also Jews and Muslims). As for the Covenant-breakers, they all had one ting in common -- the desire for power and fame (e.g., Mason Remey). One does not need a degree in psychology to figure out why people oppose the Bahai Faith, although I have one.

It all fits together if you look at it as a whole, so unless there is some legitimate new information from an objective source I see no reason to believe those who are obvious detractors. I discussed this Baha'i conspiracy theory with an atheist forum owner on another forum for years and it is really rather lame. He said the UHJ was hiding the Writings from Baha's but he had no evidence to support that. He said there are all these non-Baha'i sources that depict the real truth, and then he came up with a book written by Miller, a Christian missionary in Persia, as if that is in any way objective evidence. That man was running scared because he was losing converts to the Baha'is. He deliberately mixed truths with half-truths hoping the uninformed and unsuspecting reader would not know the difference.

I'm aware. Too aware. There are just way too many ex-Bahai's who feel it is their duty to let everyone know, via the internet. Some are holding nasty grudges, others not so much, just saddened. It is what it is. I've read lots of Baha'i apologist stuff as well. including yours I believe. It was a curiousity investigation, and I hold no nasty feelings to either group, and remain objective. Of course that's not the conclusion Baha'i have of me. It's more like the Christians who claim I hate them when all I say is I'm not a Christian.

 

[siti]

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.

Well it must be right then if Sunnis and Shi'ites agree!!! C'mon Adrian - that's not even an argument is it? In any case, Ali was hardly going to say - yes I know that usurper Uthman had all the other versions burned and I have no idea which was the right one was he? And especially so after his predecessor was assassinated. He had no choice but to go with the standardized version of his hated predecessor - if only he'd known that there was a different one that had survived in Yemen - oh well! Anyway, agreeing with the received text didn't really help much - he was also assassinated about 5 years later.

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.

But you do - you take Abdu'l Baha's argument as definitive and he has obviously based his understanding on a cherry-picked and sanitized version of Muslim tradition. There is no way you can get around that.

Hopefully I've provided further clarification as to what I see as the tenuousness of your position.

Nope - you have simply underlined the tenuousness of yours. The fact remains (regardless of who argues it or how it is argued) that there is no independent corroborating evidence to prove that the text of the Qur'an that is accepted today is the definitive word of Muhammad - still less an "authentic repository" of divine revelation.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Your sect believes there is no founder, but do all Hindus believe this? How did Hinduism start if there was no founder? How does Krishna factor in?

Is there a reason that the Gurus have to be celibate and is that considered desirable for the followers? I heard also that the Buddha was celibate and the reasons why. I was very impressed by those reasons, even though Baha'is are not enjoined to be 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.

From what I read, it was not that he did not bother but rather that he died suddenly before he could appoint a successor. I also read that there was nobody he considered qualified to be a successor and that is why he did not appoint anyone during his tenure. Baha'is believe that the Guardianship continues through all the Writings and letters of Shoghi Effendi, because they will always be available for guidance.

Regardless of whether there was successor, there would have been a UHJ because long before He does, Baha'u'llah made provisions for a UHJ.

 

[siti]

Great advice, I have read it, I found it a challenge, but had no doubt as to its source.

You don't find it at least slightly 'sus' that God had to include a verse with an argument about it being a pure, unadulterated, genuine divine revelation because it was written in Arabic?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Well it must be right then if Sunnis and Shi'ites agree!!! C'mon Adrian - that's not even an argument is it? In any case, Ali was hardly going to say - yes I know that usurper Uthman had all the other versions burned and I have no idea which was the right one was he? And especially so after his predecessor was assassinated. It didn't really help though he was also assassinated about 5 years later.

Uthman was a contemporary of Muhammad. He even married a couple of Muhammad's daughters. His reign as Caliph started just 12 years after the prophets death. He had the foresight to arrange for a standardised version of the Qur'an given the variations that were becoming apparent through different dialects etc. Besides there had been believers who were skilled at memorising Muhammad's Teachings and processes in place to ensure quality control. Ali who was also a contemporary of Muhammad and married Fatimah (another of Muhammad's daughter) became Caliph just 24 years after the death of the prophet. He had no objection either. I think both Uthman and Ali would have twigged if the Qur'an wasn't based on Muhammad's Teachings. It all looks straight forward to me and most others who are acquainted with the facts.

But you do - you take Abdu'l Baha's argument as definitive and he has obviously based his understanding on a cherry-picked and sanitized version of Muslim tradition. There is no way you can get around that.

How does Abdu'l-Baha's short talk to a group of Western believers over a hundred years ago result in 'cherry picking' for Baha'is when it comes to understanding the history and authenticity of the Quran?

Nope - you have simply underlined the tenuousness of yours. The fact remains (regardless of who argues it or how it is argued) that there is no independent corroborating evidence to prove that the text of the Qur'an that is accepted today is the definitive word of Muhammad - still less an "authentic repository" of divine revelation.

OK. Come up with an alternative more plausible narrative that is supported by fair and balanced scholarship.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But you do - you take Abdu'l Baha's argument as definitive and he has obviously based his understanding on a cherry-picked and sanitized version of Muslim tradition. There is no way you can get around that.

How does Abdu'l-Baha's short talk to a group of Western believers over a hundred years ago result in 'cherry picking' for Baha'is when it comes to understanding the history and authenticity of the Quran?

My observation would be what better sources could we hope for in understanding the Koran.

Baha'u'llah, before becoming a Babi and then Declaring His own Message, was a practicing Muslim, who's knowledge of the Koran was unequaled. This has ample records to pursue.

Both Baha'u'llah and Abdul'baha lived with Muslims and prayed in the Mosques with the Muslims.

They never cherry picked, they knew of what they quoted.

Far to easy for us to dismiss and reject that knowledge now.

Peace be to all.

 

[Dawnofhope]

My observation would be what better sources could we hope for in understanding the Koran.

Baha'u'llah, before becoming a Babi and then Declaring His own Message, was a practicing Muslim, who's knowledge of the Koran was unequaled. This has ample records to pursue.

Both Baha'u'llah and Abdul'baha lived with Muslims and prayed in the Mosques with the Muslims.

They never cherry picked, they knew of what they quoted.

Far to easy for us to dismiss and reject that knowledge now.

Peace be to all.

I agree but that is not the way @siti will see it

Let's see how he responds.

 

[danieldemol]

"are pure fanaticism. Also the traditions which the clergy quote, and the incidents with which they find fault, are all exaggerated, if not entirely without foundation." Please be clear that he is talking about Muslim clergy here...

Amongst the things you have stated which are incorrect is this. It refers to the clergy of Europe(ie Christians and others) who “find fault” with the incidents involving Muhammad and Islam.

 

[siti]

OK. Come up with an alternative more plausible narrative that is supported by fair and balanced scholarship.

That's not the point is it - the point is:

...there is no independent corroborating evidence to prove that the text of the Qur'an that is accepted today is the definitive word of Muhammad - still less an "authentic repository" of divine revelation.

I could corroborate, for example, the authenticity of writings of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon much more readily than I could that of Muhammad - but what would it prove?

So here's the point - you claimed - several pages back - that the Qur'an is among the strongest evidence in favour of Muhammad's status as Messenger of God. I am challenging you prove the connections (a) between the text of the Qur'an as we know it and Muhammad and (b) that text and the claim of divine revelation. So far you have done neither. It is not terribly strong evidence that cannot be verified - is it?

 

[siti]

OK. Come up with an alternative more plausible narrative that is supported by fair and balanced scholarship.

That's not the point is it - the point is:

...there is no independent corroborating evidence to prove that the text of the Qur'an that is accepted today is the definitive word of Muhammad - still less an "authentic repository" of divine revelation.

I could corroborate, for example, the authenticity of writings of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon much more readily than I could that of Muhammad - but what would it prove?

So here's the point - you claimed - several pages back - that the Qur'an is among the strongest evidence in favour of Muhammad's status as Messenger of God. I am challenging you prove the connections (a) between the text of the Qur'an as we know it and Muhammad and (b) that text and the claim of divine revelation. So far you have done neither. It is not terribly strong evidence that cannot be verified - is it?

 

[siti]

Amongst the things you have stated which are incorrect is this. It refers to the clergy of Europe(ie Christians and others) who “find fault” with the incidents involving Muhammad and Islam.

OK - but clearly because they believed the "unfounded" tales told to them by "ignorant" and "benighted" Muslims - yes? And these are the same "ignorant" and "benighted" Muslims who passed down both the Muslim tradition and the Qur'an on which AB bases his argument. Yes?

 

[Dawnofhope]

So here's the point - you claimed - several pages back - that the Qur'an is among the strongest evidence in favour of Muhammad's status as Messenger of God. I am challenging you prove the connections (a) between the text of the Qur'an as we know it and Muhammad and (b) that text and the claim of divine revelation. So far you have done neither. It is not terribly strong evidence that cannot be verified - is it?

So we have early transcripts that clearly relate closely if not exactly to the Quran that's present now.

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

We have all these accounts of the life of Muhammad and what He said as recorded through the Hadith and Sirat. We have records of the lives of early Muslims, including those who were contemporaries of Muhammad. Do we really need to go through it all? Everyone seems to think the Qur'an is a record of what Muhammad said.

 

[siti]

My observation would be what better sources could we hope for in understanding the Koran.

Baha'u'llah, before becoming a Babi and then Declaring His own Message, was a practicing Muslim, who's knowledge of the Koran was unequaled. This has ample records to pursue.

Both Baha'u'llah and Abdul'baha lived with Muslims and prayed in the Mosques with the Muslims.

They never cherry picked, they knew of what they quoted.

Far to easy for us to dismiss and reject that knowledge now.

Peace be to all.

I agree but that is not the way @siti will see it

Let's see how he responds.

I have given you tons of evidence about history, science, the Qur'an...and so far most of your responses amount to not much more than repetitious statements of faith in Abdu'l Baha who, in one short page, has clearly demonstrated that he was no better informed about the circumstances of Muhammad's life than an averagely intelligent Wikipedia reader might glean in twenty minutes and was even more woefully ignorant of both science and history.

As to the claim that Abdu'l Baha "never cherry-picked" - I have already given a blow by blow explanation of how he did exactly that - several times on one page that Adrian linked to in the OP. He berates "benighted" Muslims for telling lies about Muhammad's polygamy, beheading hundreds of people, cleaving the moon in two (which bit of the Qur'an, incidentally, he might very well have plagiarized from pre-Islamic poetry - there's another one for you to look up) and then assumes that the very same sources are quite correct and perfectly reliable when they attest to the "barbarous" and "savage" conditions of the pre-Islamic Arab tribes. That IS cherry picking. Taking the flattering bits about Muhammad and rejecting the parts that are not "to His praise" (to use AB's own words).

 

[siti]

So we have early transcripts that clearly relate closely if not exactly to the Quran that's present now.

Closely and certainly not exactly in most cases - less closely in one or two of the earlier cases - and not surprising that most of mss correspond as Uthman had all variants that did not conform to the standard he commissioned destroyed. I thought we'd already been through this.

Everyone seems to think the Qur'an is a record of what Muhammad said.

Everyone does not seem to think this at all do they? Most (but not all) Muslims, most Bahai's. Most everyone else would rather say that the Qur'an appears to be a reasonably authentic transmission of what some of his early followers claimed he said - wouldn't they? I very much doubt you could find an independent scholar who would make the direct claim that these were the authentic words of Muhammad himself and - as I said - and far more importantly from a Bahai perspective (I hope) - much less an independent scholar who would even suggest that there is anything like compelling evidence to take the Qur'an as an "authentic repository" of divine revelation.

We are, of course, as usual in these discussions, all repeating ourselves ad nauseum at this stage. I don't think I have anything further to add unless you have any other compelling evidence in favour of Muhammad's divine messenger status.

 

[danieldemol]

OK - but clearly because they believed the "unfounded" tales told to them by "ignorant" and "benighted" Muslims - yes?

In this particular case to the particular audience Abdu’l-Baha is talking to yes, but that is not to say that all Muslims are ignorant, or that everything ever said by Muslims was unfounded

And these are the same "ignorant" and "benighted" Muslims who passed down both the Muslim tradition and the Qur'an on which AB bases his argument. Yes?

No, it is referring to ignorant Muslims, not to people of demonstrated knowledge, and there is no reference in it to Sirat Rasul’ullah that you are reading into it.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Everyone does not seem to think this at all do they? Most (but not all) Muslims, most Bahai's. Most everyone else would rather say that the Qur'an appears to be a reasonably authentic transmission of what some of his early followers claimed he said - wouldn't they? I very much doubt you could find an independent scholar who would make the direct claim that these were the authentic words of Muhammad himself and - as I said - and far more importantly from a Bahai perspective (I hope) - much less an independent scholar who would even suggest that there is anything like compelling evidence to take the Qur'an as an "authentic repository" of divine revelation.

We are, of course, as usual in these discussions, all repeating ourselves ad nauseum at this stage. I don't think I have anything further to add unless you have any other compelling evidence in favour of Muhammad's divine messenger status.

I agree that in regards to the question of authenticity of the Qur'an (to what extent it reflected Muhammad's teaching) we have both given our perspectives. I always think its best to agree to disagree rather than rehashing. We've put our arguments forward after considering the evidence, and that's the best we can do.

In regards the Qur'an being the "authentic repository" of the Word of God, that would be another discussion based on studying of the Quran. Up to you if you want to do that, and what would the best starting point.

A chapter I'm particularly interested in is the Surah of Joseph.

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

The Bab provided a commentary on this chapter to Mulla Hussein when the Bab first declared His Mission on the evening of 22nd May 1844.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selections_from_the_Writings_of_the_Báb#Qayyúmu'l-Asmá'

http://bahai-library.com/writings/bab/qayyum.taherzadeh.html

The Surah of Maryam is another option.

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

You may have another starting point, or simply give it a rest for a while. Up to you.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Abdu'l Baha who, in one short page, has clearly demonstrated that he was no better informed about the circumstances of Muhammad's life than an averagely intelligent Wikipedia reader might glean in twenty minutes and was even more woefully ignorant of both science and history.

I do not see it this way about Muhammad or Abdul'baha, but I will not push my view further.

I will leave it with one last question, considering a comment you made above, have you ever read the 'Tablet of the Universe'?

Peace be with Muhammad, you and all.