Islam's Incorruptible Qur'an Is Corrupt

1. When Ali Bin Abi Talib (RA) became a caliph "why did he remianed silent / why he didn't take any action instead simply followed the Uthman (RA) compilation - Ali (RA) was the caliph - He would have ordered like Uthman (RA) to follow his compilation. Why?

2. You mentioned that "Aramaic" is the language of Quran. But in the Quran several places claims that Quran sen t down in Arabic Language (12:2, 13:37, 20:113, 39:28, 41:3, 42:7, 43:3, 46:12) Allah says clearly and boldly that it has been revealed arabic language.

3. Ofcourse Prophet (SAS) taught those seven dialect to different tribes then why they don't have troubles like Makkans' had.
If one shahabi or few shahabi among numerous had objection then it's not subjected when Prophet (SAS) taught anything not all shahabas with him. I mean to say that other shahabas not updated at time Prophet (SAS).

May Allah Grant His Mercy to you. Turn to Him.

I believe in Allah And His Final Messenger Muhammad (SAS).

vivera
1. When Ali Bin Abi Talib (RA) became a caliph "why did he remianed silent / why he didn't take any action instead simply followed the Uthman (RA) compilation - Ali (RA) was the caliph - He would have ordered like Uthman (RA) to follow his compilation. Why?

2. You mentioned that "Aramaic" is the language of Quran. But in the Quran several places claims that Quran sen t down in Arabic Language (12:2, 13:37, 20:113, 39:28, 41:3, 42:7, 43:3, 46:12) Allah says clearly and boldly that it has been revealed arabic language.

3. Ofcourse Prophet (SAS) taught those seven dialect to different tribes then why they don't have troubles like Makkans' had.
If one shahabi or few shahabi among numerous had objection then it's not subjected when Prophet (SAS) taught anything not all shahabas with him. I mean to say that other shahabas not updated at time Prophet (SAS).

May Allah Grant His Mercy to you. Turn to Him.

I believe in Allah And His Final Messenger Muhammad (SAS).

So let me get this straight your proof of this is allah said so? Well trying to prove the Quran by siting the Quran isnt really proof at all is it? I see the same thing we people try to defend the bible as the word of god. Historically there was a lot of discourse over the Quran. In fact wars are still being fought over it you have shia and sunni who cant agree on what the Quran says. And you think magically none of this occurred in the time of Muhammad?

reply to post by dragonridr

The statement that the Quran was written in aramaic can quite easily be disproved by reading the Quran. It isn't in Aramaic. But yeah, if someone argues that the Quran was originally in aramaic, and the Quran itself says that it is in Arabic, I'm pretty sure that counts as proof, or at leaast pretty strong evidence.

Also, just a note: No wars are being fought (or to my knowledge have ever been fought) between sunnis or shias over what the Quran says. They've fought (and still fight, unfortunately), over the issue of succession (and sometimes because one side oppresses the other in different parts of the world- sorta like what happened with Protestants and Catholics in Ireland).

Still, I've got to thank vivera for resurrecting this thread. I had been wondering where Sahabi got to after I pointed out that something was fundamentally broken in his initial argument. At first I thought he might be on Christmas holiday, then I thought perhaps he was in one of the portions of North America that had been suffering from snowstorms and such, but he's not been on since the 21st of December.

This is PARTICULARLY amusing considering so many people went on about how Sahabi had definitively disproven islam or the Quran or something. I may end up with egg on my face, with Sahabi returning tomorrow with "Aha! You were wrong!", but it'd be worth it if he does . Otherwise, I hope he's okay and just doesn't have anything to say.

Very interesting thread! I came across it having just read a brand-new book by perhaps the most preeminent expert on early Qur'anic manuscripts, Francois Deroche. You can read about it here. It discusses both the lower Sanaa palimpsest (arguably the earliest Qur'anic manuscript, and one which differs markedly from what we call the Qur'an today), and the earliest manuscript compatible with the standardized Uthmanic text (albeit with certain variations, unconventional verse separations/orderings, etc.). Only slowly was the Qur'anic script revised and developed to a degree that permitted centralized standardization.

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393552139&sr=8-1&keywords=qurans+of+the+umayyads< br />
In particular, Professor Deroche finds that the Qur'an was not invariant, but rather that there were "plural written traditions" of the Qur'an that continued from the beginning and well into the 8th Century. Tons of variations, most dramatically exemplified by the non-Uthmanic Sanaa palimpsest. If you are at all interested in the earliest Qur'ans, the new book is a must-have.

As to a few comments others have made -- regarding the Qur'an's intensive use of Aramaic terms, it's hard to see how that could be controversial given that it was admitted by al-Tabari and all other great early Islamic scholars. Almost all of the Qur'an's religious terminology (including the name "Qur'an" itself) is taken from Syriac (an Aramaic variant). This linguistic fact, striking as it shows the Qur'an's relation to Syriac Christian sources, is not remotely controversial in modern scholarly circles. Indeed, the Arabic script itself was taken ... from Aramaic.

en.wikipedia.org...

It's true the Qur'an insists several times that it is written in Arabic, which leads one to ask ... in Allah's name why? What other book in ancient history ever feels compelled to insist that it is written in a particular language? Shouldn't that be obvious enough from the book itself, such that Allah doesn't need to repeatedly assert it? You will not find the Gospels declaring "oh, btw, this book is written in Greek." Nor does the Old Testament feel compelled to say "Oh, btw, this is written in Hebrew." It's absolutely bizarre that the Qur'an tries to establish this point. It's also bizarre that the Qur'an repeatedly declares that it is "mubeen," meaning "clear," when it's patently unclear, and when other Qur'anic verses explicitly say that parts of it are ambiguous. Simply put, the reason the Qur'an argues that it is written in Arabic (via later redaction IMO) is because it certainly wasn't -- based on the earliest manuscripts -- entirely clear what its language was. Parts were plainly Arabic of a sort (in itself a major debate, and a complex issue even if you follow the traditional Muslim account), but certain parts appear to be butchered Syriac (both in terminology and in grammar; read as Arabic, the grammar in parts is horribly botched and confused, while read as Syriac it makes perfect sense). The basic rasm can be "read" innumerable different ways, such that you can't simply say the rasm is or isn't one or the other. Again, much of the vocabulary consists of non-Arabic terms that were borrowed from other languages, and much of the vocabulary remains almost incomprehensible to this day -- generating endless disputes in the Muslim literature about what it means. Most modern Muslims, proceeding from a standard edition with diacritics that were formalized over centuries, and resorting to standardized glossaries, are not aware of this because they aren't aware of the early history of the Qur'an. Interestingly, most Muslims appear to be unaware that the "inerrancy" of the Qur'an was itself a long debate that took centuries to resolve to the later consensus; many early Muslims treated the idea as ridiculous, and there are numerous hadith that controvert it.

Also of note is the almost complete absence of any Qur'anic inscriptions (on buildings, coins, graves, etc.) until the Dome of the Rock, 691 AD. There are tons of Arabic inscriptions and coins, of course; references to Allah, the generic word for God that Arab Christians used at the time (and still use to this day). But nobody mentions or quotes the Qur'an in them. Nor do they mention Mohammed until you get to caliph Abd al Malik, who took over in 685 AD. Judging by the extant manuscripts and inscriptions we have, the Arabs' neighbors and the citizens in Arab lands do not seem to have heard anything about a "Qur'an," and not much more about an Arabian prophet. Until Abd al Malik, the Qur'an (or more accurately, proto-Qur'an) seems to have been an incredibly obscure text, and none of the people in the region seem to have understood there to be a separate "Muslim" religion with its own holy book. Moreover, even the traditional Muslim account argues that Uthman attempted to collate written editions of the Qur'an because everybody was reciting it differently, which again makes one wonder how anybody could have ever believed in either the primacy or the inerrancy of an alleged primary oral tradition ... an oral tradition which somehow never made its way into the historical record ... and an oral tradition which failed to prevent the Qur'an from being chock full of vocabulary that early Arab scholars found incomprehensible.

Islam's emergence, and the steady collapse of so many features of the traditional Muslim account of that emergence, is an endlessly fascinating subject. I highly recommend that anybody interested in the subject pick up some textbooks and start reading.

reply to post by Fromabove


Good insight. If I am not mistaken didn't Muhhammed marry a nine year old girl? The he waited until she was 12 before he had sex with her? That does not sound like a prophet of God to me. To me it sounds like a Paedophile.

Jesuslives4u
reply to post by Fromabove

 

Good insight. If I am not mistaken didn't Muhhammed marry a nine year old girl? The he waited until she was 12 before he had sex with her? That does not sound like a prophet of God to me. To me it sounds like a Paedophile.

Would you care to show me where in the bible (or the Qur'an) it says that pedophilia is a sin? If it's not a sin, I don't see a valid justification for it being a reason why someone shouldn't be a prophet of god.

ps.: I don't agree with pedophilia. I must stress this given the nature of my post.

Krazysh0t

Jesuslives4u
reply to post by Fromabove

 

Good insight. If I am not mistaken didn't Muhhammed marry a nine year old girl? The he waited until she was 12 before he had sex with her? That does not sound like a prophet of God to me. To me it sounds like a Paedophile.

Would you care to show me where in the bible (or the Qur'an) it says that pedophilia is a sin? If it's not a sin, I don't see a valid justification for it being a reason why someone shouldn't be a prophet of god.

ps.: I don't agree with pedophilia. I must stress this given the nature of my post.

Do you think pedophilia is OK? I think you do. Do you or anyone you know practice this rite?

reply to post by Jesuslives4u


Don't deflect my question (plus I already answered that question). Answer it. My position on pedophilia has nothing to do with sainthood or prophethood, so knowing it is irrelevant anyways.

ETA: I saw your edit, don't make assumptions about someone based on a question that was asked. I'm not attacking you, so don't attack me with grave accusations.

Jesuslives4u

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Jesuslives4u

 

Don't deflect my question (plus I already answered that question). Answer it. My position on pedophilia has nothing to do with sainthood or prophethood, so knowing it is irrelevant anyways.

ETA: I saw your edit, don't make assumptions about someone based on a question that was asked. I'm not attacking you, so don't attack me with grave accusations.

edit on 24-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

Pedophilia is against the law if you or any of your family practices this sick rite I advise you to stop immediately otherwise you face incarceration.

Point out where I suggested anything of the sort. All I did was ask you a simple (impersonal) question and request, why are you asking about my and my family's personal life? You made a statement, and I'm asking you to back it up with proof that it is true. Why is that so hard? Stop with the ad hominems and just answer the question. Or are you avoiding answering because you know there isn't a passage in the bible that condemns pedophilia?

Krazysh0t

Jesuslives4u

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Jesuslives4u

 

Don't deflect my question (plus I already answered that question). Answer it. My position on pedophilia has nothing to do with sainthood or prophethood, so knowing it is irrelevant anyways.

ETA: I saw your edit, don't make assumptions about someone based on a question that was asked. I'm not attacking you, so don't attack me with grave accusations.

edit on 24-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

Pedophilia is against the law if you or any of your family practices this sick rite I advise you to stop immediately otherwise you face incarceration.

Point out where I suggested anything of the sort. All I did was ask you a simple (impersonal) question and request, why are you asking about my and my family's personal life? You made a statement, and I'm asking you to back it up with proof that it is true. Why is that so hard? Stop with the ad hominems and just answer the question. Or are you avoiding answering because you know there isn't a passage in the bible that condemns pedophilia?

edit on 24-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

BUT you do NOT condone it. The way you speak of this "sick act" as if acceptable then or now is my issue with you.

Jesuslives4u

Krazysh0t

Jesuslives4u

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Jesuslives4u

 

Don't deflect my question (plus I already answered that question). Answer it. My position on pedophilia has nothing to do with sainthood or prophethood, so knowing it is irrelevant anyways.

ETA: I saw your edit, don't make assumptions about someone based on a question that was asked. I'm not attacking you, so don't attack me with grave accusations.

edit on 24-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

Pedophilia is against the law if you or any of your family practices this sick rite I advise you to stop immediately otherwise you face incarceration.

Point out where I suggested anything of the sort. All I did was ask you a simple (impersonal) question and request, why are you asking about my and my family's personal life? You made a statement, and I'm asking you to back it up with proof that it is true. Why is that so hard? Stop with the ad hominems and just answer the question. Or are you avoiding answering because you know there isn't a passage in the bible that condemns pedophilia?

edit on 24-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

BUT you do NOT condone it. The way you speak of this "sick act" as if acceptable then or now is my issue with you.

You are reading too far into my words. I never condoned anything. I just saw you make a statement and asked where you got the information from that says that pedophilia is a sin. That is ALL I did. I even put a ps at the bottom of the post for people like you who were going to read too far into what I said and try to interpret things about me that I never said.

By the way, you ARE aware that Joseph was in his 30's when he married a then 16 Mary right? You know the couple that birthed and raised Jesus? (ETA: just checked sources, it was younger. Mary started living with Joseph at age 12 and married him at 14 and a half)

I don't care about acceptability of the law. I KNOW that it is illegal, I'm fine with that. I am asking where the bible condemns this practice. Something being illegal doesn't make it a sin.

Krazysh0t

Jesuslives4u

Krazysh0t

Jesuslives4u

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Jesuslives4u

 

Don't deflect my question (plus I already answered that question). Answer it. My position on pedophilia has nothing to do with sainthood or prophethood, so knowing it is irrelevant anyways.

ETA: I saw your edit, don't make assumptions about someone based on a question that was asked. I'm not attacking you, so don't attack me with grave accusations.

edit on 24-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

Pedophilia is against the law if you or any of your family practices this sick rite I advise you to stop immediately otherwise you face incarceration.

Point out where I suggested anything of the sort. All I did was ask you a simple (impersonal) question and request, why are you asking about my and my family's personal life? You made a statement, and I'm asking you to back it up with proof that it is true. Why is that so hard? Stop with the ad hominems and just answer the question. Or are you avoiding answering because you know there isn't a passage in the bible that condemns pedophilia?

edit on 24-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

BUT you do NOT condone it. The way you speak of this "sick act" as if acceptable then or now is my issue with you.

You are reading too far into my words. I never condoned anything. I just saw you make a statement and asked where you got the information from that says that pedophilia is a sin. That is ALL I did. I even put a ps at the bottom of the post for people like you who were going to read too far into what I said and try to interpret things about me that I never said.

By the way, you ARE aware that Joseph was in his 30's when he married a then 16 Mary right? You know the couple that birthed and raised Jesus? (ETA: just checked sources, it was younger. Mary started living with Joseph at age 12 and married him at 14 and a half)

I don't care about acceptability of the law. I KNOW that it is illegal, I'm fine with that. I am asking where the bible condemns this practice. Something being illegal doesn't make it a sin.

edit on 24-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

The common age of marriage was actually 13 in jewish tradition in fact thats when a girl becomes a woman still today in Judaism. However according to the bible she was allready on her own which means she would have been at least 13. It was common for a man like Joseph whos wife had died to take on a maiden to help raise his kids when Marry became pregnant his options were limited he either married her or evicted her so to speak.By the way its commonly thought Joseph was in his 30s having children himself. By 40s most Jewish males were done raising kids since it was common to start having kids around 16.

a reply to: Zaotar Thank you for your post .Seems the more the questions are asked the more it becomes clear that the Quran fails in so many ways .It is interesting about it having to state what language it is .Or like my kids used to say "well dah" ....peace

Congrats sahabi on the 100 Flags for your thread and the 59 stars on the first page .Thanks also to many members that have commented on this post ...it's all good :>)

Don't know how I missed this most excellent thread when it was first presented but I've spent hours reading it trying to catch up. Looks like I have hours more to devote to looking up the links.
I do have a few questions.

Ishaq: 510 refers to "oh Allah, Lord of the Devils." Is this an admission that there is a doctrine of devils promoted in the Koran?

Ishaq: 691 admits to leaving out "matters (of Mohammed's biography) which are disgraceful to discuss....and such reports of Al Bakkai told me he could not accept as trustworthy-all of these I have omitted." Doesn't that contradict Sura 10:64, Sura 18:27, and Sura 16:101 regarding the infallibility or unacceptability of abrogations?

Ishaq: 166 seems to be saying that Mohammed is apologizing for Satan having cast words into his recitation as he had interjected them onto Mohammed's tongue and into his desires.

Tabari VI:110 states When Muhammad brought a revelation from Allah cancelling what Satan had cast on the tongue of His Prophet, the Quraysh said, 'Muhammad has repented of what he said (reneged on his agreement) concerning the positions of our gods with Allah.

Bukhari V6B0N475 has some women coming to Muhammad when he was sick and expressing concern that "your Satan has forsaken you, for I have not seen him with you for two or three nights!" Muhammad vehemently denies the allegation.

Any explanation of these seeming satanic sources of inspiration for the "divinely" revealed word to Muhammad? Is Gabriel referred to as angel, a djinn, a man or what?

a reply to: whitewave
Hey whitewave!

You seem to be a bit mixed up about islamic scripture, so I hope you don't mind if I explain a bit to you. There is always such you have to worry about when you paste from Islamic hate sites without knowing what the contents are.
For example, if I asked you what "Ishaq:510" was or what "Tabari VI:10" was or what "Bukhari V6B0N475" was, I get the feeling you would have no idea, and have no way of referencing me back to where these quotes would be in the source books.

You mention "Sura 10:64", "Sura 18:27" and so on in your post, so let's tackle that first. Something being written like that (or Surah or Surat) generally means it is talking about the Quran, which is divided into Surahs (you could call them chapters in english). So "Sura 10:64" would mean Surah 10 verse 64 of the Quran.
Muslims believe that the Quran is God's word verbatim (in contrast to, for example, christians, who say that the Bible is written by men, but inspired by God, or "God-breathed").
This entire thread deals only with the incorruptibility of the Quran, and not any of the following books.

You also mention "Bukhari V6B0N475", so we'll tackle that next. Sahih Bukhari, combined with other collections such as Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud (all referring to the names of the collectors) and so on, make up the Hadith, i.e. collections of sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, collected after his death through the narrations of his followers (and their followers). While muslim scholars were very stringent in marking false hadith (from analysing narrations that were obviously false, by checking and grading the narrators on trustworthiness, by comparing contradicting hadith, by whether the narration skipped any generations- X said that Y said that Muhammad said, except X wasn't even alive when Y was, etc), the false hadith still exist (although they are largely known and agreed upon as such), and in a few cases, different scholars have different opinions as to whether one Hadith is correct or not.
Most Muslims take the Sahih (correct) Hadith as part of their scripture (along with the Quran), but understand that they are not the word of God.
Incidentally, the reference you provided was erroneous. "Bukhari V6B0N475" would imply Volume 6, Book 0, Hadith number 475 from the collection of Bukhari. Obviously, a "Book 0" cannot exist. For future reference, it is actually Book 60.

Finally we come to "Ishaq:510" and the like. Ibn Ishaq wrote/collected a biography of Muhammad (it is actually called Sirat al Rasul, but some people like referencing it in your form, it gives it more authenticity, I suppose?). The Sirat by Ibn Ishaq wasn't held up to the stringent standards that the hadith collections were, and is known to include lots of false information, as well as insertions by Ishaq himself, or one of his followers. The original Sirat of Ibn Ishaq no longer exists, all that we have now is a recension of the original by a student, which was further edited by a student of that student. When people refer to a passage in the book using the form "Ishaq:510" like you did, what they generally mean is page 510 of the english translation of this book by Alfred Guillaume about 60 years ago.
Needless to say, Muslims do not consider the Sirat of Ibn Ishaq to be part of their scripture at all.

You also mention "Tabari VI:10", which has a similar situation to Ibn Ishaq's work. It refers to a book by 10th century historian Ibn Jarir Al Tabari called "History of the Prophets and Kings" that goes all the way from Creation to the time he was writing the book. Writing about Muhammad's time, he also uses sourced hadith that is verifiable from other hadith collections, as well as unsourceable hadith. Usually when people write something like "Tabari VI:...", they are referring to a 40 volume translation published by SUNY press from 1985 to 2007- Volume 6 (which you referenced) was done by William Montogomery Watt, and pertains to Muhammad's time in Mecca.
Again, while Tabari's book may contain many sourced hadith, it isn't a book of hadith, and isn't considered scripture by muslims. It is a history book.

I feel this gives you the answers to the bulk of your questions without even having to speak to the content of the references you provided, and therefore I left it as a post of its own, but I will post some detail of the content in my following post. Hope it was helpful.

a reply to: whitewave

originally posted by: whitewave
Ishaq: 510 refers to "oh Allah, Lord of the Devils." Is this an admission that there is a doctrine of devils promoted in the Koran?

As I mentioned before, Ibn Ishaq's work is not used as scripture by muslims, and muslims are under no obligation to believe it to be absolute and true. With that caveat out of the way, the reference here is to a poem that Ibn Ishaq (or his editor or his editor's editor) claims Muhammad said, that has the verse you quoted (sorta): "And Lord of the devils and what into error they throw" (I'm using Guillaume's translation of the poem, since that is what you referenced in your post).
Now among the many complaints against him, one of the major ones Ibn Ishaq's contemporaries (and those who studied his work later) had against him was his constant insertion of random forged poetry into the biography, and sourcing them to people who weren't known at all to write any poetry (more on this in a bit).
STILL, disregarding even that, the poem refers to God as "Lord of the devils". Again, while there is no reason for any muslim to believe this poem to be factual, God created the djinn, the shaitan, the angels, the humans, etc. etc. etc., and would therefore be "Lord" of them all. The rest of the poem continues and reinforces this (also calling God Lord of the heavens, lands, winds, etc.).

originally posted by: whitewave
Ishaq: 691 admits to leaving out "matters (of Mohammed's biography) which are disgraceful to discuss....and such reports of Al Bakkai told me he could not accept as trustworthy-all of these I have omitted." Doesn't that contradict Sura 10:64, Sura 18:27, and Sura 16:101 regarding the infallibility or unacceptability of abrogations?

Page 691 of Guillaume's 1955 english translation of Ibn Hisham's edit of Al-Bakka'i's recension of Ibn Ishaq's is a note made by Ibn Hisham on the genealogy of Muhammad that was just provided. Here is the entire note (sorry for the long quote):

Guillaime's translation of Sirat al Rasul[]
God willing I shall begin this book with Ishmael, son of Abraham and mention those of his offspring who were the ancestors of God's apostle one by one with what is known about them, taking no account of Ishmael's other children, for the sake of brevity confining myself to the prophet's biography and omitting some of the things Ibn Ishaq has recorded in his book in which there is no mention of the apostle and about which the Quran says nothing and which are not relevant to anything in this book or an explanation of it or evidence for it; poems which he quotes that no authority on poetry whom I have met knows of; things which it is disgraceful to discuss; matters which would distress certain people; and such reports as Al-Bakkai told me he could not accept as trustworthy- all these things I have omitted.

So to clarify, this book is not scripture, this was a personal note in one of the edits, and is in no way referred to in those verses you quoted (that were speaking only of the Quran).

originally posted by: whitewave
Ishaq: 166 seems to be saying that Mohammed is apologizing for Satan having cast words into his recitation as he had interjected them onto Mohammed's tongue and into his desires.

Tabari VI:110 states When Muhammad brought a revelation from Allah cancelling what Satan had cast on the tongue of His Prophet, the Quraysh said, 'Muhammad has repented of what he said (reneged on his agreement) concerning the positions of our gods with Allah.

This refers to the famous "Satanic Verses" (no connection to the Rushdie novel). Right from the time of the compilation of the hadith it is recorded that Muslims believe this to be a total fabrication, citing the weak authenticity of the hadith (the chain of narrators is not sound), lack of flow of the verses if these "satanic" versions replaced the actual ones, and the absurdity of the logistics (Muslims who had fled Mecca for Ethiopia returning all the way in joy within the short time before the correction was issued, because they heard that Muhammad had reconciled with the Meccans).

originally posted by: whitewave
Bukhari V6B0N475 has some women coming to Muhammad when he was sick and expressing concern that "your Satan has forsaken you, for I have not seen him with you for two or three nights!" Muhammad vehemently denies the allegation.

Let me quote to you the narration in full (again, apologies for the long quote):

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 60, Book of the Prophetic Commentary on the Quran, Hadith number 475:
Narrated Jundub bin Sufyan: Once Allah's Apostle became sick and could not offer his night prayer for two or three nights. Then Umm Jamil bint Harb (she and her husband were considered one of the most bitter enemies of Islam and Muhammad) came and said, "O Muhammad! I think that your Satan has forsaken you, for I have not seen him with you for two or three nights!" On that God revealed: 'By the fore−noon, and by the night when it darkens, your Lord has not forsaken you, nor does He hate you.' (a reference to Surah 93, verses 1−3)

So according to the hadith, A woman who hated Muhammad and the religion he preached found him sick, took advantage of that to throw an insult at him and his religion. No secret reference to God as Satan, no mention of any allegations or vehement denials by Muhammad (unless you mean a verse revealed later as a vehement denial).

I hope that was a satisfactory supplement to my previous post. And for the record, Gabriel is referred to as an angel.

a reply to: babloyi

Thank you for that clarification. My source was not from an "Islamic hate site" as you presume but from a researcher and scholar who has dedicated years to the study of Islamic teachings (something I'm unwilling to do).

You say that the sources are not considered canonical and therefore to be ignored, I'm guessing? Does the Koran order Muslims to follow the example of Muhammad and obey his orders? Since the Koran is supposedly Allah speaking then the only examples of Muhammad would be in the oral reports of his companions (the hadith). My understanding of these hadith are that they are the collected works of Ishaq, Tabari, and Bukhari. The Sunnah is, I understand, the oldest and most trusted compilation of Muhammad examples to live by with historical events recorded. The Tabari is a bunch of Hadith quotes with some Koran verses thrown in to describe Mo's nature and that of his faithful followers. The Bukhari is supposedly the most accurate?

Since the Koran is without context or chronology, one must rely on the only account of Mo's life when Islam was being formed (the Sara), the Sunnah, and Hadith writings to know what's happening and when. For example, the 5 pillars of Islam are explained, not in the Koran, but in the Hadith. The Koran tells Muslims to pray 3 times a day but the Hadith says to pray 5 times a day. Which do Muslims follow? So it seems that these other books/sources are trusted enough to affect how daily Islamic life is practiced and understood.

The second most important pillar of Islam demands the killing of Jews and Christians. As a Christian, I have a problem with this. Since killing of Jews and Christians is a fundamental pillar of Islam (the word means SUBMIT), I can understand why "peaceful" Muslims don't speak out against all the well-documented Muslim attacks against these non-Muslim groups.

Currently, in America, Muslims are in the minority and so are behaving themselves for the most part. This is not the case in Muslim majority-ruled countries. The Koran (33:21) says that "Surely in the Messenger of God you have a good example" which followers are required to emulate. So Muslims are to be illiterate, war-mongering pedophiles killing anyone who isn't like them, stealing their stuff, subjugating and enslaving their women and children, etc.?

Believe it or not, I don't hate Muslims anymore than I hate the so-called Christians known as the Westbroro Baptists. The difference being that the Christian "prophet" (Yeshua) doesn't order his followers to be destructive as the Islamic prophet does. I feel pity for their delusions, and anger at the false teachers who promote such self-serving chaos.

Allah is NOT the name of my God. "Allahu Akbar" (God is the greatest) is evidence that Allah is considered the greatest among the pantheon of "gods" worshipped by the Assyrians, Sumerians, Akkadians, as well as being popular with the Egyptians and Persians. Koran 74:32...I say the truth and call the moon to witness. Koran 6:77.....When he saw the moon rising in splendor, he said: 'This is my Lord' but when the moon set, he said; Unless my Lord guide me, I shall surely be among those who go astray. And then there's Koran2:189. Pre-Islamic Arabs had the same religious practices as current Islamists have including retaining the crescent moon as their symbol, holy month observation from crescent moon to crescent moon, praying toward Mecca several times a day as well as making pilgrimages to Mecca and fasting from crescent moon to crescent moon during their holy month, kissing a meteorite (the Kabah), etc.

I say all this to clarify and dispel the commonly assumed, politically correct (but factually inaccurate) doctrine that "Allah is just another word for the same God that all the Abrahamic religions worship". Muhammad is a descendant of Ishmael and Ishmael "shall not be heir with the son of the promise". The ancient Jews and Christians knew that al-ilah (a title for Sin/Suen/Nanna/Asimbabbar "the high god among the gods" or "the deity") was NOT the same as Yahweh. Probably the reason why Jews and Christians were originally singled out for Muhammad's wrath...they weren't buying his repackaged paganism. This is an important point because if even the name of Islam's deity is a deception, then how much can we rely on the supposedly divine revelations of it's founder?