Right, I knew most of that, but what I was implying is that couldn't this just be the workings of a man, who's life experience as a marginally poor orphan who herded sheep and spent large portions of his time alone, made him very wise and allowed him to develop extremely deep and intelligent ideas? The development of these ideas then coming forth from his subconscious and being told to the people as "the word of God" only to actually be his word. Also, I know that he was illiterate, but that would not stop him from formulating opinions of his own as well. Also, you're probably going to bring up the impossibility of any man of the Prophets social standing writing the verses of the Qur'an because of their complex beauty and structure, however there are a number of instances where the text misuses words and so on.
Yes it is completely possible that he was just a wise man with formulating his own opinions but then we have to go into the Qur'an in-depth. There arevarious verses in the Qur'an that were unknown to the Arabs living at the time and the Prophet himself could not even explain them. One famous incident waswhen the people confronted him about verse 53 of chapter 20 which claims plants were created in pairs - male and females. The people ridiculed him and calledhim crazy for suggesting that plants could be male or female and there was no possible way he could explain it. Needless to say, with modern science, we doknow that plants do have sexes. Another famous example is verse 47 of chapter 51 which states:
"The heavens, We have built them with power. And verily, We are expanding it "
The companions of the Prophet and classical scholars alike were very curious about this verse but there was no possible explanation of it at the time. Duringthe time of the Prophet, it was accepted as the "ghaib" or the hidden knowledge of Allah. Once again, modern science has shown that this fits in linewith the Big Bang Theory. There are many, many more examples of these kind of verses in the Qur'an and there has been many books written by both classicaland modern Islamic scholars. Like you acknowledged, Muhammad was an illetrate man with no formal education. Science and technology was severely lacking in theArabian peninsula during his time. The Qur'an is littered with information that was unknown to even the most learned men at the time. There are clearverses in the Qur'an that mention the spherical shape of the Earth, the Big Bang Theory, human embryology that was unknown at the time, the water cycle,etc. To add to all this, he would have to have been a genius in warfare and military strategy, psychology, poetry and linguistics. All this for an uneducatedman is unimaginable.
To answer the issue about linguistic errors in the Qur'an let me just say a couple of things. First, Arabic is not my first language but I am a student ofthe language and I am currently studying Classical Qur'anic Arabic. Second, the Arabic of the Qur'an is very very different than the modern Arabic.Grammatical conventions, verbal idioms and other structural changes have taken place in the language over the years as one would expect would happen. Now, letme give you a quick example of an "error" that modern orientalists have accused the Qur'an of having.
Verse 9 Chapter 49: If two parties among the Believers fight, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other thenfight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah; but if it complies then make peace between them with justice andbe fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just).
In the Arabic language, there are declensions for singular, dual and plural verbs/nouns and they must match. In this verse, the word for "parties" isin the dual form implying "two parties". Following conventions of language, the Arabic word "fight" would have to also be dual which wouldbe "IQATATALATAA". However, the word used is in the form of plural, more than two: "IQATATALOO". This, appears, linguistically wrong andhas been criticized by secular scholars. The answer is simple when you look at the imagery given by this verse. It is about two groups of believers fightingone another. Imagine a battle field with two armies facing each other down. It is clear that there are two armies. However, when these believers fight and thearmies clash, it looks like a giant group from the same army fighting. They all have bears, thobes, kufis, yelling "Allahu Akbar", having flags withQuranic inscriptions on them, etc. During the battle, it looks like a free for all and there is nothing to distinguish them from one another because they areall Muslims in the sight of God. This "error" is actually a very sophisticated tool of imagery that, once again, is being employed by someone who wasilliterate and known to be knowledgeable in poetry.
This is just one example and every "error" is actually a legitimate literary device. If you have any specific ones in mind, point them out and I willbe more than happy to explain them to you as well.
So do you feel that certain miracles that were attributed to the Prophet after his death actually happened? Or were they just added afterword? At points in certain biographies of the Prophet they contrast with what is constantly stated in the Qur'an, because there he states "I am just a messenger/man" whereas in certain biographies there are miracles attributed to him.
I see here you are referring to the many verses in which God is proclaiming that Muhammad is just a man who eats, sleeps, walks around and willdie eventually. The purpose behind these verses is to remind Muslims that God should be the only one worshiped, not the Prophet. However, as a sign ofprophethood, God bestows signs on his prophets that prove they are prophets. These signs come in two types: minor miracles and the major miracles. These varyfor each prophet (for example, Moses' major miracle would be the splitting of the sea, Jesus' major miracle would be virgin birth, etc). In the case ofMuhammad, his major miracle was the Qur'an.
The Qur'an proclaims itself to be the major miracle because of it's linguistic sophistication, structure and beauty all bestowed upon an uneducatedman. Let's compare this to the miracles of Jesus (the virgin birth, raising the dead, walking on water, etc). Let's say that you and I were presentduring the time of Jesus and saw the miracles he was doing with our own eyes. To you and I, there would have been no doubt that Jesus was sent from God. Nowwhat happens when you pass the story to your kid and he passes it on to his and etc? Over time, it just because a fairy tale as Bill Maher would put it. Thereason is because the miracle cannot be proven today. In the case of the Qur'an, however, the miracle is still here. I am experiencing the miracle of theQur'an today just as those desert Arabs were experiencing 1400 years ago. It is tangible and just as easy for me to get a grasp of it.
So for every other miracle that was attributed to Muhammad such as splitting the moon, the cave and the spider incident, etc are considered minor miraclesbecause it they are not present today. These were signs from God to show his prophethood to the people around him. It was not out of his power that he wasperforming these miracles but it was God giving it to him.
