Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

[LuisDantas]

Ahmadiyya Muslims and Bahais both occupy a remarkable niche, a bit despite themselves.

They go out of their way to attempt to cherish their Muslim legacy while at the same time fixing some of the most serious self-imposed contradictions and limitations of that doctrine - not least among them the very rejection of innovations as deviations from the dogmatically stated "perfect and eternal" path presented by the Qur'an.

It is not quite as strange as it looks at first. The average Muslims themselves have no choice but to deal with those conflicts even when they deal with no one beyond other Muslims. The Ahmadiyya and Bahais are just slightly bolder in pursuing the necessary questions and their answers and somewhat better encouraged to speak their minds.

It is still sad that they end up spending so much effort in those arguably unnecessary pursuits.

 

[A Son of God]

The only similarities of the that the two both believed in the Torah and they both claim to be the Messiah.
The major difference is that Christ taught peace and loving everyone while Muhammad taught war and domination of primarily Christians and secondary all other non-believers.
Others identified Christ as the Messiah way before he ever admitted it. Muhammad came from the caves with a Koran and declared himself Messiah.
Do you want to discuss these?

 

[A Son of God]

The Islamic Golden age was agruably the most important factor in moving Europe from the darkness of the middle ages to the renaisance period.

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

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

The Islamic Golden age is what through Christianity into the Spanish Inquisition and Religion and Government domination. It was not a good time for either faiths.

 

[siti]

Within both Judaism and Islam there were suffient laws for the establishment and development of city-states and nations.

What are you trying to say? City states with far more far-reaching influence developed well before Judaism - and completely independently. The very notion of democracy we learned from the Greeks - and that was anathema to theocratic Judaism and Islam - still is to very large degree in the latter case.

Christianity with its abandonment of the Old Covenant seems somewhat less theocratic.

One step forward...but you seem to be suggesting that this was a bad thing and that theocratic dictatorship is a preferable form of government - which style would you prefer Mosaic or Sharia?

I doubt if the Christian Roman emperors (if we could really call them Christian) had the motivation or skills to use the Teachings of Christianity for the proper governance of its peoples. However institutional capacity developed over time.

So are we still talking about city states here - is the Vatican the model you are advocating???

It was many centuries after the Revelation of Moses until the Hebrew peoples reached its pinnacle under King David.

No it wasn't, the mythological characters and narratives about Moses and David were developed around the same time - probably neither of them really existed - at least not as the legendary characters that are described in the OT. In any case, even the most generous traditional interpretations put only about 400 years between them.

It is of note that Islams Civilisation reached a rather extended pinnacle through the so called Golden age relatively soon after the Qur'an was revealed. The Golden age in turn influenced Europe through Islam's incursion into Spain and Turkey and contributed profoundly towards Europe's renaisance.

What rather extended pinnacle? A couple of hundred of years between the end of the Abbassid Revolution (a couple of centuries after Muhammad) and the beginning of the crusades?

There isn't really much to choose between Moses and Muhammad if you look at the reality - an extended military campaign of expansionism, military conquest and genocide followed by a short period of apparent peace and prosperity and then a long, slow and painful slide into terminal decline. That is the pattern of theocratic governments throughout history as far as I can tell.

 

[JustWondering]

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?

In my opinion the Abrahamic religions were created to control the masses. If everyone got messages from god an authoritarian hierarchy couldn't exist.

 

[JustWondering]

Muhammad claimed to be a Messenger from God and this claim is now accepted by over 1.5 billion Muslims world wide.

The Baha'i Faith arguably the newest Abrahamic Faith emerged out of Persia, now Iran during the nineteenth century. The Founder, Baha'u'llah claimed also to bring a new Revelation from God. This was well received by many in Persia. In nineteenth century Shi'ite Islam there was an intense Messianic expectation similar to Judaism during the time of Christ. The Bab, the forerunner to Baha'u'llah was seen by tens of thousands to fulfil the Madhi prophecy in Shi'ite Islam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi#Bábí_and_Bahá'í_Faiths

Religious and governmental leaders viewed these developments with disdain and the Bab was excecuted by a militia of His own countrymen on 9th July 1850 along with many of His followers. Baha'u'llah was imprisoned and eventually exiled to Akka, the great fortress city of the Ottomon Empire. When Baha'u'llah passed away in 1892 His son Abdu'l-Baha became the leader of the Baha'i Faith. Eventually many Westerners embraced the Baha'i Faith and visited Abdu'l-Baha in Akka where he often remained a prisoner. During the early 20th century He educated the pilgrims about a wide variety of topics. During one of these talks he explained about the life of Muhammad and invited his audience to consider whether or not Muhammad was a Messenger of God. Most Westerners at the time knew little about Islam.

A copy of Abdu'l-Baha's talk is included for anyone to read and obviously presents the life of Muhammad in a favourable light.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-7.html

Is Abdu'l-Baha's commentary reasonable? Should Muhammad be considered a Messenger of God?

Comments and questions as you will.

The Quran is supposed to be the direct word of god as relayed through an angel, to Muhammad, which was then written down by one of Muhammad's followers. Interesting how "god" didn't know how the human reproductive system worked even though he supposedly designed it in the first place. I think it is Surah 86 that says man is created from a drop secreted from between the back and ribs. If you dig further you can probably find more scientific errors in the Quran. It wouldn't be a big deal really, except that the Quran is claimed as the direct words of god. At least the bible writers didn't make that mistake, they claimed to be inspired. Much easier to overlook inspired human's mistakes.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

No, not most people, and certainly not as ignored and rejected and persecuted as the Messengers were.

Messengers are remembered. Normal people are ignored to the point we don't even know nor care who they were.

Who are those people and why does it matter if they are alive today? Books will suffice to get the information we need.

Why would I read a book about a chariot to learn how to drive a car?

God is not a person. God knows and decides. God is All-Knowing and All-Wise so God’s decisions are not arbitrary.

Only sentient beings, or persons, can know and decide anything.

I could care less about a live Messenger.

But you whine about people ignoring your dude when he was alive. You can't have it both ways.

Do you know that those who were closest to Baha’u’llah and knew Him personally were the ones who betrayed Him?

Jesus' closest pals betrayed him too. What that tells me is that they didn't command as much loyalty as they assumed. It tells me they probably knew something about the guy we don't.

I don’t find any of those other “messengers” compelling either. My money is on Moses not even existing as a historical figure.

You do not think that Jesus did anything for humankind? Or are you talking about whether He and existed? I believe in Moses and Jesus existed because Baha'u'llah wrote about them.

Rethink those two paragraphs. You'll find some conflict.

All the Messengers of God that ever existed and the religions they established.

That idiot actually made Scientology a religion. Hell, George Lucas didn't even blatantly set out to make a religion and yet people are calling themselves Jedi.

It is a serious subject matter if God exists.

Then let God deal with it.

When I consider it with an honest mind, it is self-evident that the God of scriptures exists.

Which Ones, because the bible started off believing in quite a few. Later, monotheism was invented when priests wanted political and economic monopolies.

Christian belief is a selfish belief, only caring about getting to heaven.

Totally agreed, but since you believe that God doesn't really need nor care about our attitudes, it's moot, isn't it? No matter what we do or believe, God can just as easily send evil people to heaven and good people to hell if if floats His boat.

In my opinion, Islam has been unjustly maligned by Westerners.

Indeed. It's really no worse than its theological relatives.

a) First off all. Personally I believe we are all "Messengers". BUT I don't go that far to say "Messengers of God" ! First Define, then Debate

True. I can see the possibility that messengers are just talent show winners. They had a knack for something and the audience went wild.

c1) I know this stuff happens. Once I tried to study a very difficult (for me) Sanskrit scripture. I tried for many years. After like 60 pages start again, because I got lost. Maybe 10 times I tried like this. I don't give up easy. Then one night my Guru comes in my dream and starts explaining this scripture in Swedish. I wake up and think "what the hack was this?". I mean I am Dutch and Swedish is like Chinese for me. But after this dream I finished the book in a few weeks (was like 1000 pages). So this kind of magic I know it happens.

Reminds me of when I was doing badly in psychology statistics class and I dreamed an angel tutored me and I started getting A's.

Christ and Muhammad are proofs of God's existence through the power and influence of Their Teachings to transform positively the livs of so many throughout history.

But let's say Jesus and Muhammad were just mutants or something and wanted to be superheroes. No divinity required, just some biological weirdness.

tart simple: Create a definition of God that all on RF agree on

How will that work for polytheists, though? A God of Thunder won't have the same attributes as a Goddess of Death or whatever.

The Baha'i view is the God is an unknowable essence.

You might want to remind Trail of this. Trail seems to be pretty confident in knowing what God does or doesn't do.

I'd never heard of Jerusalem syndrome btwn and I was a psychiatry intern for seven years. Maybe I should have become a nurse, have greater humility and learn more.

Well, it probably wouldn't be in school because it's not really an official diagnosis, just more like an observation.

It (and the Qur'an) is in fact a very impressive example of taking refuge in audacity.

It just strikes me as being more "honest" in that regard. Christianity likes to claim God is love and forgets all the evil crap. Judaism claims to be historically monotheistic but that is betrayed by both the texts and archaeology.

It was many centuries after the Revelation of Moses until the Hebrew peoples reached its pinnacle under King David.

I would call that a pretty poor pinnacle. The Bible is a good instruction manual for how to make a complete failure of a nation.

The major difference is that Christ taught peace and loving everyone while Muhammad taught war and domination of primarily Christians and secondary all other non-believers.

Chasing people with whips isn't loving. Jesus encouraged the destruction of families and even societies over him. Jesus supposedly conquered death and sin the first time but is expected to come back to commit global genocide despite his "win".[/QUOTE]

 

[stvdv]

I could care less about a live Messenger

That is NOT a smart thing to say. Why? Because your Messenger once was alive too. Plus you go against Bahaullah's teaching [this one is too obvious to explain]

 

[stvdv]

I'm prepared - I already told my kids where to dig the hole.

That will take care of your body but it won't help your soul.

I know "siti" from reading only, sounds nice. I take persons serious "I am prepared" means "He is prepared" .. including soul.

I believe in Moses and Jesus existed because Baha'u'llah wrote about them.

Never forget that. "it is just a belief". So Bahai is just a belief. Not more special than other beliefs. And Bahaullah also not more special than others.

Why would I read a book about a chariot to learn how to drive a car?

Correct. Better to learn driving from a real person in real life than just from reading a book.

I like the below explanation of the Chariot better than "it's only about fighting". Obvious though that barbarians didn't get this subtle message back then
Self is the rider of the chariot, where Body is the Chariot. Intelligence is Charioteer, and Mind is the reins
Senses are the horses (which drag us everywhere), The objects are the roads. The Self, (though) associated with Body & Mind is the enjoyer

What evidence?

All the Messengers of God that ever existed and the religions they established.

But you whine about people ignoring your dude when he was alive

I believe in Moses and Jesus existed because Baha'u'llah wrote about them.

I could care less about a live Messenger

Seems inconsistent: You do care about words spoken by live Bahaullah BUT don't care about live Messenger. You prove Bahaullah was never a Live Messenger [maybe a fata morgana, happens over there I've been told]. Thanks for this update from a Bahai insider. @adrian009 just kind of convinced me Bahaullah was for real. RF gets confusing now and then

Jesus' closest pals betrayed him too.
What that tells me is that they didn't command as much loyalty as they assumed. It tells me they probably knew something about the guy we don't.

We know Middle Ages were still barbaric. We know they lived around year ZERO. And they were fishermen. And they were HUMAN. Tells me a lot.
I spend 10 years with my Master and met a few other Masters. Many visitors, some like "angels" some like "devils". Sun shines on both the same.

 

[Dawnofhope]

It is probably not out of place to remind ourselves that there is no inherently well-delimited meaning to the expression "messenger of God".

It is legitimate to interpret it in a way such as to exclude literally all people ever from qualifying. Or to qualify only one person (real or legendary) or a very few people.

But it is just as easy and as legitimate to take slightly different premises and declare that literally all people are messengers of God. Including "unrepentant" kuffar such as yours truly who would never describe themselvers as such.

This is a really good point. The term 'Messenger of God' is well understood by Muslims as this is how Muhammad views Himself in the Quran. It is also undrstood by other Abrahamics who have taken the time to learn about each other.

Equivalent terms in Judaism, Christianity, and the Baha'i Faith may be 'Friend of God', 'Son of God', Manifestation of God respectfully.

The Baha'is would also extend the concept to include Buddha and Krishna though with the Dharmic faiths a very different paradigms exists.

In short each of these Educators have brought a Revelation or a Book that have become the devotion and focal point for generations to come. This is clearly different from how you and I would be messengers of God or god.

 

[Dawnofhope]

If there is no God, then there can be no Messengers of God.

That is true.

I’d want to see the work behind that “proof” before I could accept it.

The proof lies within the Holy Books of each Faith whether it be the Tanakh, NT, Quran, or Gita.

It also resides within the lifes of those who declare devotion to their Messenger and His principles.

It wouldn’t be a trivial task to establish that either of them were “Messengers of God” even if God’s existence was taken as a given. You’d really have an uphill battle to try and use them to demonstrate that God exists because they must be “Messengers of God.”

'Yes' and 'No'.

'Yes' in that every tree grows old and stops bearing fruit. In like manner religion that is old loses its power to change the lives of its followers.

'No' in that the evidences of their transorming power is still their for those with eyes to see. Take the story of the good Samatarian for example. It has a Universal Message that transcends culture and time.

Luke 10:25-37

 

[Dawnofhope]

Hinduism: "God is bigger than the biggest and smaller than the smallest"

I understand we should limit the definition. I was not thinking of going for the FULL definition.

One of Baha'u'llah's prayers has a phrase 'O my Master, and let the tidings of the revelation of Thine incorruptible Essence bring me joy, O Thou Who art the most manifest of the manifest and the most hidden of the hidden!'

https://www.bahaiprayers.org/spiritual2.htm

Of put it differently: If there is no common ground, maybe God wants us "NOT to talk about God", just put in practice to right values

Sometimes its best to live the life and avoid complex theological discussions about the nature of God. Buddha taught this in respond to the conditions of the Hindus at the time of His Teaching.

http://ahimsaacres.org/Articles/Buddhism_02/ParableoftheArrow-Buddha.pdf

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

 

[Dawnofhope]

Judging by how often we get threads pushing the Baha'i faith, I'd say it sure seems like it's a religion that proselytizes.

What do you think, @adrian009 ?

I think I understand why they do it and why doing it on behalf of Islam
@adrian009: do you recognize this in Bahai's? And you know why it happens?

I would avoid the use of the word proselytize as it is usually used pejoratively and can have a wide range of meanings.

For example the World Council of Churches in The Challenge of Proselytism and the Calling to Common Witness states the following:


Proselytism as described in this document stands in opposition to all ecumenical effort. It includes certain activities which often aim at having people change their church affiliation and which we believe must be avoided, such as the following:

• making unjust or uncharitable references to other churches’ beliefs and practices and even ridiculing them;
• comparing two Christian communities by emphasizing the achievements and ideals of one, and the weaknesses and practical problems of the other;
• employing any kind of physical violence, moral compulsion and psychological pressure e.g. the use of certain advertising techniques in mass media that might bring undue pressure on readers/viewers;
• using political, social and economic power as a means of winning new members for one’s own church;
• extending explicit or implicit offers of education, health care or material inducements or using financial resources with the intent of making converts;
• manipulative attitudes and practices that exploit people’s needs, weaknesses or lack of education especially in situations of distress, and fail to respect their freedom and human dignity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism#Limits

So there are many practices that come under proselytism that would be abhorent to Baha'is.

OTOH Baha'is believe they have in Baha'u'llah's revelation a message they wish to share with humanity.

On RF there appears to be 6 or 7 Baha'is that are currently participating. We are all very different people with different approaches. Currently I'm interested in learning more about Islam so have that focus. Before that it was more around Christianity. I haven't posted a thread specifically about the Baha'i Faith for nearly 1 1/2 years though am wondering if a Q and A thread may be helpful for anyone who wants to know about the Baha'i Faith. Baha'is are discouraged from pushing their beliefs on others. If either or you decide not to talk to me about religion that's fine. If you want to discuss matters of Faith and philosophy that's fine too.

Hoep that makes sense.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The Bahai Faith largely inherits that stance and attempts to widen it in order to deal with non-Abrahamic faiths as well. The results are decisively mixed and very interesting, but overall it is a definite step of progress from the religious stagnation that Islaam imposes on itself.

Still, the Bahais are very much direct inheritors of (Shia) Islaam, and they can't very well afford (yet?) to admit outright that Islaam is seriously misguided. That is why they are so ferociously Abrahamic and monotheistic, and why they put so much effort at preserving the public image of Islaam even as they do a herculean (and largely succesful) effort at healing from the worse of their own Muslim legacy.

Interesting reflections you have on the Baha'i Faith.

The Baha'i Faith although it originated from Shi'ite Islam is an independant religion. Although Christianity came from Judaism, Jesus brought a seperate religion. Baha'is follow the Teachings of Baha'u'llah who we consider to be the latest Manifestation from God. Muslims follows the teachings of Muhammad.

Because Muslims believe that Muhammad was the last prophet or the seal of the prophets, they regard the Baha'i Faith as being an apostasy. Consequently Baha'is are persecuted in a number of Muslims countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Bahá'ís

Do Baha'is believe that Islam today is seriously misguided? Of course. It is for that reason we belief God has send another 'Messenger' or Manifestation of God.

Are Baha'is trying to desperately preserve the public image of Islam. No, we're not Islamic apologists.

The fanaticism and abominations committed in the name of God/Allah is indefensible and worthy of only the strongst condemnation.

Do Baha'is believe Muhammad was a Messenger of God and the Quran reflects that message? Yes.

Baha'i do strive hard to associate with peoples of all faiths in a spirit of love and fellowship, Muslims included. That shouldn't be mistaken for condoning the worst aspects of a religion that's clearly out of step with modernity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would avoid the use of the word proselytize as it is usually used pejoratively and can have a wide range of meanings.

Proselytizing just means “to convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion to another.” There’s nothing inherently pejorative about it.

Proselytizing doesn’t have to involve threats or coercion; it can also just involve trying to convince others to freely change their mind through reasoned arguments.

Even though I’ve heard Baha’is say that proselytizing is forbidden in their religion, I can’t count how many times I’ve seen Baha’is try to convince others that their religion is based in truth. I consider this proselytizing; don’t you?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Proselytizing just means “to convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion to another.” There’s nothing inherently pejorative about it.

Proselytizing doesn’t have to involve threats or coercion; it can also just involve trying to convince others to freely change their mind through reasoned arguments.

Even though I’ve heard Baha’is say that proselytizing is forbidden in their religion, I can’t count how many times I’ve seen Baha’is try to convince others that their religion is based in truth. I consider this proselytizing; don’t you?

I agree that it can meet the definition of proselytizing.

Do you feel I'm trying to convince you to become a Baha'i?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree that it can meet the definition of proselytizing.

Do you feel I'm trying to convince you to become a Baha'i?

I doubt you think you’ll be successful with me personally, but I do think you’re trying to overcome objections that people might have to becoming Baha’i, yes.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I doubt you think you’ll be successful with me personally, but I do think you’re trying to overcome objections that people might have to becoming Baha’i, yes.

Fair enough. I can see that. One objection to the Baha'i Faith could be Baha'is believe that Muhammad is a Messenger of God. Convince people that Muhammad was a Messenger of God and they are more likely to become a Baha'i. That's not where I'm coming from, but I can see how you would have the impression.

I grew up Christian, became a Baha'i nearly 30 years ago, and now I'm wanting to learn more about Islam. I doubt if I'll convince anyone here to become a Baha'i. I suppose my presence here on RF hasn't gone entirely unnoticed lol.

Why are you here? To convince people to become atheists?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fair enough. I can see that. One objection to the Baha'i Faith could be Baha'is believe that Muhammad is a Messenger of God. Convince people that Muhammad was a Messenger of God and they are more likely to become a Baha'i. That's not where I'm coming from, but I can see how you would have the impression.

I grew up Christian, became a Baha'i nearly 30 years ago, and now I'm wanting to learn more about Islam. I doubt if I'll convince anyone here to become a Baha'i. I suppose my presence here on RF hasn't gone entirely unnoticed lol.

It’s not just you. I’ve noticed a long-running trend of Baha’is who join here and spend most of all of their time promoting their religion. When I ask them why they’re doing this for a “non-proselytizing” religion, they get evasive.

It’s almost at the point that I’m inclined to say that this is a standard Baha'i approach, but I have to remind myself that I’m falling into the Toupee Fallacy and I have no idea how many adherents of the religion are just quietly going about their lives not calling attention to their religion.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Toupee_fallacy

Why are you here? To convince people to become atheists?

No, actually.

I originally joined to see if I could find ways to overcome my objections to theism in general and Catholicism in particular, with the aim of trying to find a way to make my Catholic (now ex-) wife happy by converting.

These days, I’m mainly here for two reasons:

- to throw my beliefs and arguments out for criticism so that I can better find their weak points and hopefully get rid of the stuff that isn’t justified.

- to try to find a way to avoid just falling into contempt for religion and theism, since a decade of examining these things in depth has put me on that path. I recognize that this might be a futile and irrational goal.

 

[Tumah]

Proselytizing just means “to convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion to another.” There’s nothing inherently pejorative about it.

Proselytizing doesn’t have to involve threats or coercion; it can also just involve trying to convince others to freely change their mind through reasoned arguments.

Even though I’ve heard Baha’is say that proselytizing is forbidden in their religion, I can’t count how many times I’ve seen Baha’is try to convince others that their religion is based in truth. I consider this proselytizing; don’t you?

I'm pretty sure this is a thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneering_(Bahá'í)