Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

[Trailblazer]

Then why spend words with an effort that you know to be futile?

I am not making any effort to accomplish anything. I just share my thoughts and beliefs.

 

[stvdv]

I think we have more power than we know. It up to us become the change we want to see...

I am just realistic. We have all the power to become like Jesus and get Self Realized. So personal transformation.
To think we can change the whole of humanity is a nice thought, but it has been "thought only" for thousands of years.
So I don't hold my breath. I think the world is exactly as it should be. People choose violence, so that is what it is.

My Master could cure any disease but He said "People's mind I can not change. Real cure only comes when the mind is cured"

So, as long as people enjoy and watch aggression on TV and films [these types are watched 100 times more than spiritual/nature films] I am sure there will not be a big shift, that all the world will be peaceful. I see more and more aggression on the News/TV. Positive stories don't sell.

That is reality. Even reality TV loves to show fights, emotional upsets, naked women/men having sex, for all to watch. And adultery sells best on TV.

The more this is shown, the less likely it will stop. Sense gratification has no limit. Many (drug) Addicts continue till they die.

2 Biggest Religions still after 1000 years do not even manage to feel respect towards each other. That is reality. Still kill in name of Religion.

Hinduism is very clear on this. This is Kali Yuga,= most violent Yuga. Good news "it lasts only 400.000 years". Bad news "5000 years have passed".

But Advaita teaches good news also. Everyone can attain Nirvana, Enlightenment NOW. No need to wait for Jesus to return or anyone else.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I am just realistic. We have all the power to become like Jesus and get Self Realized. So personal transformation.
To think we can change the whole of humanity is a nice thought, but it has been "thought only" for thousands of years.
So I don't hold my breath. I think the world is exactly as it should be. People choose violence, so that is what it is.

My Master could cure any disease but He said "People's mind I can not change. Real cure only comes when the mind is cured"

So, as long as people enjoy and watch aggression on TV and films [these types are watched 100 times more than spiritual/nature films] I am sure there will not be a big shift, that all the world will be peaceful. I see more and more aggression on the News/TV. Positive stories don't sell.

That is reality. Even reality TV loves to show fights, emotional upsets, naked women/men having sex, for all to watch. And adultery sells best on TV.

The more this is shown, the less likely it will stop. Sense gratification has no limit. Many (drug) Addicts continue till they die.

2 Biggest Religions still after 1000 years do not even manage to feel respect towards each other. That is reality. Still kill in name of Religion.

Hinduism is very clear on this. This is Kali Yuga,= most violent Yuga. Good news "it lasts only 400.000 years". Bad news "5000 years have passed".

But Advaita teaches good news also. Everyone can attain Nirvana, Enlightenment NOW. No need to wait for Jesus to return or anyone else.

Although we may have different worldviews we are both universalists at heart and able to talk to each other without giving or taking offense. For Baha'is Krishna and Buddha are also Manifestations of God. We believe we are heading towards an age of prosperity and peace. The twentieth century was filled with suffering. If humanity can't lift its game we may be heading towards another calamity.

 

[Tumah]

More interesting to me is the priesthood - according to my recollection from reading (the Bible) a long time ago - is it not the case that after the destruction of the first Temple, the priesthood was restricted to a certain branch of the Levite lineage - namely the sons of Zadok? (I think its in Ezekiel). What happened to that? I mean I know what happened to it in the Christian tradition - they apparently (according to tradition) eventually founded the sect of the Sudducees who were ultimately condemned by Jesus along with the Pharisees etc. But what happened to the priesthood according to current Jewish tradition (I know there might be no or more than one answer - and I am aware that there is no temple for them to officiate in -

The priesthood wasn't restricted to one branch of the Levite lineage after the destruction of the First Temple, it was always restricted to the Aaronic line.The Zadokite line received some benefits for being faithful when everyone else was worshiping idolatry, but they were not the only line of priests. Here is a list of the 24 Priestly families that served during the Temples. They were still functioning until the end of the Second Temple. One of them, Bilgah, was fined for dereliction towards the end of the Second Temple.

After the Second Temple was destroyed, the Priesthood carried on, albeit in a much more limited capacity. In Israel every day and in the diaspora on holidays, they recite the Priestly Blessing, they also get the Priestly gifts that don't come from sacrifices or otherwise require one to be in a state of purity as well as a few less significant things. We still have Priests today, most who rely on family traditions, but some who can trace their lineage and have given rise to Y-Chromosomal Aaron.

The Sadducees do not (necessarily) stem from the Zadokite family. The Zadokite family was the most prestigious family of Priests. It's possible that either some members of the family (which was composed of a number of branch families, see the first link) started the Sadducee sect or that some priests from a different family called themselves after the Zadokite line. Whichever one it is, it was definitely not the entirety of the Priesthood that did so. We trace them to two student of Antigonos of Socho about a quarter of the way into the Second Temple period. But not all Priests were Sadducees, there were plenty among the Pharisees as well.

but still, the priesthood predated the temple in scripture and the primary function of the priesthood was not necessarily tied to the temple - or even to sacrifices - was it?).

The priesthood predates the Temple, but not the Tabernacle which served the same function as the Temple. The major purpose of the priest was Temple or Temple-related duty. Perhaps because they already needed to be learned to correctly perform that duty, they are often mentioned along side other positions of religious authority, but in practice it isn't necessarily so.

Note: I am counting this as relevant because priests were also God's messengers in the scriptural tradition - Aaron, Moses, Jeremiah...probably others were all priests as well as prophets

Moses was not a priest although he was a Levite. He was able to perform in a priestly function, but he was the only one (his children did not retain that right). Some priests were prophets and some prophets were priests, but certainly not all.

and the primary role of the priesthood (again if I recall correctly) was to teach the people to distinguish the holy from the profane...something like that - but definitely they conveyed a divine message.

I am not familiar with that.

I also recall that quite early on in the Bible, God declares that the entire nation would be "a kingdom" of priests (which is also a theme taken up again in the Christian scriptures in Revelation). If all God's people are to be priests - knowing the difference between the holy and the profane - what further need would there be of non-priestly "Messengers"?

Well for one thing, I don't think that the purpose of the priest was to teach people to distinguish between holy and profane. The non-priest can learn to distinguish between them the same way the priest can,by studying it under someone who already knows these Laws. You don't need to designate a group of people for that.
I think the simple explanation of the "kingdom of priests" means that Israel as a nation is consecrated to serving G-d in general (similar to how the Priests were consecrated to serving G-d specifically in the Temple). It's not meant to be that the priests serve G-d in the Temple and the non-priests do their own thing. The nation as a whole is meant to serve G-d by following His commandments and the actual priests were "even more" dedicated to serving G-d through Temple service.

 

[stvdv]

Although we may have different worldviews we are both universalists at heart and able to talk to each other without giving or taking offense. For Baha'is Krishna and Buddha are also Manifestations of God. We believe we are heading towards an age of prosperity and peace. The twentieth century was filled with suffering. If humanity can't lift its game we may be heading towards another calamity.

Would be nice. Sai Baba said the same "Soon there will be Prema [Divine Love] on Earth". But when asked He said "Better don't wait for it; you can realize it now". So I found out that they all say this. Probably to give hope to others. But it just never happens. But maybe it is best to just tell people this fairy tale. Even mothers do it to their children. Maybe that is why people are so keen to believe it.

I rather hear the truth. Sai Baba mostly sugar coats stuff also. Once in dream told me "You better start running". I was kind of lazy so said "you better explain why, else I won't". Next day dream "Major heart attack is coming plus explaining the working of the heart, that kidneys were the cause; quite in detail (was happy I asked for it)". Okay a little sugar coating might have been nice. But at least I knew what was coming. Went on a major fast for 30 days and calamity was just avoided. So I prefer mostly the truth.

But if Sai Baba sugarcoats it, maybe I should do also. So from now on I will "share happy news ... Soon God will incarnate on earth again". Not even a lie IMO. And keeps people happy. And yes that is definitely true "We are heading towards an age of prosperity and peace". And also true "If humanity can't lift its game we may be heading towards another calamity".

That was a smart guy who came up with the above. Basically he says the same as I did. Only people can see some hope (even if it is not there).

"We are heading towards an age of prosperity and peace"
[And we pray very hard that Veda's are wrong here. 395.000 years to go in Kali Yuga]. I mean Krishna was known to joke a lot I was told.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Would be nice. Sai Baba said the same "Soon there will be Prema [Divine Love] on Earth". But when asked He said "Better don't wait for it; you can realize it now". So I found out that they all say this. Probably to give hope to others. But it just never happens. But maybe it is best to just tell people this fairy tale. Even mothers do it to their children. Maybe that is why people are so keen to believe it.

I rather hear the truth. Sai Baba mostly sugar coats stuff also. Once in dream told me "You better start running". I was kind of lazy so said "you better explain why, else I won't". Next day dream "Major heart attack is coming plus explaining the working of the heart, that kidneys were the cause; quite in detail (was happy I asked for it)". Okay a little sugar coating might have been nice. But at least I knew what was coming. Went on a major fast for 30 days and calamity was just avoided. So I prefer mostly the truth.

But if Sai Baba sugarcoats it, maybe I should do also. So from now on I will "share happy news ... Soon God will incarnate on earth again". Not even a lie IMO. And keeps people happy. And yes that is definitely true "We are heading towards an age of prosperity and peace". And also true "If humanity can't lift its game we may be heading towards another calamity".

That was a smart guy who came up with the above. Basically he says the same as I did. Only people can see some hope (even if it is not there).

"We are heading towards an age of prosperity and peace"
[And we pray very hard that Veda's are wrong here. 395.000 years to go in Kali Yuga]. I mean Krishna was know to joke a lot I was told.

You guys get to come back endlessly....

There's only one life on earth for Baha'is. One chance to get it right.

Stressful just thinking about it. Maybe I better go on that fast to avoid a heart attack too!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Should Muhammad be considered a Messenger of God?

I can’t see why we should.

... though to me, it’s putting the cart before the horse to try to decide whether people are messengers of a god whose existence hasn’t been established.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My point was simply that over one fifth of the world population is not likely to be wrong about Muhammad being a Messenger of God, not any more than one third of the world population is not likely to be wrong about Jesus being a Messenger of God.

Denominations and sects within the religions are a separate issue. They do not represent what the Messenger actually revealed in scriptures. They are man-made.

If you’re playing a numbers game, it’s important to remember that the vast majority of people believe that Muhammad is not a messenger of God... many times more than who believe he is one.

 

[stvdv]

You guys get to come back endlessly....
There's only one life on earth for Baha'is. One chance to get it right.
Stressful just thinking about it. Maybe I better go on that fast to avoid a heart attack too!

I don't come back endlessly !!! I prefer Advaita view. World is just one big illusion. Live Now. Get it right now, no need to wait till the end even

Better be careful fasting, might give you a heart attack. I took little rice + Vegetable juice. No drop of oil nor salt. That did the trick (for me).

 

[Dawnofhope]

I can’t see why we should.

... though to me, it’s putting the cart before the horse to try to decide whether people are messengers of a god whose existence hasn’t been established.

Well, thank God for atheists, thats all I can say. Its an excellent point you raise IMHO. Who was the historic Muhammad?

While the existence of the figure Muhammad is proven by contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous historical records, attempts to distinguish between the historical elements and the unhistorical elements of many of the reports of Muhammad have not been very successful. As such the historicity of Muhammad, aside from his existence, is debated. The earliest Muslim source of information for the life of Muhammad, the Quran, gives very little personal information and its historicity has been questioned. Next in importance is the sīra literature and hadith, which survive in the historical works of writers from the second, third, and fourth centuries of the Muslim era (c. 700−1000 AD). There are also a relatively small number of contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous non-Muslim sources, which confirm the existence of Muhammad and are valuable both in themselves and for comparison with Muslim sources.

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

As I stated earlier in the thread there is a great deal of exageration or hype by both Muslims and Christians that needs to be questioned.

I 'believe' He did exist and was a Messenger of God. I'm actually wanting to explore the evidence in regards to certain aspects of His character and to make best use of the collective knowledge and insights on RF to help me do just that. Perhaps its time to start a new OP in regards the historic Muhammad lol.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I don't come back endlessly !!! I prefer Advaita view. World is just one big illusion. Live Now. Get it right now, no need to wait till the end even

Better be careful fasting, might give you a heart attack. I took little rice + Vegetable juice. No drop of oil nor salt. That did the trick (for me).

If life is one big illusion then maybe neither of us are real...a bit like the matrix.

 

[stvdv]

If life is one big illusion then maybe neither of us are real...a bit like the matrix.

That is what advaita is teaching. World is "Unreal" meaning ever changing. Consciousness is never changing, hence "Real".
Funny you share the matrix. In India I visit cinema once in 3 years. The Matrix. Got big stomach pain. That was "Real for 2 days only", changing so it was "Unreal"

 

[Dawnofhope]

That is what advaita is teaching. "Real" meaning ever changing of course. Consciousness is never changing, hence real.
Funny you share the matrix. In India I visit cinema once in 3 years. The Matrix. Got big stomach pain. That was real. At least for 2 days or so

Sometimes I think we're just small cogs in someone elses machine! Time to tear away the illusions of reality by getting some sleep.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, thank God for atheists, thats all I can say. Its an excellent point you raise IMHO. Who was the historic Muhammad?

While the existence of the figure Muhammad is proven by contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous historical records, attempts to distinguish between the historical elements and the unhistorical elements of many of the reports of Muhammad have not been very successful. As such the historicity of Muhammad, aside from his existence, is debated. The earliest Muslim source of information for the life of Muhammad, the Quran, gives very little personal information and its historicity has been questioned. Next in importance is the sīra literature and hadith, which survive in the historical works of writers from the second, third, and fourth centuries of the Muslim era (c. 700−1000 AD). There are also a relatively small number of contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous non-Muslim sources, which confirm the existence of Muhammad and are valuable both in themselves and for comparison with Muslim sources.

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

As I stated earlier in the thread there is a great deal of exageration or hype by both Muslims and Christians that needs to be questioned.

I 'believe' He did exist and was a Messenger of God. I'm actually wanting to explore the evidence in regards to certain aspects of His character and to make best use of the collective knowledge and insights on RF to help me do just that. Perhaps its time to start a new OP in regards the historic Muhammad lol.

I wasn't talking about the historicity of Muhammad. My point was that nobody can be a messenger of God unless God exists, so it's impossible to establish that someone is a messenger of God unless the existence of God is established first.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Well, thank God for atheists, thats all I can say. Its an excellent point you raise IMHO. Who was the historic Muhammad?

While the existence of the figure Muhammad is proven by contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous historical records, attempts to distinguish between the historical elements and the unhistorical elements of many of the reports of Muhammad have not been very successful. As such the historicity of Muhammad, aside from his existence, is debated. The earliest Muslim source of information for the life of Muhammad, the Quran, gives very little personal information and its historicity has been questioned. Next in importance is the sīra literature and hadith, which survive in the historical works of writers from the second, third, and fourth centuries of the Muslim era (c. 700−1000 AD). There are also a relatively small number of contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous non-Muslim sources, which confirm the existence of Muhammad and are valuable both in themselves and for comparison with Muslim sources.

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

As I stated earlier in the thread there is a great deal of exageration or hype by both Muslims and Christians that needs to be questioned.

I 'believe' He did exist and was a Messenger of God. I'm actually wanting to explore the evidence in regards to certain aspects of His character and to make best use of the collective knowledge and insights on RF to help me do just that. Perhaps its time to start a new OP in regards the historic Muhammad lol.

As writer Robert Spencer points out both in his book and his videos, as do other videos I've watched, it wasn't until years after Muhammad's supposed death that we begin to have coins with his likeness. Rather, some of the early history appears to be a corrupted Christianity or simply a racial/tribal grouping.

Here's some of the issues.

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.co...alled-muhammad-up-to-732-a-d-was-he-a-caliph/

• The early accounts written by the people the Arabs conquered never mention Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. They call the conquerors “Ishmaelites,” “Saracens,” “Muhajirun,” and “Hagarians” but never “Muslims.”

• The Arab conquerors, in their coins and inscriptions, don’t mention Islam or the Qur’an for the first six decades of their conquests. Mentions of “Muhammad” are non-specific and on at least two occasions are accompanied by a cross. The word can be used not only as a proper name but also as an honorific.

• The Qur’an, even by the canonical Muslim account, was not distributed in its present form until the 650’s. Contradicting that standard account is the fact that neither the Arabian nor the Christians and Jews in the region mention the Qur’an until the early eighth century.

• During the reign of the caliph Muawiya (661-680), the Arabs constructed at least one public building whose inscription was headed by a cross.

• We begin hearing about Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, and about Islam itself in the 690’s, during the reign of the caliph Abd al-Malik. Coins and inscriptions reflecting Islamic beliefs begin to appear at this time also.

• Around the same time, Arabic became the predominant written language of the Arabian Empire, supplanting Syriac and Greek.

• Abd al-Malik claimed, in a passing remark in one hadith, to have collected the Qur’an, contradicting Islamic tradition that the collection was the work of the caliph Uthman forty years earlier.

• Multiple hadiths report that Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, governor of Iraq during the reign of Abd al-Malik, edited the Qur’an and distributed his new edition to the various Arab-controlled provinces— again, something Uthman is supposed to have done decades earlier.

• Even some Islamic traditions maintain that certain common Islamic practices, such as the recitation of the Qur’an during mosque prayers, date from orders of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, not to the earlier period of Islamic history.

• In the middle of the eighth century, the Abbasid dynastic supplanted the Umayyad line of Abd al-Malik. The Abbasids charged the Umayyads with impiety on a large scale. In the Abbasid period, biographical material about Mohammed began to proliferate. The first complete biography of the prophet of Islam finally appeared during this era—at least 125 years after the traditional date of his death.

• The biographical material that emerged situates Muhammad in an area of Arabia that never was the center for trade and pilgrimage that the canonical Islamic account of Islam’s origin depend on it to be. (pp.205-206)

Jesus is also historically doubted as a person, but if we take out all of the mythical elements and just focus on the person of Jesus, there is a "person-shaped gap" where the Romans expunged records. Let me explain. If I were to suddenly be kidnapped by the CIA, and they were to remove all records of my existence, because they aren't wiping me from time itself, there are things like: income paid (but nobody will tell you to who), taxes paid, library fines, etc. Even when you remove the RECORDS, the money itself leaves a trail. Likewise, there are things like a bunch of followers springing up immediately following the estimated death time. We have groups of Jews and Gentiles worshiping a strange deity, and lists of executions because of it. We also have direct reports about Jesus, even from Romans against Jesus, so yeah, there was such a troublemaker.

On the other hand, despite Muslims writing Muhammad like a historical person, when we actually look at the old records, something doesn't add up. It's possible Muhammad was a mythical hero manufactured simply to give the Persian Empire cred as a military political power. Looked at in this light, everything begins to make sense.

1. Why a work written by a single person has so many contradictions. The occurs in the Bible, which is written by several people.
2. Why the laws appear to be set up for the benefit of the male elders. We have a man who goes to such excesses (way more wives than his followers, and they're about half the age, I think) so of course the followers can get away with less extreme actions. Overton Window.
3. Why abrogation is a thing. If Muhammad is not real, it makes sense that later religious leaders can write something and have it run at odds with something in the early Quran, yet basically rewrite religious law.
   
4. Why Islam seems so political. If it is basically a group politic, yeah everything else makes sense.

 

[stvdv]

Sometimes I think we're just small cogs in someone elses machine! Time to tear away the illusions of reality by getting some sleep.

Go for the "Deep Sleep", some say this is closest to samadhi [as compared to waking state and dream state]

 

[KT Shamim]

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'll answer what you have suggested in relation to wives.

So Muhammad ﷺ remain unmarried till the age of 25.
Then married a 40 year old who was a widow on her 2nd proposal. She gave him her entire wealth. He gave away her wealth in charity. Remained in monogamous relationship till the age of 50. His 15 years elder wife passed away.
And suddenly, after the passing away of his first wife, he had the natural urge to marry several women? Is that psychologically even possible? A 50-year-old straight-laced man to suddenly have desires for multiple women?
Isn't it obvious there were other greater goals at work here? Like creating peace between warring tribes?

 

[KT Shamim]

The idea of "divine messengers" as understood in Abrahamic religions doesn't translate very well into my religious tradition. The Abrahamic religions seem to assume only certain special people ever receive messages from the gods (pardon, God in their case). My tradition assumes that everyone receives messages from the gods and everyone is a "messenger."

Could someone help me understand why only certain special people would be considered conduits for God in Abrahamic traditions? Why isn't this accessible to everyone in these religions as it is in my own?

Firstly, God is accessible to everyone. And he does not only communicate (including revelations) with Messengers.

However, His communication with Messengers is far more clearer, contains far more prophecies, and carries greater majesty and beauty than God's communication with other humans.

The more purification you receive the more you have prepared your soul to receive revelations. For example, the more humble someone is the more he/she could be expected to receive God's revelation without becoming arrogant. Or it can be said that the more truthful someone is the more he/she could be expected to convey God's revelations accurately and so they are more entitled to receive the same.

All humans are given a choice and freedom to make efforts towards or away from God. Naturally, then, efforts made towards God are rewarded while efforts made away from God aren't. Divine revelation is one of these rewards.

 

[stvdv]

I wasn't talking about the historicity of Muhammad. My point was that nobody can be a messenger of God unless God exists, so it's impossible to establish that someone is a messenger of God unless the existence of God is established first.

It's impossible to establish existence of God unless the definition of God is established first
It is impossible to experience/proof something "out of this world" with tools/science/senses "from this world"
For a spiritual person "God" can be experienced whereas for a normal person it can't. It is all in "the eye of the beholder"
Because a spiritual person uses tools beyond the senses, whereas a scientific person is limited below the senses.

Spiritual person and scientific person talking on God is fruitless, unless scientific person is open to spirituality
But even then, it seems meaningless to me to talk about God(existence). For the spiritual person it is a personal experience.
Which by definition (being beyond the mind) will never be possible to be experienced by a purely scientific person (below the mind).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's impossible to establish existence of God unless the definition of God is established first

Sure.

It is impossible to experience/proof something "out of this world" with tools/science/senses "from this world"
For a spiritual person "God" can be experienced whereas for a normal person it can't. It is all in "the eye of the beholder"
Because a spiritual person uses tools beyond the senses, whereas a scientific person is limited below the senses.

Sounds like you're making excuses for poor evidence.

If you can demonstrate a valid way to lrarn about the world that I don't currently accept, I'll change my mind and recognize your way as valid.

Spiritual person and scientific person talking on God is fruitless, unless scientific person is open to spirituality
But even then, it seems meaningless to me to talk about God(existence). For the spiritual person it is a personal experience.
Which by definition (being beyond the mind) will never be possible to be experienced by a purely scientific person (below the mind).

This is not how it works for things that actually exist.

As Philip K. Dick put it, "reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."