Active Pages >> Response to Criticism  >> Composition of the Qur'an

Can it not be claimed that the Qur'an’s has been but the composition of Muhammad (pbuh) himself ?
In composing the Qur'an, could it not have been the intention of Muhammad (pbuh) to achieve for himself the worldly benefits that may accrue in establishing himself as the messenger of God?
What is wrong in considering that Muhammad(pbuh) had aimed for worldly authority?
Can it not be professed that the Qur'an was a book composed byMuhammad (pbuh) with the objective of uniting the quarrelsome Arabs and to, thereby, lead them to the heights of greatness?
If it was said that the Qur'an was a book which was written byMuhammad (pbuh) in order that a society steeped in immorality be led to morality can this assertion be denied?
Could it not have been that Muhammad(pbuh) suffered from Schizophrenia and that the feeling of revelations was but a symptom of that disorder? In fact, was he not called a madman by his contemporaries?
Muhammed (pbuh) might have received revelation. But could it not havebeen Satanic revelations?
  About Holy Qur'an ?
  About Sunnah or Hadith
  Our Books
  Our Cassettes
  For New Muslims
  Response to Criticism
  Public Programs
  Creative Media

"O mankind! There has come to you a good advice from your Lord (ie, the Qur’an), and a healing for that (disease of ignorance, doubt, hypocrisy and differences, etc) in your breasts,-a guidance and a mercy for the believers."

Holy Qur’an 3:83

Can it not be claimed that the Qur'an’s has been but the composition of Muhammad (pbuh) himself ?

Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) had lived in the light of history. It was through him that the world first heard of the Qur'an. As such, all that may be asserted by those who do not accept the Divine status of the Qur'an is that it is the composition of Muhammad(pbuh). There are however, certain facts that must be understood as the premises for this discussion. It can only be on the foundations of these premises that the question as to whether the authorship of the Qur'an can be attributed to prophet Muhammad(pbuh) can be discussed.

One : Muhammad(pbuh) had been, upto the age of forty, the most favoured man among the Arabs. It was because he had claimed that the Qur'an was Divinely inspired and that the commandments within it are to be adhered to, that he was hated; osctracized; and forced to flee from his hometown.

Two : Even among his hardest opponents there was unanimity about the truthfulness of Muhammad(pbuh). It is difficult, therefore, to believe that after living forty years of his life with the greatest truthfulness, he should venture to declare a falsehood in the name of the Lord Creator and that he should have risked his own life for the sake of its propagation.

Three : Men of letters were accorded a high status in Arabia. There was not the slightest dissenting opinion among any, as regards the lofty position of the Qur'an in its viability as a literary creation. If he had ventured to claim the Qur'an as his own work, he would have gained great respectability and status amongst the Arabs.

Four : There are references in the Qur'an which have criticized certain of the actions of Muhammad(pbuh) himself.

Five : There are also other references in the Qur'an which reproache Muhammad(pbuh) in the strongest possible terms.
It should be in the light of these facts that the pros and cons of the argument that the Qur'an is the work of Muhammad(pbuh) should be examined.

Indeed, if a work of great literary merit is composed and is then attributed to the name of God, there must necessarily exist vested interests that lurk beneath. To expose those vested interests will then be the duty of the critics. It will be on the basis of such an exposition alone that the truth of the claim can be ascertained.



In composing the Qur'an, could it not have been the intention of Muhammad (pbuh) to achieve for himself the worldly benefits that may accrue in establishing himself as the messenger of God?

It is greatly probable that Muhammad(pbuh), who had grown up an orphan, was exposed to considerable hardships in life. However, with his marriage to the business woman, Khadeeja (r), it is also probable that there was, naturally, a considerable rise in his standard of living. As the husband of Khadeeja, the possibility that he would have been prone to the constraints of a financial kind is remote indeed. The marriage of Muhammad(pbuh) to Khadeeja took place fifteen years before his attaining to prophethood. This means that it was only after fifteen years of his having led a life of financial security that Muhammad(pbuh) came on to the scene with the claims that he was a messenger of God and that the Qur'an constituted the word of God. If the attainment of wordly profits was his motive, his financial position should have become stronger after he made the claim. But what was it that actually transpired?

Says Aysha (r), the wife of the prophet, "As there was no food cooked in our house, the cooking place would go without a fire being lit for one or two months at a stretch. Ours was a diet of dates and water. Some times it would be the milk of goats and the dried shells of dates which those from Madinah would bring us."
Aysha was once recalling the past days to a person. The subject of narration was the difficulties which the prophet and his family endured after the migration. She then talked of an occasion in which they worked in the house in total darkness. "Was not there a lamp?" enquired the person. She then replied thus: "If the oil to burn the lamp was in our possession, instead of burning it, we would have drank it to satisfy our hunger."

This by no means, was the situation that was prevalent only in the first years of the prophet’s mission. For even after Muhammad(pbuh) had assumed the position of the powerful sovereign of a vast empire his condition was not very much different. Let the inner sanctum of the ruler of the Islamic empire be described in the words of Umar (r), his own companion:
"I never saw anything save three pieces of leather in a corner and a little barley in the room of the prophet. I wept at this. The prophet asked, ‘Why is it that you cry?’ I said: "O messenger of Allah! How will I hold back my tears? I see the imprint of the palm leaves on thine own body. I am also aware of the contents of this room.O messenger of Allah! Beseech Allah for the ample means of thine own sustenance. For, while the rulers of the Persian and Roman people - the Chosroes and the Caesars - live in the luxury of gardens beneath which rivers flow, the chosen messenger of Allah should live in abject poverty and hunger!’ When he heard this reply of mine, the prophet, who had been reclining on a pillow, now sat up and then said, ‘Oh Umar! Are you still in doubt concerning this matter ? The comforts and provisions of the Hereafter are much better than the comforts and provisions of this wordly life. The unbelievers enjoy their share of the good things in this life. As for our share, it has been reserved for the life Hereafter.’ Forthwith did I implore the prophet thus, ‘O Messenger of God! Pray for my forgiveness for I have, indeed, erred.’"

It is the claim that the Qur'an was the creation of Muhammad (pbuh), which he had contrived for his own wordly gains, that is rendered baseless here. For it is, indeed, without foundation to say that the man who had given away the seven dinars, which were his only wordly possession, in charity on his death-bed and who died, thereof, after pawning his armour with a jew, was a man after wealth. Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia has considered baseless the argument that the creation of the Qur'an was due to an excessive love for wealth: "A notion has been created that the religious revolution of Muhammad was driven by a love of wealth. Actual and known facts, however, will contest this notion." (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IX, Page 1001)



What is wrong in considering that Muhammad(pbuh) had aimed for worldly authority?

What is it that is meant by the love of power and authority? It is the desire to invest oneself with the authority of a country and to, thereby, lead a life of comfort and luxury. It is true that the prophet had attained to power after having had borne the trials, tribulations and tortures of thirteen years before reaching Medina by adopting exile from his own land. However, his authority was never a path to the life of comfort and luxury. For, who, if any, can ever call a lover of authority, a man who, even when in the position of a ruler, slept his nights on mats of palm leaves, washed his own clothes, stitched his footwear and milked the goats?

Those who actually seek after power and authority are those that desire to stand aloof from, and be respected by, people in the name of that authority. As for the prophet, he was one who had served the people while living as one amongst them. On one occasion, all who were present stood up as the prophet entered the place. The prophet, thereof, ordered against this practice. He said, "Do not stand up in respect even as some amongst the Persians who stand up in respect of others from amongst them."

He advised thus, "Do not praise me as the Christians praised Jesus, the son of Maryam." All this indicates clearly that Muhammad(pbuh) was never one to go after authority.

Furthermore, he was promised authority and power in the early, difficult days at Mecca itself if, and only if, he stopped the propagation of his message. The leaders of the society approached him one day with the intention of enticing him with a proposal. They said, "If it is wealth that thee covet, we will give thee all the wealth that you desire. If it is authority that ye want, we will make obeisance to thee as our king. If it is women of beauty that ye desire we will arrange for your marriage with the women of your own choosing." An offer before which any person would have succumbed! A most tempting offer indeed! Just one word was all that was required. He would then be the most wealthy man in the region. All people of the land would then pay their homage to him as their king. Beautiful women would then dance before him. But this was what the prophet said, " I am in need of neither authority nor wealth. The Lord Creator has appointed me but as a warner to mankind. It is His message which I deliver unto you. Those who accept it can achieve for themselves peace and contentment in this world and eternal salvation in the next. As for those who accept not the Divine message, it is He Himself Who will judge their case."

This incident took place in the early years of the mission at Mecca. If the prophet’s goal was to grab authority by writing the Qur'an and thereby making it accepted that he was, indeed, the messenger of God, why was it that he refrained from the offer of authority that was placed at his feet without his having to undergo any suffering whatsoever? It is amply evident from this that Muhammad(pbuh) never hankered after power or authority. Briefly put, it was never the desire for power which worked behind the composition of the Qur'an.



Can it not be professed that the Qur'an was a book composed byMuhammad (pbuh) with the objective of uniting the quarrelsome Arabs and to, thereby, lead them to the heights of greatness?

If it was, indeed, the goal of uniting the Arabs and of leading them on to the path of progress which had worked behind the composition of the Qur'an, then this should have been evident in the themes that were discussed therein. However, to one who has had even a single reading of the Qur'an, the fact that the cause of Arab nationalism has not been espoused as a subject anywhere within it, is very clear. Furthermore, before the facts mentioned hereunder, the claim that it was Arab revivalism which had worked behind the composition of the Qur'an is shown to be utterly without foundation.

One: There is in the Qur'an, not even a single verse which encourages Arab revivalism or unity.

Two: The idea that the Qur'an does put forward is the vision of an ideological community which is never constrained by territorial or national boundaries of any sort. In this community grounded in an ideology - referred to by the noun ‘ummat’ - those who accept the Truth are all members who are never constricted by boundaries of any kind: whether of national, regional, racial or caste. Indeed, the concept of Arab nationalism is, in itself, totally alien to the teachings of the Qur'an.

Three: If Arab revivalism was the goal of Muhammad(pbuh) he would have sought to unify them and lead them on to the path of progress by accepting the promised offer of authority when it was made to him. However, that never happened. He had, instead of working for a revival by accepting the offer of power, turned it down.

Four: Even after he was accorded recognition, he never advocated the particular cause of the Arabs in any way. In fact, he declared, in the most unambiguous terms, at his farewell sermon, that "the Arab has no superiority over the non-Arab nor has the non-Arab any superiority over the Arab except in the matter of God-consciousness." Can this be the words of a person who had laboured for the cause of Arab nationalism?

Five: There are two women who have been mentioned in the Qur'an as being the perfect exemplars for the believers. One is the wife of the Pharoah and the other the mother of Jesus (66:11,12). Neither of them were Arab. Can those whom the person, who wrote a book for the cause of Arab nationalism, cites as perfect examples, ever be the opponents of the Arabs themselves? The Qur'an speaks of Maryam in this fashion: "Behold! the angels said, ‘O Mary! Allah hath chosen thee and purified thee - chosen thee above the women of all nations.’" (3:42). It must also be remembered that at no place in the Bible has Maryam been mentioned with such reverence. Indeed, the Qur'an never picked the mother or wife of Muhammad(pbuh) or even any Arab woman, for that matter, to be the greatest woman of all time. It was, in fact, the Israelite woman, Maryam, who was conferred that status. Is it possible to expect such a reference from an advocate of the cause of Arab nationalism?

Six: A person who worked for the revival of Arab nationalism would seek to inflate the ego of the Arabs with his compositions. He would, therefore, talk of the greatness of the Arabs. But the Qur'an, on the other hand, talks of the greatness that was conferred upon the Israelites. "O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others" (2:47).


If it was said that the Qur'an was a book which was written byMuhammad (pbuh) in order that a society steeped in immorality be led to morality can this assertion be denied?

The Qur'an is, indeed, a book that guides people to the way of morality and virtue. In fact, it is the Qur'an, and the Qur'an alone, which can claim the distinction of being a book which transformed a society that was steeped in wine, gambling and warfare into a people who became the staunchest advocates and practitioners of morality and virtue within a short span of just twenty three years. However, to any who have had even a cursory reading of the Qur'an, it is clear that to say Muhammad(pbuh) had written the Qur'an for the cause of moral revivalism and had then attributed it to God is to say what is without foundation.Observe the facts mentioned below:

One: There have been no two opinions about the fact that Muhammad(pbuh) was truthful. It is illogical, therefore, to assume that such a one as he would then, in the name of moral revival, attribute a blatant falsehood to the name of God. It is unbelievable that a person who persevered for the cause of morality would then committ, for the same cause, a  gross immorality. What, indeed, can be a greater sin than attributing lies to the name of God?

Two: The Qur'an itself has declared that the worst transgressor is the one who invents lies in the name of the Lord Creator and the one who writes his own words and then says that it is from God. "Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie agaist Allah, or saith, ‘I have received inspiration,’ when he hath received none, or (again) who saith, ‘I can reveal the like of what Allah hath revealed’?" (6:93). If the Qur'an is, indeed, Muhammad’s own work, then the ‘most wicked’ one mentioned in this verse must necessarily be he himself. Will he have condescended to describe himself as the "most wicked" and to preserve it in writing too?

Three: God has cursed those who write with their own hands and then attribute it to God. "Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: ‘This is from Allah’." (2:79). If the Qur'an is, indeed, the work of Muhammad(pbuh), then this curse is applicable to him also. Consider this : to makes one’s own composition; then to proceed to curse one’s own self. Is this believable?

Four: The Qur'an is not a book that was revealed all at once. The verses of the Qur'an were, in fact, revealed over a long period of twenty three years and, that too, under varying circumstances. Indeed, in some cases, the verses of the Qur'an were revealed as a direct answer to the questions posed by the people. There are, in the Qur'an, around fifteen occasions wherein the verses which employ the style "they ask thee (O Muhammad) concerning..." and "Say (O Muhammad)..." have been used. It is evident from this that there were occasions when the prophet could not provide a satisfactory answer to the questions of the people on each topic and that it was only later, with the revelation of the verses of the Qur'an, that this became possible. If the composition of the Qur'an was, indeed, the work of the prophet, who sought to bring about a moral revival, he would have been able to answer the questions of the people as and when they arose. For instance, if it was the prophet’s intention to save the people from the evils of drinking and gambling, he could have straightaway declared them to be sinful. But that was not done; instead, without making his own statement he awaited the arrival of the Divine revelation. It was only after the revelation of the Divine verses that he sought to take action against these evils.

Five: There are certain Qur'anic verses which seek to correct prophet Muhammad(pbuh). The verses of the Qur'an (80:1-10) which criticized the action of the prophet when he did not receive the blind Abdulla bin Ummi Makthoom with warmth and respect owing to his being engaged in discussion with the leaders of the Quraysh, are only too well-known. Another incident: In the Battle of Uhud wherein the Muslims had suffered great losses, the prophet too had received a number of bodily injuries. After the battle he had cursed some of the disbelievers and had mentioned to himself thus, "How will a people, who injure their own prophet, ever progress ?" Immediately was the verse of the Qur'an, which sought to correct the prophet, revealed : "Not for thee, (but for Allah), is the decision: Whether He turn in mercy to them, or punish them; for they are indeed wrong-doers." (3:128) If the Qur'an was really the composition of the prophet, which he had made for the moral transformation of the people, would there have been verses in the Qur'an which criticized his own actions?


Could it not have been that Muhammad(pbuh) suffered from Schizophrenia and that the feeling of revelations was but a symptom of that disorder? In fact, was he not called a madman by his contemporaries?

It has been the most important allegation of the rationalists that prophet Muhammad(pbuh) suffered from Schizophrenia. For, as far as those who will not recognize the existence of God are concerned, no matter how often the truth of revelation is reiterated to them, they will never ever appreciate it. It is for this reason that any discussion with the atheist must, necessarily, begin with the issue of the existence of God. How, indeed, can a people, who reject the very existence of the Lord Creator himself, be made to accept the truthfulness of a revelation that proceeds from Him ?

With regard to the question posed here, however, it is its second part that must actually be dealt with first. Was Muhammad(pbuh) called a madman by his contemporaries? If so, then what were the symptoms of madness, which he exhibited, on the basis of which they had made this allegation?

Upto the age of forty, Muhammad(pbuh) had been the owner of a personality that was truthful in its disposition and accepted by all in society. In this long period of time none had ever, in any way, attributed to him the state of lunacy. It is, however, true that after prophethood he had been subject to the allegation of being a madman. But significantly enough, it was not just a madman that Muhammad(pbuh) was called. Indeed, he had been abused with the allegations of being a sorcerer, a magician, one affected by witchcraft, a poet and the like. Was it because of a marked and obvious difference in his personality, or mental disposition, that they abused him as being such ? That this was, indeed, the case, was never advocated by any of them. Their problem had been the Qur'an and the ideas which it contained. Muhammad(pbuh) had spoken out against their traditional beliefs. Moreover, because he had called it Divine, people were fast being attracted to the Qur'an which he now recited to them.All these allegations against him were but the deliberate fabrications of the guardians of the traditional religion who now realized that they had to resort to his character assasination if they were to isolate him from the people.

The time when Muhammad(pbuh) had publicly declared his prophethood; the time of the Hajj was at hand. The leaders of Mecca greatly feared that Muhammad(pbuh) would propagate his religion among the people who would come from all the different parts of Arabia and that they would be attracted by the Qur'an. Forthwith did they convene a meeting. It was then decided that they would first meet with those who arrived for the Hajj and unleash a propaganda against Muhammad(pbuh). The next discussion centered on the question as to how Muhammad(pbuh) was to be described. That each should give a different description would be an affront to their own credibility. What, then, would be the allegation that may be made in common between them? Some said, "Let us say that Muhammad(pbuh) is a soothsayer." To this, Waleed bin Mugheera, a prominent tribal chief retorted, "That can never be. For, by Allah, he is not a soothsayer and we have seen soothsayers. Muhammad’s words are not the prophecies of soothsayers." Yet others said, "We shall say that he is a madman." Then said Waleed, "He is not a madman. We have seen madmen and he has nothing either of their mad talk or of their antics and devilish tendencies." At this, they said, "Then, in that case, let us say that he is a poet." But Waleed countered, "He is no poet. For we are aware of all the types of poetry and, for a surety, it is not poetry that he uttereth." The people then said, " Let us say, then, that he is a sorcerer." But Waleed retorted once again, "He is no sorcerer and he uses neither their knots nor their lutes."

"Then what is it that you propose?" they demanded. He then declared, "Verily, there is a particular sweetness in his words. Its value is expansive, even as fruit-laden are its branches. For a certainty, all that you may utter against him will, in time, prove to be meaningless and futile. It is, therefore, suitable that he be described as a magician who is out to disrupt the ties between father and children, husband and wife as well as between the older and the younger brother!" Accept this the people did. They started, also, the propagation likewise.

What is it that this incident gives us to understand? The allegation that he was a madman was but one among the other false propaganda fabricated by his enemies to alienate the people from the guidance of the prophet. In fact, the very people who spread this misconception themselves never believed in it. It is for this same reason, therefore, that to accept as evidence their allegation will be to do that which will amount to rank foolishness.

The prophet had lived fourteen centuries ago. As such, to examine whether he did actually suffer from schizophrenia is, as of today, beyond us. It is, however, the revelation and dreams which he experienced that are now upheld as evidences by those who allege that Muhammad(pbuh) had, indeed, been a schizophrenic patient. Moreover, this claim has been put forward by the critics on the basis of the ahadith which describes the nature of the revelation as told by the prophet and the external and physical changes to which the prophet was subjected while in receipt of the divine revelation. However, an impartial enquiry into the subject as to whether the symptoms of a schizophrenic disorder were, indeed, present in the prophet will make it amply clear that this allegation is without any substance, whatsoever.

One :
The behavioural patterns of a schizophrenic patient is constantly in a flux. This inconsistency manifests itself in the behaviour displayed while dealing with other people and in one’s conversation as well.

Examine the life and speech of Muhammad(pbuh). We are unable to trace out any contradiction, whatsoever, in his approach or character. If prophet Muhammad(pbuh) was, indeed, the owner of a code of behaviour that constantly shifted as well as of a manner of talking in which there was no relation between his present and past utterances, how was it possible that he did have so many trustworthy and devoted companions?

The companions of Muhammad(pbuh) were never like the followers of the ordinary divines whom we have come to know of today. They were ever engaged in carrying out into practice all that he recommended them to accomplish. Is it believable that a great multitude of people would go on to carry out the bidding of a schizophrenic patient?

Two : The responses of the schizophrenic patient, will also be contradictory. Indeed, such people might burst out crying in times of joy and burst out laughing in times of grief. It is also seen that they cry and laugh for no particular reason.
The responses exhibited by Muhammad (pbuh) were, however, well-balanced. Consider just an incident in this regard. The prophet was once resting himself in the shade of a tree. Suddenly he is confronted by an attacker with a drawn-out sword who asks, "Who will now save thee from myself ?" With firmness came the prophet’s reply, "Allah!" Upon hearing this reply, behind which stood a great, and manifest, conviction, the sword slipped down from the hand of the would-be attacker.

Is it possible to expect such strength of conviction from a schizophrenic patient?

Three : Schizophrenic people are usually introverts. They never take the slightest interest in the happenings of the outside world.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had never been an introvert. Indeed, he was a man who not only viewed with the greatest interest the developments in the world around him, but he also played out his own role were the circumstances prevailing ever to call forth such a necessity. He was, furthermore, a person who had striven not only to provide a moral code to the people, but also to live out a life that would stand as an exemplary model for them to follow.

Lamartine wrote: "Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, the conqueror of ideas, the restorer of the faith, of a cult without images, the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and one spiritual empire - that was Muhammad. As regards all the standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask the question: ‘Is there any man greater that he?" (Historie De la Turquie, vol. 2, page 277)
Is this the evaluative account about an introvert who was also a schizophrenic?

Four : Those who suffer from Schizophrenia can hardly work systematically towards the attainment of any slated objective. Such people, who are unable to accomplish anything of significance, will necessarily be a mentally and physically exhausted lot.
Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) had been the last of the messengers of God who had been sent for the guidance of humanity. He was eminently successful in that he accomplished the very purpose of his mission in a span of time which stretched roughly over two decades. Indeed, Muhammad(pbuh) managed to attract scores of people to the religion of truth by way of a disciplined method of propagation. It had been just all of twenty three years that was required to transform a people who had been nowhere in civilization and culture into a race that became the highest exemplars for the whole world. All those who have analysed history with impartiality have opined that Muhammad(pbuh) was indeed, the person who has most influenced the world.

Will those, who know even a little about the said disorder, ever accept that all this was possible by a schizophrenic patient?

Five : The Schizophrenic patient suffers from delusions as well as hallucinations. These delusion and hallucinations have no semblance or relation with reality.

The critics have attributed Schizophrenia to him by classifyng the revelations and visions which the prophet Muhammad(pbuh) received into this category. We have, however, seen that none of the other symptoms of Schizophrenia were present in the prophet. Then how will it be possible to attribute a schizophrenic disorder to him in the light these revelations alone? The ‘revelations’ to which the schizophrenic patient is subject are but a symptom of the disease. Such revelations will be related and confined only to his own personal domains. But what of the revelations which Muhammad(pbuh) had experienced? Those revelations had served to carve out an ideal community in a step by step fashion. Firstly, it inculcated, in the people, the consciousness about God and of the Hereafter. Through stage after stage, it struck at the very root of the evils that had afflicted the society. In such manner was it, therefore, that the revelations experienced by Muhammad(pbuh) were able to become the very cause behind the creation of an exemplary society. Indeed, the revolution that was wrought stands at the pinnacle of greatness. In the broad sweep of history there has not been another revolution to rival it in any way.

Is it ever possible that the delusions of a schizophrenic patient can serve as the cause of the creation of an exemplary society and of a faultless and incomparable revolution?

It is clear from all this that the allegations that Muhammad(pbuh) was a schizophrenic patient and that it is the delusions which he had heard that form the contents of the Qur'an are merely allegations that do not deserve to be considered in their own right.



Muhammed (pbuh) might have received revelation. But could it not havebeen Satanic revelations?

It has been Christian critics who have alleged that the revelation received by Muhammad(pbuh) were, in fact, from the Satan himself. It has been the endeavour of the Christian writers like C.D. Fander, Claire Tisdal, Joshmach Dowell, John Gilchrist and G. Nehless to expose the revelations received by Muhammad (pbuh) as being the insinuations of the Devil. They advocate the idea that it had been the attempt of the Devil to confine man within the pitfalls of sin by way of denying the cruicifixion of Jesus Christ and the atonement of sin through it, that stands behind the verses of the Qur'an. Can the Devil infest the human body? Can a person be afflicted with disease owing to his possession by the Devil? Will a person possessed by the Devil have the experience of revelation? Such discussions are irrelevant here. By the dictum of the Bible, then, let us consider the disorders that manifest themselves in the person possessed by the Devil :

1. Screaming aloud owing to the affliction of the brain (Mark 1:24, Luke 9:39, John 10:20)

2. Suicidal tendency (Mathew 9,18:17, 15:32, Mark 5:13, Luke 8:33)

3. Tendency to walk naked (Luke 8:2, 8:35)

4. To be pushed aside by the Devil (Mathew 17:15, Mark 1:26, 9:18, 9:20, 9:26)

5. Dumbness (Mark 9:25, 9:32, 12:22, Luke 11:14)

6. Deafness (Mark 9:25)

7. Blindness (Mathew 12:22)

8. To see that which others do not and to know that which others don’t (Mark 1:24, Luke 4:3, Mathew 8:29)

None of the symptoms of the one possessed by the Devil, which are described in the Bible, is seen in the person of Muhammad(pbuh). One of the evidences cited by those who allege that Muhammad (pbuh) was possessed by the Devil has been his own statement that the Divine revelation sometimes came to him in the form of the ringing of a bell and that that form of revelation was the hardest for him. Another evidence cited has been the saying of Aysha (r), the wife of the prophet, that she saw beads of perspiration on the forehead of the prophet when the revelation came upon him on a very cold day. Here, there is an important question that is to be considered. Does the Bible say, in any place, that the one possessed by the Devil feels the ringing of a bell in his ears or that his forehead is dampened with the wetness of perspiration even in extreme cold? If it does not, then what, indeed, is the basis on which the followers of the Bible allege satanic possession against the prophet?

Those who say that the Divine message received by the prophet was the production of a Devilish possession, are, in fact, actually forced to say that their own holy men are themselves possessed by the Devil.
‘St. Paul’ had been the one who had actively laboured to destroy Jesus as well as the ideas that he taught (Acts of the Apostles 9:1, 26:10, 8:1) as long as he remained on the earth, after which it was that he came forward with the claim that Christ had appeared to him in a vision. Observe the description in the Bible of the way in which he had received this vision of Christ: "As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’
‘Who are you, Lord ?’ Saul asked. ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.’ He replied. ‘Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.’

The men travelling with Saul stood there speechless, they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything." (Acts of the Apostles 9:3-9)

We have seen that the Bible indicates the falling down to the ground, seeing that which others do not see and hearing that which others do not hear as being the symptoms of a devilish possession. In the incident wherein Paul claimed that he saw Christ, he had experienced all these symptoms too. But will the Christian world accept it if it was now claimed that Paul himself had been possessed of the Devil? The Christian critics will never be able to produce even a single shred of evidence from the Bible to conclusively assert that Muhammad(pbuh) was possesed by the Devil. On the other hand, however, it can be shown, using the Bible, that Paul, the real founder of the present-day Christian faith, had been subjected to the insinuations of the Satan. Then who is it, now, who is actually possessed of by the Devil ?

Now, examine the very corner-stone of the Christian allegation that the Qur'an had come to be written because of the Satanic influences that moved Muhammad(pbuh). After all, it has been only because of the Qur'anic denunciation of the concept of salvation through the crucifixion of Jesus Christ that the Qur'an has been alleged to be a satanic creation. What, then, is the reality? Both Christians and Muslims believe that Jesus was of a pure and unblemished character. Both groups are agreed upon the fact that he had been appointed of by God, Almighty Himself. Further still, both affirm that he was not possessed by the Devil. If such is the case, then why should we not compare the teachings of Jesus Christ with those of Paul and Muhammad(pbuh) in order to analyze as to who it was - Paul or Muhammad(pbuh) - who was afflicted by the insinuations of the Satan. For any person in receipt of a revelation from the Devil must, of a necessity, be an enemy of Jesus; going by the consideration that the antagonist of a messenger from God will naturally be the antagonist of the message that he conveys.

Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the prophets" (Mathew 5:17)

The Qur'an says, "It was We who revealed the Torah (to Moses): therein was guidance and light." (5:44)

"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: ‘O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (Sent) to you, confirming the Taurat (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.’" (61:6)

Paul had written, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law." (Galatians 3:13)

"By abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations." (Ephesians 2:15)

Jesus said that he came not to destroy the law; the Qur'an, too, says the same. As for Paul, he contends that Jesus had come to save the world from the law. Who indeed, is the one receiving the revelation of Satan here?

Jesus Christ had never taught that he was God. (Mark 12:29, Mathew 4:10). The Qur'an, too, reiterates this beyond the shadow of a doubt. (3:51). But Paul had stated thus, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with, God something to be grasped." (Philippians 2:6) and "He is the image of the invisible God, the first born over all creation." (Colossians 1:15). Jesus had never received any revelation that stated that he himself was God. Even if he did receive such a revelation, he would certainly have made it known. But Paul seems to have received a ‘revelation’ declaring Jesus to be God. Whence, indeed, must that ‘revelation’ have proceeded ?

The Bible described the circumcision as a covenant which God had made with Abraham. The Lord had instructed Abraham about the circumcision as follows: "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generation to come.’" (Genesis 17:9-14). The Bible quotes God as having told Moses, "‘On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.’" (Leviticus 12:3). Jesus, too, had observed this divine commandment: "On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him ....." (Luke 2:21) Jesus had never instructed anyone against the circumcision. This had been for the simple reason that he had never received such a revelation in the first place. But observe what Paul says: ".... if you let yourselves be circumcised Christ will be of no value to you at all." (Galatians 5:2). Whence did Paul receive this ‘revelation’ ? Of a certainty, not from God. If not, then where from indeed?

The major reason behind the allegation that Muhammad(pbuh) had his revelations from the Devil has been that the Qur'an refuted the crucifixion and salvation of humanity through the sacrifice of a single individual. There are numerous verses in the Qur'an wherein Jesus and his mother have been praised and have found the most reverential mention. It may also be remembered that Maryam has been the only woman to be referred by name in the Qur'an. The Qur'an further describes even the miracle wrought through Jesus which has not been recorded in the Bible like his having breathed life into birds of clay (3:49). The incident wherein the baby Jesus had spoken from his cradle which the Qur'an describes (19:30) is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. There is nothing in the Qur'an that serve to tarnish the pure character of Jesus. Here it is especially relevant that according to the Gospel of John, the first miracle of Christ had been that he had produced wine at a marriage function in Cana (John 2:1-11). There is, however, no such reference in the Qur'an.

The Biblical concept has been that "... anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse." (Deuteronomy 21:23). The Jews had thought that they had had Jesus accursed by way of impaling him onto the cross. Paul, too, says the same thing. "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’" (Galatians 3:13). It follows from this that the crucifixion has only served to make of Jesus an accursed person. But the Qur'an does not accept the idea that Jesus had become so accursed for the sins of the whole world. What is it to believe that God never heard the prayer of Jesus which he made in order that he be saved from the accursed wooden cross (Mathew 29:39) other than the very rejection of Divine mercy itself ? The Qur'an, however, teaches that God had, by way of saving Jesus from the accursed wooden cross, destroyed the plot of the Jews. (4:157,158)

The Jews contend that Jesus had become accursed by way of his being impaled upon the cross.

Paul contends that Jesus had become accursed by way of his dying upon the cross.

The Qur'an contends that God saved the chaste Jesus from the cross.

Which among these is the revelation of the Satan? Is it the one which magnifies Jesus or is it the one which makes of him an accursed person?
In short, therefore, the stark reality has been that those who strive to produce proofs to the effect that the Qur'an’s has been a satanic revelation, have kept falling into the pitfalls of their own making.