Baha'i confused about Mohammad

[Seeker_of_truth]

Before i ask my question(s) i will give some backround information about myself. I'm a 17 year old Baha'i living in the U.S. I read The Writtings every day (currently on the Book of Certitude and Selections from the writtings of Abdul Baha).

Now on to my question. When in the Writtings it talks about how all prophets are perfect stainless mirrors of the Creator, lovers of mankind and spiritual luminaries. I was wondering howMohammad fits this, i mean, his biography isn't excactly clean, he waged war many times and encouraged it, he issued strict punishements to lawbreakers that would (IMHO) make Baha'u'llah sad .

If someone could shed light on this i would be immensly thankful because when I read the Writtings I have doubts in the back of my mind on Mohammad.

[Popeyesays]

Muhammad found Himself the protector of His followers who were chased from Mecca to Medina. Once the city of Medina largely accepted Him as Prophet, He found Himself the protector of the Medina Oasis community as well. Muhammad only allowed war in defense. This is how the Babi's dealt with attacks on their communities as well, lacking guidance from the Bab Who was incarcerated as well.

Baha`u'llah does not ban 'just' war either. In fact when the Lesser Peace is established it will be the nations of the world who will unite to defend any nation that is attacked within its own borders by another nation.

Neither does Baha`u'llah ban personal defence when attacked, though He does say it is better to be murdered than to murder. Also, Abdu'l Baha was clear to say that defending another from harm is also justified.

As to Muhammad, I suggest Muhammad and the Course of Islam, by H. M. Balyuzi which is available free as part of the Ocean Library.

Regards,
Scott

[arthra]

What we should be aware of is that there is centuries old animosity toward Prophet Muhammad in the west that also has been exacerbated by recent involvement in the middle east.

Some opportunists have dusted off the old prejudices and seek to re employ them to their own advantage.

Baha'is have worked to reduce prejudices and ignorance of Prophet Muhammad in the west as well as having the Bible better appreciated in the East.

Also if you read the early history of Islam you will find how the Caliphate usurped the authority of Ali the cousin and son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad... and his designee to succeed Him. Specifically the descendents of Abu Sufian who was an arch enemy of the Prophet...later coverted and was forgiven and his descendent particularly Muawiyyih and his son Yazid misdirected the Muslim state.

Also as above an excellent history to read is "Muhammad and the Course of Islam" by H.M. Balyuzi

One of the old classics that I enjoy reading from time to time is Washington Irving's "Muhammad and His Successors". Washington Irving wrote one the least biased histories of Prophet Muhammad in the west and was an early American writer. He also wrote "Alhambra"!

- Art

[arthra]

I forgot to mention!!!!

A really good review is also available online at

Six Lessons on Islam

- Art

[Seeker_of_truth]

Thank you very much i'll be sure to check those sources out.

[Promethium]

Some excerpts from a book Im reading. The Book of Muhammad by Mehru Jaffer.

"Do you love your Creator? Then love your fellow beings first"
"He is not a perfect Muslim who eats his fill and lets his neighbour go hungry."
-Muhammad

[bahai89]

Originally Posted by Seeker_of_truth

Mohammad... issued strict punishements to lawbreakers that would (IMHO) make Baha'u'llah sad .

'Abdu'l-Baha gives this explanation of the severe punishments for crimes that were taught by Moses and by Muhammad:

Moses lived in the wilderness of Sinai where crime necessitated direct punishment. There were no penitentiaries or penalties of imprisonment. Therefore, according to the exigency of the time and place it was a law of God that an eye should be given for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It would not be practicable to enforce this law at the present time -- for instance, to blind a man who accidentally blinded you. (Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 365)

Moses dwelt in the desert. As there were no penitentiaries, no means of restitution in the desert and wilderness, the laws of God were an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Could this be carried out now? If a man destroys another man's eye, are you willing to destroy the eye of the offender? If a man's teeth are broken or his ear cut off, will you demand a corresponding mutilation of his assailant? This would not be conformable to conditions of humanity at the present time. If a man steals, shall his hand be cut off? This punishment was just and right in the law of Moses, but it was applicable to the desert, where there were no prisons and reformatory institutions of later and higher forms of government. Today you have government and organization, a police system, a judge and trial by jury. The punishment and penalty is now different. (Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 168)

[bahai89]

In "Some Answered Questions", 'Abdu'l-Baha explains the justification of Muhammad's military expeditions:

MUHAMMAD

Now we come to Muhammad. Americans and Europeans have heard a number of stories about the Prophet which they have thought to be true, although the narrators were either ignorant or antagonistic: most of them were clergy; others were ignorant Muslims who repeated unfounded traditions about Muhammad which they ignorantly believed to be to His praise.

Thus some benighted Muslims made His polygamy the pivot of their praises and held it to be a wonder, regarding it as a miracle; and European historians, for the most part, rely on the tales of these ignorant people.

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 Muhammad 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 Muhammad, while this is merely imaginary. The military expeditions of Muhammad, on the contrary, were always defensive actions: a proof of this is that during thirteen years, in Mecca, He and His followers endured the most violent persecutions. At this period they were the target for the arrows of hatred: some of His companions were killed and their property confiscated; others fled to foreign lands. Muhammad Himself, after the most extreme persecutions by the Quray****es, who finally resolved to kill Him, fled to Medina in the middle of the night. Yet even then His enemies did not cease their persecutions, but pursued Him to Medina, and His disciples even to Abyssinia.

These Arab tribes were in the lowest depths of savagery and barbarism, and in comparison with them the savages of Africa and wild Indians of America were as advanced as a Plato. The savages of America do not bury their children alive as these Arabs did their daughters, glorying in it as being an honorable thing to do.[1] Thus many of the men would threaten their wives, saying, "If a daughter is born to you, I will kill you." Even down to the present time the Arabs dread having daughters. Further, a man was permitted to take a thousand women, and 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.
[1 The Banu-Tamim, one of the most barbarous Arab tribes, practiced this odious custom.]

When a man who had ten wives died, the sons of these women rushed at each other's mothers; and if one of the sons threw his mantle over the head of his father's wife and cried out, "This woman is my lawful property," at once the unfortunate woman became his prisoner and slave. He could do whatever he wished with her. He could kill her, imprison her in a well, or beat, curse and torture her until death released her. According to the Arab habits and customs, he was her master. It is evident that malignity, jealousy, hatred and enmity must have existed between the wives and children of a household, and it is, therefore, needless to enlarge upon the subject. Again, consider what was the condition and life of these oppressed women! Moreover, the means by which these Arab tribes lived consisted in pillage and robbery, so that they were perpetually engaged in fighting and war, killing one another, plundering and devastating each other's property, and capturing women and children, whom they would sell to strangers. How often it happened that the daughters and sons of a prince, who spent their day in comfort and luxury, found themselves, when night fell, reduced to shame, poverty and captivity. Yesterday they were princes, today they are captives; yesterday they were great ladies, today they are slaves.

Muhammad received the Divine Revelation among these tribes, and after enduring thirteen years of persecution from them, He fled.[1] But this people did not cease to oppress; they united to exterminate Him and all His followers. It was under such circumstances that Muhammad was forced to take up arms. This is the truth: we are not bigoted and do not wish to defend Him, but we are just, and we say what is just. Look at it with justice. If Christ Himself had been placed in such circumstances among such tyrannical and barbarous tribes, and if for thirteen years He with His disciples had endured all these trials with patience, culminating in flight from His native land -- if in spite of this these lawless tribes continued to pursue Him, to slaughter the men, to pillage their property, and to capture their women and children -- what would have been Christ's conduct with regard to them? If this oppression had fallen only upon Himself, He would have forgiven them, and such an act of forgiveness would have been most praiseworthy; but if He had seen that these cruel and bloodthirsty murderers wished to kill, to pillage and to injure all these oppressed ones, and to take captive the women and children, it is certain that He would have protected them and would have resisted the tyrants. What objection, then, can be taken to Muhammad's action? Is it this, that He did not, with His followers, and their women and children, submit to these savage tribes? To free these tribes from their bloodthirstiness was the greatest kindness, and to coerce and restrain them was a true mercy. They were like a man holding in his hand a cup of poison, which, when about to drink, a friend breaks and thus saves him. If Christ had been placed in similar circumstances, it is certain that with a conquering power He would have delivered the men, women and children from the claws of these bloodthirsty wolves.
[1 To Medina.]

Muhammad never fought against the Christians; on the contrary, He treated them kindly and gave them perfect freedom. A community of Christian people lived at Najran and were under His care and protection. Muhammad said, "If anyone infringes their rights, I Myself will be his enemy, and in the presence of God I will bring a charge against him." In the edicts which He promulgated it is clearly stated that the lives, properties and honor of the Christians and Jews are under the protection of God; and that if a Muhammadan married a Christian woman, the husband must not prevent her from going to church, nor oblige her to veil herself; and that if she died, he must place her remains in the care of the Christian clergy. Should the Christians desire to build a church, Islam ought to help them. In case of war between Islam and her enemies, the Christians should be exempted from the obligation of fighting, unless they desired of their own free will to do so in defense of Islam, because they were under its protection. But as a compensation for this immunity, they should pay yearly a small sum of money. In short, there are seven detailed edicts on these subjects, some copies of which are still extant at Jerusalem. This is an established fact and is not dependent on my affirmation. The edict of the second Caliph [1] still exists in the custody of the orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, and of this there is no doubt.[2]
[1 Of Umar.]
[2 Cf. Jurji Zaydan's Umayyads and Abbasids, trans. D. S. Margoliouth.]

Nevertheless, after a certain time, and through the transgression of both the Muhammadans and the Christians, hatred and enmity arose between them. Beyond this fact, all the narrations of the Muslims, Christians and others are simply fabrications, which have their origin in fanaticism, or ignorance, or emanate from intense hostility.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 18)

[arthra]

Thanks for the excerpts Bahai89! And welcome to the Forum!

My experience tells me that there is rampant ages long prejudices and animosity that have developed toward Prophet Muhammad... Studying history of the period is essential to understand this as Abdul-Baha tells us.

- Art

[imranshaykh]

Originally Posted by arthra

Baha'is have worked to reduce prejudices and ignorance of Prophet Muhammad in the west as well as having the Bible better appreciated in the East.

Also if you read the early history of Islam you will find how the Caliphate usurped the authority of Ali the cousin and son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad... and his designee to succeed Him. Specifically the descendents of Abu Sufian who was an arch enemy of the Prophet...later coverted and was forgiven and his descendent particularly Muawiyyih and his son Yazid misdirected the Muslim state.
- Art

True, Bahais introduced Mohammed in the West, but at the same time, introduced him in a manner which suited the Bahai Faith. Muslims do not accept the Bahai contention that a new Messenger would succeed Mohammed.

Also strange is the Bahai contention to reject "Islamic" traditions and sources - the Imams from the Family of the Prophet or even from Imam Ali, who lived with the Prophet. But at the same time, they are happy to accept "Western" sources about a Prophet.

Regards

[Ahanu]

Originally Posted by imranshaykh

True, Bahais introduced Mohammed in the West, but at the same time, introduced him in a manner which suited the Bahai Faith. Muslims do not accept the Bahai contention that a new Messenger would succeed Mohammed.

Also strange is the Bahai contention to reject "Islamic" traditions and sources - the Imams from the Family of the Prophet or even from Imam Ali, who lived with the Prophet. But at the same time, they are happy to accept "Western" sources about a Prophet.

Regards

It depends on the interpretation of what Muhammad said, I think.

The Kitab-i-iqan said: ". . .And were they all to proclaim: 'I am the Seal of the Prophets,' they verily utter but the truth, beyond the faintest shadow of doubt. For they are all but one person, one soul, one spirit, one being, one revelation. They are all the manifestation of the "Beginning" and the "End," the "First" and the "Last". . ."

I am interested in your thoughts on what Baha said.

[Muslimwoman]

May I just thank everyone for their defense of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh), against the propaganda that wrongs his memory. Of course we must understand the historical context of that time but also look to the history of the Muslims that cam after. The Prophet is often tarred with the same brush as those that came after his death.

Salaam

Originally Posted by Thabrownbaptist

It depends on the interpretation of what Muhammad said, I think.

The Kitab-i-iqan said: ". . .And were they all to proclaim: 'I am the Seal of the Prophets,' they verily utter but the truth, beyond the faintest shadow of doubt. For they are all but one person, one soul, one spirit, one being, one revelation. They are all the manifestation of the "Beginning" and the "End," the "First" and the "Last". . ."

I am interested in your thoughts on what Baha said.

Hi Brownbaptist

Sorry are you suggesting that the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) said this? (it is 6am and I haven't slept yet so I may be misunderstanding you).

I cannot speak about the beliefs of people of the Baha'i faith as I know nothing of it, I can only speak from a Muslim perspective.

Allah guides people every day but the Quran clearly states that:

Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah is ever Aware of all things. (33:40)

The Arabic term used is khatam an-nibiyyin (Seal of Prophets). The Arabic word used for seal comes from khatama, which means to end or conclude something. In the original script the vowels were missing but no matter how you place vowels they do not change the root of the word. If you say the word as Khatam it means seal or khatim which means to put the seal.

Now to complicate matters there is a difference between people who speak from Divine inspiration and those who receive Divine revelation. Now some point to the Quran and say that it speaks of the coming of the Mahdi, which means that the Seal of the Prophets cannot mean the end of Prophethood. However, the Mahdi will not bring new revealtion, he will simply confirm that which has come before but not bring any new revelation from Allah.

The Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) said la nabiya ba 'di meaning 'no Prophet after me'.

There are many, many issues in Islam where the consensus has changed or been challenged over the centuries. Look at stoning for adultery, the consensus now says this is the correct punishment but the scholars cannot trace it back to the first century of Islam or the Quran (in fact the Quran contradicts this, as do many hadiths). So it is very noteworthy that the Seal of Prophethood is one of the very few issues that Islamic scholars do not, throughout time, disagree about, the concensus has always remained the same.

Salaam

[arthra]

Thanks for your post Muslim woman!

I think for us the thread was pretty much resolved but you raise the issue of what the Seal of the Prophets means...as you wrote above:

The Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) said la nabiya ba 'di meaning 'no Prophet after me'.

For us Baha'is we believe this means the end of the era of prophecy and for for us this has ended and the era of fulfillment has begun in 1240 AH/1844 AD:

Baha'u'llah refers to Muhammad as the "Seal of the Prophets". It is in the Kitab-i- Iqan, however, He unfolds the meaning of the title, which had hitherto obscured the understanding that the Prophetic Cycle would end with Muhammad's Dispensation and that the Era of Fulfilment would follow it. Baha'u'llah reveals that there is nothing more explicit in the Qur'an than Muhammad's promise, in clear verses, of "attainment unto the divine Presence" in the Person of His Manifestation and of the "Resurrection" which signified His rise. In keeping with this, He revealed in Epistle to the Son of the Wolf that "... on this day the blessed words 'Put He is the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets' have found their consummation in the verse 'The day when mankind shall stand before the Lord of the worlds'...". For further study see Kitab-i-Iqan pp. 166-7, 169-70 and 179; Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 114.

Source:

Baha'u'llah: The Great Announcement of the Qur'an


Also many distinquish the word "rasuli" those Who bring a new dispensation and scripture as opposed or juxtaposed to "nabiyyim" or prophets who are inspired..so you'll note there are no minor prophets like the ones who occur say in the Old Testament following Prophet Moses in the case of Prophet Muhammad.

Hope you got some sleep!

- Art

[Muslimwoman]

Hi Art

No am still awake but not for much longer.

So did the Baha'u'llah give prophesies or say that he received Divine revelation?

Of course I accept the difference between Divinely inspired and receiving Divine revelation but not knowing about Baha'u'llah I cannot judge what I think of his teachings without knowing the answer to the above question.

So do you believe this man was the Mahdi and therefore the End of Days is coming soon?

Salaam

[Ahanu]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

May I just thank everyone for their defense of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh), against the propaganda that wrongs his memory. Of course we must understand the historical context of that time but also look to the history of the Muslims that cam after. The Prophet is often tarred with the same brush as those that came after his death.

Salaam



Hi Brownbaptist

Sorry are you suggesting that the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) said this? (it is 6am and I haven't slept yet so I may be misunderstanding you).

I cannot speak about the beliefs of people of the Baha'i faith as I know nothing of it, I can only speak from a Muslim perspective.

Allah guides people every day but the Quran clearly states that:

Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah is ever Aware of all things. (33:40)

The Arabic term used is khatam an-nibiyyin (Seal of Prophets). The Arabic word used for seal comes from khatama, which means to end or conclude something. In the original script the vowels were missing but no matter how you place vowels they do not change the root of the word. If you say the word as Khatam it means seal or khatim which means to put the seal.

Now to complicate matters there is a difference between people who speak from Divine inspiration and those who receive Divine revelation. Now some point to the Quran and say that it speaks of the coming of the Mahdi, which means that the Seal of the Prophets cannot mean the end of Prophethood. However, the Mahdi will not bring new revealtion, he will simply confirm that which has come before but not bring any new revelation from Allah.

The Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) said la nabiya ba 'di meaning 'no Prophet after me'.

There are many, many issues in Islam where the consensus has changed or been challenged over the centuries. Look at stoning for adultery, the consensus now says this is the correct punishment but the scholars cannot trace it back to the first century of Islam or the Quran (in fact the Quran contradicts this, as do many hadiths). So it is very noteworthy that the Seal of Prophethood is one of the very few issues that Islamic scholars do not, throughout time, disagree about, the concensus has always remained the same.

Salaam

Here is what the Quran says. . .

"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of God and the Seal of the prophets. And God is ever Knower of all things." - Qur'an: "The Allies", verse 40.

I was checking out what the Muslims believed this verse to mean on wikipedia. Seal of the prophets - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From what I understand about the Baha'i Faith is that the revelation from the Bab is the same as that of Christ and Muhammad and all the prophets before them. However, I read somewhere in the Kitab-i-Iqan that Muhammad's son says "Knowledge is twenty and seven letters. All that the Prophets have revealed are two letters thereof. No man thus far hath known more than these two letters. But when the Qa'im shall arise, He will cause the remaining twenty and five letters to be made manifest."

For more detail click here. . .Baha'i Reference Library: Search Results

Maybe somebody has more information on the twenty and seven letters?

Also, many people proclaimed themselves as prophets during Muhammad's time, so perhaps Abu Bakr declared Muhammad to be the last prophet to make the influence of other so-called prophets during the time of no importance. This is where it becomes one of the major religious tenets of Islam, but I am not sure. It is my opinion.

Baha also quotes many passages of the Quran to defend his interpretation about the Seal of the Prophets (Quran 3:7).