Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

[siti]

The Qurayza violated a peace treaty with the Muslims so my question to you is how would you have dealt with such a large existential threat given the limited means available at the time?

I don't see how that's relevant - the point is Muhammad chopped people's heads off (hundreds of them) and his followers...er...followed his example - as he (reportedly and by divine revelation) enjoined his followers to do (Qur'an 33:21 for example). Abdu'l Baha calls this "mere imagination" - casting doubt on the validity of ibn-Ishaq's account of the Banu Qurayza episode (as many Muslim and non-Muslim scholars have also tried to do) - indeed, a few have argued the exact opposite to what you said, suggesting that the whole thing is unlikely because Muhammad (being a shrewd merchant) would not have been crazy enough to so wastefully dispose of hundreds of newly captured slaves and the free labour they would otherwise have provided to the "Kingdom" he was now gaining control over...

Anyway, be all that as it may, the same traditional Muslim accounts that tell us about Muhammad's bravery and ruthless brutality in battle (the imitation of which AB was denouncing) and the "wonder" of his sexual prowess (which he also denounces) also tell us about the "savage" and "barbarous" habits of the pre-Islamic Arabs - so if these accounts, all of which to a greater or lesser degree of detail, appear in the earlier collections of both sira and hadith - are unreliable in regard to Muhammad (which is their subject) why would we take them as reliable in regard to incidental historical details - which is only there because, and to the extent that, it relates to the religion of Islam and is not their main subject? The answer is obviously that we should not. And if we are trying to formulate a reasonable argument on which to base a "just judgement", we cannot. Abdu'l Baha's argument defeats itself. His argument buys into a traditional Islamic version of pre-Islamic history and bends even that out of shape to make it fit around the early 20th century sensibilities of western culture. And in the process, he creates a caricature of both Islam and its Prophet. It is neither candid nor convincing.

I'm going to leave this aspect there - I've said what I need to.

 

[danieldemol]

I don't see how that's relevant

It is relevant because if you would have done the same given the circumstances then you are hypocritical for acting like Muhammad was bloodthirsty for doing it. So I put the question to you again, what would you have done under such historical circumstance?

 

[siti]

It is relevant because if you would have done the same given the circumstances then you are hypocritical for acting like Muhammad was bloodthirsty for doing it. So I put the question to you again, what would you have done under such historical circumstance?

OK - let's say I would have done what Muhammad did - chop the heads off all the men and take the women and children as slaves and concubines - then I, and Muhammad, would be just like the savage and barbarous Arabs that Abdu'l Baha's argument claims he came to reform.

"For example, 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...

...These Arab tribes were in the lowest depths of savagery and barbarism...most husbands had more than ten wives in their household...When these tribes made war, the one which was victorious would take the women and children of the vanquished tribe captive and treat them as slaves.

...In such a country, and amidst such barbarous tribes...

...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."
~ Abdul Baha, Some Answered Questions

"Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches... There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900...

...Then the apostle divided the property, wives and children of B. Qurayza among the Muslims"
~ ibn-Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah (English translation)

According to the account, he even picked one of the women for himself (along with a fairly hefty share of the booty) - at first she refused to convert to Islam so he didn't feel inclined to have his wicked way with her but apparently she later caved in and was either freed or became another of Muhammad's 9, 11, 12 or 13 wives - depending on whose account you choose to believe and whether you count some (such as the captured Jewess mentioned by ibn-Ishaq) as wives or concubines.

So, either this did not happen - or Muhammad was, by AB's standard no "great Educator" at all but rather just as much "in the lowest depths of savagery and barbarism" as the rest of his Arab tribesmen.

If it didn't happen, then the accounts of Muhammad's life - of which this is the earliest (but others attest in less detail to the same event) - are not reliable and we have no real idea what the conditions among the immediately pre-Islamic Arab tribes were really like (because we only have the same early Islamic historical accounts to depend on for that information) which rather sinks ABs entire argument.

If it did happen, then Abdu'l Baha's argument is hypocritical for the same reason you say mine is because Muhammad did exactly the same thing that AB claims is a mark of the savage barbarity that Muhammad's appearance was divinely ordained to correct!

But to be honest - at this point - the most surprising thing of all is that Baha'is who are prompted by their "Prophet" to an "independent investigation of truth" and who make a point of studying these writings as a religious matter can't see the duplicitousness of the arguments. That truly is a wonder.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I don't think our discussion is going to well. Do you?

Is this another example of you being “fair and reasonable”? Showing a “mutual respect” or “courtesy”?

It's comments like these that led me to claim that you were being belligerent and accusatory.

They make me believe that you are intellectually dishonest or too immature to have this discussion.

By “ordinary” do you mean dishonest and/or living by a double standard?

You ask me to be “fair and reasonable” with you while you do the opposite towards me?

You won’t even admit when you are "wrong" according to your own standards.

honestly do not believe you are up for it.

You apply double standards and put words in my mouth.

Hardly fair, reasonable, respectful or courteous.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Oh I see - so to question the text or engage in any kind of critical analysis is forbidden - that's convenient if you happen to be to the writer of the book wouldn't you say?

That's not what I meant. Mulla Husayn on the first night they meet tested the Bab's claims to be the Promised Qa'im. One of those tests Mulla Husayn devised was that the the Promised would unprompted reveal a commentary on the Surah of Joseph. The Bab was later to remark

“Had you not been My guest,” He afterwards observed, “your position would indeed have been a grievous one. The all-encompassing grace of God has saved you. It is for God to test His servants, and not for His servants to judge Him in accordance with their deficient standards. Were I to fail to resolve your perplexities, could the Reality that shines within Me be regarded as powerless, or My knowledge be accused as faulty? "

Critical analysis is fine. Its part of the principle of independent investigation of truth after all. However the process of searching for spiritual truth is much more profound. The standard as elucidiated by Baha'u'llah is:

"No man shall attain the shores of the ocean of true understanding except he be detached from all that is in heaven and on earth. Sanctify your souls, O ye peoples of the world, that haply ye may attain that station which God hath destined for you and enter thus the tabernacle which, according to the dispensations of Providence, hath been raised in the firmament of the Bayán."

The Kitáb-i-Íqán | Bahá’í Reference Library

Yep - and that's probably because it was originally composed by a human who had faced the kind of struggles we all face.

No doubt.

I fail to see how the Sura al Yusuf tells us anything substantive about Muhammad or his life - it might tell us a little bit about who he thought he was - if it was Muhammad who narrated it (and that is an assumption after all). It might tell us that Muhammad was familiar (somehow) with the stories of the Tanakh - but it certainly doesn't tell us how.

The Sufis, true to form, concentrated on the love story angle (Joseph and Potiphar's wife) as a mystical representation of the relationships between God, men and the world (to put it very glibly) so their testimony is not really relevant to the establishment of Muhammad as a Prophet or Messenger of God except in the most oblique sense.

I agree that it does tell us something of who Muhammad thought He was.

The message Muhammad (assuming Muhammad actually narrated it - have I already said that?) wants to get across is "Look! Allah preordained all this - my Prophethood and your opposition to it. Look! here is a story about it that you have already heard about from the Christians and Jews that dwell in our midst". I mean, he must have meant them to recognize the story as linked to the monotheistic God of the "people of the Book" I think - otherwise he would have seemed to them like just another hakawati - wouldn't he?

That is all true.

Of course he didn't write it down himself - being, as he reportedly was, illiterate - but we'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was his exact words that were written down in the most exquisite Arabic several decades later (if not later). But I still don't really see how the (choice or quality of) language bears on the validity of the claim. But the essence of the message was to convince them that he was the Prophet, preordained by Allah and prophetically foreshadowed by Joseph. Right?

That's right.

OK - so we understand that - now, how - without resorting to "such standards and sciences that are current amongst" us (such as checking the facts of history, examining the text critically etc.) - are we to determine whether this claim is valid or not?

I think you are doing well to thoughtfully consider the history and now the Qur'an as you are. No one else here is investigating so thoroughly with such keen intellect. Keep doing what you are doing, truly.

 

[Vinayaka]

That probably raised more questions than it answered but I hope it helps.

That was unexpected, but I'm not surprised I guess

Keeping in mind both a broader context and establishing proofs of the 'Messenger of God' status of Muhammad, we need to consider provisions made for succession of leadership after the prophet dies and maintaining the integrity of what was taught. It should be clear examining any of the Abrahamic Faiths that such provisions for the future were integral to the Founder's Teachings. Whether Moses, Christ, Muhammad, or Baha'u'llah the concern was not just to create a personal following but to establish a moral code of conduct and laws that would endure for centuries for a sizeable portion of humanity. Such provisions would apply until a new Messenger or Teacher came. Mosaic law makes provision through a judicial and priestly (Levitical) system, Christ through the appointment of Peter who was the first Pope, and Muhammad in appointing Ali as the first Imam.

The Levitical system of the Hebrew people disintegrated several decades after Christ was crucified, precipitated in no small measure by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. It had lasted over 1500 years. The Papal Empire shrunk to a shadow of its former glory in the nineteenth century not long after Baha'u'llah wrote to Pope Pius IX. The Caliphate system of the Muslims ended with the Ottoman empire in 1922 after the establishment of the first Caliphate nearly 1,300 years beforehand.

Baha'u'llah made provisions in His Will and Testament for Abdu'l-Baha as His appointed successor who in turn appointed the Guardianship and Universal House of Justice as the twin successors. Although a line of Guardian's was envisaged, it was clear through the writings of Baha'u'llah that this line would come to an end, and Shoghi Effendi as the first and last Guardian was unable to appoint a further Guardian because of the requirements laid down by Abdu'l-Baha's in his will. However, the guardian (Shoghi Effendi) did appoint the hands of the cause to carry on his work and eventually their responsibilities devolved to the institution of the counsellors.

The Institution of the Counsellors

The Universal House of Justice could not be elected until sufficiently supported by an adequate number of local and national spiritual assemblies in 1963.

So the leadership and guidance of the worldwide Baha'i community rests with the elected institutions and appointed arm known as the institution of the counsellors.

The Baha'i Faith being in no small measure a grass roots movement has its communities guided and supported at a local level by the assistants (appointed by the auxillary board members) that form part of the institution of the counsellors and the local assemblies when there are at least nine adult members in a community

At a national level we have the auxillary board members and their counsellors that appoint them represented along with the National Assemblies and their regional councils.

Internationally we have the International Teaching Centre and the Universal House of Justice. Both of these institutions reside at the Baha'i World Centre in Haifa, Israel.

The International Teaching Centre (ITC) members are appointed by the Universal House of Justice and the Universal House of Justice is elected every five years by members of the National Spiritual Assemblies.

Whether at a local, national, or international level both the institutions of the counsellors and elected assemblies collaborate closely together.

Almost without doubt, those who are appointed or elected to any Baha'i institution are those that best combine the qualities of a well trained mind, recognised ability, selfless devotion, unquestioned loyalty, and mature experience. In addition those that are appointed to the institution of the counsellors are those that have distinguished themselves in their services to the Baha'i community. Those that serve at the world centre on the ITC have generally served their Baha'i communities in many capacities over several decades and exemplified the qualities that are prerequisites for service. For that reason, members of the ITC are more likely to be elected onto the Universal House of Justice.

That probably raised more questions than it answered but I hope it helps.

And this all when I thought you were serious about this thread being about Muhammad. (sigh)

As you might suspect, I've heard all this before several times over. Some other thread a few months back I think.

 

[siti]

That's not what I meant. Mulla Husayn on the first night they meet tested the Bab's claims to be the Promised Qa'im. One of those tests Mulla Husayn devised was that the the Promised would unprompted reveal a commentary on the Surah of Joseph. The Bab was later to remark

“Had you not been My guest,” He afterwards observed, “your position would indeed have been a grievous one. The all-encompassing grace of God has saved you. It is for God to test His servants, and not for His servants to judge Him in accordance with their deficient standards. Were I to fail to resolve your perplexities, could the Reality that shines within Me be regarded as powerless, or My knowledge be accused as faulty? "

But that is saying the same thing - and I think this is probably key to Baha'i faith - if you do your "independent investigation", you ask the perplexing questions and find yourself at odds with the Bab or Baha'u'llah's teaching then it is you, not they, that are missing something...

...the reality of that situation historically is that both Mulla Husayn and the Bab had been listening (very carefully it seems) to the teachings of the Shaykhi leader Kazim Rashti who taught that the Qa'im or Mahdi (who is apparently not mentioned in the Qur'an at all - at least not directly - let alone in this particular Sura) was among them and gave them a list of things to look for in order to identify him and sent them off to look for him - and Mulla Husayn hit the first of his two Shaykhi jackpots. The commentary on the Sura al Yusuf (which has nothing to do with the appearance of the Qaim as far as I can tell) was to be one of those signs and both Mulla Husayn and the Bab knew that...

So then they met in a room by themselves and, hey presto, a commentary on the Sura al Yusuf (that barely comments on the Sura al Yusuf it should be noted - in fact there are more references to both Mary and Moses than there are to Joseph - at least in the excerpts you gave me a link to) is revealed. Anyway, apparently, the Bab reveals himself to be the Bab (a new name for the Qaim or Mahdi or 12th Imam) and makes some fairly serious denunciations of the Shah and his Grand Vizier - all of which he later makes public and follows up with a number of letters denouncing and warning the Shah etc. and then wonders why the Shah and Grand Vizier didn't like him very much.

A vaguely worded "prophecy" of "doom" (as Shogi Effendi later calls it) for the Shah stating the rather obvious truth that "for every soul shall taste death" (which is from ayah 185 of Surah al Imran - not 182 as indicated in the Bahai library version) is elevated to prophecy fulfilled when the Shah (who was a sickly man anyway by all accounts) pops his clogs prematurely as a result of gout in 1848.

And suddenly, the Bab is not only the long-awaited Qaim or Mahdi of a few faithful Shaykhis who happened to have been waiting quite a long time (well actually about 20 years since Shaykh Ahmad taught them to look for) but now also a great Prophet and harbinger of an entire new "dispensation".

Its not really clear to me whether the Bab convinced Mulla Husayn that he was the Bab or Mulla Husayn convinced the Bab that he was the Bab. Certainly it was Mulla Husayn who seemed to be "translated" to ecstatic spiritual experiences becoming "detached from all that is in heaven and on earth" as your Baha'u'llah quote puts it (you'd need to read Mulla Husayn's own testimony as later recorded in God Passes By (for example) to understand why I am saying that) - the Bab just wrote stuff down and seems to have had his feet on the earth and his head in (religious) heaven the entire time.

As an aside - I think this - the idea of detachment from the reality of self, mundane reality and religious notions of heaven - might very well be a more plausible explanation for the extraordinary circumstances in which the revelations of both Muhammad and the Bab were "received". To get into that, we would have to look into the circumstances surrounding the "first revelation" - the cave of Hira and all that.

For the current side-topic of the Sura and commentary you suggested we start with, I still don't get the connection between the Sura al Yusuf, the Bab's commentary on it (that doesn't really comment on it) and establishing the validity or genuineness of the Prophethood of Muhammad.

 

[CG Didymus]

I don't see why you say that

​

For me, as important as "What" happened is "why" it happened. In those days prior to the industrial revolution I think it would be wrong to assume that society was able to generate enough excess to support a large popultation of hostile fighters isolated in prisons. As I see it, the most humane means of dealing with a large number of hostiles available at the time was the death sentence.

The Qurayza violated a peace treaty with the Muslims so my question to you is how would you have dealt with such a large existential threat given the limited means available at the time?

So first of all, do you believe the event happened? Then, since the industrial age didn't happen for several centuries, was killing all prisoners of war and men of a conquered people God's "just" way of dealing with people that Muslims defeated? And last, is this really the best God come up with? Have his divine, perfectly polished mirror, the one reflecting all of God's attributes, kill all those people?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That was unexpected, but I'm not surprised I guess


And this all when I thought you were serious about this thread being about Muhammad. (sigh)
As you might suspect, I've heard all this before several times over. Some other thread a few months back I think.

The Diversion was brought by others with very misleading and incorrect accusations, thus I personally and fully expected someone would correct the mistakes made in those replies.

Only fair I would think.

Peace be with you and all.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

To you it's sound. To me, I don't know and question its soundness. Do you accept all religious beliefs? Or do you question and doubt the validity and truth of some of them? Like Fundamental/evangelical Christianity. Are all their concepts, doctrines and beliefs true? How about Sunni Islam? Or Tibetan Buddhism? Or the Mormons? Do you believe the account of Jesus Christ taught in the Book of Mormon? And, of course, the Baha'i say to personally investigate what the truth is. So I got that going for me... which is nice.

I believe in One God and I do now see that Muhammad was indeed His Messenger. I see there have been many such people walk this earth and give messages to aid our growth.

I am beginning to look past the names of Religion and past the man made dogma in religion, to the Purity, the unity, which I am beginning to see is at the heart of them all. Thus I do see a Oneness and this is the path I am now searching.

It is for that reason I came to this forum. I see the need to support all good, that comes from all Faiths an let the good shine.

Negativity is much to easy to fall back on and it has already caught me out, this will be a difficult journey here I am guessing.

Peace be upon Muhammad, you and all.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So first of all, do you believe the event happened? Then, since the industrial age didn't happen for several centuries, was killing all prisoners of war and men of a conquered people God's "just" way of dealing with people that Muslims defeated? And last, is this really the best God come up with? Have his divine, perfectly polished mirror, the one reflecting all of God's attributes, kill all those people?

I don't see how that's relevant - the point is Muhammad chopped people's heads off (hundreds of them) and his followers...er...followed his example - as he (reportedly and by divine revelation) enjoined his followers to do (Qur'an 33:21 for example). Abdu'l Baha calls this "mere imagination" - casting doubt on the validity of ibn-Ishaq's account of the Banu Qurayza episode (as many Muslim and non-Muslim scholars have also tried to do)

Personally I do not see Muhammad as the taker of lives. I see that people such as Ali bin Abi Talib were the warriors of the age. Military career of Ali - Wikipedia

More than likely it was believers thinking they were doing Justice to Muhammad by spreading the military warrior attributes of Muhammad. After all the Jews and people of the time and even now, still expect God to send a Military man to wipe out the unbelievers.

When they are faced with a Jesus and a Bab and a Baha'u'llah, man always wants a fight and they do not like seeing their saviour as looking helpless against their enemies. In reality their Faith is weak. I see this happened to Muhammad and it was not yet time for the swords to be turned into ploughshares. If you watch the movie made back in the 70's about Muhammad, to which many say it is an accurate portrayal of Muslim History, you will note that Muhammad after a period of some time when the believers were being slaughtered, finally allows them defence and works from behind the believers with the warriors taking the initiative.

The movie can be downloaded from here - The Message : Moustapha Akkad : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

This I see was foretold in the Bible.

Peace be upon you and all.

 

[siti]

Personally I do not see Muhammad as the taker of lives. I see that people such as Ali bin Abi Talib were the warriors of the age. Military career of Ali - Wikipedia

More than likely it was believers thinking they were doing Justice to Muhammad by spreading the military warrior attributes of Muhammad. After all the Jews and people of the time and even now, still expect God to send a Military man to wipe out the unbelievers.

Here we go again. Antony - you can't just say "I do not see Muhammad as the taker of lives" without examining the evidence. You can't just say "it was believers thinking they were doing Justice to Muhammad by spreading the military warrior attributes of Muhammad" without discrediting the only evidence you have for anything that Muhammad may have said or done - including revealing the Qur'an. The only historical (perhaps) evidence you have for Muhammad being a Messenger of God is the same evidence that paints Muhammad as a warrior himself and a supporter of the brave exploits in battle of his followers. Ali is revered in the Shi'i tradition from which the Bahai religion emerged as the first "infallible" Imam. Muhammad is said to have praised his bravery in the same battle (Battle of the Trench) that led up to the reported beheading of hundreds of captured Banu Qurayza Jews by Muhammad himself. Either these accounts are reliable and Muhammad was a ruthless shedder of blood or they are unreliable and we know almost nothing about him. But as ever, the Bahai's want it both ways.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Here we go again. Antony - you can't just say "I do not see Muhammad as the taker of lives" without examining the evidence. You can't just say "it was believers thinking they were doing Justice to Muhammad by spreading the military warrior attributes of Muhammad" without discrediting the only evidence you have for anything that Muhammad may have said or done - including revealing the Qur'an. The only historical (perhaps) evidence you have for Muhammad being a Messenger of God is the same evidence that paints Muhammad as a warrior himself and a supporter of the brave exploits in battle of his followers. Ali is revered in the Shi'i tradition from which the Bahai religion emerged as the first "infallible" Imam. Muhammad is said to have praised his bravery in the same battle (Battle of the Trench) that led up to the reported beheading of hundreds of captured Banu Qurayza Jews by Muhammad himself. Either these accounts are reliable and Muhammad was a ruthless shedder of blood or they are unreliable and we know almost nothing about him. But as ever, the Bahai's want it both ways.

That is the way I see it, I have not said that a Baha'i holds this view, that is your addition. Muhammad was here to lead us to peace, love and justice. If Muhammad did take any earthly life, Muhammad is also the channel for our Spiritual lives and as such, those that perished did so as it was their God given fate.

I see no bad, I see lessons to be learned and wisdoms far beyond our ken and material thoughts.

Peace be upon you always.

 

[siti]

That is the way I see it, I have not said that a Baha'i holds this view, that is your addition.

It is the exact same reasoning Abdu'l Baha uses in his appraisal of Muhammad - and by definition that makes it Baha'i doctrine. Its perfectly fine that you believe whatever preposterously unlikely sanitized versions of the lives of the Prophets you entrust your "spiritual" life to, but when you post comments like that in a debate forum, you have to expect them to be challenged.

Muhammad was here to lead us to peace, love and justice.

If that is true, why has the Islamic world (like everywhere else) been characterized by war, hatred and profound injustice since the day Muhammad left Mecca? Why was the Islamic Empire never a haven of peace, love and justice - not once in its entire existence could that honestly be claimed. I mean that is really the topic we are supposed to be discussing isn't it? If Muhammad taught peace, love and justice - why in the entire 1400 years since his appearance have the fruits of peace, love and justice not been manifested - and least of all in the territories that are most profoundly associated with the appearance of this so-called "Great Educator"? If Muhammad is such a great teacher, how come almost none of his students, from his own lifetime until today, have got the point of what he taught?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It is the exact same reasoning Abdu'l Baha uses in his appraisal of Muhammad - and by definition that makes it Baha'i doctrine. Its perfectly fine that you believe whatever preposterously unlikely sanitized versions of the lives of the Prophets you entrust your "spiritual" life to, but when you post comments like that in a debate forum, you have to expect them to be challenged.

If that is true, why has the Islamic world (like everywhere else) been characterized by war, hatred and profound injustice since the day Muhammad left Mecca? Why was the Islamic Empire never a haven of peace, love and justice - not once in its entire existence could that honestly be claimed. I mean that is really the topic we are supposed to be discussing isn't it? If Muhammad taught peace, love and justice - why in the entire 1400 years since his appearance have the fruits of peace, love and justice not been manifested - and least of all in the territories that are most profoundly associated with the appearance of this so-called "Great Educator"? If Muhammad is such a great teacher, how come almost none of his students, from his own lifetime until today, have got the point of what he taught?

Of course you can challenge, that is your choice to do so, with the view you have chosen to offer.

To me you would have to ask each believer that chose to implement the peace, love and justice in the way they did. Remember, there is most likely more Muslims that did not choose those violent actions. Hate breeds more hate, be you a believer or not a believer. Hate is not a Virtue given by Muhammad, or any Messenger I have studied.

Looking back at some replies in some threads, I note you have been given answers to these questions previously, so I will not add to that, as I have also come to see that these events in history were definitly biblical prophecy.

Peace be with you.

 

[siti]

To me you would have to ask each believer that chose to implement the peace, love and justice in the way they did.

No - we don't have to ask each believer at all in this case because the claim is that "revelation" is given to certain individuals who are specially selected by God as particularly suited to the task of educating mankind - right? That's the claim. So if the life and actions of the chosen Messenger fail to fulfill the teachings - in this case, according to your claim, Muhammad as a teacher of love, peace and justice, then I have the right to ask to ask did Muhammad really chop people's heads off or not? If not, then fine, but then all the hadith that claim he did, all the biography that claims that he did, even the sections of the Qur'an that refer (in less detail admittedly) to the same events are at best questionable and at worst downright deceitful and misleading. I am then left with no basis for believing anything else they tell me about Muhammad - and that includes almost everything we might think we know from the manner and details of the "revelation" to his manner of life and his military activities.

So whilst you are perfectly at liberty to simply make unsubstantiated statements of faith as a private individual, I think when you are (as Abdu'l Baha certainly was and I suspect some Baha'is on this forum are too) attempting to persuade others to believe what you are presenting, you have a duty to defend those assertions by presenting evidence that people can be reasonably confident in trusting. It is, in fact, not a matter of opinion whether Muhammad chopped people's heads off or not - he either did or he didn't; it is not a matter of opinion whether the Qur'an was revealed by God through the Angel Gabriel - it either was or it wasn't. But you cannot take a historical source that says the Quran was divinely revealed in that manner and Muhammad did indeed chop people's heads off and use the same document as proof for one and then dismiss it as "ignorant" and "foolish" as an authority on the other.

Quite frankly, in a debate like this, I am not at all interested in anyone's unsubstantiated opinions - I am interested in the historical evidence and it simply doesn't stack up in Muhammad's favour and makes Abdu'l Baha appear every bit as "ignorant" as the "foolish" Muslims he denounced for playing up Muhammad's brutality and sexual prowess. If you still don't get it - then you have not read any of the sources that Shi'i Islam - and by extension the Baha'i faith - depends on for its knowledge of Muhammad and the events surrounding the "revelation" of the Qur'an. And if you haven't done that, how can you claim to be conducting an "independent investigation of truth"? All that really seems to be required for this "independent investigation) is to take Abdu'l Baha's (and Shogi Effendi's) word for it - that is my opinion based on what I see most often in these Baha'i initiated discussions.

If it were not for the fact that I am very interested in the historical aspects, I would simply ignore it - like I do with most other religious propaganda - but I am fascinated by the history and more so by how easy it is for people to fool themselves into accepting a grotesquely distorted or sanitized and entirely unsubstantiated version of history for the sake of shoring up a predetermined religious opinion. The propensity for self-deception that I am observing is really quite telling - and I am becoming convinced that this is a vital ingredient in the propagation - and probably the genesis - of revealed religions. Is reality really suspended because of revelation - or is revelation the product of an altered perception of reality? That's the next part of the account I want to look at. What really happened to Muhammad in the Cave of Hira? Do Abdu'l Baha or Baha'u'llah comment on that anywhere?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No - we don't have to ask each believer at all in this case because the claim is that "revelation" is given to certain individuals who are specially selected by God as particularly suited to the task of educating mankind - right? That's the claim. So if the life and actions of the chosen Messenger fail to fulfill the teachings - in this case, according to your claim, Muhammad as a teacher of love, peace and justice, then I have the right to ask to ask did Muhammad really chop people's heads off or not? If not, then fine, but then all the hadith that claim he did, all the biography that claims that he did, even the sections of the Qur'an that refer (in less detail admittedly) to the same events are at best questionable and at worst downright deceitful and misleading. I am then left with no basis for believing anything else they tell me about Muhammad - and that includes almost everything we might think we know from the manner and details of the "revelation" to his manner of life and his military activities.

So whilst you are perfectly at liberty to simply make unsubstantiated statements of faith as a private individual, I think when you are (as Abdu'l Baha certainly was and I suspect some Baha'is on this forum are too) attempting to persuade others to believe what you are presenting, you have a duty to defend those assertions by presenting evidence that people can be reasonably confident in trusting. It is, in fact, not a matter of opinion whether Muhammad chopped people's heads off or not - he either did or he didn't; it is not a matter of opinion whether the Qur'an was revealed by God through the Angel Gabriel - it either was or it wasn't. But you cannot take a historical source that says the Quran was divinely revealed in that manner and Muhammad did indeed chop people's heads off and use the same document as proof for one and then dismiss it as "ignorant" and "foolish" as an authority on the other.

Quite frankly, in a debate like this, I am not at all interested in anyone's unsubstantiated opinions - I am interested in the historical evidence and it simply doesn't stack up in Muhammad's favour and makes Abdu'l Baha appear every bit as "ignorant" as the "foolish" Muslims he denounced for playing up Muhammad's brutality and sexual prowess. If you still don't get it - then you have not read any of the sources that Shi'i Islam - and by extension the Baha'i faith - depends on for its knowledge of Muhammad and the events surrounding the "revelation" of the Qur'an. And if you haven't done that, how can you claim to be conducting an "independent investigation of truth"? All that really seems to be required for this "independent investigation) is to take Abdu'l Baha's (and Shogi Effendi's) word for it - that is my opinion based on what I see most often in these Baha'i initiated discussions.

If it were not for the fact that I am very interested in the historical aspects, I would simply ignore it - like I do with most other religious propaganda - but I am fascinated by the history and more so by how easy it is for people to fool themselves into accepting a grotesquely distorted or sanitized and entirely unsubstantiated version of history for the sake of shoring up a predetermined religious opinion. The propensity for self-deception that I am observing is really quite telling - and I am becoming convinced that this is a vital ingredient in the propagation - and probably the genesis - of revealed religions. Is reality really suspended because of revelation - or is revelation the product of an altered perception of reality? That's the next part of the account I want to look at. What really happened to Muhammad in the Cave of Hira? Do Abdu'l Baha or Baha'u'llah comment on that anywhere?

My independent search, as you mentioned above, has been focused on the question I had in my heart when I fist decided to look for the meaning of God. Is there One God or many Gods, my heart was saying One God and that is what I looked for. Thus I did early on, begin to see the same spiritual advice given in all the scriptures I read.

Facts? 1325 years after the event to which we can be mostly assured the Koran is accurate, but the remainder much less reliable to absolute fiction. Any haddith not in tune with the spirit of Intent given in the whole Koran can be discarded immediately. I have read that advice many times, do not have a link, but it would be available.

Like most people on the net these days, I gather my information from the net, but this has issues to which I picked up on very quickly. Where do you find Truth about any Faith, from the enemies, those with ill intent, or from the people that have the intent of sharing the message in a loving way? I choose the last option.

So, I search sites that refute these killings, such as - http://www.muhammadfactcheck.org/ That one site will do.

It is in my search that I gave up looking at evidence from enemies of Faiths. I now Look at the strength of those that follow the light and not the darkness within us all.

Peace be upon you and all.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

Universal House of Justice - Wikipedia

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.

The Universal House of Justice is elected through secret ballot and plurality vote in a three-stage election by adult Bahá'ís throughout the world. The House of Justice is elected without nominations or campaigning and all adult male members of the Bahá'í Faith are eligible for election to the House.[8] The body is elected every five years during a convention of the members of the various National or Regional Spiritual Assemblies (NSAs) across the world. Each member of the various NSAs, who were themselves elected by the Bahá'ís of their country, votes for nine adult male Bahá'ís. Absentee ballots are mailed or carried by delegates. The nine people who have the most votes are elected onto the Universal House of Justice.
I looked at a couple of, no doubt, "fake sites" and they agreed with you. It is virtually a lifetime appointment. One site said that it is a "selection" not an "election" to get into the UHJ after being appointed to some teaching center by the UHJ. Thanks

Yeah there has to be some sort of back room dealing. The 'fake sites' correctly predict who is next in line. Always from the teaching center, and well conditioned.

As I have read up on this topic you have both mentioned, I find it interesting that when Adrian puts such a topic on this forum and backs the argument well with teachings from both the Koran and Baha'i Writings, that people would stoop to the low tactics of providing false and misleaing information about the Faith Adrian follows.

Is this an attempt to refute the sound argument that Adrain has given to date?

Seems proselytism of ones own personal views can take many forms.

This is just more of the 'them versus us' paranoia common in Baha'i circles. If you're not a Bahai' and offer up any differing POV at all, then you're anti-Baha'i. I'm used to it. And I'm certainly not anti-Baha'i, nor is Didymus. But go ahead, it's a free country. I think Adrian knows each of us well enough to know that.

So it becomes an exclusive club for men to rule the world... the world of God's new religion. What could go wrong?

It’s true I’ve been talking to both you and @CG Didymus for a long time and we’ve all got to know each other quite well over last 1 1/2 years. The comments about Baha’i administration didn’t seem to relate to the OP and you guys were talking to each other so I didn’t respond. I’m happy to provide some perspective if you want.

Sure. Might as well tie it back in to Muhammad and explain what his plan was to keep and maintain Islam from getting off track and divided.

Thank you for this. Shows a broader perspective.

Wise move, (not assisting in derailing your own thread) and I apologise for any role I've had in derailing it.

Keeping in mind both a broader context and establishing proofs of the 'Messenger of God' status of Muhammad, we need to consider provisions made for succession of leadership after the prophet dies and maintaining the integrity of what was taught.

Almost without doubt, those who are appointed or elected to any Baha'i institution are those that best combine the qualities of a well trained mind, recognised ability, selfless devotion, unquestioned loyalty, and mature experience. In addition those that are appointed to the institution of the counsellors are those that have distinguished themselves in their services to the Baha'i community. Those that serve at the world centre on the ITC have generally served their Baha'i communities in many capacities over several decades and exemplified the qualities that are prerequisites for service. For that reason, members of the ITC are more likely to be elected onto the Universal House of Justice.

That probably raised more questions than it answered but I hope it helps.

That was unexpected, but I'm not surprised I guess

And this all when I thought you were serious about this thread being about Muhammad. (sigh)

As you might suspect, I've heard all this before several times over. Some other thread a few months back I think.

I simply adressed the issues you and @CG Didymus raised in this thread as related to the membership of the Universal House of Justice based on known history as it related to Islam. Had you both not raised the issue and affirmed you would like a response from me to address those issues, I would not have posted. As I've said repeatedly, this is a thread about the Divine Messenger claims of Muhammad.

 

[Dawnofhope]

But that is saying the same thing - and I think this is probably key to Baha'i faith - if you do your "independent investigation", you ask the perplexing questions and find yourself at odds with the Bab or Baha'u'llah's teaching then it is you, not they, that are missing something...

The nature of investigation is also knowing ourselves and what brings out the worst and best in us, and living in accordance with our highest values. I took time out from Christianity to disentangle myself from what was being taught in the churches and what intuitively felt wrong. When I returned back to Church soon I found my life taking a side step into the Baha'i Faith. I had come across the Baha'i Faith early in my search but had not recognised it was what I was looking for. Four years later I was ready to take it seriously.

...the reality of that situation historically is that both Mulla Husayn and the Bab had been listening (very carefully it seems) to the teachings of the Shaykhi leader Kazim Rashti who taught that the Qa'im or Mahdi (who is apparently not mentioned in the Qur'an at all - at least not directly - let alone in this particular Sura) was among them and gave them a list of things to look for in order to identify him and sent them off to look for him - and Mulla Husayn hit the first of his two Shaykhi jackpots. The commentary on the Sura al Yusuf (which has nothing to do with the appearance of the Qaim as far as I can tell) was to be one of those signs and both Mulla Husayn and the Bab knew that...

We create narratives that make the most sense at the time. Muhammad as a Divine Messenger drawing on innate knowledge to provide a simple but profound exposition of a story about Joseph or Mary will appear ludicrous to the non-theist, just as His plagiarising the story from a Christian blacksmith makes little sense to the theist. Yet in out attempts to make sense of who Muhammad really was we need to consider ALL the relevant information, not just cherry pick as you call it. That's why an examination of the Quran is so necessary in considering who is Muhammad and even with discussing just one Surah the nature of our conversation has changed.

Similarly, the problem with considering your version of events in regards the Bab is to leave out certain key parts of the story. For example, did you know that Mulla Husayn was not the first to recognise the Bab as the Qa'im?

So then they met in a room by themselves and, hey presto, a commentary on the Sura al Yusuf (that barely comments on the Sura al Yusuf it should be noted - in fact there are more references to both Mary and Moses than there are to Joseph - at least in the excerpts you gave me a link to) is revealed. Anyway, apparently, the Bab reveals himself to be the Bab (a new name for the Qaim or Mahdi or 12th Imam) and makes some fairly serious denunciations of the Shah and his Grand Vizier - all of which he later makes public and follows up with a number of letters denouncing and warning the Shah etc. and then wonders why the Shah and Grand Vizier didn't like him very much.

As a scientist investigates the molecular world and finds a new worlds of atoms and their constituents so to does the heart attuned to God find realms of unseen knowledge within the story of Joseph. With the revelation of new knowledge scientific or religious there are always the skeptics who resist change.

As Muhammad denounced paganism in His time, so too did the Bab denounce the corruption of Persian religion and government. Of course there was resistance.

A vaguely worded "prophecy" of "doom" (as Shogi Effendi later calls it) for the Shah stating the rather obvious truth that "for every soul shall taste death" (which is from ayah 185 of Surah al Imran - not 182 as indicated in the Bahai library version) is elevated to prophecy fulfilled when the Shah (who was a sickly man anyway by all accounts) pops his clogs prematurely as a result of gout in 1848.

The words of the Bab that appear empty and meaningless to cynic appear Divinely inspired to the Baha'is.

All praise be to God Who hath, through the power of Truth, sent down this Book unto His servant, that it may serve as a shining light for all mankind.… Verily this is none other than the sovereign Truth; it is the Path which God hath laid out for all that are in heaven and on earth. Let him then who will, take for himself the right path unto his Lord. Verily this is the true Faith of God, and sufficient witness are God and such as are endowed with the knowledge of the Book. This is indeed the eternal Truth which God, the Ancient of Days, hath revealed unto His omnipotent Word—He Who hath been raised up from the midst of the Burning Bush. This is the Mystery which hath been hidden from all that are in heaven and on earth, and in this wondrous Revelation it hath, in very truth, been set forth in the Mother Book by the hand of God, the Exalted.…

O concourse of kings and of the sons of kings! Lay aside, one and all, your dominion which belongeth unto God.…

Let not thy sovereignty deceive thee, O Sháh, for “every soul shall taste of death,”1 and this, in very truth, hath been written down as a decree of God.
Chapter I.

Selections from the Writings of the Báb | Bahá’í Reference Library

Gateways to the Qayyúm al-Asmá' of the Báb, by Stephen Lambden

And suddenly, the Bab is not only the long-awaited Qaim or Mahdi of a few faithful Shaykhis who happened to have been waiting quite a long time (well actually about 20 years since Shaykh Ahmad taught them to look for) but now also a great Prophet and harbinger of an entire new "dispensation".

It would be hard to estimate the numbers of those in Persia who joined the Babi movement. From the verse above the Bab is making revealing His claims for those with eyes to see.

Its not really clear to me whether the Bab convinced Mulla Husayn that he was the Bab or Mulla Husayn convinced the Bab that he was the Bab. Certainly it was Mulla Husayn who seemed to be "translated" to ecstatic spiritual experiences becoming "detached from all that is in heaven and on earth" as your Baha'u'llah quote puts it (you'd need to read Mulla Husayn's own testimony as later recorded in God Passes By (for example) to understand why I am saying that) - the Bab just wrote stuff down and seems to have had his feet on the earth and his head in (religious) heaven the entire time.

So who was the first to recognise the Bab as the Qa'im if it wasn't Mulla Husayn?

As an aside - I think this - the idea of detachment from the reality of self, mundane reality and religious notions of heaven - might very well be a more plausible explanation for the extraordinary circumstances in which the revelations of both Muhammad and the Bab were "received". To get into that, we would have to look into the circumstances surrounding the "first revelation" - the cave of Hira and all that.

"It is no less than inspiration sent down to him:
He was taught by one Mighty in Power,
Endued with Wisdom: for he appeared (in stately form);
While he was in the highest part of the horizon:
Then he approached and came closer,
And was at a distance of but two bow-lengths or (even) nearer;"
Qur'an 53:4-9

"Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of your Lord who created:
Created man from a clinging substance:
Recite, and your Lord is the most Generous,–
Who taught by the pen–Taught man that which he knew not."
Qur'an 96:1-5

Muhammad's first revelation - Wikipedia

What about it?

For the current side-topic of the Sura and commentary you suggested we start with, I still don't get the connection between the Sura al Yusuf, the Bab's commentary on it (that doesn't really comment on it) and establishing the validity or genuineness of the Prophethood of Muhammad.

Perhaps its something we either see or don't. For now its about developing a portrait of Muhammaad and His Message and the most plausible narrative to make sense of what we know. Knowledge is an attribute of God after all, and God is an Unknowable Essence.

 

[loverofhumanity]

There are some things I greatly admire about Muhammad, but his multiple wives, marriage to a 6 year (old at age 53 ), his military conquests, his personal practice of cutting off heads, his appearing to look like a bloodthirsty tyrant at times, and his sometimes glorious and hedonistic lifestyles, seems about as far from a "holy lifestyle" as that of the average ISIS fighter.

I'm completely convinced that ISIS cuts off heads because Muhammad cut off heads.

But, he still may have been a man of God and made it to heaven....that doesn't mean he was not a sinner, who made no mistakes!

I’m happy to attempt to address some of the issues you’ve raised about Muhammad.

A lot of what people have read is heresay or based upon what others have said and is not reliable fact such as hadiths. The only truly authentic account of Muhammad humanity possesses which is agreed upon by both Sunni and Shi’ah is the Holy Quran. Anything outside that depends upon who’s version one wishes to believe but there is no proof of authenticity nor universal agreement amongst all Muslims.

The account of Aisha being a child comes from a Hadith but historical records place her at closer to 19 when she married Muhammad. (A’isha, the wife the companion - Amazon)

In the Quran Sura 2:190 it says not to fight unless attacked first and if you’ve read the history of Islam you will note that for 13 years Muhammad and His followers were persecuted for believing in one God as Mecca depended on its trade in the belief of 360 gods. So you can see where the antagonism developed out of attachment to their wealth.

Muhammad then fled with His followers to Medina from intense persecution where He received the verse from God to defend religious freedom if attacked and not to submit to religious persecution.

Thus it was that Muhammad became the first Messenger of God to fight for the freedom of religion and worship and even established it in the Constitution of Medina, the world’s first constitution to grant religious rights to other Faiths and set the example for western democracies which followed later.

Muhammad’s military expeditions were always defensive but later after His death the Umayyads and the Abbasids used every pretext to start wars for their own wealth and power. These were the Sunnis.

As to polygamy. It was normal in those times and even Abraham and other Christians such as David had many wives. Like slavery Muhammad tried to reduce this as it was so ingrained in the culture so a limit was set to 4 but that justice had to be practised. And if a Muslim couldn’t then one wife was preferable. But there was no attempt to abolish it except by inference as people were not ready to discard it then but recently Baha’u’llah has abolished both polygamy and slavery as humanity is ready to discard these practices it once cherished.

I think it’s important to reflect and not just believe everything we read because a lot of it is factually incorrect as well as heresay and rumour.

We each need to search out the truth for ourselves and not rely on the opinions of others if we are to find out if Muhammad was truly a Messenger of God.