BD,
First off, I took a quick look at the link you provided.
http://www.turandursun.net/en/criticism/muhammads-teachers.htmlSo acording to Tabari, Muhammed owned learned slaves who could read. First off, like you know Tabari included stories in his book without scrutinizing them, but let's assume this is true. The problem is: if you take all the stories in the Quran, then from an atheistic point of view, they have been plagarized AND distorted from
*many many sources*. So did he have numerous learned people who just so happened to believe in many texts including these that were
not part of the commonly accepted version of the Bible? What are the chances for this to happen? Almost nil.
Second it is not clear whether ummi meant illiterate as in can't read and write OR as in gentile. There are several hadiths where it slips that he wrote.
Ummi means illiterate... Umami means gentile... some Quranists mix the two because they can't accept that the prophet was Ummi, but the fact is Umami is NOT the same as Ummi.
Fourth
That's inference. Sure, it could mean less chance. But chance still. And we can't know because the documents were burned. Why would you burn something if there was no major difference? Or even few differences? This whole episode is iffy.
Regardless of whether that there were 7 versions of the Quran is true or not, the story says that these were all saying the same exact thing with very slight differences in the wording... When people started mixing the versions together Uthman burned 6 versions and kept one.. .like I said I'm not sure this story is true but even if it is true, the story does NOT say the versions were different but rather the differences were very trivial.
Third hadiths were removed agree. Not trust worthy all the time agreed. But which ones? How do we know? Plenty of them refer to Quranic verses for example. Events that explain them.
I agree that the Quranic verses referring to events that took place in Mecca/Medina are very abstract. It's like listening in on a conversation between two people without knowing the background. This, however, does NOT necessarily mean that all Hadiths that are claimed to provide the background for these verses are correct. In fact, many of such Hadiths contradict each other.
Your second point, not sure I understand. You mean this is a sign that the book was not corrupted? I agree Islamic monotheism is pretty damn strong. In fact my only problem with is the regular theistic arguments but more importantly the question of the Throne, and the angles lifting it. And God's face and hand.
I know Shia have a problem with God's face/hand but this could be metaphorical (as Shia/Mutazilites believe).
Also, are you saying Jews are not hard-line monotheists?
No... my objection to the Hebrew Bible is the numerous
blasphemous accounts. But then again, blasphemy is viewed by some as not so hard-line monotheism.
And I don't think a Christian would say they are polytheists, in fact I think this comment would infuriate them. I'm pretty sure they believe in one God. The aspects of Trinity are just facets of God.
In fact, there is NO trinity in the Bible. Jesus, in the Bible, NEVER asked anyone to worship him... this is a church doctorine.
In fact, if you quote Jacob wrestling with God (some say it was an angel) as blasphemous they might claim it to be mythical and metaphorical. Just like you would claim the Throne and Face/Hands to be metaphorical and poetic.
What about God LITERALLY fighting with the Jews? Did you check the links? What about Him visiting Abraham and drinking and eating from his feast? Did you check the links? I can go on forever giving you examples of blasphemy from the Bible.
Who ever wrote the Quran did not understand Judaism and Christianity as in depth as Jewish and Christian understanding. That's why I find it hard to believe that it was the Same God that revealed the same message to all religions and that it was this God that revealed it to Mohammed.
I think rather that Mohammad did not understand the religions too well. And was making politically charged statements when he spoke about the Trinity or Ezra being worshiped etc.
Like I said, the trinity does NOT exist in the Bible... it's a simple phrase that was grossly extrapolated into the full blown doctorine of the trinity. Anyway, God in the Quran is speaking from His point of view... if you say Jesus is God, then you are a disbeliever.. if you prayed to Mary/the Saints for intercession, like the Cathloics did, then you're making them lesser gods. Prayer is to God alone. No one is allowed to pray to anyone not even for intercession... I have discussed this in detail, in a Shia forum, by the way.
Topic: The Story of Sulayman