Quran and Hadiths

[Rayaan]

(1) The author has quoted several hadiths and he distorted some of their meanings by changing the words and/or by deleting parts of the original text of the hadiths.
Which one? Prove it..
(2) He incorrectly spells the name "Bukhari" as "Buhari" (omits the letter "k" in the name) every single time throughout the whole article. That's not even how you pronounce it.
In turkey we type his name as Buhari. It's just a translation mistake. See that;
http://www.google.com.tr/#hl=tr&source=h...2129f371e1
(3) His approach on the history of the Quran is inconsistent because he used several quotes from the works of Al-Suyuti and Imam Bukhari who themselves accepted the authenticity of the Quran.
And? why is that inconsistent?

I'll answer those questions when I refute the article that you posted (but later). Stay tuned for the reply.

When reading the Qur'an,I was struck by the many similarities with the Torah,with which I'm more familiar.

I think that's perfectly okay, because the similarities between the Quran and Torah is an argument for the belief that the revelations came to the prophets from the same divine source, and that's why there are so many similarities between the two. Does the Quran have to be totally different from the Torah to be the word of God? No, not necessarily.

However, some people might say this is an evidence of plagiarism from an earlier work. But I wouldn't agree with that. Why? Because the prophet was illiterate and the people who lived during his time knew that this was true, and that's why he wouldn't be able to read the Torah nor be able to write an entire book all by himself. If he was being taught by someone, however, then people would have doubted him as a prophet because then he would be able to read the Torah, and sooner or later, most likely he would've been exposed as a liar because he was surrounded by the pagans, Romans, Christians, Jews, non-believers, and many other enemies who were always trying to to discredit him as a truthful person. Yet, there is not a single report from anyone who lived during his lifetime that he told a lie or that he was untruthful.

Also, remember that the life of Muhammad is a well-documented life unlike the other prophets. There are many historians and scholars who have written about him with a great amount of detail and accuracy in their biographies. But still, no one was able to prove that he told a lie, or that he was hiding a foreign book in his house, or that he was being educated by someone, or that he went to a different country to get access to books from a library, etc. On the contrary, there is more evidence that he was an honest and faithful person according to the most authentic reports about him.

It is my understanding that there are no greater or lesser prophets in Islam. That Muhammad was simply the last.

I don't know about that, because there are some Muslims who believe that Muhammad was a greater prophet than the rest while others think that all the prophets are equally great.

Does that not mean that Allah also spoke to the earlier prophets?

Yes, we believe that Allah also spoke to all the earlier prophets like Moses, Noah, Abraham, etc. The only difference is that some of them weren't given a holy book like the others.

If that is so,why then should not some of the teachings of the earlier prophets be found in the Qur'an,to compliment the last words given to Muhammad ?

Well, what is important to understand is that all the prophets are like a unity. And each of them were given revelations from the Creator. That's why, if God has sent the Quran as the last and final message for mankind, and if it is preserved in it's actual words, then it logically implies that whatever is in the Quran should be given more weight than what was taught by the previous prophets because all the prophets were given the same responsibility as Prophet Muhammad (which is to spread God's message to the world). In this line of reasoning, the teachings of Muhammad is sufficient for us because he is the seal of the prophets and all the prophets are like a single unity who had the role of teaching the divine wisdom in a successive order.

I do not ask to argue,but to learn. (I've put on my Anthropology hat).

I don't care if you want to argue either, but, it's good that you want to learn. I hope gave you at least satisfactory answers to your questions.

Every compilation of allegedly 'sacred' writings gets that kind of adoration from its followers.

Yes, but that's a generalization because not everyone's adoration for their holy books are equally well-supported. The history of the Quran is much more authentic and well-known than the history of the Bible, Torah, Vedas, and many other religious scriptures (from a scholarly perspective). This is the same with Prophet Muhammad because it is proven that he is a historical figure, not a mythological figure. The events during his lifetime are also recorded (unlike the case for the other prophets).

That's why Islam, in my opinion, has the strongest evidences and the most solid foundation out of all the other religions in the world.