Non-Muslims may ask how we can know that Muhammad really saw the angel Gabriel in the cave.

Here follows an event from a different time in Muhammad�s life to illustrate his veracity from which we can add to other events to form a foundation for determining Muhammad�s reliability.

The event of the battle in Badr valley:

Just the facts,

1. The army of the Quraysh pagans was about 1000 strong.
2. The Muslim army had about 300 to 315 fighters.
3. As the Quraysh pagan army was winning, they suddenly turned around and fled in chaos.
4. The Badr valley is surrounded by mountains on all sides. There are only three narrow ways in and out of the valley.
5. The night before the battle, there had been a substantial rain and the ground was damp on the day of the battle.

Part 1, The Battle of Badr, a quick summary:

A, Muhammad predicts what was going to happen.

After losing some man to man duels against the Muslims, the pagan Quraysh descended on the Muslims with a fury and the Muslims were hard pressed to defend their line.

Muhammad was commanding from behind the Muslims, and the following verse of the Quran was then revealed from God to Muhammad,

{ I will help you with a thousand angels in succession, one following behind the other. } (Quran: 8,9)

Muhammad then said to his friend, Abu Bakr, �. . . I can see the angel Gabriel on his mare in the thick of a sand storm.�

But there was no sand storm that anyone else could see, . . . yet.

Then the following verse of the Quran was revealed,

{ Their (the pagan�s) multitude will be put to flight, and they will show their backs.� } (Quran: 54:45)

Then Muhammad picked up a handful of gravel and threw it in the direction of the pagans and said, �confusion seize their faces!�

Just as he threw the gravel, a violent sandstorm blew into the faces of the enemies.

This was very strange since it was difficult for any strong wind to blow into the valley, and the ground was wet from the rain the night before.

B, An unexpected sand-storm blows from the rock mountains.

In the Valley of Badr, the Muslims were based on the South West part of valley. The Quraysh disbelievers were based on the North East part of the valley.

The Muslims had their backs to the Al-Asfal Mountains, which is the lower mountain chain to Makkah. 

So, the wind, if it was from natural causes, would have had to blow through a mountain chain when the ground was damp from the rain and had no loose dust to pick up, and would have had to appear just moments after Muhammad predicted it while no one else could see it, and just as Muhammad through the gravel at the Quraysh with his prayer.

Since the Muslims had the mountains just behind them, the sand storm would have had to appear through a wall of wet rock, go just in the right direction, and just at the right time. Then there would have had to have been reports of seeing or noticing the effects of angels from both sides. 

As the pagans were blinded by the sand storm, the Muslims immediately regained the upper hand and the pagans were thrown into confusion. They turned around and fled in disorder and panic as the Muslim army gave pursuit.

After the battle was over, the following verse was revealed by God to Muhammad,

{ And you (Muhammad) did not throw when you threw, but it was God who threw. } (Quran: 8:17)

Before the pagans fled, the Muslims were busy fighting and had not heard Muhammad say that he saw Gabriel, nor had the Muslims heard the verse in which God promised the help of angels.

Part 2, People report seeing angels:

But the Muslims later reported various sightings. Some said that they saw unknown horsemen whose horses� hoofs did not touch the ground.

Some Muslims did not see the angels directly, but saw the effects of the angels such as one Muslim named Hazuim who reported seeing the head of a fleeing pagan get mysteriously cut off before he could reach him. Hazuim had been giving chase and he heard a swashing of a horse whip and then a detached voice say, �forward Hazuim!�

When he reported the incident to Muhammad, he said to Hazuim, �You have said the truth. This was help from the third heaven.�

Even one of the captured pagan disbelievers named Abbas bin Abdul-Muttalib reported, �this man did not capture me. I was captured by a different man who was bald and handsome and who was riding a piebald horse. I do not see him here among the people.� The Muslim holding Abbas captive then interrupted Abbas and proclaimed to Muhammad, �I captured him, O Messenger of Allah.�

Muhammad then said to him, �Be quiet, God the All-Mighty strengthened you with the help of a noble angel.�

Abbas bin Abdul-Muttalib had brought 100 gold coins with him, and had left a secret savings with his wife in Mecca.

When the time for ransom came, Abbas said that he had no other wealth than what he had brought, and then Muhammad asked Abbas about the gold that he had left with his wife. Abbas was stunned and asked Muhammad how he knew about that, and Muhammad responded that the angel Gabriel had told him.

To add more to the miracle of angels in the Battle of Badr, I will quote Martin Lings� biography of Muhammad where Lings summarizes the hadith,

�Others had brief glimpses of the Angels riding on horses whose hooves never touched the ground, led by Gabriel wearing a yellow turban, whereas the turbans of the other angels were white, with one end left streaming behind them.�

page 152.

Here is another example of a non-Muslim disbeliever reporting the angels.

One of the defeated non-Muslim survivors named Abu Sufyan bin Al-Harith fled back to Mecca. He narrated the events of the defeat to another disbeliever named Abu Lahab who had not been present at the battle.

Abu Sufyan�s account emphasized the angels as being the cause of the defeat.

When a poor Muslim named Abu Rafi over heard the discussion, he began to repeat the event with the miraculous role of the angels, and Abu Lahab became so angry that he began beating up the destitute Abu Rafi. 

The above is only one event from the life of Muhammad. There were others. The combination of such incidents along with the miracles of the Quran, the excellence of the personality of Muhammad, and many other things attest that Muhammad was indeed telling the truth when he spoke of having seen the angel Gabriel in the night of the first revelation, as Matt Browne has asked about.

Part 3, Review:

A,  The disbeliever�s challenge has been met: Others did see the angels.

The disbelievers raised the challenge, �did others besides Muhammad see the angels?�

So, in answer to the disbeliever�s challenge of anyone else seeing angels, we have as one example, the Battle of Badr where other people saw the angels also.

1,  Some other Muslims witnessed the angels.

The Muslims later reported various sightings. Some said that they saw unknown horsemen whose horses� hoofs did not touch the ground.�

2,  Some examples of non-Muslims seeing the angles.

Remember that an angel that told Muhammad about the gold that Abbas bin Abdul-Muttalib had secretly given to his wife, and that Abbas also reported being captured by one invisible to others. That was a case where a disbeliever saw an angel, but a Muslim standing next to him didn�t see it.

I had also mentioned the report of a Muslim named Hazuim who reported seeing the head of a disbeliever get cut off by no means that he could see while at the same time he heard a detached voice encouraged him on.

I had written:

Some Muslims did not see the angels directly, but saw the effects of the angels such as one Muslim named Hazuim who reported seeing the head of a fleeing pagan get mysteriously cut off before he could reach him. Hazuim had been giving chase and he heard a swashing of a horse whip and then a detached voice say, �forward Hazuim!�

When Hazuim reported the incident to Muhammad, he said to Hazuim, �You have said the truth. This was help from the third heaven.�

B, Other examples of Muhammad�s knowledge of the unknown.

1, Muhammad�s knowledge of death of the Persian king before the king�s own agents knew:

Muhammad�s knowledge of Abbas�s secret gold at the Battle of Badr was not the only example of Muhammad having knowledge unknown to others. On a different occasion, the king of Persia, Khosroe, once ordered the governor of Yaman, a man named Bazan, to arrest Muhammad. Bazan sent to agents to arrest Muhammad. When they arrived in Medinah, Muhammad informed them that Khosroe was dead. They returned to Yaman empty handed and later word arrived that king Khosroe had been murdered by his son the very night of the agents� meeting with Muhammad.

Bazan, the governer of Yaman, converted to Islam upon learning this and succeeded from Persia.

 2, Muhammad�s knowledge of the secret mission of Umair:

Umair bin Wahb Al-Jumahi was one of the hardened polytheists who had gone further and further astray.
After the battle of Badr, he went on a secret mission from Mecca to Medina to murder the holy prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Safwan bin Umaiyah had quietly offered to pay Umair�s debts and family financial obligations so that Umair could go on that assassination attempt.

But when Umair was caught, and the prophet revealed to Umair his secret mission, then Umair was taken by surprise. He converted to Islam, and then returned to Mecca to spread the message, and many converted back to Islam. Such was the compassionate miracle of Allah through His prophet that brought Umair back.

I had also mentioned the report of a Muslim named Hazuim who reported seeing the head of a disbeliever get cut off by no means that he could see while at the same time he heard a detached voice encouraged him on.

I had written:

Some Muslims did not see the angels directly, but saw the effects of the angels such as one Muslim named Hazuim who reported seeing the head of a fleeing pagan get mysteriously cut off before he could reach him. Hazuim had been giving chase and he heard a swashing of a horse whip and then a detached voice say, �forward Hazuim!�

When he reported the incident to Muhammad, he said to Hazuim, �You have said the truth. This was help from the third heaven.� 

So, Muslims and non-Muslims had seen the angels.  

Part 4, Responding to some objections: 

 A, How can we trust the authenticity of the events?

Muslims believe that we must follow the Quran and the example of the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) if we are to enter into heaven. So, it is to our advantage to copy the sayings and actions of Muhammad, as well as the contextual events surrounding his life, friends, and enemies, as closely as possible.

To that end, they followed an objective and complex set of standards to determine which hadith were reliable and which were not. They followed those standards with meticulous care. Those standards are preserved as well as the hadith. Their methodology can be reproduced at will.

B, The miracle was not just that the Muslims defeated a more powerful force.

Now, the disbelievers may object by claiming that the history of warfare is filled with examples against vastly superior forces; but that is not our standard for miracles, and the disbelievers would be just misrepresenting our point with such an objection.

C, The miracle was not just that an unexpected wind blew into the faces of the disbelievers at just the right time.

They might also object and say that it is not an impressive event for wind to blow into the face of the enemy. For example, Hannibal, the leader of an army from Carthage that fought Rome, arranged matters so that the wind blew dust into the faces of the advancing Romans.�

There is a huge difference between Hannibal �arranging matters� so that a wind will blow dust in the faces of the enemy, and what happened in the valley of Badr, where as I had stated previously,

1. The Badr valley is surrounded by mountains on all sides. There are only three narrow ways in and out of the valley.
2. The night before the battle, there had been a substantial rain and the ground was damp on the day of the battle.

So, the ground was damp from a rain the night before, and the valley was surrounded by mountains such that a sand storm could not blow in. Muhammad could not have �arranged matters� for things to fall into place under such circumstances.

On top of that, the sand storm came just as Muhammad threw the gravel and made the prayer.

On top of that still, there was the reports of the angels from both the Muslims and the non-Muslim disbelievers, and this might have been the main miracle of all.

So, clearly the miracle was not at all merely that of inferior forces beating a vastly superior force.

In the Valley of Badr, the Muslims were based on the South West part of valley. The Quraysh disbelievers were based on the North East part of the valley.

The Muslims had their backs to the Al-Asfal Mountains, which is the lower mountain chain to Makkah.

 How could a wind blow through a mountain chain, especially when the ground around was wet and there was no dry dust to pick up? And what are the chances that such an inexplicable event would have happened just as the Muslims needed it to happen? And what are the chances that such an inexplicable wind happening at just the right time would have would have blown in just the right direction.

D, Why were the Muslims attacking an unarmed caravan to begin with?

The pagan Quraysh of Mecca, in their rage, had sent a letter to the Muslims in Medina promising to slaughter them.

In addition, Muslim intelligence sources in Mecca were reporting back to Muslims in Medina that the pagan Quraysh were openly plotting against them.

Muhammad at one time even called for volunteers to protect his family as they slept at night.

As the Muslims escaped from Medina to Mecca, the pagan Quraysh had seized much of the wealth that the Muslims left behind. In addition, the pagans persecuted those Muslims who had been unable to flee. The pagans had also sent an ultimatum to the leader of pagans in Medina to fight and expel the Muslims. To that effect, the pagans in Medina gathered to fight the Muslims, but backed down at the last second.

The pagan Quraysh of Mecca had even put economic sanctions, blockades, and embargoes against the Muslims in Medina. It was based on hostile actions such as the ones above that the permission to fight was given to the Muslims.

Part 5, What to think of such an event:

An appropriate response to the events of the miracles of angels at the battle of Badr is for one to think something like, �this is amazing and lends evidence to Muhammad�s help from God.�

So, when Muhammad narrates his seeing the angel Gabriel, we can add this event to many other things to see that Muhammad was true.

But then again, if someone like Abu Sufyan could be so hard hearted to reject Islam even after he saw the angels, it is not surprising then that others like Abu Lahab and the critics here would reject Islam upon hearing of the events.

Beebok wrote: [4A] Muslims believe that we must follow the Quran and the example of the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) if we are to enter into heaven. So, it is to our advantage to copy the sayings and actions of Muhammad, as well as the contextual events surrounding his life, friends, and enemies, as closely as possible.

Not necessarily.  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pious_fraud - Pious fraud happens all the time, not just in Islam but in all religions.  If you believe something fervently enough, and believe that you have a duty to convince others of this belief, then it is easy to rationalize making up a story to achieve that good purpose.

To that end, they followed an objective and complex set of standards to determine which hadith were reliable and which were not. They followed those standards with meticulous care. Those standards are preserved as well as the hadith. Their methodology can be reproduced at will.

And the result?  Endless disputes over the reliability of not just individual hadith but whole collections of them.  Do not confuse precision with accuracy.  Your "standards of meticulous care" do not produce absolute certainty, but rather a hierarchy of authenticity, with varying levels of uncertainty.

And please note that this hierarchy is created and the authenticity of each hadith is evaluated, by men, not by God.  Therefore to the extent that your religion relies on this evaluation, then your religion is defined by men, not by God.  If men can be wrong (and they certainly can), then your religion can also be wrong.

[4D] It was based on hostile actions such as the ones above that the permission to fight was given to the Muslims.

To fight the aggressors, perhaps; but nothing can justify attacking unarmed civilians.  Not in caravans, and not in office towers in downtown Manhattan.

Ron said, �If men can be wrong (and they certainly can), then your religion can also be wrong.�

Men can also be right, and when they put in the massive intellectual effort and objective scrutiny on standards that are used to accept other ancient events, then they usually are right.

And if Ron is a man, then Ron can be wrong, and he certainly is because we can double check the work of the hadith collectors like Bukhari to see if they were right or not.

------------

Ron said, ��each hadith is evaluated, by men, not by God.�

But what he leaves out there is that the hadith are evaluated by sincere, intelligent, educated men who use a very strict and objective standard, not just a random assortment of men basing their judgment on their personal feelings and personal prejudices as occurred with the Christian gospels.

-----------

Ron said, �Therefore to the extent that your religion relies on this evaluation, then your religion is defined by men, not by God.�

That�s false reasoning. When Webster defies a word and I repeat it, then I�m not the one who defined it just by repeating it.

When God defines a religion, I�m not defining it by repeating God�s definition.

--------------

So, the disbelievers' argument is essentially that because there might be a miniscule chance that some hadith might be partially incorrect, they are going to disbelieve and ignore the mountains of evidence to believe.

Beebok wrote: Ron said, "If you believe something fervently enough, and believe that you have a duty to convince others of this belief, then it is easy to rationalize making up a story to achieve that good purpose." That's completely different than what's happening here. Christians made up stories to get people to believe that Jesus is a god who died for their sins. On the other hand, if we Muslims invent a story about Muhammad, it works against us because it makes it more difficult to enter heaven by following a false example.

Don't kid yourself, Beebok. Pious fraud happens in Islam, too:
"Narrated Um Kulthum bint Uqba: That she heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.'" http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/049-sbt.php#003.049.857 - (Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 49, Number 857)

Besides, it's not necessary to deliberately lie in order to commit pious fraud.  Religious fervour can influence one's judgement and perceptions, leading witnesses to exaggerate events and misremember fantasies as reality.  In other words, people with the best of intentions can delude themselves without even realizing it.

And the extremely strict standards that we set for accepting a narrative such as checking the reliability of the narrators and having multiple chains of narration eliminate those stories that are merely fabricated. The Christians on the other hand, had no such standards at all for determining which gospels would get accepted into the New Testament. Rather, the Roman emperror Constantine held a council at Nicea in 325 AD where he stated which documents he wanted to be accepted, and Christians accept those documents as the gospels of God.

How do you know what standards they used?  Do you think they just tossed dice or something?  Of course they had standards.  But the point is that by those standards they were largely able to agree on what belonged and what didn't belong in the Bible.  There are minor differences between the Catholic and the Protestant versions, for instance, but nothing like the differences between Sunni and Shia.  And that's not even considering the "weak" hadith, which by their own admission Muslim scholars are unable to decide.

That just proves my point. Look how careful we are about what hadith we accept.

Look how careful you need to be, and how even with such diligence you still have a whole boatload of hadith whose status is uncertain.  Good for you that you are open enough to admit it, but it doesn't remove the uncertainty.

Which works to our benefit because we can follow the ones of high certainty and reject the weaker ones.

But what if some of the weaker ones are actually legitimate?  How would that change your beliefs or your practices?  Can you just ignore the (alleged) word of Allah?

Men can also be right, and when they put in the massive intellectual effort and objective scrutiny on standards that are used to accept other ancient events, then they usually are right.

Is that the standard by which you define your religion?  "We're usually right?"

For the caravan, the Muslims wanted to seize the goods. No one needed to get harmed. The caravan was not unarmed, just outnumbered, and back then and that place, warriors were civilians.

Oh, so that makes it okay?

For Manhatten, the USA has no right to complain about anything after having bombed the water treatment facilities and murdered 500,000 Iraqi children from 1991 to 1995 as one of their many, many, uncountable crimes.

I'm going to assume that you are just lost in your own rhetoric, and are not actually condoning 9/11; but it sure sounds like you think that was okay too.

Beebok wrote: The topic of hadith forgery is known as Wad al-Hadith, and are discounted by the scholars.

Oh good.  The scholars have declared themselves infallible.  Well, that settles it.

Making peace, as in Ron's irrelevant example, is not the same as recording hadith. And the Quran explicitly states that it is an evil to make up something and say that it is from God, and elsewhere that whatever comes from the prophet is approved by God. So it works against a Muslim to invent a hadith. So, to compare it to Christianity is an incongruent analogy.

But we weren't talking about making up hadith.  The topic is the  Battle of Badr, and you listed a whole lot supposedly eyewitness account of angels helping the Muslim army.  It doesn't occur to you that these witnesses might have been exaggerating, if not wholly inventing, these accounts, in order to gain status, and/or to bolster their own faith or that of others?

I especially liked your tale of the captured pagan Abbas bin Abdul-Muttalib.  His pride probably would not allow him to admit that he had been captured by an ordinary Muslim, so he made up a story about being captured by a much superior Being.  The Muslim soldier declared that he had indeed captured Abbas himself.

One of them was not telling the truth.  So who are we to believe: the pagan captive, or the Muslim?  Ordinarily one might presume that the good Muslim would be a more reliable witness than the heathen -- but guess what?  Muhammad, who wasn't even there,, tells the Muslim soldier to "be quiet" and confirms the pagan's story about an angel.

You don't see any possibility of pious fraud going on here?