Did Muhammad (saw) Write the Quran?

[Antar]

I would also add; why would Muhammad (SAW) be interested to write a book that gives a history of Moses and Jesus more than himself whilst his religion has a different belief? Why would he be so interested to write a history of all prophets before him? Why is it that he was the only person able to write about embryology at that time? (Where were the others)


Your argument about using radar-based terrain mapping is the same as an argument about scanning a pregnant woman. So many a time, when pregnant women were trying to determine the sex of a child they were told different sex as compared to the child after birth. Equally, seismologists interpret readings after seismic survey and advices explorations to drill a well only to find out that no oil is available.

Nevertheless, to answer you argument about mounts being pegs, this is clearly explains on this link (if you will pay any attention) and let me say that this link is NOT a verse from Qur'an; http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_th...s_when_how_why

which is the world's leading Q & A site.

[shabeebcool]

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Furthermore, I said that he could have transmitted the information orally. All I've said is that I don't think the Quran was revealed to Muhammbad. He probably orally transmitted his information and others wrote it down. Just like any other religious book.

i really cant understand how you end up calling Quran as just another religious book. im not trying to make you believe that its divine, but comparing Quran to the others is really not worth..

tell me this.. how many people are converting into Islam at the moment. Islam is the fastest growing religion on earth today. and y is that???

also, how many "holy" books have existed on earth till today?? and name me one which has never been changed or edited other than Quran..

The history speaks for itself..

[Antar]

For those who are interested to understand more about science and Qur'an refer to this http://www.islamanswers.net/science/phenomena.htm

[Dark Angel]

DA,
You said "Sorry, maybe it was Antar. I must have mixed both your comments up"

Since you are now not knowing what you have written and and are trying to put it on me, I'm beginning to realise what your arguments are based on.

It is better to challenge a Christian or a Jew who we can relate with their Bibles some of the verses that talks about the presence of prophets before Islam. But for the unbeliever like you, whatever we quote is irrelevant (as far as you are concerned) so I conclude that, we are just wasting our time.

Oh yes, because I am an unbeliever you can look down on me and sneer at me from your oh-so-mighty and oh-so-holy post, correct? What's sad is that you didn't read my arguments about where you can simply say that this is your faith. And that's all.

If this is your argument it's truly sad! I also noticed that you didn't answer any of my questions, but instead picked on something completely inconsequential! But that's ok, from what you have posted so far I can see that a logical train of thought really isn't your strong point! So we can end the argument. Not because I am an unbeliever, but because it is impossible to argue logically with you!

Alhamask, you say:

Dark Angel, even though you decline to broaden your CLAIM, let’s briefly look deeper into your CLAIM that Muhammad wrote the Quran, based on logic, historical evidence and textual analysis

And then you start quoting from the Quran. Can you please stop doing that? Your argument is flawed!

It also doesn't help that you're using appeal-to-authority arguments by quoting other experts. All they say is that "Wow Mohammed is great! He is awesome!"

Also, you don't seem to get my argument although I painstakingly explained it to you. My argument is about the divine source of the Quran. And I believe there is none. Whether Mohammed wrote it or didn't write it is irrelevant.

ALL your quotes and ALL your logic can be applied to Homer, a blind greek poet. This doesn't make Mohammad any greater than Homer. It also doesn't mean that he received word from God.

Seriously, I already gave you a way to end the argument. All you have to say is that this is what you believe in Faithwise, and that you understand there is nothing logical about it.

[Dark Angel]

I would also add; why would Muhammad (SAW) be interested to write a book that gives a history of Moses and Jesus more than himself whilst his religion has a different belief? Why would he be so interested to write a history of all prophets before him? Why is it that he was the only person able to write about embryology at that time? (Where were the others)

It's quite simple. It is to establish the legitimacy of the new faith by relating it with older, pre-existing faiths. If you understand anything about political science, you will understand this. Also, you do realize that Muhammad's/Quran's description of the embryo is COMPLETELY wrong? There is no clot of blood. There is no chewed lump of flesh. What he quoted is based on the scientific knowledge of that time. Honestly, why do you keep going back to this weak argument? I already told you about the muddy spring.

Your argument about using radar-based terrain mapping is the same as an argument about scanning a pregnant woman. So many a time, when pregnant women were trying to determine the sex of a child they were told different sex as compared to the child after birth. Equally, seismologists interpret readings after seismic survey and advices explorations to drill a well only to find out that no oil is available.

Haha. Your argument is completely weak and flawed! Here is why. You say that there is no way to know what is under a mountain. Let us assume for the moment that this is true. Then how do YOU know that the mountains are pegs? There is no way to prove your point either. But let's leave that aside, because almost everyone who has a basic science education knows what's underneath a mountain. It's basically more rock, followed by magma at the bottom. There is no "peg". Drilling for oil and looking at a pregnant woman has no bearing on what's under a mountain. There are many ways to see what's under a mountain. Radar is just one of them.

Nevertheless, to answer you argument about mounts being pegs, this is clearly explains on this link (if you will pay any attention) and let me say that this link is NOT a verse from Qur'an; http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_th...s_when_how_why

which is the world's leading Q & A site.

No it's not the world's "leading Q&A site". It's neither peer nor member-reviewed and that answer is completely WRONG. Please tell me, if mountains are pegs and are meant to stabilize the earth, how in the world do we still have earthquakes ALONG young-fold mountain ranges?

Oh, and why so silent about the Sun setting in a muddy spring? Couldn't find a Q&A site to answer that one for you?

For those who are interested to understand more about science and Qur'an refer to this http://www.islamanswers.net/science/phenomena.htm

Nice one. To say that there is science in the Quran, you are pointing to a pro-Islam site. Let me tell you. There is NO SCIENCE in the Quran. Especially no science in a book that says the Sun sets in a muddy springs. Or a book that says an embryo is formed from a clot of blood (NOTHING of the sort!). Or a book that says that mountains stabilize the earth (*gasp* we STILL have earthquakes and volcanoes! What about Haiti and Chile? I thought mountains were supposed to STOP earthquakes!)

really cant understand how you end up calling Quran as just another religious book. im not trying to make you believe that its divine, but comparing Quran to the others is really not worth..

tell me this.. how many people are converting into Islam at the moment. Islam is the fastest growing religion on earth today. and y is that???

also, how many "holy" books have existed on earth till today?? and name me one which has never been changed or edited other than Quran..

The history speaks for itself..

That's arrogant and pretentious. There are many holy books that exist until today. Also, the claim that the Quran is "unchanged" is not possible to prove since there exist no manuscripts from Mohammad's time. I'm not sure what history is speaking for itself. Christianity is the most populous religion in the world. Islam is second. Hinduism is third. I mean, places aside, who cares? I'm not even sure what history you are talking about.

[Alhamask]

Some claim that Muhammad wrote the Qur’an for some type of material gain or for power and glory. However, this claim is at odds with the historical evidence.
In fact, when one studies the history of Muhammad’s life, we find that he was actually materially more well off BEFORE claiming Prophethood than afterwards.


At twenty-five years old, Muhammad was married to the wealthy widow named Khadijah and lived a life of relative comfort. However, after his call to Prophethood, his standard of living declined dramatically, sometimes going two months without cooking anything, surviving only on dates and water, because of the extreme hardships that he and his family endured after proclaiming God’s message.
This would not be a temporary sacrifice, but a way of life for him until he died. At no time in his Prophethood did he ever live in a fancy palace, wear the finest clothes or enjoy the luxuries of this world. Even after the early Muslims became successful and started to make financial gains, Muhammad’s wives complained about their living conditions and wondered why they had to continue to live so poorly when there was (seemingly) no need.

A revelation then came from God stating:

O Prophet! Say to your wives: If you desire the life of this world, and its glitter, Then come! I will make a provision for you and set you free (i.e., divorce) in a handsome manner But if you desire Allah and His Messenger, and the home of the Hereafter, then verily, Allah has prepared for the good doers amongst you an enormous reward. (i.e., Heaven) [Qur’an 33:28-29]

One of Muhammad’s companions, describing his room said:

“I noticed that the contents of his room comprised of only three pieces of tanned skin and a handful of barley in a corner. I looked but failed to find anything else. I began to cry. He said: “Why are youweeping”? I replied, ‘O’ Prophet of Allah! Why should I not cry? I can see the patterns of the mat imprinted on your body and I am also beholding all that you have in this room. O’ Prophet of Allah! Pray that Allah may grant ample provisions for us. The Persians and the Romans, who have no true faith and who do not worship Allah but they worship their Kings, live in gardens with streams flowing in their midst. But the chosen Prophet and accepted slave of Allah should live in such dire poverty?!” The Prophet was resting against his pillow, but when he heard me talk like this, he sat up and said, ‘O’ Umar! Are you still in doubt about thismatter? Ease and comfort in the hereafter are much better than ease and comfort in thisworld. The disbelievers are enjoying their share of the good things in this world,whereas the Believers have all such things in store for them in the next’ “ (Muslim)

Muhammad died poor and his deprivation of this world was self-imposed.
The most significant refutation to this claim that Muhammad was seeking wealth and power is the following story when the Chiefs of Makkah came to him trying to get him to stop preaching his message:

“O’ Muhammad, You are, as you know a noble from your tribe and your lineage assures you a place of honour. And now you have brought to your people a matter of grave concern, whereby you have split their community, declared their way of life to be foolish, spoken shamefully of their gods and religion and called their forefathers disbelievers. Listen to what I propose and see if any of it is acceptable to you. If it is wealth that you seek, we will gather our wealth and make you the richest amongst us. If you seek honour, we will make you our overlord and we will make no decision without your consent. If you seek Kingship, then we will make you our King. And if you cannot get rid of this demon that appears to you, we will find you a physician and spend all our money until you are cured.” Life of the Prophet Muhammad, Ibn Hishaam

When he finished, Muhammad had received revelation which stated:

Haa Meem.
A revelation from Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
A Book whereof the Ayaat are explained in detail; A Qur'an in Arabic for people who know. Giving glad tidings and warning, but most of them turn away, so they don’t listen. And they say: "Our hearts are under coverings (screened) from that to which you invite us, and in our ears is deafness, and between us and you is a screen, so work you (on your way); verily, we are working (on our way). Say: "I am only a human being like you. It is inspired in me that your God is One, therefore take Straight Path to Him and obedience to Him, and seek forgiveness of Him. And woe to the polytheists. Those who give not the Zakât and they are disbelievers in the Hereafter. Truly, those who believe and do righteous good deeds, for them will be an endless reward that will never end [Qur’an 41:1-8]

So had his aim been wealth and power, then he could have easily achieved his goal without going through the hardship and poverty he went through up until his death.

[Alhamask]

Further, the CLAIM that Muhammad wrote the Quran for the purpose of uniting the Arabs is also difficult to defend when one looks into the life of Muhammad and his own statements against nationalism, tribalism etc.

Firstly, again, had this been his goal, he could have achieved it when the Chiefs of Makkah offered him wealth and riches in exchange for him agreeing to stop preaching.

Secondly, the concept of nationalism does not exist in Islam. Islam made the bond of faith & truth the most important basis for binding people together and not nationalism, tribe affiliation, race, or ethnicity. Muhammad himself spoke out on numerous occasions against this type of ideology stating:

"Let people stop boasting about their forefathers who have died, who are merely fuel for the Hell Fire; or they will certainly be more insignificant with Allah than the beetle which rolls dung with its nose. Allah has removed from you the partisanship of the days of jaahiliyyah (refers to the Pre-Islamic days) and the boasting about one's forefathers. Indeed a person is either a pious Believer or a wretched sinner. All of mankind are the children of Adam, and Adam was created from clay. [Related by Abu Dawood and at->>
Tirmithi]

Muhammad also said: "Indeed there is no excellence for an Arab over a Non-Arab, nor a Non-Arab over an Arab, nor a white person over a black one, nor a black person over a white one, except through piety.” [Related by Ahmad]

The Qur’an is filled with the same message. One example of this is in the following Aya:

"O’ mankind, we have created you from male and female and have made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Indeed the most noblest of you with Allah is the one who has the most piety." [Surah al-Hujuraat 49:13]

The examples from both the Qur’an and the statements of Muhammad are too numerous to mention them all but this should suffice to make the point. Regardless of one’s colour, nationality, or tribe, anyone who believes in the Islamic message is part of the brotherhood. With the above being the case, the logical question beckons that had this been written by Muhammad as these people allege for the purpose of uniting the Arabs, then why would he have put the exact opposite message in this book? Indeed, from the story we quoted above, we can see that this Islamic message actually divided the Arabs into two distinct groups: Muslims and non-Muslim. Muhammad also had companions that were from different tribes and were other than Arab!

[Dark Angel]

Alhamask,

That line of argument is pointless. I never claimed that Muhammad wrote it/created it/whatever for personal gain. The argument is about the supposed divine-origin of the Quran. He could have created it/written it/whatever with the intent to build a better society. His motive is not on trial here.

[Alhamask]

I would also add; why would Muhammad (SAW) be interested to write a book that gives a history of Moses and Jesus more than himself whilst his religion has a different belief? Why would he be so interested to write a history of all prophets before him?.

He could have created it/written it/whatever with the intent to build a better society.

Actually, these are excellent points to use in understanding why the Quran is the Word of God and not Muhammad's personal whim! I will add them to the list of CLAIMS in post no.60 and we will examine them one by one.

[Alhamask]

Other people who reject the Prophethood of Muhammad agree because of the historical evidence of Muhammad’s impeccable character and truthfulness that he would not have deliberately fabricated the Qur’an and his Prophethood, so they allege for some reason that he either had epilepsy or was delusional and actually believed that he was a Prophet.

Firstly, again keeping in mind that Muhammad is perhaps history’s most well documented man, there is absolutely no evidence from his life to support this claim, and all evidence suggests that Muhammad lived a normal and sane life all the way up to his death at about the age of sixty (60). However in spite of that, we will nonetheless demonstrate that this claim is false and malicious.

Secondly, even some Orientalists (non-Muslims who have achieved considerable status as authorities on Islam) have rejected these claims of epilepsy as false and ridiculous. Daniel commenting on the claim of epilepsy said:

“…epilepsy as applied to the Prophet was the explanation of those who sought to amuse rather than to instruct” Khalifa, Mohammad The Sublime Qu’ran and Orientalism p. 13.

John Davenport said,

"This remark that Muhammad has suffered the attacks of epilepsy is one of the false, awkward sayings of the Greeks by which they meant to stain the prestige of the propagator of a new religion, and turn the world of Christianity against his moral behaviour and qualities." Udhri Taqsir, p.20.

There are various types of epilepsy, the main ones being grand mal, petit mal and psychomotor.

Grand Mal includes generalized convulsions in which there is sudden unconsciousness with falling and shaking of the limbs. Sometimes the person screams just before the seizure and it is followed by stiffening and halted respiration. Next come jerky moves and one can bite one’s tongue and the person experiences a headache. Afterwards, they have no recollection of what happened. When Muhammad received revelation, it wasdescribed like the ringing of a bell, while other times the Angel Gabriel came to him inthe form of a man and delivered the message directly. When one compares grand malto the description of Muhammad receivingrevelation, it is obvious that he did not suffer from grand mal.

Petit Mal involves momentary lapses of awareness and more than seventy percent(70%) of patients have their first attack before the age of twenty. It involves noinvoluntary movements and can happen several times in a day without interruption ofconsciousness. This too, is in opposition to the description of Muhammad’s receiving revelation.

Firstly, Muhammad was around forty (40) years old when he began to receive revelation. And each time he received revelation, it was for several minutes – not moments.

Psychomotor seizures involve convulsions. They last only a few seconds are accompanied with screams and mumbles which do not make words and sentences, much less entire chapters of a book which are not only completely understandable, but of the highest eloquence.

Epilepsy takes control of one’s thoughts during seizures, yet Muhammad was in complete control during the revelation and was able to recall the event in detail, unlike one who would have an epileptic seizure. Beyond the above facts, one must ask:

*How could Muhammad unconsciously know about previous nations?
*How could he unconsciously answer questions people asked him and be so correct? No one ever stood up to claim that they too are familiar with these stories.

*How could he know about future events which would later come to pass? *How could he have known that the Persians and Romans would go to war and who would win the war years in advance?

Therefore when the facts are examined, the epileptic seizures theories can not only be easily ruled out as absurd but we can only conclude that this claim is made out of outright maliciousness because the evidence is overwhelmingly against them. Norman Daniel commenting on the slanders made against Muhammad said:

"All writers (referring to Western Writers) tended - more or less - to cling to fantastic tales about Islam and its Prophet... The use of false evidence to attack Islam was all but universal." Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, One world Publications 1993, p.267.

Daniel also goes on to explain: "At the worst there was the assertion of the fantastic, and its repetition without discrimination; at the best there was the selection of only those facts that served the purpose of controversy." ibid, p.268.

Nonetheless, material gain; desire for power; desire to unify the Arabs and ever having had epilepsy are all easily ruled out when any unbiased reader looks into the life of Muhammad.

[Dark Angel]

Alhamask,

Why are you cutting and pasting? You're simply posting other people's quotes. I'm not even sure what your argument is.

Why are we fixating on Muhammad. I already said that we are not arguing about his motives. So that is irrelevant. Regardless of whether he wanted to genuinely teach people a better way to live or whether he wanted to get more power, we are talking about the source of the Quran.

So motives aside, I am talking about what he could have done.

[Alhamask]

we are talking about the source of the Quran.

You are absolutely correct and that's exactly what I'm doing.

[Alhamask]

.......But historically it's easily proved that the Quran appropriated material from various sources (mostly semitic sources like the Torah and the New Testament, which ultimately [some parts] derive from Babylonian myths).

http://www.omanforum.com/forums/show...t=28768&page=4


Some people claim that Muhammad did not write the Qur’an, but actually either copied it from other sources or learned it from someone else. Let us examine these claims briefly.

Amongst those who claim that Muhammad did not write the Qur’an but got it from other sources are those who claim that he simply copied either the Apocrypha (Some of the scriptures not included in the canon from the Council of Nicea in 325 CE that became known as the Bible, and later the “Catholic Version” of the Bible) and/or the Bible itself.

The first problem with this argument is that Muhammad as we mentioned earlier was illiterate and could not copy what he could not read. Please keep in mind what we stated earlier about Muhammad’s well known impeccable character and the fact that it was known that he was illiterate and that there is also no record of the pagan Arabs in Makka accusing Muhammad of not being illiterate. Had he not been illiterate, as the Qur’an itself stated, would this have not been easy to prove during Muhammad’s lifetime by his enemies who were eager to discredit him? This fact alone shows that it was common knowledge during his lifetime that he was indeed illiterate and no one questioned this.

Secondly, even if one were to assume, for argument’s sake, that he could read, then the first Arabic translation of what is known as the “Old Testament” was not produced until some two hundred (200) years after Muhammad’s death and the first Arabic translation of the “New Testament” did not appear until one thousand years after his death and the first Arabic translation of the “New Testament” did not appear until one thousand years after his death.

Sidney Griffith, after extensive study, concludes that:

All one can say about the possibility of a pre-Islamic, Christian version of the Gospel in Arabic is that no sure sign of its actual existence has yet emerged. "The Gospel In Arabic: An Enquiry Into Its Appearance In The First Abbasid Century", Oriens Christianus,Volume 69, p. 166.

Ernst Würthwein states in his book The Text Of The Old Testament that:

With the victory of Islam the use of Arabic spread widely, and for Jews and Christians in the conquered lands it became the language of daily life. This gave rise to the need of Arabic versions of the Bible, which need was met by a number of versions mainly independent and concerned primarily for interpretation The Text Of The Old Testament, 1988, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids,Michigan, pp. 104.

So it is clear that no Arabic translations of the Bible or the Apocrypha existed during the lifetime of Muhammad.

Thirdly, the historical evidence suggests that there was no Christian or Jewish influence in the Hijaz (Inner part of the Arabian Peninsula) and particularly in Makkah where Muhammad was born and raised. Before the birth of Muhammad the Hijaz was for the most part ignored by the major empires of that time (The Persian and Roman) and left isolated with the exception of the time of when the Ethiopian King Abraha briefly tried and failed to conquer Makkah during the year Muhammad was born.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states concerning the time of the Muhammad that:

The Hijaz [Arabian Peninsula] had not been touched by Christian preaching. Henceorganization of the Christian church was neither to be expected nor found New Catholic Encyclopedia, Op.Cit, Vol. 1, pp. 721-722.

There is a wealth of historical evidence to show similar evidence that there was no Christian influence in the Hijaz where Muhammad lived, so we must ask ourselves who then would have taught him the Bible and/or the apocrypha (which were not even in Arabic) for him to later take from these sources, that he would have had to memorize, to later write the Qur’an?

The Hijaz was so isolated that four men from amongst the Makkans who were searching for the true religion of Abraham had to leave Makkah in search of it. Waraqa Ibn Nawfal, was amongst them and returned as a Christian (I’ll tell you more about him later).

Fourthly, the Qur’an itself answers these claims that someone was teaching Muhammad and at the same time points to the fact that the Arabic used in the Qur’an is pure.

And indeed We know that they (The Disbelievers) say: "It is only a human being who teaches him (Muhammad Peace and Blessings be upon him)." The tongue of the man they refer to is foreign, while this (the Qur'an) is a clear Arabic tongue. [Qur'an 16:103]

The Qur’an also says referring to Muhammad:

Neither did you read any book before it (the Qur'an), nor did you write any book with your hand. In that case, indeed, the followers of falsehood might have doubted [Qur'an 29:48]

This argument was answered over one thousand four hundred years ago, by the Qur’an itself, yet these critics are still unable to provide any new evidence for their erroneous claims.

[Dark Angel]

Alhamask,

Here are my problems with this theory:

The first problem with this argument is that Muhammad as we mentioned earlier was illiterate and could not copy what he could not read

Has it been proven conclusively that he is illiterate? Even if he were illiterate, it does not preclude him either using someone else, or memorizing what he heard from other sources and providing this information orally (I have already mentioned this). I also provided the example of the Greek poet Homer, who could neither read nor write. Yet, he composed the Illiad and the Odyssey, both of which are amazing works of literature. Therefore it is not inconceivable that Mohammad had the same ability.

Had he not been illiterate, as the Qur’an itself stated, would this have not been easy to prove during Muhammad’s lifetime by his enemies who were eager to discredit him? This fact alone shows that it was common knowledge during his lifetime that he was indeed illiterate and no one questioned this.

Not necessarily. Muhammad was a businessman. Was he not? It seems highly improbable that a businessman could not read or write. Furthermore, reading and writing was well-known within the Arabs of that period. Therefore this is a rather moot point (see above).

Secondly, even if one were to assume, for argument’s sake, that he could read, then the first Arabic translation of what is known as the “Old Testament” was not produced until some two hundred (200) years after Muhammad’s death and the first Arabic translation of the “New Testament” did not appear until one thousand years after his death and the first Arabic translation of the “New Testament” did not appear until one thousand years after his death.

[/FONT]Irrelevant. Oral transmission is still a possible factor. Furthemore, you are talking about canonical Christian texts. This does not take into account the apocryphal texts of supposedly heretical christian sects. The Old Testament or Torah had written records even before Mohammad. So I'm not sure where that argument comes from. There hare old-testament manuscripts that date from 150 BC.

Sidney Griffith, after extensive study, concludes that:

All one can say about the possibility of a pre-Islamic, Christian version of the Gospel in Arabic is that no sure sign of its actual existence has yet emerged. "The Gospel In Arabic: An Enquiry Into Its Appearance In The First Abbasid Century", Oriens Christianus,Volume 69, p. 166.

Once again, an irrelevant and incomplete argument. Doesn't take into account christian apocrypha and early jewish texts.

Thirdly, the historical evidence suggests that there was no Christian or Jewish influence in the Hijaz (Inner part of the Arabian Peninsula) and particularly in Makkah where Muhammad was born and raised. Before the birth of Muhammad the Hijaz was for the most part ignored by the major empires of that time (The Persian and Roman) and left isolated with the exception of the time of when the Ethiopian King Abraha briefly tried and failed to conquer Makkah during the year Muhammad was born.

There were Jewish tribes in the Arabian peninsula. For example, Banu Qurayza. You cannot rule out influence from them. A businessman like Muhammad would have been in contact with a large number of people. Your other points regarding christian influence are moot (see my earlier points).

Fourthly, the Qur’an itself answers these claims that someone was teaching Muhammad and at the same time points to the fact that the Arabic used in the Qur’an is pure.

Circular reasoning. Why do you keep bringing this up?

[Alhamask]

Even if he were illiterate, it does not preclude him either using someone else, or memorizing what he heard from other sources and providing this information orally (I have already mentioned this).

From amongst those who argue that Muhammad got the Qur’an from some other source allege that he was taught by another person.
Some of them specifically allege that he was taught by Waraqa Ibn Nawfal who, as we mentioned earlier, was one of the four men who left the pagan faith of Makkah in search for the true religion of Abraham and returned as a Christian.

The Islamic belief states that the true religion of all of the Prophets including that of Abraham and Jesus was Islam. By “Islam”, we mean submission to God’s will. Pure Monotheism!

By “Christian” (in the case of those like Waraqa Ibn Nawfal and Salman the Persian) we mean that he was a person who was following to the best of his ability the true Islamic teachings of Jesus which was in line with the teachings of all the other Prophets and expecting the last Prophet. This is what is meant by the religion of Abraham that they were in search of.

This is the religion that Waraqa Ibn Nawfal was looking for and apparently found because when Muhammad was seeking an explanation of what he had seen after his first revelation Waraqa told him:

"This is the same one who keeps the secrets (angel Gabriel) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out." Allah's Messenger asked, "Will they driveme out?" Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, "Anyone who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly." But after a few days Waraqa died. [Sahih al-Bukhari]

While it is clear in the passage above that Waraqa died just a few days after.
Muhammad first received revelation from the Angel Gabriel, it was also clear that Waraqa Ibn Nawfal believed in his Prophethood.

So the claim that Waraqa taught the Qur’an to Muhammad simply holds no water. Others try to allege that Salman the Persian taught the Qur’an to Muhammad. Salman, who was from Persia, was a Zoroastrian who converted to Christianity and ventured to Syria to learn more about his religion. There, he learned from one of the Christian Bishops about the coming of the last Prophet and the signs accompanying his advent. He then travelled to Hijaz where he was seized, sold into slavery, and taken to Madinah, where he eventually met Muhammad.

When he found in Muhammad the fulfilment of all the signs of which he had been informed, he became a Muslim.

In Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, we find the following account of Salman's journey in search of the true religion and the coming Prophet:

"`Asim ibn `Umar ibn Qatada said that he was told that Salman the Persian told the Prophet (Peace and Blessings be upon him) that his master in 'Ammuriya told him to go to a certain place in Syria where there was a man who lived between two thickets. Every year as he used to go from one to the other, the sick used to stand in his way and everyone he prayed for was healed. He said, 'Ask him about this religion which you seek, for he can tell you of it.'

So I went on until I came to the place I had been told of, and I found that people had gathered there with their sick until he came out to them that night passing from one thicket to the other. The people came to him with their sick and everyone he prayed for was healed. They prevented me from getting to him so that I could not approach him until he entered the thicket he was making for, but I took hold of his shoulder. He asked me who I was as he turned to me and I said, 'God have mercy on you, tell me about the Hanifiyyah, (the religion of Abraham).' He replied, 'You are asking about something men do not inquire of today; the time has come near when a prophet will be sent with this religion from the people of the haram (i.e. the hijaz). Go to him, for he will bring you to it.' Then he went into the thicket.

So, as we can see, had Muhammad been an impostor as the people who make this claim against him imply, then Salman would not have accepted his Prophethood, much less participated in the writing of the Qur’an with him.

Secondly, Salman did not meet Muhammad until after the migration to Madinah and hence AFTER more than two -thirds of the Qur’an (which includes the stories of the Prophets mentioned in the Bible) had already been revealed In Makkah.

Thirdly, Salman was a Persian and his original tongue was not Arabic. The Qur’an’s literary style is so brilliant and awe-inspiring that even Linguists who were born speaking the Arabic language have not been successful at replicating it (despite repeated challenges from the Qur’an itself) much less a Persian who’s mother tongue was not Arabic. Even if someone wanted to claim that it was someone other than the people mentioned above, then we repeat the challenge of the Qur’an:

…Say: "Bring your proof if you are truthful." [Qur’an 2:111]

As for anyone other than that, then we ask would there not be some evidence that someone was teaching Muhammad? Would not someone have stepped forward to say that he was Muhammad’s “teacher”? Yet, we find no such evidence of this. How many years today since Muhammad lived? Lol...

[Dark Angel]

Good lord.

Why don't you understand? Cutting and pasting and posting from Islamic commentaries IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOUR POINT. Everything you're quoting is hear-say and either from commentaries or the Quran. There is no definitive proof.

That's why I say it's a matter of faith and not logically proven. Somehow you can't seem to understand that.

[Alhamask]

There is no definitive proof.

Proof! Can you tell us, at least by example, what kind of ''definitive proof'' is needed to support our claim that the Quran is the Word of God?

That's why I say it's a matter of faith and not logically proven.

Again, could you explain to us, the ''logical proof'' you are talking about to support our claim. An example would be helpful!

[sysexpert]

Good lord.

Why don't you understand? Cutting and pasting and posting from Islamic commentaries IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOUR POINT. Everything you're quoting is hear-say and either from commentaries or the Quran. There is no definitive proof.

That's why I say it's a matter of faith and not logically proven. Somehow you can't seem to understand that.

DA,

May I know what can be that definite proof to be ? can you relate it with any example of that time which you beleif ( I mentioned from that time not any current )

And second one more thing are you worried from your beleif?

[Antar]

Alhamask and sysexpert,

Why waste your anergy trying to convince an unbeliever who does not believe in any verse from the Qur'an, any quote from Islamic site, any hadith? He expects you do justify Islam through science or VERDA? (I don't know if this is the right name for a Hindu book). What a foolish argument. I have penned off due to this.

[sysexpert]

Alhamask and sysexpert,

Why waste your anergy trying to convince an unbeliever who does not believe in any verse from the Qur'an, any quote from Islamic site, any hadith? He expects you do justify Islam through science or VERDA? (I don't know if this is the right name for a Hindu book). What a foolish argument. I have penned off due to this.

Agreed antar , but i want DA to let us know if he is worried from his own religion thats why he is always a pointing Muslims and their belives.