Ok I've searched around on the web now and found answers to most things, the early conquerors being Muslims etc. That is especially true if you read the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock, which is mostly a polemic against Christianity, saying that Isaa ibn Maryam (aleyhi salaam) was a Messenger and also containing the basmalah, which is definatly Islamic. Also that John of Damascus wrote against Islam at an early stage (he lived between 675-749) shows that Islam did exist in his time.
There also seems to be some good evidence for an early collection of the Quran, outside of the event told in the Ahadith. Now there is just one thing bothering me about it, and that is the manuscripts at Sana which some orientalists boastfully put forward in order to "challenge the Islamic faith" (so much for them being unbiased scholars). Some on the manuscripts are told to have differences from today's Quran. According to Wikipedia
, these differences seem to match the minor variations in the codics reported to be once held by Abdallah ibn Masud (raa), Ubay ibn Kab (raa) and Ali ibn Abu Talib (raa). But Wikipedia is the only source which tells this, and isn't a very reliable source. So I wonder if the differences is as Wikipedia described, because wasn't their Musahif their own poeronal copies which never became mass-copied? Islamic Awareness have published some of these manuscripts. I asked them concerning this and they asked back if differences "is not what I expect in the very early manuscripts of
the Qur'an?" Now I'm totally confused. According to the history the Quran was collected during Uthmaan (raa) and then stayed intact for 1400 years. So differences isn't what I expect, or should I?
It may seems weird me posting a post like the one above after posting a post like this
. But all this really leaves me in a confused state.
I know I should have purchased the books you mentioned, but I'm underaged and can't really buy books online like nothing.