Why do Muslims believe Muhammad is God's (Allah's) Prophet?

[Bluegoat]

Surely it is more than being the “next Big Thing.” When these people were exposed to Christianity (or whatever was the NEXT Big Thing) why didn’t they jump on board?

That isn’t what I said at all. You are talking about something faddish, like a popular movie. I am talking about movements that contain fundamental ideas that we respond to in the depths of our should, that resonate in us. The Next Big Thing is not at all the same as a Big Idea. We are not comparing Justin Bieber and God is One.

Those kinds of ideas command a lot of loyalty, faith really, when they touch someone. People don’t hop from one to another easily. Most people stay with the Big Idea they are brought up with, for a number of reasons. For one thing, it forms their thinking, and so to some extent determines the way they perceive truth. It is almost always more comforting to them emotionally than a new form will be. And as far as the major religions go, one could easily spend a life-time studying all of them. Anyone can legitimately say he has more to learn about the religion he was born into before he rejects it.

When people are really touched by Islam, or Christianity, or Buddhism, they tend to stay there. Not all by any means, but most. What they are touched by probably depends most on the luck of what family one is born into.

 

[jakasaki]

… snip …

hamba2han: How exactly is the Koran proof that Muhammad was God’s prophet? …

Because Mohamad said so.

It sounds like you’re saying that the Koran is infallible because the prophet Muhammad wrote it, and that you know that Muhammad was God’s prophet because he wrote the Koran.

The koran was not written by Mohamad - there was no written koran during his time.

Yes, there were scribes who would record bits & pieces on various writting materials, including animal bones, but the koran was actually compiled into “book” form my Uthman many decades after Mohamads death.

There were however 7 different versions/dialects/recitations of the koran by the time Uthman got it.

He wrote it one way, nothing in the koran is in chronological order, and destroyed all of the other koran books from his time.

Since the book is not in chronological order, meaning the way it was “revealed”, makes one wonder what copy is with Allah…??

 

[hamba2han]

Here’s what I don’t get: There is no proof of the Koran outside the Koran. There is proof of the Bible outside the Bible (see The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel). The Koran says that Jesus was never crucified. But from what I’ve read, Roman sources show that He was, in fact, crucified under Pontius Pilate, and this is why secular historians accept the Crucifixion as fact. (It would be great if someone who knows more history than I do could pull up some of those sources–sadly, I’m not a history expert.) Doesn’t that mean that the Koran is not infallible?

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!” (Galatians 1:8-9, NAB)

hamba2han: How exactly is the Koran proof that Muhammad was God’s prophet? It sounds like you’re saying that the Koran is infallible because the prophet Muhammad wrote it, and that you know that Muhammad was God’s prophet because he wrote the Koran. I’m sure there’s something I’m misunderstanding…

It is simply not possible for the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to have authored the Qur’an because it is a well known fact that he could neither read nor write.

And so, this can only mean that the Qur’an has come from either the Lord or from some other supernatural source since it is absolutely not possible, as I have explained through the links in my prior post, for the Qur’an to have originated from a human source.

Going by pure logic alone without allowing emotions to get in the way of rational reasoning, it is perfectly logical and sensible to conclude that no one but God Almighty Himself would send down such a Message to humankind.

 

[jakasaki]

Just because it is claimed that Mohamad could not read or write - that is pointless.

He did have some knowledge of reading/writting. Even on his death bed, he requested paper & pen to leave instructions for his followers but was denied this request.

Why would a man who cannot read/write want paper & pen to write something…??

Also, in his younger days while working for his future first wife, he wad knowledge of the goods he sold, mainting the inventory and also, handling money.

How can one handle money, bargain the goods and not know how to maintain a merchant journal.

~

When my mother was born, her father had died 4 months priot to her birth and her mother died giving birth to my mother.

Mom grew up in orphanagies & work houses - did not learn one letter or number.

She died Feb 23 2010 ~ she was truly illiterate.

But let me tell you one thing…

She knew her prayers and the Bible better than educated people. She would have conversations with people & friends and everyone thought she was well educated.

She also dictated & create a family recipe booklet.

The point is, you can be illiterate and still cary on with life & that’s what Mohamad did.

 

[mathematoons]

It is simply not possible for the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to have authored the Qur’an because it is a well known fact that he could neither read nor write.

And so, this can only mean that the Qur’an has come from either the Lord or from some other supernatural source since it is absolutely not possible, as I have explained through the links in my prior post, for the Qur’an to have originated from a human source.

Going by pure logic alone without allowing emotions to get in the way of rational reasoning, it is perfectly logical and sensible to conclude that no one but God Almighty Himself would send down such a Message to humankind.

You still didn’t answer my question about the Crucifixion.

We’ve had lots of people in our history claim to get new revelations from God. It seems to me that you’re saying that Muhammad was special because he was illiterate. But oral tradition really works. For example, in Deuteronomy 6, it is written, “Take to heart these words which I enjoin on you today. Drill them into your children. Speak of them at home and abroad, whether you are busy or at rest. Bind them at your wrist as a sign and let them be as a pendant on your forehead.” (verses 6-8). Well, that’s kind of vague. How are we supposed to know what that looks like? The answer is, oral tradition. Orthodox Jews still wear those things (called “tefillin”); they’re the same around the world, and ancient ones (dating back thousands of years) look just like their modern counterparts!

Plus, troubadours in medieval France could memorize thousand-word songs after hearing them once. They did so by visualizing large houses with many rooms, each one of which would contain an object associated with each word. (Example: If one wanted to memorize the Guardian Angel prayer in this way, “Angel of God, my guardian dear” might be a deer with a halo and wings guarding the house.)

So I have no doubt that Muhammad could have thought up the whole Quran (I thought it was spelled Koran–I stand corrected) himself.

 

[Amir_the_Masihi]

It is simply not possible for the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to have authored the Qur’an because it is a well known fact that he could neither read nor write.

And so, this can only mean that the Qur’an has come from either the Lord or from some other supernatural source since it is absolutely not possible, as I have explained through the links in my prior post, for the Qur’an to have originated from a human source.

Going by pure logic alone without allowing emotions to get in the way of rational reasoning, it is perfectly logical and sensible to conclude that no one but God Almighty Himself would send down such a Message to humankind.

Whether Muhammad was illiterate or not is a moot point. The Qur’an was not fully compiled until the time of Uthman’s caliphate (if I recall correctly), although bits and pieces of it were written down. Clearly, Muhammad could’ve easily composed the Qur’an without writing it down, as oral tradition was the norm for telling stories and such in Arabia at that time rather than books and the like.

Muhammad was certainly not completely illiterate, as jakasaki and common sense tells us. But even if he were, it adds up to nothing. I love how you say we should go by “pure logic”, but yet you let your zealousness get in the way of reason.

Salaam.

 

[hamba2han]

Someone suggested that we use ‘common sense’ with regard to the literacy of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

You see, it is really not difficult at all to destroy Islam because all that one needs to do is to find a discrepancy or contradiction within the Qur’an since this would certainly prove (or at the very least plant seeds of very serious doubt) that it simply cannot be the verbatim ‘Speech of God’ that Muslims are claiming the Qur’an to be.

Now consider that at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), he had very many enemies who were prepared to do just about anything to stop the spread of Islam.

If these people, many of whom knew the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ever since he was little, came to know of an obviously false statement in the Qur’an, then would they not go to town with this “news” and thereby easily destroy his claim of being the Messenger of God?

Now consider the following verse of the Qur’an which was revealed while he was still living in Makkah before the migration to Madinah:

Say: “O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He That giveth both life and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, who believeth in Allah and His words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided.” … (Sura Al-Araf, 7.158)

If indeed the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was able to read and write, then would not his many enemies who knew him personally have very easily disproved the truth of the Qur’an and henceforth destroyed the basis of Islam?

Does not ‘common sense’ play a hugely significant role here in proving that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was indeed unlettered even when considering just this one particular verse?

There is indeed another verse in the Qur’an which also affirms that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) could neither read nor write.

And thou (O Muhammad) wast not a reader of any scripture before it, nor didst thou write it with thy right hand, for then might those have doubted, who follow falsehood. … (Sura Al-Ankaboot 29:48)

And BTW, how many people on their deathbeds do you know who, when on the verge of death, would ask for pen and paper?

Did I hear ‘common sense’?

 

[Acrusader]

from an experience I’m speaking, and since I know some muslims, when we discus about the prophethood of mohammad, I can always see the “lost look” on their faces. They like most muslims, only believe in mohammad because this is what they’ve learned over the years, since they were kids.
There is a Hadis or something that says something like “Don’t ask about things that may be weird for you…” (forgot its correct form).
So when we discus about the subject of mohammad and his act and his claim for prophecy, and they go for the Imam to ask him about those subjects, he just tell them: don’t ask about things that may be weird for you… It is what Allah sent to us through mohammad… etc.

The thing is that when kids learn something since they are kids, they take it as guaranteed, and don’t even think to doubt about it. This is why it may be hard for some, even if they use logic to believe that what they used to believe in is not based on solid grounds, and may be wrong.

 

[mathematoons]

OK, fine. Maybe he was illiterate. But you’re still avoiding my basic points, which are: 1) The Crucifixion has been verified by secular historians, but the Quran says it didn’t happen, and 2) whether Muhammad could read and write or not has nothing to do with whether he could think up the Quran himself.

If you continue to refuse to address these, then the non-Muslims among us will be forced to conclude that your belief in Islam does not have a basis in fact, but rather, you believe in Islam because you want to. Not that I’m saying that’s a bad thing–there are things I like about Islam, like the fact that you guys do a better job of following Christian teachings on God, family, and sexuality than the majority of Western Christians. But the fact remains that we have historical proof of the truth of Christianity (read The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel), while there is no such proof for Islam.

 

[jakasaki]

Someone suggested that we use ‘common sense’ with regard to the literacy of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

You see, it is really not difficult at all to destroy Islam because all that one needs to do is to find a discrepancy or contradiction within the Qur’an since this would certainly prove (or at the very least plant seeds of very serious doubt) that it simply cannot be the verbatim ‘Speech of God’ that Muslims are claiming the Qur’an to be.

Now consider that at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), he had very many enemies who were prepared to do just about anything to stop the spread of Islam.

If these people, many of whom knew the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ever since he was little, came to know of an obviously false statement in the Qur’an, then would they not go to town with this “news” and thereby easily destroy his claim of being the Messenger of God?

Now consider the following verse of the Qur’an which was revealed while he was still living in Makkah before the migration to Madinah:

Say: "O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He That giveth both life and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, who believeth in Allah and His words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided." … (Sura Al-Araf, 7.158)

If indeed the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was able to read and write, then would not his many enemies who knew him personally have very easily disproved the truth of the Qur’an and henceforth destroyed the basis of Islam?

Does not ‘common sense’ play a hugely significant role here in proving that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was indeed unlettered even when considering just this one particular verse?

There is indeed another verse in the Qur’an which also affirms that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) could neither read nor write.

And thou (O Muhammad) wast not a reader of any scripture before it, nor didst thou write it with thy right hand, for then might those have doubted, who follow falsehood. … (Sura Al-Ankaboot 29:48)

And BTW, how many people on their deathbeds do you know who, when on the verge of death, would ask for pen and paper?

Did I hear ‘common sense’?

How did I know you were going to post the above - simple - you do it all of the time when we discuss this…

Do you remember Famdigy - yes… I’m sure you remember him. He was a Shia muslim and he had once confirmed that the actual “”"“an-nabiyyal-ummi”""" does not mean “unlettered prophet” but it means **Gentile **prophet.

Mohamad clasified himself in this way because all of the prophets before Mohamad were Jews - He, Mohamad is the only NON-Jew -----> **an-nabiyyal-ummi Gentile prophet. **
Try reading this from a NON-ANTI-ISLAM site…

OUR PROPHET WAS NOT ILLETERATE
By Dr Abdurazak Ebrahiem (PhD Astronomy)

THE MISREPRESENTATION OF THE WORD ‘ILLITERATE’ USED AS AN ADJECTIVE TO DESCRIBE THE HOLY PROPHET (Sallalahu’Alayhi’Wassallam)
…

The title that requires analysis is the unlettered prophet, which reads an-nabiyyal-ummi in the original Arabic.

There can be no dispute about the word nabi which in both Hebrew and Arabic simply means prophet, but it is the qualifying adjective ummi that has led to such varied interpretations.

In most English translations it is rendered as unlettered, and this word can also yield various meanings.

Muslim writers usually allege that the word really means illiterate in order to ‘prove’ to non-Muslims that the Holy Prophet Sallalahu’Alayhi’Wassallam did not compose and write the Holy Qur’an.

…

It is a known fact that the Holy Prophet Muhammad Sallalahu’Alayhi’Wassallam successfully managed the business operations of the Lady Khatija RA, and this is not descriptive of a person who could not read or write.…

---

There is more good stuff to read: ibnulameen.co.za/?page_id=28

You see Hamba - just like I said - he could have NOT been a merchant sales person without knowledge of reading & writting…

Please do visit the site above…


Edited for spelling errors

 

[hamba2han]

OK, fine. Maybe he was illiterate. But you’re still avoiding my basic points, which are: 1) The Crucifixion has been verified by secular historians, but the Quran says it didn’t happen, and 2) whether Muhammad could read and write or not has nothing to do with whether he could think up the Quran himself.

If you continue to refuse to address these, then the non-Muslims among us will be forced to conclude that your belief in Islam does not have a basis in fact, but rather, you believe in Islam because you want to. Not that I’m saying that’s a bad thing–there are things I like about Islam, like the fact that you guys do a better job of following Christian teachings on God, family, and sexuality than the majority of Western Christians. But the fact remains that we have historical proof of the truth of Christianity (read The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel), while there is no such proof for Islam.

Quite a few people witnessed David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty vanish in 1983 and millions of others worldwide watched it on TV.

Should all of us then proclaim David Copperfield as someone who has supernatural powers?

I do not believe that Copperfield has this kind of power especially since he himself does not claim that he has.

And so, so what if 500 or so people thought they saw Jesus Christ (pbuh) being crucified and that this event has seemingly been “verified by secular historians”?.. What does this prove??

I believe that it was an illusion that people saw when the Statue of Liberty “disappeared” in 1983 and I also believe that it was an illusion that the 500 or so “witnesses” of the crucifixion saw some 2000 years ago.

The point here is that whether one chooses to believe in the crucifixion or not is based entirely on faith alone and not on any concrete evidence whatsoever one way or the other.

And perhaps the following might help shed some light on why Muslims do not view the alleged crucifixion of Jesus Christ (pbuh) as a particularly humongous event the way Christians do:

On the night that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) escaped from Makkah to Madinah, a group of assassins kept vigil all night long around the Prophet’s house, waiting to kill him the moment he left his house early in the morning.

The Prophet [pbuh] and ‘Ali were inside the house and despite the tight siege the group of assassins laid, the Prophet [pbuh] told ‘Ali to sleep in his bed and cover himself with his green mantle and assured him full security under Allâh’s protection and told him that no harm would come to him. The Prophet [pbuh] then came out of the room and cast a handful of dust at the assassins and managed to work his way through them reciting verses of the Noble Qur’ân:

"And We have put a barrier before them, and a barrier behind them, and We have covered them up, so that they cannot see." [Al-Qur’an 36:9]

Even though Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) walked past the assassins, they could not see him and he then proceeded straight to the house of Abu Bakr who immediately accompanied him and both set out southwards and the assassins who laid siege to the house were later startled when someone came and informed them that the Prophet [pbuh] had already left. They rushed in and to their utter surprise, found that the person lying in the Prophet’s bed was ‘Ali not Muhammad [pbuh].

From this story, we can see that the Lord is not averse to protecting and saving His Messengers from being harmed by their mortal enemies and I suspect that the method of escape of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) when he walked past the assassins is not dissimilar to the method of escape of Prophet Jesus (pbuh) during the alleged crucifixion event… and Allah knows best.

Jesus Christ (pbuh) was indeed saved by the Lord from being harmed by people who wanted to crucify him just as Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was saved time and again from being harmed by his many enemies.

And so you see, this alleged crucifixion of Prophet Jesus (pbuh) is therefore not a particularly big deal event for Muslims since it is pretty normal for the Lord to protect and save His Prophets (peace be upon them all) from harm.

 

[hamba2han]

(47. And thus We have sent down the Book to you, and those whom We gave the Scripture believe therein as also do some of these and none but the disbelievers reject Our Ayat.) (48. Neither did you read any book before it nor did you write any book with your right hand. In that case, indeed, the followers of falsehood might have doubted.) (49. Nay, but it is clear Ayat, (preserved) in the breasts of those who have been given knowledge. And none but the wrongdoers deny Our Ayat.)… Al-Qur’an, Sura Al-Ankaboot 29:47-49

The meaning of the verses of this passage in the Qur’an is crystal clear which leaves no room whatsoever for doubt i.e. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not read nor did he write any book.

If, as some suggest, that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) knew how to read and write, then his many enemies would have certainly pointed out this passage in the Qur’an as proof that the Qur’an is not true and thus cannot possibly be the verbatim Speech of God.

 

[mathematoons]

Quite a few people witnessed David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty vanish in 1983 and millions of others worldwide watched it on TV.

Should all of us then proclaim David Copperfield as someone who has supernatural powers?

I do not believe that Copperfield has this kind of power especially since he himself does not claim that he has.

And so, so what if 500 or so people thought they saw Jesus Christ (pbuh) being crucified and that this event has seemingly been “verified by secular historians”?.. What does this prove??

I believe that it was an illusion that people saw when the Statue of Liberty “disappeared” in 1983 and I also believe that it was an illusion that the 500 or so “witnesses” of the crucifixion saw some 2000 years ago.

The point here is that whether one chooses to believe in the crucifixion or not is based entirely on faith alone and not on any concrete evidence whatsoever one way or the other.

Comparing the Crucifixion to a magic trick is so ludicrous, I’m speechless. I could say all the same stuff about Islam, so why do you claim it to be the One True Religion?

For that matter, if you think Christianity is bogus, then why are you on this forum in the first place?

From this story, we can see that the Lord is not averse to protecting and saving His Messengers from being harmed by their mortal enemies and I suspect that the method of escape of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) when he walked past the assassins is not dissimilar to the method of escape of Prophet Jesus (pbuh) during the alleged crucifixion event… and Allah knows best.

Jesus Christ (pbuh) was indeed saved by the Lord from being harmed by people who wanted to crucify him just as Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was saved time and again from being harmed by his many enemies.

And so you see, this alleged crucifixion of Prophet Jesus (pbuh) is therefore not a particularly big deal event for Muslims since it is pretty normal for the Lord to protect and save His Prophets (peace be upon them all) from harm.

Sure, God can protect anyone He wants to. But sometimes He doesn’t–as you say, God knows best.

 

[urielwings4]

The Catholic Faith is founded on Jesus (who we believe is divine), and Islam is founded on God (Allah) through Muhammad (whom they believe was not divine - but was very special to the extent that an image of Muhammad is considered an offense equal to an image of God).

The reasons that we believe in Jesus (and in his divinity) have filled hundreds of books from every possible perspective.

I see many parallels between Muhammad and Joseph Smith (who invented the Mormon (LDS) religion). They both claimed to have received a “holy book” which establishes a new religion. Why is the Koran any more credible than the Book of Mormon? Whereas both the Old and New Testaments are a collection of the writings of many authors, both the Koran and the Book of Mormon are the writings of a single author. So the credibility of this author is of paramount importance.

Why do Muslims believe that Muhammad is credible? I ask this here in CAF because I do not know of any Muslim forums similar to CAF, where Catholics are welcome to question the teachings of Islam (though CAF welcomes anyone who questions the teachings of the Catholic Church). We have some Muslims (and former Muslims) here - I hope they will respond.

Thank you.

Wow! I have often have the same thought. I’m glad I’m not the only one, and by the way very good question!

 

[Poof]

I believe that it was an illusion that people saw when the Statue of Liberty “disappeared” in 1983 andI also believe that it was an illusion that the 500 or so “witnesses” of the crucifixion saw some 2000 years ago.

 

[DavidFilmer]

You see, it is really not difficult at all to destroy Islam because all that one needs to do is to find a discrepancy or contradiction within the Qur’an

If you Google “Contradictions in the Koran” (or Qur’an) you will find plenty of people who claim to have done so.

Of course, that does not really prove anything - lots of people say that the Catholic Church has, at some point, created, changed, or eliminated Doctrine, and they come up with lists of “proof” - none of which hold up to examination. It could be the same thing going on.

But, I had a look at a couple of these sites. They quote passages which a plain reading of one text does appear to contradict the plain reading of some other text. Maybe there’s some explanation, but, at first glance, the claims seem credible.

But, alas, I am probably pulling my own thread off-topic.

 

[mathematoons]

But, I had a look at a couple of these sites. They quote passages which a plain reading of one text does appear to contradict the plain reading of some other text. Maybe there’s some explanation, but, at first glance, the claims seem credible.

I think I read somewhere that Muslims believe that parts of the Quran were revealed at Mecca and some at Medina, and that God changed His mind about some things in between–of course, hamba2han will have to confirm or deny this.

 

[Abu_Toshiba]

@Jakazuki,

the term ‘‘Ummi’’ is also used in the Qur’an in its plural form (Ummyyun) when describing a group of people who are amongst the ‘People of the Book’, non-gentiles.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Waminhum** Ummiyyuna** la yaAAlamoonaalkitaba illa amaniyya wa-in hum illayathunnoon

And among them are** unlettered ones** who do not know the Scripture except in wishful thinking, but they are only assuming.

(the Noble Qur’an 2:78)

The word ummi generally means one who can neither write nor read. Here it is used for those Jews who could neither read nor write. In many places the Quran addresses the Arabs as ummies. With reference to the use of ummi for the Holy Prophet, commentators say that it is either because the Holy Prophet could neither write nor read, or because he was one of the Arabs, or because he was the inhabitant of the city of Makka known as the Ummul-Qura.

Ummi can also be derived from the word umm-the mother. Ummi means the person who remains the same in his native endowments as was born, without receiving any education or training from any (outside) source. The Holy Prophet did not receive knowledge or education from any mortal but by Allah Himself. He was born with divinely endowed .wisdom and remained the same, without letting any worldly agency influence his self, tutored and perfected by Allah Himself.

Allah has revealed to you the book and the wisdom and taught you what you did not know. Great has been the grace of Allah on you. (the Noble Qur’an 4:113)

 

[Gregory_I]

THis is quite simply a logical fallacy called circular reasoning. The quran cannot be demonstrated to be the word of God, or even historically reliable. When asked to demonstrate its reliability, the appeal to the Koran is made!

This is unacceptable For there to be any vindication of the Koran, you must show its origin in a source outside of ITSELF. Otherwise, the process of determining its validity is absurd, and your religion is nonsensical.

It doesn’t matter if Muhammad was considered honest. Honest people can get wild ideas, and his supposed honesty is a great platform from which can be worked great deceit.

Prove this did not happen. Also, Muslims believe in the inspiration of the Hebrew Old Testament. Can the Old Testament contradict the Koran?

Which of the Several compiled versions of the Koran is in heaven?

"Omitted passages.

After the sudden death of Mohammed, Zaid-ibn-Thabith was ordered to compile and write down the Quran (Mishkat’ul Masabih). It is attested that at least three revelations were left out. One of these, according to Mohammed’s wife, Aysha, with whom he resided at this death, was kept under their bed at the time of Mohammed’s death, but was eaten by a domestic animal (related by ibn-Mayah in “Kitabu’l Sunan” with Sahih Muslim, page 740.)

According to the biographer and Hadis compiler Muslim (page 501):

"Abu Musa al Ashari said to 300 reciters of the Quran in Basra: 'We used to recite a Sura resembling in length and severity (Sura) Bara-at (Sura 9). I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this, which I remember out of it: ‘If there were two valleys of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust.’ And we used to recite a Sura which resembled one of the Suras of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it, but remember out of it: ‘O people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practise’ and ‘that is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of Resurrection.’ "
The latter quotations may be from Suras 61:2 and 17:13, but the first, the same length as Sura 9(129 verses) is missing in the Quran! In this case the possible explanation, namely that of abrogation, is unacceptable, for it would render God very human indeed. We conclude that the statement about the completeness of the Quran cannot be maintained - and with that the argument of “nazil” i.e. that it came from heaven and complete as it is.

Another tradition states (Sahih Muslim, page 912, Mishkat II, page 534 and others):

"Umar said: 'Verily Allah sent Mohammed with truth and revealed the Book to him. Out of the verses, the Almighty Allah revealed. there was the verse of stoning to death. The Messenger of Allah stoned to death (Sahih Muslim, page 920) and after him we also stoned to death: And in the BOOK OF GOD stoning to death is a truth against one, who commits adultery. The verse was thus: ‘The old man and the old woman, if they have committed adultery, they stoned them both assuredly.’ "
This passage too, is not in the Quran.

“There is a tradition from 'A’isha, the prophet’s wife, that a certain chapter which now consists of 73 verses once contained no less than 200; and that when Uthman compiled the Quran, the missing verses could not be found. One of them was called the verse of Stoning, and is said to have contained the order to stone a man or woman who had committed adultery…This verse is said to have been part of the original Quran. Many early authorities say so, and what is very significant is that the first Caliphs punished adulterers by stoning; this is still the penalty prescribed in Muslim law-books, whereas the Quran (24:2) prescribed a hundred stripes.” (“Islam” by A. Guillaume, p. 191).
At a later date when Uthman was Khalif, he sent for the existing manuscripts in Hafsah’s possession and others, had them revised to one text, and copied several times by Zaid-ibn-Thabith and three men of the Quraish tribe.

"When you differ in anything of the Quran, write it in the dialect of the Quraish, because it was revealed in their dialect "
Uthman sent out one copy of this newly established original to every country and issued orders that every differing compilation or script of the Quran should be burnt. (Mishkat vol.III p.708).

Hafsah’s copy of the Quran was burnt by Marrah. Why? Muslims as a rule explain this Hadis (Tradition) as meaning a revision to conform to the language (Quraish) of the original. But we hold that “the difference in the Quran reading” does not only refer to this. Why then burn other codices? Others will reason that the burnt scripts were really corrupt texts. Who was the judge? They were also in writing! Zaid-ibn-Thabith could just as well have used these in his collection."

answering-islam.org/Nehls/Ask/collect.html

 

[thegame_786]

Sometimes I wonder about some of the questions asked here about Islam. I’m not sure if its a subtle attack or just plain ignorance. Its like a Muslim asking a christian why do christians belive that Jesus is God.
The simple answer to both questions is religion. You have sacred texts as do we. You had someone that started the religious movement. So did we. You have historical accounts from people at the time. So do we. Christianity involves learning about the trinity. Islam is about worshipping one God.
Whetever you agree or not it just boils my blood when people ask silly questions. And this goes for the muslims as well as Christians. These kind of people seem to find faults in other religions e.g Allah is deceitful (Astagfirullah) but when told about God’s deceit in the Bible they say but you have to read the whole passage and that God only deceives those who have already sinned and turned their back on God. The rightfull people will never be decieved by God so there you go.
HELLO!!! That is basically the same as the same as the Quran. Allah decived those that wanted to crucuify Jesus. I don’t know about you but these people I would consider to be evil so why do people go on about it bieng a negative thing when in the Bible its ok for God to decive the wicked. Can anyone explain the difference