Actually the authorship of the Qur'an is one of the least controversial subjects in the scholarly literature on Islam. With the exception of a small minority represented by John Wansbrough and his students (Patricia Crone, Michael Cook etc.), pretty much every respectable scholar in the field accepts the traditional Muslim view that the Qur'an was "revealed" in piece-meal fashion to Muhammad between 610 and 632 (of course since most of the scholars are not Muslims, they would actually believe that Muhammad was uttering these verses). Muslims believe that revelations began in 610 when Muhammad was meditating alone in a cave on top of a mountain near Mecca, named Hira. According to the classical view Muhammad did not know how to read or write so he declared the "revelations" he received for 23 years up until his death to his followers. And some of these followers would write down or memorize the verses that have been revealed. After the death of Muhammad, during the reign of the first Caliph Abu Bakr (who was Muhammad's best friend and the first male Muslim who accepted the revelations as genuine), the revelations were collected. During the reign of the third caliph Uthman (one of the companions of Muhammad), the collected revelations were produced in the book form. These earliest Qur'ans are pretty much the same Qur'an that the Muslims read today.
The society in which Muhammad lived was predominantly pagan (they believed in multiple deities representing the forces of nature) and their belief system has some similarities to other pagan religious systems such as the ancient Greeks'. There were also a small minority of Jews and Christians living in Arabia at the time, but the dominant tribes (including that of Muhammad's, Quraysh) were almost always pagans.

My background is in natural sciences. After some time I got interested in International Politics and got two degrees in that field. After realizing that my main interest was in the politics of the Middle East and that I needed a good historical background to proceed in my studies, I made a shift to the study of the history of the Middle East and Islam. My courses are both introductory courses and advance courses on the Middle East for undergraduates. I teach both the pre-modern and the modern periods.

I did not see the documentary. If his main point is that the actual threat posed by al-Qaeda is exaggerated and blown out of proportion by some western governments for political reasons, then he is essentially correct. If he argues that this threat is complete fabrication, then he is wrong.

What is the islam or any other religion for that matter good for? And do you think the pro's outweigh the cons?

Classical Islam has a negative view towards the realistic representations of living things (and humans obviously) as the early theologians were afraid of subtle links between representation and idolatry. Today, this view is much more lax of course, but still Muslims do not draw and represent the image of Muhammad out of respect for his personality.
There is no central authority in Islam, and significantly, there is no "church" as a concept. In theory, Islam rejects the idea of a clergy as an unnecessary block between the believer and God. In practice, however, religious opinion leaders were formed early in Islamic history and the general name given to them is "ulama" (literally, those who know). The concept of imamate is different between the Sunni and Shii Islam. For Sunnis, any prayer leader (any man who knows how to read the Qur'an and lead the prayers) may be called an Imam. For the majority of Shiis, Imamate represents a lineage beginning with Ali (the fourth Caliph and the son in law of Muhammad) and going through 12 generations of Ali's sons. These Imams, Shiis believe, knew the esoteric knowledge of how to correctly interpret the allegorical and metaphorical verses of the Qur'an.

Not so much that (although that is part of it). His claim is that its formation was extremely recent, as in less than 20 years ago, IIRC, and that its targeting of the West represented an entirely new stance even among radicalists.

Also just like to say, cheers for this thread. Any departure from the norm is more welcome than you can know.

Religions provide the poetry of everyday life for the common men; and this poetry and the meaning associated with it cannot be replaced by science or rationality.
Cheers

OK, then, his claim is basically correct.

Damn, I edited in an extra bit: was the targeting of the West a new tactic even among extremists?

Islam does not allow the forcible conversion of anybody into Islam. The actual process was very gradual. In 750 (more than a century after Muhammad's death), slightly less than 10 percent of the entire population of the Islamic empire was Muslim. A century after than, it is estimated that around half of the population converted to Islam. The main reasons for conversion were tax-incentives (Muslims paid slightly less taxes than the non-Muslims) and the obvious benefits of associating with a successful state and government which represented the high culture of financial success, science and learning by the ninth century. Muslims successfully embraced the high culture and philosophy of the ancient Greeks and translated major works of Plato, Aristotle and others into Arabic. There was a true renaissance going on, I guess nobody wanted to miss the train.
Earlier traditions of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman Empire) and the Sassanid Empires (Persians), related to architecture, taxation systems, government bureaucracy etc. all were assimilated into the Islamic culture, that is why the greatest examples of Islamic architecture (Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, Blue Mosque in Istanbul etc.) essentially look like Roman architecture.

The idea of a small group of extremists declaring "Jihad" against the "West" (whatever that means) is unprecedented in Islamic history, if that is what you are asking.

Cheers.

What political/theological issues are there in the Muslim world right now and what are some possible outcomes of these issues?

Too broad a question to give any meaningful answer...Refine please.

Thanks. Do you have any theories on why Islam chose to piggy back onto a minority religion? Also, is it reasonable to think that Muhammed could have known so much about the old and new testament?

As far as I know there is no satisfactory answer in the scholarly literature explaining the extent of Muhammad's knowledge about the old and new testaments. Muhammad was not a learned man or scholar, he was a merchant. It is reasonable to assume that he learned at least somethings about Christianity and Judaism during his travels for trade to Palestine and Syria which were then part of the Eastern Roman Empire. But, yet again, Quran's teachings about the old testament and the new testament are not simple reproductions of Christian and Jewish beliefs, and even the stories of these older books (the story of Joseph, Moses, Abraham, Jesus Christ etc.) repeated in the Qur'an have subtle, yet crucial, differences from the earlier versions.

OK, enough for tonight. Post your questions, and I will return to this thread tomorrow.
Cheers

I would like to interject and point out that if you read the Qur'an's translation, there are things in there that nobody could have possibly known 1400 years ago.

Thanks for the thread, OP. Like AIF said, it's a welcome change of pace.

So, where in the Quran, does it say these passages aren't to be taken as universal commandments? If anything the Quran speaks of them AS universal commandments.

rize, did you ignore that PM I sent you weeks ago?

oh.

such as?

How a baby is formed in the womb, or that life is consisted mostly of water.

Link to specific passages

I think most scientists would disagree with this.

I really like your posts, thanks for doing this.

I was pretty sure that it's fairly well accepted even by Islamic experts that they borrowed this from Galen who wrote it earlier than the Quran. Happy to be proved wrong though.