every word is free from any human influence, which gives the Qur'an an aura of authority, evenholiness, and with such, its integrity.Most westerners have accepted these claims from Muslims at face value. They have never hadthe ability to argue their veracity, because the claims could neither be proved nor disproved, astheir authority was derived solely from the Qur'an itself (dispelling any attempt to wrest from thepages of the Bible fulfilled prophecies of Deuteronomy 18, John 14, 16; and perhaps others).There has also been a reticence to question the Qur'an and the prophet due to the adverseresponse directed upon those who were brave enough to attempt it in the past. The fact is thatfor too long westerners have been content to assume that the Muslims had evidence and datato substantiate their claims.It is only now, as secular scholars of Islam (known as "Orientalists") re-examine the Islamicsources, that evidence is being uncovered which puts into question much of what we have beenled to believe concerning Muhammad and his revelation,' the Qur'an.The findings of these scholars indicate that the Qur'an was not revealed to just one man, butwas a compilation of later redactions (or editions) formulated by a group of men, over thecourse of a few hundred years (Rippin 1985:155; and 1990:3,25, 60). In other words, the Qur'anwhich we read today is not that which was in existence in the mid-seventh century, but wasmore than likely a product of the eighth and ninth centuries (Wansbrough 1977:160-163). It wasat this time, the Orientalists say, particularly in the ninth century, that Islam took on its classicalidentity and became that which is recognizable today. Consequently, the formative stage of Islam, they contend, was not within the lifetime of Muhammad but evolved over a period of 200-300 years (Humphreys 1991:71, 83-89).Source material for this period, however, is sparse. Essentially the only sources which had beenavailable to the historians were Muslim sources. What is more, outside the Qur'an,' the sourcesare all late. Prior to 750 A.D. we have no verifiable Muslim documents which can give us awindow into this formative period of Islam (Wansbrough 1978:58-59). Nothing exists with whichto corroborate Muslim Tradition' material (that is, Islamic history based on their traditions). Later documents simply draw upon earlier documents, which no longer exist today (if indeed theyexisted at all) (Crone 1987:225-226; Humphreys 1991:73). This classical period (around 800A.D.) describes the earlier period, but from its own viewpoint, much like an adult, writing abouttheir childhood will tend to remember those areas which were pleasant. Thus, the account iscoloured, and biased, and as such cannot be accepted as authentic by historical scholars (refer to Crone's studies on the problems of the traditions,' especially those which were dependent onlocal storytellers, in Meccan Trade....1987, pp.203-230 and Slaves on Horses, 1980, pp. 3-17).Consequently, the demarcation line between what the historian will accept and that whichMuslim Traditions maintain is growing further apart for the following reasons: Islam, according toorthodox Muslim scholars, gives complete credence to divine intervention for its revelation.Muslim Tradition asserts that Allah sent down his revelation to Muhammad via the angel Gabriel(Jibril) over a period of twenty-two years (610-632 A.D.), in which time many of the laws andtraditions which delineate that which we define as Islam were formulated and worked out.Yet it is this scenario which secular historians are balking at today, as it presupposes that in theearly seventh century, Islam, a religion of immense sophistication, of intricate laws andtraditions was formulated in a backward' nomadic culture and became fully functional in onlytwenty two years.