Critical pages from Abu Dawud's Kitab Al-Masahif - Why would a 'rightly guided' Caliph burn hundreds of the earliest copies of the Qur'an?
'Uthman's action was drastic, to say the least'
Some fascinating insights into
the convoluted codification of the final Qur'an by a reputable early
For the background see John Gilchrist's devastating and masterful little work:
In Arabic: Jam' Al-Qur'an
A list of
differences between contemporary copies of the Qur'an and
the version of Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud,
whom Mohammed described as the best of reciters.
In English: Jam' Al-Qur'an
Mohammed's own act
of major shirk, according to the criteria of Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhab
(according to the criteria of chapter 14, conclusion 3, and chapter 17 of his thesis on the Tauhid)
"Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?
Satan cast the words on his tongue, "These are the high flying cranes; verily their intercession is accepted with approval."
Narrated consistently by four reputable Muslim historians - Al Waqidi, Ibn Ishaq, Mohammed Ibn Sa'd* and Imam Tabari*
- deceitfully airbrushed away by modern Muslims - the dating argument is perhaps the strongest for trying to pretend that four reputable historians concocted this extremely damaging episode from rumours. This problem is easily explained by allowing for earlier 'revelation' of the pertinent parts of the Surahs in question, which were only completed later. One can scarcely imagine why any self respecting Muslim would want to record such an appalling episode of compromise in the hagiography if their teacher and exemplar, if it were mere gossip, yet no less than four dutifully and specifically recount the main details.
this incident is the cause of the peculiarly Islamic view that
polytheism is always unforgivable - being an attempted
compensation for this most sinful and foolish compromise with
اللَّهَ لَا يَغْفِرُ أَن يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَٰلِكَ
لِمَن يَشَاءُ ۚ وَمَن يُشْرِكْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ افْتَرَىٰ إِثْمًا
Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth;
to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin most heinous indeed. (4.48)
How can a truly
inspired revelation so irrevocably condemn its own messenger?
How can a true prophet of the God of Truth formally and publically declare so damnable a lie as Truth?
Where is there any example of such a hideous 'mistake' in all the Torah, Zabur or Injil?
On the contrary,
even the inspired but unregenerate prophet Balaam was compelled
to speak only the truth of God,
despite the strongest temptation to compromise. (Nu 22:18,38, 23:12)
'God is not a man,
that he should lie;
neither the son of man, that he should repent:
hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?'
But the Word of
God was made flesh...and this sinful 'prophet' denies it.
His judgement will not linger.
of the original Arabic text are given here in the links)
Some explanation of the background from 'Answering Islam'
Front page of At-Tabaqat Al-Kubra
by Mohamed Ibn Sa'd
Also available on line at:
This link (with thanks to Jobanx of FFI for his helpful suggestions)
(Scroll down till you reach subtitle 'cause of return of companions')
Title page of Comments on Sura
An-Nagm by Imam Tabari
Some relevant comments by Bukhari