WAS THE PROPHET OF GOD AKIN TO A POSTMAN WHO SIMPLY DELIVERS A MESSAGE?

mubashir55

WAS THE PROPHET OF GOD AKIN TO A POSTMAN WHO SIMPLY DELIVERS A MESSAGE?
By Joseph Islam

In discussions and in what is written, it is often implied that the Quran-centric approach renders the Prophet into merely a 'postman' who is tasked to simply deliver a message.

Such an attribution seems to be in part, a result of the limiting reading of verses such as 4248, 1340 and 599, in which the Prophetic role to deliver the message is emphasised without giving due appreciation to context and wider Quranic narratives.

If one studies such verses, one would note that such an emphasis to deliver the message is hedged with the underlying proviso that the Prophet would not be a warden over his people or be responsible for 'converting' others to the true religion.

Rather, it would remain God?s responsibility as to whom to ultimately guide. Hence, it is in this context that once notes the emphasis of the Prophetic role to primarily deliver the message.

Prophet Muhammad had TWO major roles during his ministry. His task was to deliver the revelations inspired in him by way of the Quran to mankind and in the same stroke, to IMPLEMENT ITS guidance in the complete sphere of his life during his Prophetic ministry.

The Prophet made use of the Quran as a clarification (tibiana lekulli shaye 1689) and a guide to apply to his particular circumstances where

(1) He made judgments by making use of the Quran's guidance. (244
(2) He was an arbitrator and settled disputes (2451; 846)
(3) He was a counsellor / consultant (5812)
(4) He was a military leader and made use of the Quran's guidance to conduct his affairs during war (81; 87)
(5) He was a community leader (6012) and consulted with his contemporaries to make best decisions for the community (3159)
(6) He was the state leader of a chain of commands (459)
(7) He was the community's treasurer (841)
He was a spiritual leader and was tasked to proclaim the message and deliver warnings (3870)
(9) He was a spiritual guide in his personal sphere (e.g. with his wives 3333)

In all that he did engulfing his ministry and in dealing with his wider circumstances, the Prophet made use of God's guidance as revealed to him by the Quran.

If one were alive during His ministry and took ?BAYA'A? (oath of allegiance) with him (6012; 481, then as a believer, one would be expected to follow / obey the Prophet's commands. A 'baya'a' with the Prophet would be akin to making an oath with God Himself (4810).

However, the Prophet is not alive today to take 'baya'a with nor are the circumstances present for the Prophet to implement the Quran's guidance. We all exist in different communities, at a different time with differing circumstances and challenges.

Prophetic practice refers to the practical responses of a Prophet in his capacity as a guide sent by God to deal with the circumstances that he is presented with during his ministry. In such a capacity, a Prophet makes use of Divine guidance revealed to him and implements them in the best possible manner to his circumstances. Therefore, for the Prophet's Sunna to have any intrinsic relevance, the circumstances of 7th century Arabia that the Prophet faced would also inevitably need to exist.

Hence, there is no Quranic warrant to 'religiously' sanction a corpus that 'allegedly' details a practice of a people of a certain time of ancient history.

Indeed, one should attempt to understand how a people attempted to implement the guidance of the Quran to their particular circumstances to gain any pearls of underlying wisdom and possible best practice. However, this should not be understood as 'religiously binding'.

Therefore, to draw an analogy of the Prophet simply with a 'postman' is not only unduly inappropriate and restrictive; it is also without any Quranic warrant regardless of who makes the assertion.

Similarly, to make use of Prophetic practice to sanction a corpus as 'religiously binding' also remains without any Quranic warrant.

Man_of_Faith

Salaam mubashir55,

I liked to read all that you wrote and I can agree that the prophet Muhammad was not just a "postman" (I liked how you put it rotfl. Of course his presence was to inspire those around him by his good character, but he would of course not have mentioned anything that was not based on the Quran, especially something that was contradicting it.

Muhammad had a life of his own, after all he was a human being, he was not remotely controlled by God (like under "alien control" in some video games), but of course he was strong in the holy spirit and God was with him. He committed some errors while under God's surveillance, but God would of course not let him walk astray without removing him from the duty of being a Messenger. If he did some errors God pointed them out in the Quran, as we have been able to read and understand, but since Muhammad's faith seems to have been kept on a high level by himself and maintained through his life Muhammad was able to continue and he both delivered the Message and inspired his contemporaries.

After Muhammad's death lies spread about him and the spirit that was alive with him in the form of blessings disappeared. The Quran was divinely preserved, but the history of Muhammad got severely biased as we can witness in various hadith, to the extent of even grossly contradicting the Quran. I do not say everyone was rendered a disbeliever after Muhammad died, but those who had followed him and kept following the Message were either oppressed or killed.

True believers who followed God alone have always been in a clear minority and have always been in the shadows, as had their history, and if they had a written history, it was distorted. I have been wondering if (at least the first) Shia Islam imams have been righteous men whose history was changed to fit the devil's usual propaganda machine. Due to distortion it is difficult to verify this, even if I have been searching for answers.

A theory (mine) is that the Shia branch of the conflict that arose after Muhammad died was the righteous part of it and this group was heavily oppressed. I have come to realize Hussein and his family and followers were slaughtered in today's Iraq in Karbala and thus cutting the tape there. But the righteous people popped up here and there after that, but righteous people do not grow on trees. I am almost sure that Ali and some close people to Muhammad were not biased, at least not instantly after Muhammad's death and I cannot logically think that everyone was rendered unrighteous and dieing as unrighteous believers because the prophet was gone from the face of the Earth.

Slowly Satan gained ground of course as we all know and the polytheistic worship gained fuel to the machinery. Those who called themselves followers of Ali also got biased and it turned out to become heavy polytheistic worship of that entire series of imams instead, from Muhammad to the imam of fantasies, Mahdi. I have been living in Iran for some time and I know there is serious idol worship in every mosque around the country.

Now this is a theory though, not based on entirely reliable sources and as long as I do not know the truth I am still investigating on this. But by the Grace of God and my dedicated work we may some day know more for certain. Also it can turn out to just have been a thirsty war for power right after the death of Muhammad, with no righteous part at all in it.

A messenger is someone who proclaims and preaches the Message and can thus be rising anywhere on the Earth. A righteous messenger will be backed up by God and will only die if God decides it, unless he walks astray.

God bless you all and I hope my post helped someone out there. I will talk more when I know more about the Truth.

unknownuser