Who wrote Quran?

Hello and Salam

If "Beloved" really wanted to understand, then it would be great to search around for articles and do deep research but unfortunately having made his way from the faithfreedom.org anti-Islam site to dupe unknowing believers he or she has a different motive, or so it seems ( http://www.faithfreedom.org/holiday/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1 43&start=15 )

That being clarified, we know that the Quran was written because it claims to be written and it records observations of people who didnt believe who SAW that it was being written, we don't have to look at outside sources that come much later in history:

Sura 98:2 "A messenger from Allah, reading purified pages"

This mentions "pages"

Sura 25:5 "And they say: The stories of the ancients-- he has got them written-- so these are read out to him morning and evening."

Here the Quran reproduces the speech of unbelievers who were accusing the prophet, much like the faithfreedom group of inventing something that they could SEE was authorized by the prophet to be written.

There are other references as well but these two should suffice.

Very surprising that you do not know that forum since they seem to know you very well. Anyway,

Please clarify what your point is in asking "who wrote the Quran". If you are asking pointless questions like people at faithfreedom, assuming that because of your pointless questions believers will automatically develop doubt, then you are wasting my time and the time of others, who go through much effort in answering you. Since people have limited time, there is something definitely WRONG in asking pointless questions to waste people's time and deliberately push put them in a quest for futile nonsense.

What do you want to prove or disprove by asking the questions "Who wrote the Quran"- develop a logical argument so I can frame a logical response, just don't throw out pointless questions like Ali Sina of faithfreedom. If you are unknowingly using this tactic then get an education and if you're deliberately using it, then shame on you.

Coming back to my normal routine from some other diversions in life, I may like to continue with your comments, though they are nothing but baseless.

beloved wrote: < http-equiv="content-" content="text/;charset=UTF-8"> < style ="text/css"> The references you provided(what you call science) is based on belief that the person is truthful.

Do you have any problem with this concept? Even the modern day courts accept this rule i.e. a person is considered truthfull untill proven other wise. Isn't it? So whats the problem?

And different sects have different Ahadith.  The reference you provided, Jalal al-Din Suyuti(about Itqan) bases his conclusions on those Ahadith.

Authenticity of ahadith is done through science of higher criticism, the same way all other other histroical documents of the world are analysed. Do you deny this science? Differing sects agreeing on different ahadith is not a weekness but is based on logical argumentation; differing on the rules of admissability of a particular hadith. But again, everyone presents their logical reasoning to accept or reject a hadith, hence not a matter of faith alone.

Do you say these arguments to be baseless?  Without answering my questions, "Whatever was passed on, was in oral form.  That too for more than a century.

This is just a hypothesis without specific proof. It can easily be contrasted with the science of ahadith collection/acceptance.

And it is the collection of history, an event in time, which means it cannot be repeated.  Then how can you say "scientifically"?

As I have already said, "textual higher criticism" is a science of evaluating the authenticity of a proclaimed historical document. Its not unique to ahadith only but is widely applied on all historical documents. Probably, early Muslim scholars were among the poineers of using this science to evaluate their own books before putting their faith in them. This is the reason that they have classified these ahadith into different categories. I hope this would motivate the readers to go and understand this science of higher criticism before casting aspertions on the validity of oral transmission.

It is based on memory and the belief that the person is truthful.  Moreover different sects believe in different Ahadith.  Then how can you say that it is not a matter of faith at all?" Your own argument is interesting.

I hope I have presented you sufficient information for self reflection than simply interesting.

Here is an article on hadith for those who are interested

http://hadith.rationalreality.com