God spoke directly to Moses (VII 143).

So why didn't God speak directly to Muhammad?

Satan is a deceiver (viii 48)

Satan is a fallen angel.

How did The Prophet know that it was really the Angel Gabriel and not Satan deceiving him?

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

Assalamu alaikum

Hi stephen, Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala chose to take Sayyidina Muhammad sallallhu alaihe wassalam to heavens but not any other messenger alaihis salaam.

Islam does not consider satan to be a fallen angel but a Jinn. Secondly what Jibrael alaihis salaam brought could not have been forged by any creature so there is no question of it being satan. As why would Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala choose a disobedient slave who promised that he would mislead human kind.

wassalam

StephenC wrote: God spoke directly to Moses (VII 143). So why didn't God speak directly to Muhammad?

Because in the time of Musa there was no Jibril - yet. The khadith states that Jibril was there in the beginning before everything else but I think not.

Ilyas (Elijah) was also a great prophet of God.  Didn't he also go Heaven alive?  Was not Isa (Jesus) also transported to Heaven alive by God?

(Most Muslims believe Jesus was raised to heaven alive by God, while some scholars believe that he was indeed rescued but died before his ascension.[7])

"Islam does not consider satan to be a fallen angel but a Jinn."

"And when We said to the angels:'Prostrate yourselves unto Adam.' So they prostrated themselves except Iblis (The Devil). He was one of the jinn..." Surat Al-Kahf, 18:50."

"Said to the angels...except Iblis (The Devil)" seems to me to say that Iblis (and other jinn) are a form of angels.

For example the verse said "we said to men: Prostrate yourselves unto Adam.  So they prostrated themselves except Rosemarie (a woman)" it would not be a perfect sentence, because it should have said "we said unto mankind" (which would include women) or "we said unto men and women".  Am I missing something for I am told that the Qur'an is perfect.

StephenC wrote: God spoke directly to Moses (VII 143). So why didn't God speak directly to Muhammad?

Please elaborate on what you mean by directly, and please clarify the reason for asking the question?

The idea of Gd speaking to man takes many forms. As an example, the Church claims Gd spoke to a whore. So Christians believe that Gd spoke to Moses and to a whore. What does this mean for Moses? Or for the whore for that matter? What conclusion can be reached?

I look forward to your clarification.

StephenC wrote: Satan is a deceiver (viii 48) Satan is a fallen angel. How did The Prophet know that it was really the Angel Gabriel and not Satan deceiving him?

Your assertion is only that. Let me clarify.

Jews, who follow your OT, believe, in general, that Satan would be an agent of Gd (in terms that we are all some sort of agent of Gd) who carries out the Will of Gd. (this view is supported by your bible)

Christians believe that Satan was a good angel who rebelled against Gd and then became a "fallen" angel.

Muslims believe that Satan is an agent of Gd and Gd has no need to go into "battle" with Satan and his followers.

The Angel Gabriel was not Satan simply based upon the context of revelation.

1) He could not have been Satan simply because Gd has authority to allow such an act or not.

2) The theology is contradictory to Satan. It is his anti-thesis.

StephenC wrote: Ilyas (Elijah) was also a great prophet of God.  Didn't he also go Heaven alive?  Was not Isa (Jesus) also transported to Heaven alive by God? (Most Muslims believe Jesus was raised to heaven alive by God, while some scholars believe that he was indeed rescued but died before his ascension.[7]) How do we know that Muhammad (Isa, and/or Ilyas) went to Heaven alive?  Where in the Qur'an does it state this?

Your question makes the assumption that if something is not in the Quran, then it cannot be true. Since the first generation, the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) has been regarded as a source for those things that are important, but not part of the recited revelation.

Next, by scholarly concensus, 17:1 is agreed upon to be a reference to the event known as "miraj".

"Secondly what Jibrael alaihis salaam brought could not have been forged by any creature so there is no question of it being satan." Pardon my lack of knowledge, but what EXACTLY did Jibrael bring?

direct revelation from Gd.

Again, doesn't the Qur'an state that Satan deceives? How would Muhammad know the difference?  Could you tell the difference?

I responded to this already.

Hope this helps.

"Please elaborate on what you mean by directly, and please clarify the reason for asking the question?"

In my limited study of the Qur'an and discussions with members of the Islamic faith, I understand that it is believed that Muhammad received his revelation (which was later written by others into the Qur'an) from

I read S. II. 23 as a challenge as to how we know that there is a revelation and that it is from God.

In reading various translations, I find that there seems disputes as to the exact means of almost every Sura.

For example,

Sura 003.004

"The Angel Gabriel was not Satan simply based upon the context of revelation. "

Hasn't many people before and after the Prophet Muhammad claim to have had revelations from God or an angel, or other messenger?  For example, Joseph Smith (Mormons) claims that he too was visited by an angel of God.  What are the concrete (if any) differences between Smith and Muhammad?

"1) He could not have been Satan simply because Gd has authority to allow such an act or not."

Did God allow the acts of Smith or not?

"2) The theology is contradictory to Satan. It is his anti-thesis."

No offense to used car salesmen, but maybe I can explain my thoughts with an everyday example.

Pretend that I am trying to sell you a used car with bad brakes (which would cost $2500.00 to fix) for the "Blue Book" value of $5000.00 (the value of a similiar car with no problems).

If I told you that the brakes were bad and you would have to pay $2500.00 would you buy it for $5000.00?  Probably not.

Now if I honestly pointed out that the engine was in great shape, the air conditioner worked perfectly, the interior was unblemished, the tires were new, and the brakes "need a little work" is there more of a likelihood that you would buy the car?  Probably.

If you wanted to deceive someone, it is more efficent to mix a whole lot of truth in with a little falsehood.

So how does one seperate the false prophets from the true prophets?  How does one seperate Satan from the Angel Gabriel?

StephenC wrote: "Please elaborate on what you mean by directly, and please clarify the reason for asking the question?" In my limited study of the Qur'an and discussions with members of the Islamic faith, I understand that it is believed that Muhammad received his revelation (which was later written by others into the Qur'an) from I read S. II. 23 as a challenge as to how we know that there is a revelation and that it is from God.

I am not sure how 2:23 fits into this?

In reading various translations, I find that there seems disputes as to the exact means of almost every Sura. For example, Sura 003.004 YUSUFALI: Then those who reject Faith in the Signs of Allah will suffer the severest penalty, and Allah is Exalted in Might, Lord of Retribution. PICKTHAL: Aforetime, for a guidance to mankind; and hath revealed the Criterion (of right and wrong). Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom. Allah is Mighty, Able to Requite (the wrong). SHAKIR: Surely they who disbelieve in the communications of Allah they shall have a severe chastisement; and Allah is Mighty, the Lord of retribution. "severest penalty", "heavy doom", and "severe chastisement" can mean differ things.  "Severest penalty" is the worst thing (imho, to be seperated from God for eternal would be the severest penalty) thing to happen to a person.  A "heavy doom" and a "severe chastisement", while bad, is not the same.

1) You are reading a meaning of the Quran, and not the Quran. The Quran is in Arabic, and was revealed as such.

2) ""severest penalty", "heavy doom", and "severe chastisement" can mean differ things." are translations that get a point across. The point is rather "self evident". If you want to try and argue about the possible shades between the words using semantics, then that is your choice.

You go through an opinionated view of the three words used to translate the Quran. You stated, " "Severest penalty" is the worst thing (imho, to be seperated from God for eternal would be the severest penalty)". That is conjecture, since our opinions are not a formal method to derive an understanding from the Quran, and the last I looked, the same is true with most books with any serious meaning. You also stated, A "heavy doom" and a "severe chastisement", while bad, is not the same.". How do you know? From what bases are you able to state your opinion as fact?

Is it possible that they all have the same meaning?

In then end, they are simply translations, expressions of the Quran.

So is Sura 3.4 a "perfect sura" if different scholars can not agree exactly on its mean?

1) You have not demonstrated that the translations greatly differ beyond games of semantics such that they somehow conflict with one another.

2) Your question has buried in it, the unargued assumption that,

this question makes the assumption that imperfect translating, or differences in nuances in translating, is the same as an imperfect revelation.  

"The idea of Gd speaking to man takes many forms. As an example, the Church claims Gd spoke to a whore. So Christians believe that Gd spoke to Moses and to a whore. What does this mean for Moses? Or for the whore for that matter? What conclusion can be reached? " Again, pardon my lack of knowledge, but where does it say that God spoke to a whore?

The Samaritan woman.

I also understand (but maybe mistaken) that according to the Prophet Muhammad, the Qur'an is a continuation of previously written scriptures (also known as the Old Testament or Toran and the New Testament). If that understanding is accurate, then does the Qur'an delete the authority of the older scriptures or does it complete them?

Gd is the authority. The Quran is a revelation from Gd, by His Authority.

It confirms past scriptures.

We have no way of knowing what is true and what is not true in the older scriptures.

The older scriptures are not relevant in terms of authority, no more than that which was revealed to Noah relevant to Moses, although the Torah recognizes Noah and his covenant with Gd.

Can we not agree that:

1.  God is perfect.

2.  Man is not perfect.

3.  To claim that something made by man is perfect is a blasphemy against God.

Do you disagree with any of the three are incorrect?

Now as for the Qur'an, wasn't it actually written by the "companions" of Muhammad (some of it after he left the Earth)?

StephenC wrote: Can we not agree that: 1.  God is perfect. 2.  Man is not perfect. 3.  To claim that something made by man is perfect is a blasphemy against God. Do you disagree with any of the three are incorrect? Now as for the Qur'an, wasn't it actually written by the "companions" of Muhammad (some of it after he left the Earth)?

No, it was recorded, not created by Man, according to Allah.

StephenC wrote: "The Angel Gabriel was not Satan simply based upon the context of revelation. " Hasn't many people before and after the Prophet Muhammad claim to have had revelations from God or an angel, or other messenger?  For example, Joseph Smith (Mormons) claims that he too was visited by an angel of God.  What are the concrete (if any) differences between Smith and Muhammad?

Correct, and Islam teaches that the Quran was not the only revelation ever revealed to man, neither were prophets exclusive to the children of Israel.

Some people did make claims, which cannot be accepted due to their theological problems, due to mistakes within the texts, etc, etc.

"1) He could not have been Satan simply because Gd has authority to allow such an act or not." Did God allow the acts of Smith or not?

False analogy. We are not talking about the one who claimed ot have a revelation, but about the messenger, or the angle, who carried the message.

"2) The theology is contradictory to Satan. It is his anti-thesis." No offense to used car salesmen, but maybe I can explain my thoughts with an everyday example. Pretend that I am trying to sell you a used car with bad brakes (which would cost $2500.00 to fix) for the "Blue Book" value of $5000.00 (the value of a similiar car with no problems). If I told you that the brakes were bad and you would have to pay $2500.00 would you buy it for $5000.00?  Probably not. Now if I honestly pointed out that the engine was in great shape, the air conditioner worked perfectly, the interior was unblemished, the tires were new, and the brakes "need a little work" is there more of a likelihood that you would buy the car?  Probably. If you wanted to deceive someone, it is more efficent to mix a whole lot of truth in with a little falsehood. So how does one seperate the false prophets from the true prophets?  How does one seperate Satan from the Angel Gabriel?

Falase analogy.

A revelation is not equivalent to a car, where some things may be damaged and others not, such that the good things over ride what is wrong.

Either the revelation is from Gd, or it is not from Gd.

If it is from Gd, is it complete? Is it in tact? Is it the latest message to man? Is it filled with errors?

"No, it was recorded, not created by Man, according to Allah."

Am I correct in my understanding that according to Islamic beliefs:

God told the Angel who told Muhammad who told his companions who wrote it down.

However, God, the all powerful spoke DIRECTLY to Moses (Exodus 20 and others).  And Moses gave the Word of God DIRECTLY to the people.  And the Toran (Old Testament) did not needed "clarification" by a committee.

So why did Muhammad and Smith need transcripters?

"Gd is the authority. The Quran is a revelation from Gd, by His Authority.

It confirms past scriptures.

We have no way of knowing what is true and what is not true in the older scriptures."

Can it be proven that the Qur'an is a revelation from God?

Can it be proven that the Book of Mormon is a revelation from God?

Can it be proven that the Bible is a revelation from God?

etc. etc. etc.

I guess my point is that all religions are based the faith of the believer and not on "proofs."

StephenC wrote: "No, it was recorded, not created by Man, according to Allah." Am I correct in my understanding that according to Islamic beliefs: God told the Angel who told Muhammad who told his companions who wrote it down.

Semantics.

Gabriel delivered the Quran to the Prophet Muhammad (saw). If I go to Pizza Hut and order a Pizza, or if I use the phone (an intermediary), it is still me who is ordering the pizza.

However, God, the all powerful spoke DIRECTLY to Moses (Exodus 20 and others).  And Moses gave the Word of God DIRECTLY to the people.  And the Toran (Old Testament) did not needed "clarification" by a committee.

1) The Masoretic is not a stone tablet. Neither is the LXX. Both show that at least two tradtions exist, giving us to schools of though that wrote and transcribed for the sake of preservation. (the last I looked, I did not find stone tablets in the local Christian store).

2) Whether or not the revelation was placed on stone by Gd or in the heart by Gd, is irrelevant, as in both cases, the next step in transmission is both memory and written. In the case of the Quran, it was placed in memory, which is why to this day it has remained true, unlike other religous texts.

3) Actually the Jews did use committed to determine what was to be included in the Hebrew Bible and what wasn't. The Sanhedrin never left a record as to their criteria. Not only was the bible formed by committe, but one finds at least two different written traditions.

4) Committe was used to insure as much accuracy as possible, due to the fear of Allah of the first generation. Unlike other groups.

5) Your comment on committe was a red herring. I fear that your small attempts to obfuscate reveal an an evangelical.  

So why did Muhammad and Smith need transcripters?

That's a complex question. 

Why did Moses need transcribers?

StephenC wrote: "Gd is the authority. The Quran is a revelation from Gd, by His Authority. It confirms past scriptures. We have no way of knowing what is true and what is not true in the older scriptures." Can it be proven that the Qur'an is a revelation from God?

Cause and effect cannot be proven.

Can it be proven that the Book of Mormon is a revelation from God? Can it be proven that the Bible is a revelation from God? etc. etc. etc. I guess my point is that all religions are based the faith of the believer and not on "proofs."

So is science.

Prove the connection between cause and effect. Yet experimental science is founded upon induction.

Religion should not be based upon blind faith. Islam does not demand blind faith.

It is up to you to look at the evidences and make your decision.

But it looks bad when one throws out the skeptic card when it is convenient.

"But it looks bad when one throws out the skeptic card when it is convenient. "

So I should not question anyone who claims to have a message from God or an angel?

The fact that one God exists and is the creator is a given.

Who was God's messager or prophet is based solely on faith.  You can not prove that Muhammad was visited by God's Angel and I can not prove that he was not visited by God's angel.  The same goes for other prophets.

I believe God does speak to mankind and uses Angels.  However, if I compare undisputed encounters between mankind and God and/or his Angels with that of Muhammad (and Smith, Kresh, etc.) I find significant differences.

I do not mean any offense.  I am attempting solely to learn the truth.

StephenC wrote: "But it looks bad when one throws out the skeptic card when it is convenient. " So I should not question anyone who claims to have a message from God or an angel?

The skeptical card (position) and making a genuine inquiry are not the same things.

The fact that one God exists and is the creator is a given. Who was God's messager or prophet is based solely on faith.  You can not prove that Muhammad was visited by God's Angel and I can not prove that he was not visited by God's angel.  The same goes for other prophets.

You cannot prove with any rational argument that cause and effect exist.

The skeptics position is a powerful tool to pursuade ourselves that we are not sure about anything.

I believe God does speak to mankind and uses Angels.  However, if I compare undisputed encounters between mankind and God and/or his Angels with that of Muhammad (and Smith, Kresh, etc.) I find significant differences. I do not mean any offense.  I am attempting solely to learn the truth.

Please clarify "undisputed" (sounds like an evangelical catch term)  and please display the event that dispells the credibility of Prophet Muhammad (saw). I am not interested in Joseph Smith. There is a member here who is Mormon, and if she wishes to discuss him with you, that is her choice. If not, then that is also her choice and it should be respected. I am a Muslim, and would be happy to discuss our Prophet (saw).

Muhammad lived in a cave for approximately two years.  Having been in caves before I know that the environment is different than the outside.  For example, in caves with bats, there is bat gano dust, which if inhaled can get into the blood stream.  There are also molds and mushroom type organisms.  I don't know the characteristics of the particular cave, but during the tour of Mammonth Cave in Kentucky, the tour guide told of the psycological effects of being in total darkness.

I am NOT saying Muhammad's vision (or Smith's) was the result of environmental aspects.  I leave that up to the reader to make their own decision.

My opinion is that there is absolutely NO proof that Muhammad's revelation came from God.  If you have anything remotely proving it or even an indication that it is true please let me know as I truly am seeking the truth!

"I am a Muslim, and would be happy to discuss our Prophet (saw)."

I take you on your word.  What did the Prophet see that indicates he was visited by an Angel from God?

I do not question that God exists.  However, I do question anyone who claims to have revelations from God.

As a criminal investigator with over 30 years service (and no lost cases) I look at all the facts.  Now pure faith is one thing and I respect that.

But as my Granny used to say, "Truth is of God, lies are of the Devil."

I do not believe questioning statements of those who claim revelations from God, is blasphemy.  However, false claims is blasphemy!

In the case of Joseph he didn't "NEED" a transcriptor.  It made the work go faster for him to be able to read/translate the plates aloud and have someone else write it down as he was going.  The people also served as witnesses to the work.  Emma describes feeling the plates through the cloth that cover them, the inscriptions and the weight.  Oliver Cowdery actually saw the Angel and held the plates in his hands. 

You want to not believe in either account.  That makes you look for some way to blame it on environment or lies.  But instead, have you set down and read the books, have you studied the accounts of the revelations from the sources.  (Not from sites dedicated to debunking them)

You are right, "The Truth is of God and Lies are of the Devil"

I don't know how many times, I've been told by Evangelical Christians flat out lies about my Church.

StephenC wrote: But as my Granny used to say, "Truth is of God, lies are of the Devil."

But what is the Truth?

I try to gather whatever I remember as I can get them. I searched these by using "The truth from thy lord", or in arabic "Al Khaqqu min Robbikum".

Is he who knoweth that what is revealed unto thee from thy Lord is the truth like him who is blind ? But only men of understanding heed; (13:19)

Those who have been given knowledge see that what is revealed unto thee from thy Lord is the truth and leadeth unto the path of the Mighty, the Owner of Praise. (34:6)

The truth from thy Lord, so be not thou of those who waver. (3:60)

Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained ? Those unto whom We gave the Scripture (aforetime) know that it is revealed from thy Lord in truth. So be not thou (O Muhammad) of the waverers.(6:114)

And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers. (10:94)

StephenC wrote: Muhammad lived in a cave for approximately two years.  Having been in caves before I know that the environment is different than the outside.  For example, in caves with bats, there is bat gano dust, which if inhaled can get into the blood stream.  There are also molds and mushroom type organisms.  I don't know the characteristics of the particular cave, but during the tour of Mammonth Cave in Kentucky, the tour guide told of the psycological effects of being in total darkness.

Speculation and conjecture.

I am NOT saying Muhammad's vision (or Smith's) was the result of environmental aspects.  I leave that up to the reader to make their own decision. My opinion is that there is absolutely NO proof that Muhammad's revelation came from God.  If you have anything remotely proving it or even an indication that it is true please let me know as I truly am seeking the truth!

Please give the requirements for proof of prophethood.

StephenC wrote: I do not question that God exists.  However, I do question anyone who claims to have revelations from God.

So you do not believe that Gd has given messages to man?

As a criminal investigator with over 30 years service (and no lost cases) I look at all the facts.  Now pure faith is one thing and I respect that. But as my Granny used to say, "Truth is of God, lies are of the Devil." I do not believe questioning statements of those who claim revelations from God, is blasphemy.  However, false claims is blasphemy!

I find this interesting given the amount of conjecture and specualtion you have used thus far.

Islam does not ask you to accept its claims on blind faith, and no religion should be based upon it.

Facts as suspect to interpretation.

"Please give the requirements for proof of prophethood."

Good question.  Maybe there is no proof of prophethood.  Anyone that wants to claim a revelation can.  So do we accept all who claim to be prophets?

Okay.  There is just as much proof of Muhammad being a prophet as there is for Joseph Smith.

Wait, didn't Muhammad claim to be the last prophet?  If that is true then Smith is a false prophet.  If Smith is a true prophet then Muhammad's claim to be the last prophet.

And is Jesus' statement in Revelation 22:18-21 is true then both Muhammad and Smith are wrong.

So how do we tell a true prophet from a false prophet?

I ask again (hoping to get an answer) how do we know that Muhammad was visited by the Angel Gabriel?

"I am a Muslim, and would be happy to discuss our Prophet (saw)."

Can you tell me the Prophet's father's name and the meaning?

Andalus wrote: [QUOTE=StephenC] I do not question that God exists.  However, I do question anyone who claims to have revelations from God.

So you do not believe that Gd has given messages to man?

[quote]

I clear said that I "question anyone who claims to have revelations from God" not that I do not believe God has given messages to man!"

"I find this interesting given the amount of conjecture and specualtion you have used thus far."

Have you given even one verifiable fact?

"Islam does not ask you to accept its claims on blind faith, and no religion should be based upon it.

Facts as suspect to interpretation."

Okay give me a provable fact.

I am merely trying to resolve differences between different revelations which appear to be in conflict.

I don't think anyone would say that we should accept it as truth when anyone claims to be the "Prophet of God."

How do we seperate the false from the true?

It seems that one of the major differences between Christianity and Islam is that Islam put forths that Christ was a prophet and not part of God.

If Christ is not the Son of God then I would agree that he should not be put equal to or greater than God.

But what about Muhammad?  Has he been elevated to status equal or greater than God?

Maybe not in written script, but what about in practice?

I am concerned about the recent uproar about the Muhammad cartoons.  I agree they were offensive, but I am distressed that there was no similiar uproar against the almost weekly cartoons of God!

For example when former Texas Govenor Anne Richards died there was a cartoon of Richards reporting to Heaven and God (sitting at a desk) telling his Angel, "Clear my schedule, this is going to be good."

With no discredit to Richards, but according to the Jewish, Christian, Moslem, and Mormon religions, this was clearly blasphemy!

Yet not a peep in protest from anyone!

A review of the newspapers comic page shows almost weekly cartoon using images said to be that of God.  Yet never a peep of complaint from anyone!

Christ (who is recognized by Christians, Moslems, and Mormons as a messenger of God or greater) is daily discredited in cartoons, writings, and "art" without a peep from anyone.

So is Muhammad held in higher esteem than God?  If not, then why no complaints?

StephenC wrote: "Please give the requirements for proof of prophethood." Good question.  Maybe there is no proof of prophethood.  Anyone that wants to claim a revelation can.  So do we accept all who claim to be prophets?

Rhetorical question. What I am trying to establish is a criteria that satisfies you. You do not believe someone was a prophet, so who do you believe was a prophet and what is the evidence?

Okay.  There is just as much proof of Muhammad being a prophet as there is for Joseph Smith.

I am not here to argue for or against Joseph Smith. Lets stay on topic. What proof is there that Prophet MUhammad (saw) was not a prophet?

Your attempt to at continuously trying to mix Joseph Smith into this discussion relfects masterful obfuscation.

Wait, didn't Muhammad claim to be the last prophet?  If that is true then Smith is a false prophet.  If Smith is a true prophet then Muhammad's claim to be the last prophet.

Yes.

And is Jesus' statement in Revelation 22:18-21 is true then both Muhammad and Smith are wrong.

The book of revelation is an extremely cryptic writing that has no real relavence. The early Christians were mixed about its importance, and the Church has never been able to give an accurate interpretation due to its extreme use of obscure symbols and extremely implicit statements.

So the question is begged: Why should anyone care what revelations says?

[quote]

So how do we tell a true prophet from a false prophet?

I ask again (hoping to get an answer) how do we know that Muhammad was visited by the Angel Gabriel?

[/QUOTE

How juvenile. I asked you to give me a criteria for prophethood.

1) Prophets will not lie about matters of Gd, revelation, and what Gd has said.

2) If Prophet Muhammad was a prophet, then he would not have lied about matters of Gd, revelation, and what Gd said.

3) Being a Prophet and lying about an event as described above are mutally exclusive. One cannot exist with the other.

4) You want to know how do we know he was a prophet.

5) I asked you, since you do not believe he was, what is the criteria is to believe someone is a prophet.

6) You proposed a rhetorical question as a strawman to remove yourself from the point.

7) Now you want to know how we can know if the Prophet (saw) was really visted by an angel.

But if someone is a prophet, he would not have lied, and if he were wrong, Gd would have told him. So we are back to the foundation: Proof of Prophethood which deflected from.

Since you cannot tell me what your criteria is to accept a person as a prophet, then you have no solid ground to reject someone as a prophet.

With all due respect, your behavior is entirely fallacious. You have just moved in a circle, while trying very hard to avoid being directly involved with exposing your own beliefs and reasons for your beliefs, which are directly related and relevant to your skepticism. Your slight of hand sophistry and great effort in avoiding a direct discussion spells out "evangelical".

I asked you who you think is a prophet, and you have given me silence.

You cannot blame me for now having skepticism about you, as your behavior thus far has been less than rhetorically honest.

StephenC wrote: Andalus wrote: StephenC wrote: I do not question that God exists.  However, I do question anyone who claims to have revelations from God. So you do not believe that Gd has given messages to man? I clear said that I "question anyone who claims to have revelations from God" not that I do not believe God has given messages to man!" So why do you conintue to hide your beliefs? Do not be affraid friend, be affirmed. Since you are able to reject someone from prophethood, then please, give us your criteria to accept someone. You do not need all of these word games and semantical nonsense. Just be brave. [quote]   "I find this interesting given the amount of conjecture and specualtion you have used thus far." Have you given even one verifiable fact? Yes, the numerous problems with your rhetoric. The problems with your attempted comparison argument (argument being use very loosely in that case), your great desire to remove yourself from the exhcange of ideas. This is a discussion, not an interrogation. I will not sit back and just let you play the skeptical song while I dance. It is an extremely bad trick and in poor tase, and speaks volumes about your intentions. [quote] "Islam does not ask you to accept its claims on blind faith, and no religion should be based upon it. Facts as suspect to interpretation." Okay give me a provable fact.

You cannot prove a fact. You can only seek confidence in the fact. You keep trying to use the skeptic's argument which is actually kind of funny.

1) You have asserted that Prophet MUhammad (saw) was not a prophet

2) You believe there are/were prophets

3) Since you made the claim that he is not a prophet, then bring your evidence that supports your claim.

a) what is your criteria for determining prophethood

To save you time, I will be frank.

In conclusion, I will state that I have provided facts in that your presentation of your "argument" (used extremely loosely but for the sake of reference) is erroneous. I have also observed and stated your attempts at deflection when asked for clarification.

I have not said anyone is NOT a prophet.  I have merely said we should ask for some kind of proof that a person is a true prophet from God and not some Jim Bakker (of Jim and Tammy Bakker) type of prophet.  There have been many false prophets claiming to be speaking from God.

I have pointed out that Smith and Muhammad both claim the same thing and are believed by millions to be a prophet from God, yet some of their statements are contradictary.

If I claimed to be a prophet from God would you accept that or would you demand proof?

I was told it was not blind faith.  Ok, why do you think that Muhammad is the last prophet from God?  Is it just because he said so?

You, Muhammad, and millions of others claim he was the last prophet of God.  There are millions more that claim he was not.  Do we take a worldwide vote on it?

I just want a verifiable fact that he is the Last Prophet.  That is no word game.  I do find problems with the history of Muhammad as published by IslamiCity.com.  But I am trying to be opened minded about it.

One thing other than 'he said he was' is all I am asking.  Is Islam so weak that such a question is so difficult?

I just read your post about ending the Muhammad and Smith discussion.

I have also read your response to where I quoted two verses of the Qur'an that seemed in conflict.

I realize this is not my discussion board and if you want to do the "it's my ball if you don't let me win, we are not playing" attitude, my trying to learn about the Qur'an, Muhammad, and my questions about it is rather pointless.

I will, unless you ban me, occasionally check to see if anyone can provide one verifiable fact to support Muhammad's claim that he is the Last Prophet.

Until this happens, I suspect this will be my last post.  Since I am leaning towards that outcome, please let me extend my appreciation for the short time I was here and the for the most part, honest discussions.

I did learn that some of my conception about Islam and Muhammad were wrong, but some apparently are right.

I will continue to believe in one GOD, Heaven, Angels, Satan, and Hell.

Maybe when we all get to Heaven, we can all have a waking since I don't think any earth religion is totally correct or totally wrong.

Peace and Salvation on all those who Love and Serve God!

Stephen

Stephen,

There is one thing that people miss.  Proof is nothing without belief.  You keep asking for Proof.  I could ask (even though I believe it) for you to PROVE Jesus Christ was our Savior.   What is your PROOF?

You don't have any...you have faith and belief and love.

That is the same with Muslims.  The proof is in the Quran and Sunnah.  The proof is in the actions of the Prophet.  But what one can see is proof, others can question.  They can do this because they don't have belief.

Joseph and Muhammed are similar, but they are different.  But, in the end, Faith and Belief are what define Mormons and Muslims, not proofs.

Consider what Jesus asked Martha.

And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

He asked her to believe before she had proof.  Its is because of her belief that she was blessed to see her and brought forth Lazarus.  Her proof came after belief.  If you have proof, then you do not need faith.  Faith is a test Stephen.  If you miss that, then you're belief is empty.

StephenC wrote: I just read your post about ending the Muhammad and Smith discussion. I have also read your response to where I quoted two verses of the Qur'an that seemed in conflict. I realize this is not my discussion board and if you want to do the "it's my ball if you don't let me win, we are not playing" attitude, my trying to learn about the Qur'an, Muhammad, and my questions about it is rather pointless. I will, unless you ban me, occasionally check to see if anyone can provide one verifiable fact to support Muhammad's claim that he is the Last Prophet.

You may open a thread and discuss Prophet Muhammad (saw) if you would like.

No one has stopped you from making inquiries. You have just been provided with the proper way of doing it.

Until this happens, I suspect this will be my last post.  Since I am leaning towards that outcome, please let me extend my appreciation for the short time I was here and the for the most part, honest discussions. I did learn that some of my conception about Islam and Muhammad were wrong, but some apparently are right. I will continue to believe in one GOD, Heaven, Angels, Satan, and Hell. Maybe when we all get to Heaven, we can all have a waking since I don't think any earth religion is totally correct or totally wrong. Peace and Salvation on all those who Love and Serve God! Stephen

I am still waiting for an exmaple of a prophet and the criteria that has allowed you to draw such a conclusion.

If I am wrong, please show me how you are right.

StephenC wrote: I have not said anyone is NOT a prophet.  I have merely said we should ask for some kind of proof that a person is a true prophet from God and not some Jim Bakker (of Jim and Tammy Bakker) type of prophet.  There have been many false prophets claiming to be speaking from God.

Then could you provide the criteria you use to determine a true prophet?

I have pointed out that Smith and Muhammad both claim the same thing and are believed by millions to be a prophet from God, yet some of their statements are contradictary.

The two men did not claim the same thing. Their theologies are extremely different.

If I claimed to be a prophet from God would you accept that or would you demand proof?

demand evidence

I was told it was not blind faith.  Ok, why do you think that Muhammad is the last prophet from God?  Is it just because he said so?

Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam) not only proclaimed he was a Prophet but displayed mujizas to prove his word. This is a fact which has been transmitted to this present time with "tawatur" (unanimity such that it would be impossible for someone to get every person to lie). 

Not only did he perform miracles, but those who experienced his prophethood transmitted what they saw and experienced.

His character was beyond exception, morally, theologically, etc, etc.

The Quran is a work that has not been matched. From a man who was known to be uneducated, the Quran has stood on its own and has never been found with a single mistake, and its transmission has reflected part of the miracle of its completeness without alteration into deviation.

You, Muhammad, and millions of others claim he was the last prophet of God.  There are millions more that claim he was not.  Do we take a worldwide vote on it?

No, you ca only look at the facts, and then come to yoru own conclusion.

Like the criteria you use to determine true guidance. This must be some special criteria given the secrecy you have shown with it.

I just want a verifiable fact that he is the Last Prophet.  That is no word game.  I do find problems with the history of Muhammad as published by IslamiCity.com.  But I am trying to be opened minded about it. One thing other than 'he said he was' is all I am asking.  Is Islam so weak that such a question is so difficult?

The main point is that he produced mujiza.

This is an explanation of a mujiza as taken from the writing of a scholar.

To us, a mujiza is the thing proved the truthfulness of a person who said he was a Prophet. There were conditions for a mujiza:

1. Allahu ta'ala made it in the absence of ordinary means, and in this way He would help His Prophet be confirmed.

2. It had to be extraordinary. Ordinary things, such as the sun's rising in the East every day or flowers blooming in the spring, could not be mujizas.

3. Others had to be incapable of doing it.

4. It had to happen whenever the person who announced his prophethood wished it to.

5. It had to agree with his wish. For example, if he said that he would enliven a certain dead person and if some other marvel took place, for example, if a mountain was broken into two, it would not be a mujiza.

6. The mujiza happening upon his wish should not belie him. For example, while he was miraculously talking with a certain beast, if the beast said, "This man is a liar," it would not be a mujiza.

7. The mujiza should not happen before he said he was a Prophet. Wonders that happened before [the announcement of his prophethood], such as 'Isa's[1] ('alaihi 's-salam) talking when he was in a cradle, his being handed dates when he asked for dates from a withered-up tree, and in Muhammad's (alaihi 's-salam) childhood, the cleavage of his chest and his heart being cleansed by washing, there being a cloud over his head continuously and his being greeted by trees and stones were not mujizas, but karamas. They are called irhasat (preparatory signs of a prophet). They emphasized prophethood. It is possible for such karamas to happen through awliya' as well. Before Prophets were informed of their prophethood, their status was not lower than that of the awliya'. Karamas were seen from them. A mujiza could happen immediately after a Prophet is informed of his prophethood. For example, if he had said that such and such an event would take place a month later, the event would become a mujiza when it took place. But it would not be necessary to believe in his prophethood before it took place.

A mujiza demonstrating that a Prophet is telling the truth is not only a requirement of the intellect. That is, it is unlike the case of some work denoting the existence of its agent. For the intellect's realizing that something is the proof of something else requires some relationship between the two things. When the proof is seen, the existence of the related thing, not the existence of something else, is realized. The case is not so with a mujiza. For example, heavens being broken into pieces, stars being scattered and mountains being pulverized will take place when the end of the world comes, at the time of Doomsday. This will not be the time for the coming of a Prophet. These are the mujizas foretold by every Prophet. But, it is not necessary for those who hear about them to know that they are mujizas. So is the case with a wali's karama being the mujiza of a Prophet, though it does not have any connection with that Prophet. What we have stated so far is explained in detail in the book Sharh-i mawaqif by Sayyid Sharif al-Jurjani.

I guess the mind set of an investigator is different than other people.

Here are some of my observations that I have learned from my professional experiences:

When two people claim the same experience, and there are conflicting aspects to the two accounts, it is a proper investigative function to review the claims in more detail.

If a written account contains conflicting statements, it is a proper investigative function to review the statements in more detail.

Eyewitnesses account observed solely by family, friends, and/or followers, are all suspect as being biased.

A subject of an investigation�s personal history can provide insight into whether the person�s statements are factual.

Heresay in statements and writings lose creditability in each retelling or writing.

Edited writings cease to be the original writing of the author as they contain the thoughts of both the author and the editor.

Delays in reporting incidents, without logical reasons, makes the report less creditable and more prone to errors.

The doctrine of Ancient Documents holds that the older and longer accepted a document is, the more creditable it has unless there is provable evidence to the contrary.

If a person makes an abnormal claim, it is the responsibility of the claimant to provide evidence to support the claim.

Are any of these unreasonable?

By the way, do not jump to conclusions.  I do not recall saying that anyone was or was not a prophet.

Just because I am seeking the truth, it does not mean that I am an enemy of any person or religion.

StephenC wrote: I guess the mind set of an investigator is different than other people. Here are some of my observations that I have learned from my professional experiences: When two people claim the same experience, and there are conflicting aspects to the two accounts, it is a proper investigative function to review the claims in more detail.   If a written account contains conflicting statements, it is a proper investigative function to review the statements in more detail. Eyewitnesses account observed solely by family, friends, and/or followers, are all suspect as being biased. A subject of an investigation�s personal history can provide insight into whether the person�s statements are factual. Heresay in statements and writings lose creditability in each retelling or writing.   Edited writings cease to be the original writing of the author as they contain the thoughts of both the author and the editor.   Delays in reporting incidents, without logical reasons, makes the report less creditable and more prone to errors. The doctrine of Ancient Documents holds that the older and longer accepted a document is, the more creditable it has unless there is provable evidence to the contrary. If a person makes an abnormal claim, it is the responsibility of the claimant to provide evidence to support the claim. Are any of these unreasonable? By the way, do not jump to conclusions.  I do not recall saying that anyone was or was not a prophet. Just because I am seeking the truth, it does not mean that I am an enemy of any person or religion.

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6904&PN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6904& ;PN=1

enlighten us with your investigational skills

You're right, two people can have the same experiences in different contexts.  But that is what personal prayer is for... 

I'm a firm believer in the power of prayer to lead you where you need to be.  For me that doesn't always mean Mormonism.  God is just and merciful.  He leads people where they need to be in this world. 

But there is also a large difference in questioning the truth and the real desire to learn.  You cannot start out with accusations disguised as questions.  Before the other topic was closed I composed a long response to several of your questions regarding the miracles of both Prophets. 

There are reasons both men have devoted followers.  But, then again, have you watched the actions of the Dali Lama?  There is much good in his teachings too.  This is where prayer comes in.

You can be rational in your questions, you can logically think through things.

An example as to why Mormons believe Muhammed is a prophet is the purpose he served as a Prophet.  We believe Muhammed was sent to his people to lead them from Paganism.  He was given a portion of the Truth (as all prophets have) and was intrumental in bringing the Ummah away from the False Gods of their forefathers.  Now we do not believe him to be the last Prophet period, but its possible he was the last Prophet specifically for that people.

A Muslim would disagree with me that Muhammed was sent to all people.  In the end, neither of us can dictate what is really true and in the end only God can judge us.

This is where the belief in Judgment Day comes in and the belief in One God who is Supreme.  God will judge each man according to his heart.  God is perfect.  He makes no mistakes, unlike Man.  Therefore, we have to have Faith that God will look into our hearts and see the desires there. 

I firmly believe there will be peoples of all Faiths in Heaven as Brigham Young said in his vision of the Afterlife.

Angela

"We believe Muhammed was sent to his people to lead them from Paganism.  He was given a portion of the Truth (as all prophets have) and was intrumental in bringing the Ummah away from the False Gods of their forefathers.  Now we do not believe him to be the last Prophet period, but its possible he was the last Prophet specifically for that people."

Maybe he was sent to lead his people from Paganism.  And maybe he was given a portion of the Truth and was instrumental in bringing the Ummah away from the False Gods of their forefathers.  I have not disputed ANY of that.

I have disputed that he was "the last prophet period."  If he said that he was and that is not true.  Then he lied.

If he really was "the last prophet period" then Joseph Smith is a false prophet.  I can see it no other way.

By the way, I am in the Salt Lake City area this week.  I know that not all Mormons live here, but it is a beautiful area of the country.  Driving here, I could not help but to be impressed with the pilgrimage of the early Mormons who made the trip before Interstate 80 was built!  I think that was equal to any trip to Makkah!

StephenC wrote: Angela "We believe Muhammed was sent to his people to lead them from Paganism.  He was given a portion of the Truth (as all prophets have) and was intrumental in bringing the Ummah away from the False Gods of their forefathers.  Now we do not believe him to be the last Prophet period, but its possible he was the last Prophet specifically for that people." I have disputed that he was "the last prophet period."  If he said that he was and that is not true.  Then he lied. If he really was "the last prophet period" then Joseph Smith is a false prophet.  I can see it no other way.

Hi Stephen I highlighted your bit in green, ok?

Stephen I think you are getting mixed up in what Angela has said. She stated for mormons: "Now we do not believe him to be the last Prophet period, but its possible he was the last Prophet specifically for that people." So your last sentence is incorrect.

Muslims believe Muhammed to be the seal of the Prophets and so Joseph Smith would be false in the eyes of islam and muslims.

As for the first sentence how can Muhammed lie if he said he was the last Prophet 'period' for his people as per Angela's statement? (leaving aside that islam therefore Muhammed is for all people)

Andalus wrote: StephenC wrote: If I claimed to be a prophet from God would you accept that or would you demand proof? demand evidence

Out of curousity  - But would you believe though?

And with having the belief in/of islam and the evidence is as per the criteria that you brought forth which i guess is what you would use, right? (no?-something?) to measure the evidence of someone claiming to be a prophet.

think i just confused my curousity

Anyway, do you have a verse that Muhammad proclaimed he was the last, as muslims say the seal of the Prophets, it probably has been mentioned over time.

Finally what is mujizas? you stated that Muhammad produced or displayed it. Is that similar to miracles? I have not come across this before.

Perhaps you can make another thread on this and have what you put here from the scholar in there to.

Angel

"Stephen I think you are getting mixed up in what Angela has said. She stated for mormons: "Now we do not believe him to be the last Prophet period, but its possible he was the last Prophet specifically for that people." So your last sentence is incorrect.

Muslims believe Muhammed to be the seal of the Prophets and so Joseph Smith would be false in the eyes of islam and muslims.

As for the first sentence how can Muhammed lie if he said he was the last Prophet 'period' for his people as per Angela's statement? (leaving aside that islam therefore Muhammed is for all people)"

My responses were solely in response to Angela's comments about if Muhammad was the last prophet period - meaning that Muhammad was the last prophet from God for everyone.  I did not address the situation if Muhammad was the last prophet from God for HIM people.

In Matthew 15:24 Jesus said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Did Muhammad claim that he was "the last prophet from God" or did he claim that he was "the last prophet from God" for his people?

Logically speaking, if Muhammad was the last prophet from God for ALL people, then Joseph Smith could not be a true prophet from God (unless someone wants to argue that God's will changes).

If Joseph Smith is a true prophet from God, then how could Muhammad's claim to be the last prophet from God for everyone (if that is what he claimed) be true.

I agree if Muhammad was the last prophet from God for HiS people, then Smith could be a true prophet from God.

What did Muhammad claim?

StephenC wrote: So I should not question anyone who claims to have a message from God or an angel?

If you believe as you stated that God does speak to mankind and uses angels, why question it ?

For me personally I don't see a problem in questioning.

The fact that one God exists and is the creator is a given.

it's a given is it ?? really, what about those who do not believe in God's existence - is that a given also? I would say it is for them

What is your proof that one God exist or just God? Is that a fact or a belief ? which is it?

I believe God does speak to mankind and uses Angels.

So why is it different for Muhammad ??

However, if I compare undisputed encounters between mankind and God and/or his Angels with that of Muhammad (and Smith, Kresh, etc.) I find significant differences.

You don't comput here, what undisputed encounters between God/Angels and mankind? You must've come across some to say such a thing. And why is it a problem that there are differences with that of Muhammad (and smith, kresh whoever he is) ? Are ALL encounters with God and/or Angels suppose to be the same ?

air_one wrote: You've already asked this question on prophet Muhammad's claim as being the last prophet. I'v already answered it and showed you where in the Quran it states so. Do you always like to repeat your questions?

I am responding to someone else's post.  Do you always NOT read other peoples postings before you make your own?

StephenC wrote: What did Muhammad claim?

you know i just realise, in religion (islam) I believe it was God that choose Muhammed and apointed him as a messenger who is (suppose) the seal of the Prophets, so really Muhammed didn't claim anything, God chose him.

And also since islam is part of the Abrahamic line and all the Prophets came from, well............... was there any other in line??   There was no other that claimed/appointed to be a Prophet after Muhammed in the Abrahamic line was there

Angel wrote: StephenC wrote: So I should not question anyone who claims to have a message from God or an angel? If you believe as you stated that God does speak to mankind and uses angels, why question it ? For me personally I don't see a problem in questioning. The fact that one God exists and is the creator is a given. it's a given is it ?? really, what about those who do not believe in God's existence - is that a given also? I would say it is for them What is your proof that one God exist or just God? Is that a fact or a belief ? which is it? I believe God does speak to mankind and uses Angels. So why is it different for Muhammad ?? However, if I compare undisputed encounters between mankind and God and/or his Angels with that of Muhammad (and Smith, Kresh, etc.) I find significant differences. You don't comput here, what undisputed encounters between God/Angels and mankind? You must've come across some to say such a thing. And why is it a problem that there are differences with that of Muhammad (and smith, kresh whoever he is) ? Are ALL encounters with God and/or Angels suppose to be the same ?

Worship of God is the most important thing we can do, in my humble opinion.  I see the evidence of God in everything.  However, if you wish to debate about God, please let me know.

The problem, as I see it, is that there have been many people who claim to be Prophets from God when their "revelations" conflict with the "revelations" of other claimants.

Angel wrote: StephenC wrote: What did Muhammad claim? you know i just realise, in religion (islam) I believe it was God that choose Muhammed and apointed him as a messenger who is (suppose) the seal of the Prophets, so really Muhammed didn't claim anything, God chose him. And also since islam is part of the Abrahamic line and all the Prophets came from, well............... was there any other in line??   There was no other that claimed/appointed to be a Prophet after Muhammed in the Abrahamic line was there

I believe the correct statement is that Muhammad claimed that a Voice gave him "revelations."  Someone else told Muhammad that it had to be the Angel Gabriel.

I, in my ignorance, do not know of anywhere in the Quran, that Muhammad claimed something to the affect of:

"And the voice said 'I am the Angel Gabriel and these are the revelations of God'."

A cite to cure my ignorance would be most appreciated.

StephenC wrote: Worship of God is the most important thing we can do, in my humble opinion.  I see the evidence of God in everything.  However, if you wish to debate about God, please let me know.

thanks but not at this time, i was trying to point something out to you but you missed it

The problem, as I see it, is that there have been many people who claim to be Prophets from God when their "revelations" conflict with the "revelations" of other claimants.

I see

StephenC wrote: I believe the correct statement is that Muhammad claimed that a Voice gave him "revelations."  Someone else told Muhammad that it had to be the Angel Gabriel.

someone else ?? and who was this some one else?

You mean Angel Gabriel didn't speak to Muhammed despite what you say you believe in that God and/or the Angels do speak to mankind? I state again why is this different for Muhammad?

I, in my ignorance, do not know of anywhere in the Quran, that Muhammad claimed something to the affect of: "And the voice said 'I am the Angel Gabriel and these are the revelations of God'."

this is a bit silly.

The reason why you don't find anything of muhammad talking is because it is God talking, the qu'ran is the word of God not muhammad's.

Here is a verse stating that Muhammad is the seal of all prophets.

Al-Ahzab (The Confederates)

33:40 [And know, O believers, that] Muhammad is not the father of any one of your men, <>Asad(33,50) ^[50] but is God�s Apostle and the seal of all Prophets. <>Asad(33,51) [51] And God has indeed full knowledge of everything.

http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/ - http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/

A cite to cure my ignorance would be most appreciated.

Do you accept this verse and that God appointed Muhammed as the last / seal of all prophets ??

here is another:

Al-A'raf (The Heights)

7:157 those who shall follow the [last] Apostle, the unlettered prophet whom they shall find described in the Torah that is with them, and [later on] in the Gospel: <>Asad(7,124) [124] [the prophet] who will enjoin upon them the doing of what is right and forbid them the doing of what is wrong, and make lawful to them the good things of life and forbid them the bad things, and lift from them their burdens and the shackles that were upon them [aforetime]. <>Asad(7,125) [125] Those, therefore, who shall believe in him, and honour him, and succour him, and follow the light that has been bestowed from on high through him-it is they that shall attain to a happy state."

http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/ - http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/

Stephen, you need to know that the qu'ran is the word of God, so to ask for muhammad's claim is incorrect. Now I gave you 2 verses from qu'ran, it claims muhammad is the last and the seal.

Now personally you do not have to believe but this is islam and you did want to learn about islam and muslims, this is why you came to the baords, right?  This is their belief, this is what islam and Allah states, now you cannot go around telling this is not so when i just provided you with evidence.

I accept the information even though i don't believe in some things. There is no more to give, no more to go on.

But please do answer why muhammed is different when it comes to God/Angels speaking to mankind per your beliefs

-------------
~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~

StephenC wrote: I do not believe that the written Uthman Quran is an accurate rendition of revelations from God.  It is not magical.  Like the Bible and the Toran, it should not be worshipped.

Who says that the qu'ran is worshipped??

Whatever you believe (or not) the qu'ran like the bible and the torah is their guide, it is a spiritual and sacred book that is regarded highly, it is not worshipped, But Allah is, since the qu'ran is the word of Allah, the words of God is very important. The book is not actually worshipped but since the qu'ran holds the word of God, God is worshipped.

The Bible is imperfect, yet Christianity continues to increase.

and so is islam

Dear Staphen C

How did you reach the jugement you rendered about quran?

did you read It? did you study and understand it? Let me show you only few things mentioned in quran which shold make you think otherwise.

Big bang theory mentioned in quran, its mentioned that planets are rotating in orbits ordained by allah SWT , The place of resting of Noas ark is mentioned in revelation as the Ararat range of mountains but quran specifically Mentioned mount Judi.

How could it declare thatMountains are nails to provide stability to earth or else it will be unstable.

Stages of baby in mothers womb even the number of layers(3

creation of Jins (Ghost)

and many others,

Go take any helper and find one thing wrong in quran only then would be able to see how serius you are in rejection with knowledge.

Thanks for reading,  all praises are to aalah SWT but many of the mankind know not.

Stephen To your quesstion that God AM talked to mosses but why not  to Mohammad PBUH?

Only Allah SWT can answer this question Quote"  AllahSWT does what he wills"