> Quran and Hadith

[optimist]

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

Yes, I agree that inspiring and speaking are different. But how does Allah inspire? What does he use to inspire a person since he is completely separate and outside of his creation, is he not? So, if Gabriel is not involved in the communication, then how does Allah "get into" someone's heart and mind and inspire them? And if Allah does not have a mouth, how does he actually speak?

Without interrupting the discussion let me clarify the methods through which Allah communicates with human beings as mentioned in the Quran.

“And it is not for a man that God should speak to him except by direct revelation, or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger to reveal by His command what He pleases. Surely, He is High, Wise.” (Quran 42:51)

Therefore, Allah communicates with people in three ways. The first two methods applicable for the prophets and the last applicable for ordinary human beings.

1. Direct Revelation:-

“Say 'Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel' -- for he it is who has caused it to descend on thy heart by the command of God, fulfilling that revelation which precedes it, and is a guidance and glad tidings to the believers.”(2:97)

Through Gabriel Allah instills the contents of His Wahi (revelations) in the hearts of the prophets. We cannot say how was it instilled in Nabi’s heart. How did Gabriel deliver it or what was the nature of talking.

2. From behind a veil:-

Quran mentions this happening with regard to Moses. It is narrated in chapter 27, verse 7-9 in the Quran.

“When Moses reached the fire, he heard a voice, "The place where you see the fire (the top of Mount Sinai) and its surroundings (the land of Palestine) is highly blessed land (for a number of Anbia will be born here; and for the Bani-Israel this will be the land of great revolutions). (7:137; 28:30). (Moses was taken aback and started looking around, wondering who had called and from where this voice had come. Thereupon) The heavenly voice said, "O Moses! The voice is from your God, Who is extremely powerful and rational. (His strength and wisdom will become obvious during the struggle that will confront you shortly.)

(Thereafter various directives about the mission were issued to Moses.) "Present (before the Pharaoh) these directives which are conclusive and a great source of strength for you.” When Moses realized both the importance and the difficulties of this uphill task, he felt as if he was being asked to deal with a live python. Moses thought of turning back; and he was also scared of going to Pharaoh (7:108; 20:17-22; 26:32-33). Thereupon the voice called out, "O Moses, fear not! When We are with Our Messengers there is no reason for them to be afraid of anything.” (20:15)

3. By sending a messenger:-

As far as other ordinary human beings are concerned, a prophet is sent to them. The prophet conveys to them the Divine Revelation bestowed by Allah's command. People cannot communicate with God directly. After the end of Nabuwat, the only way to communicate with God is through the Holy Quran; i.e. when we read Quran, God communicates with us. This is because Quran is the word of God.

[optimist]

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

What's the point of testing people when you already know what the results would be before the test is even administered?

“And if God had so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community: but [He willed it otherwise] in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto you. Vie, then, with one another in doing good works!” (5:48)

“He who has created death as well as life, so that He might put you to a test [and thus show] which of you is best in conduct, and [make you realize that] He alone is almighty, truly forgiving” (67:2).

Allah tests us not for Himself to know the result of the test. It is for the people themselves to know on the Day of Judgment that they are not unfairly treated. Man has been created with free will. He has complete freedom of choice to accept or reject the guidance to the right path (18:29). The divine guidance would be delivered to men with: ‘So whoever is guided, does so for their own selves, and whoever decides to go the wrong way shall bear the consequences’ – (10:108); also (39:41). Man is capable of exercising his free will to change his decisions. Allah knows what decisions Man is going to take. “Everyone has the responsibility of one’s own actions. No one carries another’s burden” (6:165). The modus operandi was for Allah to hand His guidance through Revelation to His messengers who then passed it on to men --- ‘so that, after the messengers, men cannot blame Allah’ – (4:165). Or people may not say “If Allah had guided us, we would have been law-abiding: “ – (13:7).

[TheBoxer]

optimist,

How does Gabriel cause something to "descend" on someone's heart? How exactly does that work? Does Gabriel possess people? And if a revelation first went to Gabriel and THEN to a human, how is that "direct" revelation from Allah? Isn't that really indirect revelation since it went through an intermediary?

Even if God speaks "from behind a veil" if it is truly God speaking, then isn't that DIRECT revelation?

If the Quran verses each have a particular historical context and were revealed to handle certain situations that came up, then how is it God communicating with us now when those words were all delivered for particular events and problems that arose during Muhammad's prophethood?

If the point of testing people is to prove Allah's justice on the day of judgement, then what is the point of an eternal hell?

~TheBoxer

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

al-boriqee,

First off, thanks for answering my questions.

no problem
　

Secondly, I'm sure we're straying off-topic, but delving into such matters as these always leads to new topics. If the administrators of this site want to break up my posts into new threads, they're welcome to it however it may make it difficult for new readers to follow the train of thought of myself and of those who are responding to my posts.

Since this is your thread specifically, I think Muhammad Salman won't dissect the thread in order to preserve this train of thought
　

You wrote:

So, every time Muhammad had a revelation, it was from Gabriel?

No, only when he received revelation of Allah's literal speech in the form of the Qur'an.

And these modes that don't involve Gabriel, does Allah directly speak to people through dreams? Does he put his words and thoughts into people's heads in the form of dreams? And if so, then doesn't that also constitute the "Word of Allah"?

No, the word of Allah is His speech. If Allah didn't say it, then it is not His speech.

I guess I'm having difficulty understanding this kalima stuff. I mean, Allah doesn't have vocal chords,

That does not matter.
1. Allah is UNLIKE the creation
2. Allah does not need required necessities in order to carry out His actions. For exmaple, humans cannot "create" anything. They can only make or invent something from material that aleady exist. However, Allah cane make something to be brought into existence out of nothing by merely saying "Be" and it is. Allah does not need anything to carry out His Will. Likewise, Allah does not need "blood" in order to have Life. Allah does not need vocal cords in order to speech. He does not need an eardrum in order to hear, He does not need eyeballs in a socket in order to see. Alla of His attributes and Actions are unlike that of creation and are free from any deficiency and they are free from any need of any other requirement. To believing in the opposite of this entails that Allah has a deficiency in His Being.

and humans made up languages, not Allah

Knowledge, in essence comes from Allah. All knowledge, its origin coms from Allah. So language is indirectly from Allah. But even if for the sake of argument your right (as this is more theoretical than fundamental), so what. Are you saying Allah cannot speak the language whom His servants formed from the knowledge that they acquired, which originally comes from Him to begin with.

so when he communicates with a created being of light (Gabriel) who then communicates Allah's message to a created being of flesh-and-blood (Muhammad), I guess I'm wondering where this idea of "literal speech of Allah" comes from.

When Allah spoke the Qur'an, He spoke of it from above the seven heavens before the advent of Muhammad and it was preserved in the Preserved Tablet, and Jibreel (Gabriel) took what he was ordered to take from the sections of the Qur'an to Muhammad in the span of 23 years until Jibreel took the last of the Qur'an that needed to be revealed near the end and revealed it to Muhammad.

Is Allah simply communicating his thoughts and feelings into one being (a angel) who then communicates those thoughts and feelings into another being (a human)? And if Gabriel is not involved, but Allah sends a dream, then isn't that DIRECT communication from Allah himself?

I think all of this was explained just recently above. I don;t know how revelation works because Im not a prophet. i don;t know how the metaphysical dynamic of revelation works between the Ultimate deity and a chosen. I have to research it a bit further because I haven;t read on this subject in years and i have to refresh myself to be able to explain it somewhat better, even though the little information we have is very little.
When Allah inspires through dreams, it is inspiration, it is not direct revelation. Direct revelation is when Allah Himself speaks to you with no barrier, and a dream is a barrier. When we say "direct communication": we mean that in a literal fashion.

Yes, I agree that inspiring and speaking are different. But how does Allah inspire?

I don;t know, Im not a prophet.

What does he use to inspire a person since he is completely separate and outside of his creation, is he not?

A Lord that cannot communicate to His creation from beyond the creation is a Lord with deficiencies and a Lord that has a deficiency is not a Lord at all. This is why we say "Fa'alu limaa yureed" i.e. He does whatever He wills.
Your asking me about the abilities of a Lord that I have not been given knowledge as to HOW He performs His actions.

So, if Gabriel is not involved in the communication, then how does Allah "get into" someone's heart and mind and inspire them? And if Allah does not have a mouth, how does he actually speak?

If I were a prophet, I would tell you how. But then again, part of the mission of prophethood is to develop the human to his sublime state, and that sublime state of perfection is through the submission of obedience. A person is higher in status in the sight of Allah who does not need for Allah to explain to himself anything, but rather When Allah mentions what He does, then he is unhesitant to accept it. We don;t know HOW Allah does what He does, We just merely believe in what He says He does. This is why our methodology is based on the fact that We believe, and understand the basic meaning of His nature, but we do not know HOW His nature is or How He executes His Will.

So, the Prophet Muhammad was the living Word of Allah?

yes

But the Quran specifically states that adulterers are to be flogged 100 times and no mercy should be shown in meting out this punishment

No it didn;t. I just quoted yu the ayaah. It said the fornicator and the fornicatress, NOT the adulterer.

. It seems to me that a new punishment--DEATH--would be a bit of a collision, don't you think?

it would had it stated the stated and INTENDED the adulterer, but it did not, rather its implied speech was with regard to the fornicator.

So, when using the Quran we must refer to the Hadith for context, and when using the Hadith we must refer to ___ for context?

the salaf. The salaf are the companions and their students. the final mode of the true enactment of Islam is how people who are not prophets (i.e. the companions) have understood how to implement Islam. Muhammad was sent to reveal the Qur'an, AND to explain to people was was sent down to them, which is a verse in the Qur'an. So the companions and their students (who are called the salaf) were and are the criterion in How Islam is to be understood overall. The fundamentals of islam are locked in, fossilized, upon their way. That is why no one can invent a new teaching in Islam without being exposed for heresy and utterly refuted, because this is one fo the modes of protection that Allah ensured in the presrvation of "adh-Dhikr" which I wold you earlier.
Allah made the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad the criterion for Islam itself in the verse

"Say, If you indeed love Allah, then follow me, and surely Allah will love you"

Likewise, Allah made the prophets companions a criterion for how Islam is to be understood in the ayaah

"And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the way of the believers, We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell - what an evil destination!
( سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #115)"

so here, the criterion for understand Islam in light of How Allah desired for mankind to understand it is through the path of the prophet and through the understanding of the companions because the only believers on earth when this verse was revealed is none other than the companions. So Allah ensured the protection of Islam through this methodology

Who were "they"?

the companions

Okay, so basically the Companions' understanding of things is the correct way to go, right?

yep

Oh, I see. So, in essence, the Companions were nearly prophets as well...at least in how much Islam relied on them?

No, it just means that the companions UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS INTENDED by Allah in the revelation. It does not mean they were prophets. it just means they understood exactly what was intended.

What's the point of testing people when you already know what the results would be before the test is even administered?

Because there is a greater wisdom to Allah;s decree and actions than anything that our human cognitive reasoning can understand from this action. To people like us, we find such an action "illogical". But it is not illogical to the one who created logic to begin with. This is why of all the issues of religion, Qadr (devine pre-ordainment) is the most confusing for humanity which is why people were commanded to not dwell and speak on the topic in depth.

Secondly, The test is for the benefit of OURSELVES, not for Allah.

Not all religions have the basic premise of testing people. Like I said before, testing seems a tad illogical considering the test-giver already knows what score the test taker would get before the test even starts.

1. I did not say "all religion" I said "the methodology of the prophets" that means Islam. i did not say all religions. The only thing my speech was entailing was the methodology or way of the prophets, meaning according to their doctrine, then this is how it is, and this is our way.
2. as I said above, the test is for us, not for Him. Secondly, just ot add to your understanding,, to NOT administer the test and automatically put us in fire or paradise goes against the aspect of the human free will. This is why the subject is complicated because on one hand we have human free will, and on the other hand we have His pre-ordainment of all things. This is why the tst, is for our benefit because we are given the choice to disobey and stubbornly not submit, or we can obey and submit.

Why would God expect people to follow rules blindly without any logical reason for doing so?

Because Not ALL religion is based on reason. One of the companions of he prophet, Ali ibn Abi Talib said

"had the religion been based upon the intellect, we would have wiped over the bottom of our socks instead of the top" (while making ritual ablution).

secondly, one of our great Imaams and Jurist, Sam'aanee said

"The people of the Sunnah say: ‘ The foundation of the Religion is following (al-Ittibaa') and the intellect is subservient.' So if the foundation of the Religion was upon the intellect, the creation would have been in no need of Revelation, nor of Prophets, and the meaning of commanding and prohibiting would be false, and whoever wished could have said whatever he wished.”

demanding the logic of a thing defies the very purpose of submitting to the Lord Who is asking you to submit to His Will. For the people of faith, the people of faith reason that Allah Himself wants the BEST for us. So when Allah demands or prohibits a thing, why would they question Him who not only knows, but intends the best for us and Who is Most forbearing with us. It does not make sense for people who have faith, to demand the logic of anything He performs. Abraham, even in your own tradition which refers his sacrifice to Isaac instead of Ishmael (even though it was Ismael), did not demand or ask Allah for the "logic" or "reason" to sacrifice his only son, rather he willfully submitted to His command, and Allah did it to test him. And look what happened, an immense mercy and favor from Allah upon him and all of his offspring because of this single act of ultimate servitude. This same servtide, is what Muslims are upon, albeit not to that extent, but this is how we roll and how we operate.

How else is one to know if something is truly from a logical, intelligent Creator or from an illogical, not-so-intelligent human being?

Becaus the logic of a human being is not the ULTIMATE criterion for the determination of right and wrong, logical and unlogical etc. WHY, because humans are on different levels. something can seem perfectly logical for one person and sound completely absurd to another. This is why the human intellect is not the criterion to use as the basis in understanding something as deep as religion. Rather, the human uses his intellect and logic to harmonize his experience with the faith, and not that he subjects the faith to logic. That is why philosophers have done in the past. they viewed everything from their finite reasoning, and in the process, they said that there is no afterlife, there is no heaven, there is no hell, there is no God that creates, rather God is merely the "first cause". He does not have any attributes, He has no Knowledge, etc. This is what happens when human logic enters upon the arena of religion, it makes such blasphemies such as these.

But the Quran doesn't say "for adultery or fornication give lashes or stoning." It just says lashes for both sins. Why is clarification necessary here?

your right, it says for the "muzanih" and the word "zina" canimply both the fornicator and the adulterer. And since the ayaah was left general, and since we have a hadeeth that is more specific, then we know HOW to understand the ayaah. we know that it only is intended for the fornicator, and not the adulterer.

But BOTH are perpetrators because it takes TWO to tango.

we know that, but this is irrelevant to the discussion and we already agreed on this. That is why the hadeeth perfectly explain the general implication of the Qur'anic verse. if we did not have the sunnah of he prophet, then lashes would be understood for anyone who commits the sin of zina (which is either fornication or adultery), but SINCE we have a hadeeth that explains that the adulterer is to be stoned, then we understand more clearly the intent of Allah in the verse.

Let me explain this in unequivocal terms where you do not need to be in doubt any more.
It means that WHOEVER (of the two who tangoed) is the fornicator is to be lashed, and WHOEVER (of the two who tangoed) is the adulterer is to be stoned, and if BOTH are fornicators, then both are lashed, and if both are adulterers, then they are both stoned. that is islamic law on zina explained in crash course 101

so this would make this question

The woman could not commit adultery all by herself, now could she?

irrelevant, and likewise the comments about taking two to tango.
Likewise, what I stated above should completely abolish this statement of yours

So, shouldn't the man also be held accountable for sleeping with another man's wife rather than just be guilty of fornication?

from your mind because there is nothing in the law that is geared towards a gender, rather it is geared towards the act performed, and not the gender who did it. Thus this question is likewise made irrelevant.

likewise, it would render the remaining statements

His punishment is the same whether the woman he sleeps with is married or not. That doesn't seem to do much to protect the sanctity of marriage or the respect one man should show another.

irrelevant as well

Now, as for the rest

Well, I thought zina could mean adultery or fornication.

　
Salem Al-Hasi from the Reading Islam website - "The meaning of zina (adultery)", September 15, 2002:

The word zina (adultery and fornication), in Islam, can be used in two different, yet related, ways. It can be used as a general term that refers to a general meaning, and as a legal term defining a criminal act that invites punishments and other legal applications.

Zina in its broad meaning indicates any haram (prohibited) act, whether the act was sexual intercourse or a look, talk, touch, or desire that is related or may lead to elicit sexual relations.


The Fatwa Center at Islamweb - Fatwa No. : 83682 - "Definition of Zina", January 1, 2002:

The Zina for which the Had (certain punishment prescribed in Sharia) would be imposed on is penetration of a glans penis into a forbidden vagina. The other acts such as kissing, hugging, and caressing are no doubt among the minor acts of Zina but there is no Had imposed on them. But, doing so is a sin and whoever indulges in that sin would be punished. And also he should make sincere repentance from this sin by giving up it, feeling sorrow for what he has done and asking forgiveness of Allah.
　
Therefore, the translation is not wrong. But either way, it still states that the punishment for zina is lashes. It says nothing about stoning or the need for a greater punishment. In fact, it sounds like Allah thought this was a rather harsh sentence which is why he warned Muslims not compassion prevent them from meting it out.

Are each of these translators wrong?

The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment. (Yusuf Ali)

The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment. (Pickthal)

The woman and the man guilty of illegal sexual intercourse, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. (Hilali/Khan)
　
~TheBoxer

ALLLLL of that, to understand it it needs to be understood in this light

It means that WHOEVER (of the two who tangoed) is the fornicator is to be lashed, and WHOEVER (of the two who tangoed) is the adulterer is to be stoned, and if BOTH are fornicators, then both are lashed, and if both are adulterers, then they are both stoned. that is islamic law on zina explained in crash course 101

just convert all of what was stated in your quote, into this single small paragraph here because the author of what you brought essentially alluded to this meaning Im giving here. we already know that Zina means both the fornicator and adulterer. But when we have a general text saying "the one who does zina is to be lashed" and another specific text saying "the one who is the adulterer, then stone him", then the general text of the one who commits zin HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD to mean that it is talking about the fornicator and not the adulterer. That is why the translators you listed above are RIGHT, and not wrong, because they understood and translated based on what was intended, as it would be confusing for the reader if they literally translated it, and you are the perfect demonstration of how such confusion can take place.

so again, refer the entire subject into that single statement above.

[optimist]

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

optimist,

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

How does Gabriel cause something to "descend" on someone's heart? How exactly does that work? Does Gabriel possess people? And if a revelation first went to Gabriel and THEN to a human, how is that "direct" revelation from Allah? Isn't that really indirect revelation since it went through an intermediary?

TheBoxer,

The Quran, defines revelation as "sending down" or "nuzul".

“Verily we have sent down to thee the Book with truth” (39:2).

The point to bear in mind is that the reception of Wahi is an intense and vital experience, but it is not an experience which has been induced by subjective factors. The prophet does not objectify his personal experience. He is intensely and vividly aware of his encounter with the Divine. He feels himself the passive recipient of a message, which must remain uncontaminated by his personal desires and feelings. The words he utters in this state are not his but God's.

Say (O Muhammad) : It is not for me to change it of my own accord. I only follow that which is revealed to me (10:15)

Oh prophet, do not be in haste and wait until the full text of Wahi in respect of that matter is revealed to you. Wait until your knowledge is further increased (and only then you should take the next step” (20:114)

Do not move your tongue with it (the Revelation) to hasten it. (75:16)

Wahi to the prophet literally a revelation, the impact of something new, unexpected and unsuspected; something not deriving either from his past experience or from his present mental state. Says the Qur'an:

And thus We have revealed to thee a revelation by Our Command; thou didn't not know what the Book was nor the faith ; but We have made it a light by which guide whom We please of Our servants (42:52; 28:86).

We don’t know how exactly how the Wahi was "descended" into the prophet’s heart and it is not important for guidance. Gabrial was carrying the message as it is without any changes. Even the prophet is sternly warned in the Quran against making any changes in the revelation.

“And if he (the prophet) had fabricated against Us certain sayings, We would most defi­nitely have seized him by the right hand, THEN CUT OFF HIS HEART”S VEIN.” (69:44-46)

Even if God speaks "from behind a veil" if it is truly God speaking, then isn't that DIRECT revelation?

I already posted for you the relevant verse which explains different modes by which Allah communicates with mankind. It is silly to get involved in discussion whether it is direct revelation or indirect revelation. What is important is that, the revelation from Allah, no matter what method He uses to convey it, in all circumstances, a given revelation will be the same even by letter.

If the Quran verses each have a particular historical context and were revealed to handle certain situations that came up, then how is it God communicating with us now when those words were all delivered for particular events and problems that arose during Muhammad's prophethood?

Allah says in the Quran that it is a complete code of life.

"For, indeed, many facets have We given in this Qur'an to every kind of lesson [designed] for [the benefit of] mankind!”- (17:89)

"And We have revealed the Book to you which has the clear explanation of everything, and a guidance and mercy and good news for those who submit." - (16:89)

It is the duty of an Islamic Republic to legislate the clauses and sub-clauses of Quran's basic Shari'at laws or principles, according to the social, cultural and geo-political conditions of the time, by consensus (means in consultation with all).

“Those who respond to their Lord and establish regular prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual Consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance” - (42:38)

It is precisely because of this, the prophet was commanded to consult his companions (3:159) and followers. The statements and principal laws of Quran were meant to remain permanent and absolute for all times. This Islamic state must impose Quran's Laws and examine what Quran says about other departments of life and how Quran can fulfil those legislative needs. The important thing is that you will not find any aspect of governance untouched by Quran.

If the point of testing people is to prove Allah's justice on the day of judgement, then what is the point of an eternal hell?

The Quran states right in the beginning.

"(Allah is the) Master of the Day of Judgment." (1:3)

Thus, the Day of Resurrection turns out to be the Day of Judgment, whose only purpose is dispensation of justice by God independently.

"Do you know what is the Day of Judgment? That is the day when no soul hath power at all for any (other) soul. The (absolute) command on that day is Allah's. (82:19)

"Then every soul will be paid in full that which it earned, and they will not be wronged." (2:281)

The entire system of Reward & Punishment rests on Man’s being responsible for his actions. Responsibility has to come from freedom of choice. No freedom of choice, no responsibility. Subsequently, one will be answerable only for actions committed out of free will (16:106). Also (in 33:5): “you won’t be held answerable for (an unintentional) mistake - only for one which you make with your heart’s intention”.

It was perfectly within Allah’s powers to create Man compelled like the rest of the creation In chapter Younis Allah says: “ If Allah had willed so, all men on Earth would have become convinced (of the message but He did not will it so and gave Man the freedom of choice). Then, are you (the Messenger) going to push people to conviction (against their will)?” (10:99). “If We had wanted (all men to forcibly follow Our way), We would have provided guidance to each single person….. “ (33:13). People have complete freedom of choice to accept or reject the guidance to the right path (18:29). The aim is to develop human qualities and test the use of free will (5:48-49)

Optimist

[salman]

sorry for an off topic comment but it is kind of important

please make sure that you do not duplicate questions and responses because TheBoxer also opened another topic which seems to be based on this or more or less connected. Maybe it would be better if we merge them together so that the all the discussion can be easily followed and kept at one place

Boxer, let me know how do you want it?

thank you

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

When Allah spoke the Qur'an, He spoke of it from above the seven heavens before the advent of Muhammad and it was preserved in the Preserved Tablet, and Jibreel (Gabriel) took what he was ordered to take from the sections of the Qur'an to Muhammad in the span of 23 years until Jibreel took the last of the Qur'an that needed to be revealed near the end and revealed it to Muhammad.

Salam,

I believe there is no need to go for such 'imaginary' descriptions for the revelation of wahi to the prophet. We have been told that Wahi is caused to decent into the prophet heart through Gabriel by the command of Allah. This would be sufficient for us.

“Say 'Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel' -- for he it is who has caused it to descend on thy heart by the command of God, fulfilling that revelation which precedes it, and is a guidance and glad tidings to the believers.”(2:97)

To say that Wahi was preserved in the Preserved Tablet, and Jibreel took what he was ordered to take from the sections of it would be meaningless considering the following verse and many other verses.

“O you who believe, do not put questions about things which if declared to you may trouble you, and if you question about them when the Qur'an is being revealed, they shall be declared to you; Allah pardons this, and Allah is Forgiving, Forbearing. Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith” - (5: 101-102).

May be you will argue that even this verse, and answers for all "possible unnecessary questions" were already preserved in the Preserved Tablet.

One more example, In Uhud Muslims suffered a setback. Afterwards, when they pondered upon the setback with ‘How did it happen?’, Allah’s reply to that was: “Tell, (them O Prophet!), that was from your own selves.” (3:165).

Well, again you may argue that that even the exclamation made by muslims after Uhud, "how did it happen?" and its answer, both were already preserved in the 'Preserved Tablets' (meant to be part of the Quran) before the creation of the world!! Please don't complicate things unnecessarily. The teachings of Islam is simple and Islam is simple to practice.

Wassalam

[amar_labedi]

Peace Mercy and Blessings of Almighty God be on you