What was the source of Mohammad's Revelations?

[jakasaki]

Although the ahadith were compiled approximately 200 years after his death, there exist nevertheless a fair number of texts and documents which recorded these utterances and statements of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and many of these were written by his Companions while he was still alive as can be seen in this link.

I just checked out your link and one thing caught my eye.

The covenant which is claimed that Mohamad made with St. Catherines Monestary in Mt. Sinai in Egypt is not in the link.

Also, were are the original writings of these so called hadiths from Mohamads compainions. …?

 

[hamba2han]

I don’t get why that should mean anything. I mean, we don’t expect that Mohammed was the only human in Arabia (or the world, for that matter) who would go around conversing and speaking in poetry, do we Ritual language (language of prayer or words meant as scripture or designed to be “spoken” by God) is always formal- Just look at the Catholic and Orthodox liturgies, Doesn’t mean they were not composed by humans, nor that the humans who composed them spoke that way in ordinary life . NO ONE, save some melodramatic person needing some serious therapy and having zero skills about social life would speak that way in ordinary life. And no one speaks in poetic language in ordinary life (Or rhyme for that matter) .

The hadith are oral traditions recording eye-witness testimony of Mohammed’s deeds and sayings as he went about his daily life. Honestly, WHY would he speak in a formal, ritualistic, poetic form in those instances? Are you telling us to conclude that he was afterall, truly insane?

Have a look at the link that I posted which shows that there were indeed many texts and documents written by his Companions during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) but yet the fact of the matter is that NONE of these written texts and documents had any resemblance to the inimitable form, style and structure of the language used in the Qur’an.

 

[jakasaki]

Hmmm…I remember the moon study, the science photos, etc…different use of language…Mohammed’s vision of the moon splitting apart, he fainting…and it was actually an eclipse.

Oh OK - I see what you are saying.

That stuff was all copy & paste he uses from other web sites…

 

[KathleenGee]

It was pretty interesting about the science pictures about the moon, etc., but I just remember his use of language…I look at phraseology, etc…so he must copy, etc.

Thanks for your reply…I remember the Plantens…I liked the one fellow who stayed on…

 

[jakasaki]

It was pretty interesting about the science pictures about the moon, etc., but I just remember his use of language…I look at phraseology, etc…so he must copy, etc.

Thanks for your reply…I remember the Plantens…I liked the one fellow who stayed on…

Now you do have something with the “Plantens” and I remember them well.

 

[pismopal]

Assuming that no believing Christian can accept Muhammad’s claimed “revelation” wherein virtually the entire Apostles creed is denied (The Trinity of persons in one God, The Divinity both of Christ and The Holy Spirit, The Incarnation of God in Christ, His Suffering, Crucifixion, Death and Resurrection) and considering also what the CCC says about Revelation, namely "Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations", what do you think was the source of Mohammad’s spiritual/religious experiences?

I’ve seen and heard numerous theories/explanations about what Muhammad experienced that lead to these claims, ranging from views of him as a basically good person to others that see him as the Devil incarnate. I’ve come up with possible theories on the matter and would like others’ (name removed by moderator)ut.

1. 
   ]Muhammad was a good man, a spiritual/religious vigilante, who, having become convinced of monotheism, and being unhappy with the spiritual inferiority of his people, deliberated to perpetuate a “story” about revelation in order to teach them what he had discovered to be the truth and to “save” them from what he considered the worst evil. *He considered that the ends justified the means.
   ]Muhammad was the innocent receiver of a legitimate spiritual experience (such as the private revelations some Christians receive, and Muslims too who are lead to Christianity thereby), But this experience was hijacked and corrupted by a demon and/or Muhammad’s own limitations.
   ]Muhammad was simply a clear-cut fraud like other cult leaders and false prophets who mislead people into giving up their whole lives to/for him through a false religion, for nothing other than the most pervasive narcissism possible -(which makes him an exceptionally evil person).
   *]Muhammad received straight out demonic apparitions and/or was possessed and his entire revelation was the handicraft of the prince of darkness, to undermine Christ- This makes him innocent and deceived but makes Islam the very work of the Devil.
   *]Muhammad suffered from serious delusions, such as schizophrenia and saw and conversed with projections of his own psyche that he could not separate from reality. He subconsciously constructed a fantasy in which he was the greatest and last prophet, (the hero) beloved by God and all his Qur’anic verses were “dictated” to him by entities and underwent supernatural experiences that no one could see because they were all in his head.
   
   So…any thoughts?

1. 
   I’ll take 3 and 5 for $500 Mary.

 

[Marybeloved]

Have a look at the link that I posted which shows that there were indeed many texts and documents written by his Companions during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) but yet the fact of the matter is that NONE of these written texts and documents had any resemblance to the inimitable form, style and structure of the language used in the Qur’an.

Umm…Still haven’t answered my question- Were those writings in poetic, ritualistic (liturgic, in other words) form? Why on Earth would they be in that form unless they were meant as such? Do you just not understand the point I made to you?

 

[hamba2han]

Umm…Still haven’t answered my question- Were those writings in poetic, ritualistic (liturgic, in other words) form? Why on Earth would they be in that form unless they were meant as such? Do you just not understand the point I made to you?

I am not an expert on Arabic literary style but perhaps to get an idea of the inimitable form and structure of the language used in the Qur’an, then the following excerpt from an article might help explain it:

The Arabic language and Arab speech are divided into two branches. One of them is rhymed poetry. It is a speech with metre and rhyme, which means every line of it ends upon a definite letter, which is called the ‘rhyme’. This rhymed poetry is again divided into metres or what is called as al-Bihar, literally meaning ‘The Seas’. This is so called because of the way the poetry moves according to the rhythmic patterns. There are sixteen al-Bihar viz; at-Tawil, al-Bassit, al-Wafir, al-Kamil, ar-Rajs, al-Khafif, al-Hazaj, al-Muttakarib, al-Munsarih, al-Muktatab, al-Muktadarak, al-Madid, al-Mujtath, al-Ramel, al-Khabab and as-Saria’. Each one rhymes differently.

The other branch of Arabic speech is prose, that is non-metrical speech. The prose may be a rhymed prose. Rhymed prose consists of cola ending on the same rhyme throughout, or of sentences rhymed in pairs. This is called “rhymed prose” or sajc. Prose may also be straight prose (mursal). In straight prose, the speech goes on and is not divided in cola, but is continued straight through without any divisions, either of rhyme or of anything else. Prose is employed in sermons and prayers and in speeches intended to encourage or frighten the masses.

So, the challenge is to produce in Arabic, three lines, that do not fall into one of these sixteen al-Bihar, that is not rhyming prose, nor like the speech of soothsayers, and not normal speech, that it should contain at least a comprehensible meaning and rhetoric, i.e. not gobbledygook.

It is interesting to note that all of the known pre-Islam and post-Islamic poetry falls in the above sixteen metres or al-Bihar. Indeed the pagans of Mecca repeatedly accuse Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) of being a forger, a soothsayer etc. The Arabs who were at the pinnacle of their poetry and prose during the time of revelation of the Qur’an could not even produce the smallest surah of its like. The Qur’an’s form did not fit into any of the above mentioned categories. It was this that made the Qur’an inimitable, and left the pagan Arabs at a loss as to how they might combat it.

And as the Qur’an itself says:

**And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true. But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith **…(Qur’an 2:23-24)

 

[Marybeloved]

I am not an expert on Arabic literary style but perhaps to get an idea of the inimitable form and structure of the language used in the Qur’an, then the following excerpt from an article might help explain it:

Well, neither am I, so why don’t I also,likewise,quote an article to help you get an idea as to how UN-inimitable, ununique and ordinary the Quran is?

Article:Is the Quran Really Inimitable? By:Y.M.
faithfreedom.org/oped/YM60524.htm

I have read the Debate of Mr Ali Sina with Mr Hamza. I would like to comment that it is common among the Muslims that they claim about the Quran things that in reality do not exist.

Mr Hamza claimed that the Quran is inimitable and has unique linguistic features.

It is important to note that no where in the Quran itself is there a claim for it, to be a unique example of Arabic literature.

Generally, it is believed that the Quran is the example of all linguistic structure of Arabic. If you carefully read the passages of the Quran you will find inconsistencies and will note it is not in compliance with the Arabic grammar

For example in Sura.2:177.wa assabireena should be assabiruna. In Sura,5:69,sabiuna should be sabiina.Other examples occur in Sura,7:160-20:63- 3:39 -4:162- 7:16 -21:3- 22:19 -49:9 and 63:10.The Quran also has incomplete sentences and phrases that have been omitted. This obscures the meaning. Ali Dashti a Muslim scholar writes that the Quran contains sentences that are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of the commentaries.

The Quran also contain foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning, adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number. Imam Suyuti in his Itqan discusses this matter.

If the text of the Quran had been so unique, obviously there would have been no need for witnesses, and the text would have been self authenticating. In fact we learn that there was quite a big disagreement between the companions of Mohd about several parts of the Quran.

Ibn Masood, a prominent companion of the prophet did not accept the first and the last two Suras as being the part of the Quran.So if the Quran had been unique in terms of its inimitability, Ibn Masood would not have had such reservations. On the other hand, Ubay b Kab included two extra Suras namly, Al-Hafd and Al-Khal.A version of these Suras though not part of the present Quran is still recited in the late evening prayer, ISHA.

If the Quran is unique then why do some sects of the Islam have doubts about part of the Quran? Islamists often rant about the uniqueness and inimitability of the Quran.

The Quran is the only book on the face of the Earth that you cannot understand without the help of the Tafsir (Commentary). The Tafsir is the opinion of the Muffasir (The Commentator). A Muffasir cannot claim that only his Taffsir is authentic.

**Often Muslims claims that the best of Arab poets, rhetoricians, linguists of the time failed in reproducing an equivalent Quran. These are deliberate attempts to undermine the famous Arab poets. There were so many Arab poets who rejected the Quran on the base of linguistic features. One of them was Abdulah-bin-Zubery. He was one of the best poets in Mohd’s time. **

This man was qualified critic of the Quran that the Ordinary Arabs were thinking that he had made Mohd speechless .His poetry was more realistic in Arabic grammar. People clapped their hands on his poetry. We find the reference in the Quran and the full detail in the commentary. For example in (Sura Ornaments of gold V: 57, to 58,) states and when the son of Mary is quoted as an example, “Behold! the folk laugh out, and say, are our Gods better, or is he? They raise not the objection save for argument. Nay! But they are contentious folk”.

In the history of Ibn Hasham, the reason of revelation of the above verse has given this that in the Sura (the prophets,) verse 98, stated, “Lo! Ye (Idolaters) and that which ye worship beside Allah are fuel of hell. There unto ye will come”. When Mohd recited this verse in the presence of idolaters, among them Walied ibn Mugharah was present there.

When Zubary came to this Majjles - gathering, Mugharah mentioned to him that Mohd had said such thing about our Idols .Zubary said, “I swear to Allah, if he had said such thing in front of me, I would have shut his mouth. But you go and ask Mohd “Is it true that every thing which has been worshiped apart from Allah will be the fuel of hell?” We worship the Angel’s and Jews worship Ezra (Isaiah) and Christians worship Jesus the son of Mary.

All the people that were sitting in the meeting were very pleased and clapped their hands on his answer and said (subhan Allah) praise Allah, Zubry has defeated Mohd in his logic… …

And as the Qur’an itself says:

**And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true. But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith **…(Qur’an 2:23-24)

I could also say that about my book. Self praise is not proof of originality or Divine Revelation. :nope: And Mohammed’s challenge was answered in own his life-time, my friend.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Muslims do not worship the same God. They do not believe Jesus is the Christ, and I worship through Jesus.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Although we may come across Muslims from time to time and I do welcome them

I just want to remind us Christians to say true to our faith no matter how much somebody tries to persuade us otherwise. We as Christians know the truth about Mohammad because its clear as crystal coming from the bible.

1 John 2: 18-27 (in summary)

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father.

Stay strong guys. God bless you.

 

[Sam_777]

jakasaki;8983788:

But the hadiths were gathered and written approximately 200 years after Mohamads death.

Although the ahadith were compiled approximately 200 years after his death, there exist nevertheless a fair number of texts and documents which recorded these utterances and statements of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and many of these were written by his Companions while he was still alive as can be seen in this link.

The hadith are oral traditions recording eye-witness testimony by his followers, about Mohammed’s deeds and sayings as he went about his daily life. Honestly, WHY would he speak in a formal, ritualistic, poetic language/form in those instances of his ordinary life?- Or even as he preached? Why, on Earth, would he do that?

A good point Marybeloved …

 

[hamba2han]

During the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) some 1400 years ago, there were indeed many detractors who doubted and tried to challenge the claim that the Qur’an is inimitable.

However, as the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating so to speak and what has happened since that time in history is that most of the descendants of those people who denied the Truth of the Qur’an are today Muslims themselves because somewhere down the line of generations, their progeny became convinced of the Truth of the Qur’an and made the decision to embrace Islam and thereon pass their faith to their own future generations.

And so, while the Qur’an itself is not a book of poems, nevertheless it does often bring about poetic justice.

 

[Trebor135]

During the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) some 1400 years ago, there were indeed many detractors who doubted and tried to challenge the claim that the Qur’an is inimitable.

What are the objective criteria by which to evaluate whether the Qur’an is “inimitable” and contemporary works of Arabic poetry, though they may be literary masterpieces, are not of divine origin?

However, as the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating so to speak and what has happened since that time in history is that most of the descendants of those people who denied the Truth of the Qur’an are today Muslims themselves because somewhere down the line of generations, their progeny became convinced of the Truth of the Qur’an and made the decision to embrace Islam and thereon pass their faith to their own future generations.

But the masses would know that, since Muslims were the elite of society, it would be very advantageous to join the latter’s religion. Doing so would gain non-Muslims full equality in front of the law (the testimony of Christians, Jews, and the like is, to the best of my knowledge, worth half that of Muslims in a court setting) and remove the social stigma of being “different” (the jizyah was imposed to ensure that those who paid it, the Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and so on realized their inferior standing in relation to that of Muslims).

 

[scipio337]

**And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true. But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith **…(Qur’an 2:23-24)

Meh. See “Book of Mormon Challenge”.

 

[Marybeloved]

During the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) some 1400 years ago, there were indeed many detractors who doubted and tried to challenge the claim that the Qur’an is inimitable.

However, as the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating so to speak and what has happened since that time in history is that most of the descendants of those people who denied the Truth of the Qur’an are today Muslims themselves because somewhere down the line of generations, their progeny became convinced of the Truth of the Qur’an and made the decision to embrace Islam and thereon pass their faith to their own future generations.

And so, while the Qur’an itself is not a book of poems, nevertheless it does often bring about poetic justice.

You mean, centuries after Moh’d and his followers carried out their violent campaigns against Arabs and surrounding areas, killing and expelling anyone who was not a Musilm from Arabia and mistreating Jews and Christians, that most people in the conquered lands were Muslim? And not only that, you actually think that this somehow gives Islam validity? So, descendants of people forced into Islam were Muslim, Big deal! I don’t see how any one in search of truth is supposed to be convinced or even impressed by that at all

 

[Trebor135]

But the Quran wasn’t composed in one sitting or even one long project. It is made up of simple verses that were “revealed” to Mohammed throughout 23 years. The verses were also very convenient- being revealed when a question needed to be answered or something had happened needing resolution etc Plus verses/suras on stories in wide circulation in Arabia at that time, from the Jewish traditions and the Christian apocryphal books.

Good points.

I find nothing at all extraordinary about the composition of the Quran. If I write in my diary every day, or a few times a week for 20 years, you can be sure that I’ll have something much bigger than the Quran at the end of it all. Considering that poetry was the “diary” of those times, to capture any significant or meaningful thing, my diary (if I was a 7th Century Arab) would be another Quran.

More good points.

There is a reason the Quraish found Mohammed’s verses that he recited to the crowds to be utterly unimpressive.

But the pagan Arabs of the time were already predisposed not to accept Muhammad’s message, which preached that there was only one supreme God, humans would be held accountable for their earthly actions after death, and all would one day rise again from the grave. They would be very much inclined to dismiss any literary merit the book might have.

There was even a man who would follow him around and after Muhammad finished reciting his verses, the man would compose his own verses on the spot to challenge Mohammed and ask “Tell me, what makes his verses better than mine?”

Do you have a source for this? I’m very curious, because the Qur’an challenges its audience to come up with a work of similar calibre (though we couldn’t expect any successful attempt to be recorded in the Qur’an, for that would near-fatally undermine its own credibility!).

There’s nothing extraordinary at all about Mohammed’s 23 year compilation of verses called “the Quran” except that his followers memorized them as divine revelation when others were just poems.

I wonder who Muhammad really was (Muslims claim him to have been illiterate), and if that would have affected whether Muhammad could have come up with the Qur’an on his own. I would be interested to see, if they exist, analyses of the Qur’an’s literary calibre from scholarly sources.

If Muhammad hadn’t died when he did, he would have simply continued to give verses as he went and the Quran would have been much bigger than it is.

You’re probably correct here.

 

[hamba2han]

What are the objective criteria by which to evaluate whether the Qur’an is “inimitable” and contemporary works of Arabic poetry, though they may be literary masterpieces, are not of divine origin?

The challenge of the Qur’an with respect to Arabic prose and poetry can be read here.

In addition, if you do wish to examine further what it is that makes the Qur’an inimitable, then I would suggest that you visit this website.

But the masses would know that, since Muslims were the elite of society, it would be very advantageous to join the latter’s religion. Doing so would gain non-Muslims full equality in front of the law (the testimony of Christians, Jews, and the like is, to the best of my knowledge, worth half that of Muslims in a court setting) and remove the social stigma of being “different” (the jizyah was imposed to ensure that those who paid it, the Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and so on realized their inferior standing in relation to that of Muslims).

Under Sharia in an Islamic state, there is no significant financial advantage to be gained by a non-Muslim who reverts to Islam since the rate of Zakat is much higher as compared with rates of Jizyah. In the case of a wealthy Muslim the incidence of Zakat would be in thousands while in case of a wealthy non-Muslim the amount of Jizyah would be only 4 Dinars at the most as can be read at this link.

 

[A_G]

Muhammad did not receive messages from the Archangel Gabriel. St. Gabriel would not deny the deity of Christ. Think about it… he started a religion that does not accept the divinity of Jesus Christ. He started a religion that says Jesus isn’t God, and that Jesus didn’t die for our sins.

Paul the apostle wrote these words years after Jesus had finished the work of salvation and said, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed”(Galatians 1:8).

In the Koran ( read Hadith of Bukhari, volume 9, book 87, Hadith number 111), it says that the “angel” squeezed him, scared him and sent him home frightened. Does this sound like an angel from Heaven? Muhammad could have been hallucinating, lying, or was visited by an evil spirit.

Let’s look at the Koran, 96:1 - 4:
The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, "I do not know how to read.
The Prophet added, “The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, ‘I do not know how to read.’ Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read but again I replied, ‘I do not know how to read (or what shall I read)?’ Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then released me and said, 'Read in the name of your Lord, who has created (all that exists) has created man from a clot. Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous.”

Then Allah’s Apostle returned with the Inspiration and with his heart beating severely. Then he went to Khadija bint Khuwailid and said, “Cover me! Cover me!” They covered him till his fear was over and after that he told her everything that had happened and said, “I fear that something may happen to me.”

In the Bible we have a totally different picture of the angel Gabriel who appeared to many people before Mohammed. Let us look at some examples:
Gabriel appeared to Mary, the mother of Jesus (Luke 1:26-33):
“The angel Gabriel was sent from God to a virgin name Mary and said,‘Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!’ But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and the angel said to her,‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High.’”

The Son of the Most High God became the Son of Man (Son of Mary) in order to give his life at the cross for the sinful world that,“All who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God.”(John 1:12)

Here are some more examples of the book that Muhammed received in that cave:
“The Christians say: The Christ is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them.” (Sura 9:30)

“Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends.” (Surah 5:51)

“NEVER DID ALLAH TAKE TO HIMSELF A SON, and never was there with him any (other) god . . .” (Sura 23:91)

“Muhammad is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.” (Surah 48:29)

This book that Muhammad received clearly contradicts the Christian faith. The above are just a few examples of this. Muhammad could have been hallucinating, lying, or was visited by an evil spirit.

 

[manualman]

My opinion has evolved. I once figured he had to be demonic.

But I’ve come to believe that psychoanalysis of somebody dead for 1,300 years is unlikely to be productive. Better we leave it at “who knows?” Whatever the bottome line explanation, where what he taught was different than catholic dogma, he’s wrong.