Mohammed's new book

The major point of Islam, distinguished from others who believed in one God, was that Mohammed was his prophet. The ones who wanted to deny him but acknowledge the Creator were condemned. After all the suras had been recorded, sides taken, battles fought, as he lay dying, he requested more paper to record a new book with instructions to his followers. This was denied him so that it did not confuse those who would follow the Koran. And what he had recorded or spoken as he lay in Aisha's hut suffering the result of that poisoning was destroyed. This to me is reprehensible.

If he is after all, god's messenger, how dare his followers deny him anything! His messages as he spoke in Mecca were recorded. The things written as he weakened for Ali to share were passed on, what he gave at his last ministry in the mosque was treasured. If his ultimate revelations were consistent with those, they would not be obscured. Confiscated, obfuscated. What was the basis for silencing their leader? He had to have made statements, ranting in his delirium that discredited the messages or the consistency of them. And what was he finally acknowledging that the others did not desire to be heard?

These were to be his terminal instructions that the ones he had spiritual authority over would have to look to after he was gone. He knew he was dying. Asked special permission to stay with Aisha in comfort instead of passing from one after another of his wives' beds. His final wishes should have been fulfilled. If he recanted a bit of his claims, aware that he would soon have to face the Almighty and answer for his plans or if he gave more radical instructions of how to serve Islam, whatever, they should have been recorded.

However, the message comes down from Muslim historians-for only his closest intimates were around. Aisha and Ali one or both in the room on whose breast he died, depending upon which source you believe. Abu Bakr and others were close by. Uthman and Omar, as two of his father's in laws as well as close confidants, were there too, though not in the room constantly. I will have to check my bio of him to see if Muawya was there too. Anyway, those are the first four declared caliphs-Ali being declared before having to fight for it and losing to Muawya. Abu Bakr,Omar, Uthman, Ali. What right had they to overrule Allah's Apostle, the Messenger, of anything?

It is related that he wanted to supplant the Koran, to dictate a new book, though this one was mostly still verbal, with parts memorized, written on various fragments, and so on, though Omar's daughter had a written copy of all the suras that she guarded. But if he denied the Koran, repudiated it, should they not have listened to their spiritual leader? Should they not receive even part of a new revelation before their source died? For if anything were wrong, surely they would want to know it. And if they did not, why not? What if it pointed them back to the Bible, corroborating more of its authenticity? Shouldn't that make a difference in what their future actions should be? And should not these future leaders of their people care for what was best for their flocks (of people-leaders are called shepherds of the flocks in Christianity.)

Moreover when these scholars led the move after his death to call for all the bits of written suras, copies of Korans around Arabia and Persia, the entire Middle East, Egypt, and the rest of North Africa, shouldn't they have taken into consideration those items they knew he renounced? For if Mohammed renounced even part of the Koran wanting to replace it, what right did they have to foist old, out of date information on the ummah? (Body of believers/the world of Muslims in conglomerate as the Church, the Body of Christ is united by name to signify the entirety of its followers.)

And since these compared and contrasted the variety of recordings noted, they destroyed those that did not fit the form they wanted published. They sat in committee with Zaid ben Thabit who supervised the work. Of course, most of them had been present with their leader when he had had these revelations, or at least repeated them and taught them to others. The hadiths note all the stories which they revealed to others about what he said when, and where he was, and how he did it. In short, these had to be consistent with what the eyewitnesses remembered as accurate to their training from the master. What he taught being separated from what he merely said conversationally. They knew what was revealed to be considered as the Word of God, of Allah. A further purging occured later when more Korans were found with discrepancies, which were again destroyed.

As a side issue, I note from recent study that this was exactly the criteria used by Christians when deciding which letters and writings were Scriptural -to be placed in the New Testament, or which were merely worthy of being read (such as a devotional or story but not included in the Bible,) and which were not. Had they apostolic origin- could they be traced to the teachings of the apostles who had been present during the ministry of Christ? If they were authorized from those He had appointed, or were related by them to others who recorded them, that gave authenticity to them. They not only had to be consistent with those teachings, but they had to have been used and accepted by the disciples of the disciples, who had been carefully trained to gain position in order to protect from error creeping in. Then they had to divine whether these writing had been indeed considered Scripture and accepted by the Body for a couple of generations. This was not difficult for the multitudes of writings of the church fathers both in their devotionals and in their doctrinal defense against what they considered heresy, they quoted or referred to certain passages in order to refute or make a point. They had recorded sermons as well.

If the writings to be evaluated were merely interesting reading, the equivalent of being used as a hadith instead of a sura, then they were not granted the authority as being holy writ. Because those who more fully knew the Lord, being actually anointed by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost would have discerned fraud or error, or lesser quality. If they taught from it and granted it authority, as they did all of Paul's letters from the beginning, then that was proof that they fully embraced, confirmed, and submitted to its teaching. And their disciples were aware of their legacy.

Whether the apostles had used them led into how the church had received them, so the acceptance of the Body over generations was the third issue. They were equally zealous and concerned for authenticity as those composing the authoritative Koran. Perhaps more so. For they had no denial by Jesus at the last minute, "oops I was wrong about this. Let's try again. Throw that other out, and begin anew." As I have noted in the former posts I have questions about what was thrown out by this committee. How do we know what was published is what he truly said? The evidence of other comments has been discarded. And you have only to trust the character and commitment of these caliphs and his servant that what they produced was accurate.

Probably not a difficult thing for you. But if they were so committed to Mohammed and his discernment, why did they suppress what he wanted to inculcate before he died? You say, well, Mohammed was out of his head. Yes, but they had been with him when he was in trances before. If he cared about teaching others, he must have been lucid enough and concerned for his spiritual responsibilities. Why discount him now? It was his final chance to show his love and mercy on his followers.

This is of paramount importance. Deathbed confessions, statements, instructions of all kinds including wills, are taken very seriously in the west. These are not required to be notarized if in their writing, because of the significance of the dying one being allowed to disperse his truth, his home, his money, his conscience before it is too late. And their accusations are admissible in court. Therefore what they verify and deny is, forgive the term, deathly serious.

Of course, there is also the possibility that accuracy was not their primary concern, but rather continuity of message, of the work that they had based the significance of their lives on, which led to positions of power they were continuing to gain, and had expectations of increasing with Mohammed leaving them. Right or wrong, they would not lose what they had invested years in building up, even if it were false. And if it were not discernably true, what does it say of their actual confidence in their spiritual leader? Did it matter any more if Mohammed was Allah's Apostle if they were gaining tributes and booty, women, and alliances with other countries extending their power?

In fact, I would say the New Testament had a greater clarity of examination by those studying its passages. They had a greater standard of a smell test. A greater number of those involved who held to the objectivity of those standards. As anyone knows pleasing a committee is more difficult than an individual or a small group of people. Those parts of the New Testament that took longer to ascertain, or were left out failed because of those issues. The epistles of the Apostle Paul were not among those, for the Apostle Peter confirmed them as scripture. Saul/Paul went to Arabia and for three years was taught by visions and/or the appearances of Jesus to him.

Not having been among those trained during the three years ministry of the Savior-either as one of the twelve, or of the seventy, or those who followed listening to his preaching, he nevertheless submitted himself for examination by Jesus' brother James, to Peter, and even to a church council headed by those two. They agreed that his teachings were consistent with what they had been taught, and authorized him to continue. And, as mentioned, Peter acknowledges the writings of Paul as Scripture. They were spread to other churches to be read and studied, not merely kept as letters from one visitor to an individual church.

Furthermore we did not destroy other writings such as the Shepherd of Hermas, which reading can illustrate why it was not accepted. The quality is not the same, and the theology not fully consistent. Anyway, I object to your claim that the accuracy of your message has been retained, is unquestionable, and that mine has not been. I find the situation opposite to reality. Again, I would ask, if there are questions, will you examine them, rather than merely hating me for bothering to bring them up?

Also, some have suggested that the bishops were intimidated to agree. However these men who were the bishops had over their lifetimes been proven "confessors." They were those who had suffered torture for their faith and had only in the last year or so been delivered from their trials. They had lost houses and churches, positions, and refused to merely sacrifice to the false god of emperor worship, and to other idols. That had been offered to them if they would only go through the motions, they could avoid torture and loss of wealth.

Yet these had suffered hunger, wandered about forests, mountains and deserts rather than deny the truths they lived for. They had also, many of them served and observed their brethren who after torture became martyrs by dying from their injuries. Thus they were not easily awed or influenced. And they had denied their positions rather than serve emperors and others who required heresy. Thus the accusation of political intimidation demeans the proven nobility of their faith. Read Eusebius of Caesarea's book, Ecclesiatical History, for details of their sufferings if you do not believe me. And let me state that to such men the importance of orthodoxy was essential. They would not have suffered for something transitory or unsure. And after having risked their lives for it, they had a right to protect from lesser men that which they knew to be true.

Part of obedience and submission is facing the consequences of what your revealed truth imparts, not denying it, suppressing, or ignoring it. So again I ask, if Mohammed was Allah's Messenger why did they not publish what he had to say? And why do you follow that which Mohammed wanted to replace?