Had the allegation that Muhammad received all the knowledge contained in the Qur’an from a human teacher been an expression of an idea or a doubt felt by those who made it, they would have held on to it without moving to something different.
If the human mind were to try to explain the total break between Muhammad’s life before receiving his message and after it, it will inevitably conclude that the new knowledge Muhammad expressed must have been imparted to him by fresh instruction.
Since people do not know of any teachers on earth who are not human, the first thing that comes to mind is that there must be a man who has undertaken this fresh instruction and imparted its content to Muhammad.
Had there been even the slightest possibility that a person making such an allegation could find real or plausible factors which would give him even the slightest conviction within himself that this was the case, he would stick to it and would not seek a different explanation.
But those who make such allegations continue, even to this day, to be uncertain as to what to say about the Qur’an: should they claim that it was taught to Muhammad by another man, or should they say that it is the product of his own intellect, as mentioned earlier, or should they combine the two claims together, describing the Prophet as being ‘taught’ and a ‘madman’, as the Qur’an reports in verse 14 of Surah 44?
The allegation that the Qur’an was taught to Muhammad by a human being was the least frequent argument employed by those who denied that the Qur’an was revealed by God.
Instead, their most frequent argument was that it was self inspiration, although they could not agree on what psychological condition experienced by the Prophet led to the production of the Qur’an, and whether it was poetic inspiration, madness or mere dreaming. Remember, all these arguments are reported in the Qur’an itself.
They tried every angle and possibility to come up with something to support their rejection of the message of the Qur’an.
They did not stop at the limits that might reasonably be applied to serious speech like the Qur’an, or to a highly serious and wise mind like the Prophet’s.
They even considered the most extreme psychological conditions that produce human speech, whether the speaker be rational or irrational. This is clear evidence that they were not trying to prove an allegation they truly believed. They simply raised all possibilities and exhausted all options, overlooking all the defects therein. Basically, they were heedless of all improbability. They simply wanted to raise doubts in the minds of those who sought to know the truth and to learn the true faith.
Yet they were never satisfied with any opinion they advanced. Whenever they took up an opinion and tried to apply it to the Qur’an, they found that it was far from suitable. No plausible argument could be used to prove it.
Hence, they would quickly move to try a different opinion, then a third one, and every time they realised that all their attempts were futile.
They remained in doubt, torn between these views which they knew to be false.
If you wish to look at a picture describing their persistent confusion, you need only read the following verse of the Qur’an: “They say: Nay, [Muhammad propounds] the most involved and confusing of dreams! Nay, but he has invented all this! Nay, but he is only a poet!”
(21: 5.)
Look at how many times the conjunction indicating a switch of direction is used. This on its own depicts their state of confusion and how they were totally unable to agree on any thing.
It simply describes how a perjurer switches from one extreme to another when he feels that his lies are about to be discovered. Haphazardly, he seeks anything to help him support his untenable position. “See to what they liken you, [Prophet], simply because they have gone astray and are now unable to find a way [to the truth].”
(17: 48 & 25: 9.)
This is the same position adopted today by modern atheists who attribute the Qur’an to ‘self inspiration’. They allege that their view relies on modern scientific discoveries. But theirs is no new opinion.
It is, in substance and detail, the same as the old one advanced by former day opponents in the society of ignorant Arabia.
Those people of old described the Prophet as a man with a great and active imagination, as possessing a profound sensitivity, all of which made of him a poet.
Then they added that his emotions overpowered his senses to the extent that he could imagine that he was seeing and hearing someone speaking to him, while the reality of what he saw and heard was no more than his own emotions and feelings.
Thus, they attributed it all to madness or dreaming. But they could not persevere with such ‘explanations’. So they abandoned the notion of ‘self inspiration’ when they realised that the Qur’an included accounts of past and future communities.
They thought that he might have heard these from the scholars he met during his travels. This would mean that a human being had taught it all to him. So what is new in all this? Is it not a new version reflecting the old allegations of the ignorant Quraysh? Indeed neo-atheism is no more than an updated or distorted version of the former type in its oldest of guises.
Modern ideas are fed by the left-overs of past, ignorant days: “Even thus, the same as they say, spoke those who lived before their time; their hearts are all alike.”
(2: 118.)
Yet they acknowledged, in spite of all what they said about him, that the Prophet Muhammad was exemplary in his honesty.
They added that he could be excused in attributing his vision to Divine inspiration, because his dreams were so vivid that he thought it so.
They added that he could be excused in attributing his vision to Divine inspiration, because his dreams were so vivid that he thought it so. Hence, he only said what he believed. In the Qur’an, God tells us that their forerunners took the same attitude: “It is not that they give you the lie, but the evildoers simply deny God’s revelations.”
(6: 33.)
If he is justified in describing what he saw and heard as revelation, what justification had he in saying that neither he nor his people ever heard such news, when they alleged that he had heard them before?
In fact, to be consistent, they have to claim that it was all fabrication, but they do not wish to make such a claim so as to give themselves a guise of fairness and objectivity. Yet by adopting such an attitude they practically make that accusation, although they may not perceive it as so.
Chapter V
A Source Beyond Man’s World
All that we have said so far confirms the fact that there is no human source from which the Qur’an was derived, neither from within...
GO TO page v