What do you need me to elaborate on?
It would be up to you to confirm that your comment about Muhammad would not be applicable to all the Prophets of the Tanakh.
Peace be with you.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
-
- Tags
- baha'i faith islam muhammad prophet
What do you need me to elaborate on?
It would be up to you to confirm that your comment about Muhammad would not be applicable to all the Prophets of the Tanakh.
Peace be with you.
Unfortunately, I'm unable to locate the book online and am unlikley to purchase it. Are you familiar with the two Surahs he comments and have you read Abraham Katsh's book yourself.
j1i
Smiling is charity without giving money
I read the Bible, the Bible and the Koran
These claims were followed diligently and professionally on the issue that the Koran is the outcome of the writings of Jews and Christians
I would like to say that the Qur'an is a divine and divine book and it is normal to be like the Bible and the Bible
In terms of the formula of telling the truth
On the contrary, the Quran contains many things that are not found in the Scriptures, but are also scientifically validated
This thing I searched intensively and tired and confirmed that the Koran carries the same message with new facts
I am familiar with the Surahs Katsh alludes to as well as the Midrash Rabbah. Although about one quarter of the Qur'an makes reference to Jewish and Christian prophets/figures, it is done in a unique and original manner.
I did find this commentary on Katsh's work:
It is therefore a cause for regret that Mr. Katsh’s attempt to fill this gap in Islamic-Jewish scholarship should prove so disappointing. Certainly the author did not lack for material—he makes us well aware of the extent of the material on which he drew in his many and swollen footnotes. But the undigested form in which the material is presented and the looseness with which the author words his comments, leave the reader baffled as to what exactly Mohammed got from Jewish culture. The author fails to distinguish between early and later statements within the suras, and makes virtually no attempt at differentiating between Mohammed’s own statements and the meaning attributed to them by his devotees.
Judaism in Islam, by Abraham I. Katsh - Commentary Magazine
Our fundamental point of agreement is that Muhammad was a Messenger of God and the Holy Qur'an is the inerrant Word of God. It is not a copy and paste from Jewish or Christians texts although clearly makes reference to the Gospels and Torah as revelations from God as the Quran was.
The confusion about the Divinity status of Christ is that Jesus like Muhammad brought a Message from God. Christians are therefore inclined to believe Jesus was God, rather than a Messenger of God. This along with the Chrstian's misunderstanding of their sacred scripture has contributed to differences between Muslims and Christians. However Muslims have made serious errors in their understanding too.
siti
Well-Known Member
I appreciate that - but simply making statements of faith in what you have learned doesn't cut it - either for a debate, which this is - or for helping someone else to come to their own conclusion based on evidence. Your faith in what you believe is fine - but it is not evidence for me.
siti
Well-Known Member
Its fine for you - but as I just pointed out to LH, this is a debate and I am here to continue my own independent investigation not simply accept the word of the faithful. You continually make these kind of claims about Baha'u'llah's teachings not being faulted...etc. In this thread, Adrian opened by citing Abdu'l Baha's chapter on Muhammad and asking us to comment on whether his assessment of Muhammad as Messenger of God was a valid judgement. I have clearly shown, by reference to historical facts, several points about which Abdu'l Baha was wrong and I have given clear evidence to show that it is far more reasonable to assume that Muhammad's teachings derived from a more mundane source. We are still in the process of examining some passages in the Qur'an to ascertain whether these are clear signs of divine authorship. So far I am even more convinced that they are not than I was at the beginning. And given that for the most part, the responses from the Baha'i contributors amount to little more than statements of faith with no independent supporting evidence whatsoever, I am, for the time-being, sticking to that position - the Qur'an seems to bear all the hallmarks of being a work of human origin.
Do you feel that is a fair stance?
Yes you must see it as your heart directs you to do.
The key to this is our oneness. I Also look to science as it does sort out the issues one has with Faith in God.
Peace be with you
siti
Well-Known Member
Yes - so the point I was trying to get at in my previous and (necessarily) somewhat lengthy posts was that it didn't look like the target of the Qur'an was reforming an uneducated tribe of pagan Arabs but rather seemed to be addressing (more directly at least) what the author saw as an apostasy from true monotheism among Christians.
And that raises a number of questions about how familiar the author must have been - not only with the traditional Christian narratives (canonical or otherwise...which I agree is a whole different question) but also with the details of Christian theology. Of course if the author was indeed God, then that answers the question of where Muhammad got it from. But if there was a an equally plausible but more mundane source, we surely have to at least investigate that to the extent possible before drawing a conclusion - don't you think?
I like your comment about the Meccans having been influenced by Jewish and Christian tradition (perhaps) - at least the literate ones because the illiterate ones would have been difficult to influence with a poetic retelling of Judeo-Christian traditions - so that they might already have been "on the brink" of adopting monotheism before they received the Qur'an. That also could be seen two ways - either Allah knew just when was the right time for the revelation, or possibly, the Qur'an was, in fact, a product of this shift as much as a catalyst. Of course we have not answered the question of which one it was yet...I feel we still have a long way to go.
Thanks for that - references like this are very helpful - it would probably take me ages to find them by myself. I'll read this carefully because I do think that the Sabian and Mandaean influences might be a key to unlocking the question.
I'm not sure when I'll get back to this...but I will get back to it some time.
I agree we need to consider all plausible explanations. That means looking at history and the known evidence. There is no question of the presence of Jews and Christians in the region. The next question for me is what is the evidence from BOTH with Islamic sources and non-Islamic that can provide meaningful and reliable information. Questions of reliability of the Sirat aside we have at the very least a pact or treaty being made with the Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe. That is a significant association.
I'm interested in any historic sources of information you can provide. Having considered the surahs of Joseph and Mary, I wonder if the next step might be the constitution of Medina?
Constitution of Medina - Wikipedia
That might give us a better sense of how Muhammad united the Arabian peninsula as well as informing us about who was around.
Those are the two main explanations. Its useful to consider that the Baha'i message came out of a similar time of social change with the European renaissance and then so called enlightenment period. The Message of Christ was after exposure of the Jewish peoples to the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and then Romans. So did Muhammad, Jesus, and Baha'u'llah as enlightened people with knowledge and insight into the social changes manage to repackage these ideas into pre-existing religious ideas and call it a Divine Revelation? Or was it in fact a Divine revelation as each One claimed?
Having been a Baha'i for a while its often easier to know what's there and what isn't and where to find it. You certainly have that with the Bible from your Christian days.
I doubt if the those Sabian and Mandaean influences will take us too far either except to give us an appreciation of the difficulties and challenges of unravelling some periods of history.
I'm starting to think also about the Davidic Covenant you mentioned on another thread too as that's an important part of the picture for the Abrahamic Faiths including Islam. The two biblical characters that Muhammad most resemble IMHO are King David and Moses.
siti
Well-Known Member
I'm not really sure - it certainly makes mention of Jews being around - nothing about Christians - but I believe it is quite likely there were quite a lot more Christians than Jews - I can't give a reference off hand but I will try and look that up. It also shows that non-Muslims were accorded rights and responsibilities as citizens - but that was also true to some extent and at some times in both the Christian Byzantine (at least as far as the Jews were concerned) and Zoroastrian Sasanian Empires (in which a more circumspect tolerance of religious dissent permitted Christians and Jews - and other non-Zoroastrians - to practice their religion and be citizens with certain restrictions). In all three cases, Christian Byzantium, Zoroastrian Persia and Islamic Arabia as it emerged, there were varying degrees of religious tolerance in all three - especially regarding Jews who significantly revolted against Byzantium in favour of the Persians in the earliest decade of the 7th century and in favour of the Muslims in the 630s. Obviously after that the position of Jews in the Byzantine Empire was precarious. But I'm not really sure there was anything particularly more or less tolerant about the Constitution of Medina as opposed to what happened elsewhere in the immediately preceding periods of history other than what was politically expedient at the time.
You might be right about that, but I thought it was interesting that there was at least a parallel in the Sabian/Mandaean and Islamic views of John the Baptist. I don't know how significant - just a thought.
Anyway, I was thinking that there is a fair bit more Qur'an to go at yet - apparently at least 50 characters mentioned in the Bible also appear in the Qur'an. I'm sure we can still learn more about where these accounts match the Christian/Jewish traditions and where they differ - and see if any of that suggests anything about the possible sources of the Qur'an...to be continued
Muffled
Jesus in me
Yikes, you might want to see if there are any updates available. What version of the Holy Spirit are you using?
Hmmm. My first thought was to politely decline, but my second thought is that you are FAR more aware of Christian doctrine than I am, so it would be better for you to show how you circled this square. For example: The Qur'an is VERY clear on the role of Jesus whereas in Christian thought Jesus is central to and perhaps even surpasses the message. (Jesus is the message?)
This should serve you as a major "heads up", frankly.
Agreed, but a good Christian should be very, very wary of patting the Qur'an on the head. You are patting on the dissolution of your own faith as it is, clearly, a replacement theology.
I believe there is only one Holy Spirit.
I believe you are correct but I think it is more appropriate for scriptural debates so I will put it there.
I believe it is good to be cautious about all scripture. There was a passage in Job that was badly mucked up so I asked a scholar about it. He said no one knew what the words meant and just translated it the best they could which wasn't very good.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe I am fine with that as long a the explanations are logical.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I do not believe there are any made up Gods but I do believe that people have had difficulty reconciling the scriptures and that includes adherents of Muhammad as well.
The metaphor behind the dead bodies lying in the street for 1260 days *years), is about the status of the religion of Muhammad resulting from actions taken by believers after his passing.
Muhammad had verbally appointed Ali as His successor upon His passing. Ali was young and the older religious leaders, when Muhammad passed, decided for themsleves that they knew better and did not allow Ali to guide them.
Thus the Covenant given by Muhammad was broken and death is the resulting Metaphor. Just as in those times a warning used was to lay the dead out in public view as a warning to others, the metaphor shows us the Faith of Muhammad was a dead Faith on Display.
This does not say that Many good things did not happen and come out of the Muslim Faith, the Metaphor has longer lasting ramifications we need to consider.
Peace be with you always.
siti
Well-Known Member
OK - picking up the thread here again, and noting this comment...
...I think we need first to round off the comments I made quite a few posts back now about the correspondence and divergence of the Qur'an from canonical Biblical accounts of the life and experiences of the Virgin Mary (especially in relation to the Surah al Maryam).
A key departure from the standard Christian tradition appeared to be events reported in the Qur'anic account where Mary is miraculously provided food and drink during her flight to Egypt and we found a corresponding account in the apocryphal Christian literature. Likewise with the bit about Jesus announcing his prophetic mission from the cradle. I thought it was pretty clear to me that this account was most likely "borrowed" from the Christian tradition circulating at the time. Since then I found an entire chapter devoted to the subject of Mary as she appears in the Qur'an in which the author concludes:
"The Qur’anic stories about Mary, especially those examined in this study, do not reflect any peculiarities about her for which one fails to find parallels in Christian canonical and extracanonical sources...
...These influences could have been exercised via popular mediums, and not necessarily through direct textual borrowing. Therefore, if one assumes that the Qur’an does reflect the religious milieu of the prophet Muhammad and his movement, then they were in contact with Christian groups who were using the Gospel of Luke or the Diatessaron, and the Protevangelium of James, among other sources."
Suleiman A. Mourad, Mary in the Qur'an: A Reexamination of her Presentation in G.S.Reynolds (ed.) The Qur'an in its Historical Context (2008) p.172
Of course one could still argue that the "common source" (that I suggested earlier) for these parallel Christian and Qur'anic accounts could be divine revelation...but given that the narratives already existed, not only in the world, but very specifically in the "religious milieu" of 7th century Arabia it seems...does it not also seem that most obvious and rational explanation is that the Christian stories found their way into the Qur'an by the more mundane processes of oral and written transmission?
Anyway, I want to move on to Surah al Kahf now - the Surah of the Cave...maybe you would like to start reading it whilst I gather the information for the next post - which is about the story of the sleepers in the cave that gives the Surah its name and it is recorded in verses 9-26.
siti
Well-Known Member
OK - so the story of the companions in the cave (Qur'an 18:9-26) is basically a Rip van Winkle type story about some young chaps (the Qur'an version is non-committal about how many) who entered a cave and fell asleep for a long time (the Qur'an version is ambiguous about exactly how long stating variously "a number of years", "300 years" and "Allah knows best how long...") and were thus protected from persecution at the hands of those who worshipped Gods other than Allah. On awakening they discovered that they had been asleep for an extraordinarily long time.
The interesting thing here is that there are unquestionably Jewish and Christian connections to this account. In Islamic tradition, the account - along with most of this Surah - is given in response to questions posed by Muhammad's Quraysh tribesmen which they got from Jews in Medina with the specific purpose of catching Muhammad out. So certainly - this (Meccan) surah - quite early on - had a connection to other Abrahamic traditions - presumbly - if there is any truth in the Islamic tradition, the Jews expected that Muhammad would not be able to relate the account. But it seems they were wrong.
But what does that tradition tell us? Well at the very least it suggests that the Jews of Medina were familiar with this story BEFORE the Qur'an version was revealed - otherwise why would they have posed a question about it?
Of course we could argue that the story about the Medina Jews arming the Meccan Arabs with questions to catch Muhammad out was probably a later fabrication...but there is at least a suggestion that the story was already known...
...and of course it turns out it was already known. It was a story about a number of faithful Christians who had similarly entered a cave and gone to sleep for a very long time...etc. that had been circulating in several Syriac (and other) versions during the 6th century (see below *). These accounts varied in terms of the number of sleepers and other details and all that confusion is reflected in the Qur'anic version (see verses 21-26) but Muhammad makes that uncertainty itself a teaching point (which was a pretty clever retort to his questioners). The fact that the writer of the Qur'an is aware that there were "disputes" about the details suggests that he was not only aware of the story but, in fact was aware of more than one version of this mythical episode and of the differences between the different versions. It seems that by the 7th century when the Qur'an was being put together, this tale must have been pretty well known (in different versions) even in Arabia...
...and that being the case, is it not far more reasonable to suggest that its inclusion in the Qur'an is better explained by oral or written transmission from the earlier Christian tradition than direct divine revelation?
Clearly it is not true that these young men slept for 300 years so why would God reveal it as if it were fact - especially knowing that it had already caused "disputes" among Christians? The only remotely sensible explanation is that the Qur'an borrowed from Christian tradition and being unable to distinguish the relative authenticity and veracity of the various versions in circulation opted to make the key teaching point that "God knows best".
But wait - there's more - it wasn't even new when the Christians made up the story - they borrowed it from the Apostle Paul's source regarding the truthfulness (or rather lack thereof) of the people of Crete. Yes - good old Epimenides of Knossos, part of whose poem about Zeus found its way into the Christian canon of God's revealed word, was himself - according to Diogenes Laertius (1st century AD) - reputed to have nodded off in a cave for 57 years and then awoke to find the world had moved on without him. And if that tale originated anywhere near Epimenides actual lifetime, the fictional plot, if not the details, were already in existence 1000 years before the Qur'an!
Both Muhammad and the Christians should have been more careful in taking a Cretan's word for it (Titus 1:12).
More seriously - this brings me to a point that I feel needs to be made here. I fully admit that finding earlier versions of stories and traditions that later appear in the Qur'an (or the Bible or the writings of the Bab or Baha'u'llah etc.) does not prove that these writings were not received by divine revelation. But the point of this discussion is surely to prove that they were.
I know I said this earlier, but in this discussion, I feel it is only incumbent on the denier to establish "reasonable doubt" - its is extraordinarily difficult - even if the evidence is there to "prove" a negative anyway. On the other hand - all we need to prove the positive (i.e that Qur'an was divinely revealed) is to find just one part of the "revelation" that could not possibly have been derived from more mundane sources. So far nobody has done that. So far the opposite seems to be true - we have very little difficulty (although we may have to do a bit of reading) in finding perfectly plausible Christian/Jewish sources for even the most unfamiliar (to readers from a Christian and/or Jewish background) parts of the accounts.
*Excerpts from Seven Sleepers - Wikipedia
The story appeared in several Syriac sources before Gregory's lifetime. It was retold by Symeon Metaphrastes. The Seven Sleepers form the subject of a homily in verse by the Edessan poet Jacob of Saruq ("Sarugh", died 521), which was published in the Acta Sanctorum. Another 6th-century version, in a Syrian manuscript in the British Museum (Cat. Syr. Mss, p. 1090), gives eight sleepers. There are considerable variations as to their names...
The story rapidly attained a wide diffusion throughout Christendom, popularized in the West by Gregory of Tours, in his late 6th-century collection of miracles, De gloria martyrum (Glory of the Martyrs). Gregory says that he had the legend from "a certain Syrian".
The interesting thing here is that there are unquestionably Jewish and Christian connections to this account. In Islamic tradition, the account - along with most of this Surah - is given in response to questions posed by Muhammad's Quraysh tribesmen which they got from Jews in Medina with the specific purpose of catching Muhammad out. So certainly - this (Meccan) surah - quite early on - had a connection to other Abrahamic traditions - presumbly - if there is any truth in the Islamic tradition, the Jews expected that Muhammad would not be able to relate the account. But it seems they were wrong.
But what does that tradition tell us? Well at the very least it suggests that the Jews of Medina were familiar with this story BEFORE the Qur'an version was revealed - otherwise why would they have posed a question about it?
Of course we could argue that the story about the Medina Jews arming the Meccan Arabs with questions to catch Muhammad out was probably a later fabrication...but there is at least a suggestion that the story was already known...
...and of course it turns out it was already known. It was a story about a number of faithful Christians who had similarly entered a cave and gone to sleep for a very long time...etc. that had been circulating in several Syriac (and other) versions during the 6th century (see below *). These accounts varied in terms of the number of sleepers and other details and all that confusion is reflected in the Qur'anic version (see verses 21-26) but Muhammad makes that uncertainty itself a teaching point (which was a pretty clever retort to his questioners). The fact that the writer of the Qur'an is aware that there were "disputes" about the details suggests that he was not only aware of the story but, in fact was aware of more than one version of this mythical episode and of the differences between the different versions. It seems that by the 7th century when the Qur'an was being put together, this tale must have been pretty well known (in different versions) even in Arabia...
...and that being the case, is it not far more reasonable to suggest that its inclusion in the Qur'an is better explained by oral or written transmission from the earlier Christian tradition than direct divine revelation?
Clearly it is not true that these young men slept for 300 years so why would God reveal it as if it were fact - especially knowing that it had already caused "disputes" among Christians? The only remotely sensible explanation is that the Qur'an borrowed from Christian tradition and being unable to distinguish the relative authenticity and veracity of the various versions in circulation opted to make the key teaching point that "God knows best".
But wait - there's more - it wasn't even new when the Christians made up the story - they borrowed it from the Apostle Paul's source regarding the truthfulness (or rather lack thereof) of the people of Crete. Yes - good old Epimenides of Knossos, part of whose poem about Zeus found its way into the Christian canon of God's revealed word, was himself - according to Diogenes Laertius (1st century AD) - reputed to have nodded off in a cave for 57 years and then awoke to find the world had moved on without him. And if that tale originated anywhere near Epimenides actual lifetime, the fictional plot, if not the details, were already in existence 1000 years before the Qur'an!
Both Muhammad and the Christians should have been more careful in taking a Cretan's word for it (Titus 1:12).
More seriously - this brings me to a point that I feel needs to be made here. I fully admit that finding earlier versions of stories and traditions that later appear in the Qur'an (or the Bible or the writings of the Bab or Baha'u'llah etc.) does not prove that these writings were not received by divine revelation. But the point of this discussion is surely to prove that they were.
I know I said this earlier, but in this discussion, I feel it is only incumbent on the denier to establish "reasonable doubt" - its is extraordinarily difficult - even if the evidence is there to "prove" a negative anyway. On the other hand - all we need to prove the positive (i.e that Qur'an was divinely revealed) is to find just one part of the "revelation" that could not possibly have been derived from more mundane sources. So far nobody has done that. So far the opposite seems to be true - we have very little difficulty (although we may have to do a bit of reading) in finding perfectly plausible Christian/Jewish sources for even the most unfamiliar (to readers from a Christian and/or Jewish background) parts of the accounts.
*Excerpts from Seven Sleepers - Wikipedia
The story appeared in several Syriac sources before Gregory's lifetime. It was retold by Symeon Metaphrastes. The Seven Sleepers form the subject of a homily in verse by the Edessan poet Jacob of Saruq ("Sarugh", died 521), which was published in the Acta Sanctorum. Another 6th-century version, in a Syrian manuscript in the British Museum (Cat. Syr. Mss, p. 1090), gives eight sleepers. There are considerable variations as to their names...
The story rapidly attained a wide diffusion throughout Christendom, popularized in the West by Gregory of Tours, in his late 6th-century collection of miracles, De gloria martyrum (Glory of the Martyrs). Gregory says that he had the legend from "a certain Syrian".
Last edited:
siti
Well-Known Member
It also just occurred to me to mention that in these wars Arabs (being caught geographically in the buffer zone between the Byzantine and Sasanian territories) fought on both sides in all of them - so in the immediate pre-Islamic period of the late 6th and early 7th centuries Arabs were fighting side by side with Christians for the Byzantines against Persia and side by side with Zoroastrians for the Persians against the Byzantines and also both for and against the Muslims in their conquests of both Byzantine and Persian territories. Ultimately, Islam proved victorious but I'm guessing this (movement of Arab soldiers around the crumbling remnants of the Byzantine and Sasanian Empires) might have been as important (if not more so) than normal trade in increasing Arab awareness and propagation of Christian (and other) traditions that ultimately found re-expression in the Qur'an.
Here's a map that helps to visualize the situation about 600CE
Muhammad's tribe was located where it says Quraysh - Mecca is somewhere near the "Q" - the Banu Ghassan and the Banu Lakhm were key players on both sides of the conflict between the Byzantines and the Persians. The Ghassanids were largely Christians. The Lakhmids were mostly pagan but had important centres of Nestorian Christianity in their territory.
BTW - here's another reference that discusses the religious "milieu" that seems (to me) to have been the foundation of the Qur'anic revelation:
The Religious Milieu of the Arabian Peninsulaon the Eve of Islam | Administrator
And it's conclusion (but please read the content):
We find significant support in the sources to establish Mecca as the center of worship with references to Abraham as its leading figure and, in the words of Devin Stewart, "Significant evidence shows that the pre-Islamic Arabs were thoroughly familiar with Judaism and Christianity, which had each established a strong presence in Arabia and neighboring territories long before the advent of Islam."
Therefore, we may conclude that the hypothesis that the Qur'an could not have been authored in the Hijaz region due to lack of confirming data not only becomes untenable, rather it is precisely the religious environment that a text like the Qur'an is addressing.
Last edited: