Islam critiqued exposes plagiarism; Jesus copies ancient wisdoms?

In answer to the video "Was Muhammad a False Prophet?"

And by the way, Christian critics often absurdly try discrediting the wisdom of the Quran by arguing that some of its principles were already uttered earlier, while completely forgetting that all of Jesus' wise humanist utterings reported in the NT were either stated long before in the Tanakh by the likes of Moses, or close to his time by Jewish thinkers, let alone those Pharisees whom Jesus regarded as "sons of satan", such as Hillel -one of the highest Pharisaic authority of his time- who is quoted in the Talmud saying almost word for word what Jesus would utter about a century later in

Matt7:12"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets".

The redaction of the Talmud began after Jesus but the oral tradition it contains, such as the one uttered by Hillel, existed long before. It was already in circulation before and after Jesus in Pharisaic tradition. This tradition considers the Talmud just as revealed as the written Torah is, probably even predating the events of Sinai. We can repeatedly read of Moses receiving Torah and Law before he ascended on the Mount to meet with God Ex12-18.

Even the concept of a kingdom of God soon to be established on earth appears in numerous Jewish documents that antedate Jesus.

When trying to discredit Islam to a Muslim audience, the poorest and most insignificant of all arguments consists in pointing to the moral truths it contains then arguing they were uttered long before, that the Quran merely copied them. The Quran itself recognizes it isnt uttering anything new in matters of morality and spirituality, but even upholds such principle as a tenet of faith, that divine guidance is a continuity that started long before the Torah, down to the Quran. By these same lowly standards, totally insignificant when debating a Muslim, Jesus and all prophets of the Bible were false prophets who merely copied from their predecessors and hardly uttered anything new. Hundreds of quotes, similarities and incidents can be shown attesting to this.

What cancels the Judeo-christian criticism further is that their religions contain very uncomfortable similarities with the pagan environments in which the successive books were authored. Contrary to Islam which has no problem with having similarities with pre-islamic practices, since it claims they are rooted in the Abrahamic legacy it came to revive, Judaism and Christianity have no common spiritual legacy with the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Canaanite or Greco-roman rituals and philosophies to help explain away the odd and uncomfortable similarities.

Here is a small example. In the Quran, the whole matter of Jesus' end in this world appeared as if the Jews had succeeded in their evil, murdering plots because, among other reasons, Jesus was missing, or as the Quran says God "tawaffa" him, purified him and made him ascend to Heaven. This instead prevented the humiliation that wouldve happened if his enemies got to the body. If they presented it to the people in a humiliated state, leading to a psychological victory for the Israelites 

4:158"Allah took him up to Himself". 

They couldnt even kill him, nor could they damage his body and God states He would raise him up to himself, meaning that not only his body wouldnt be humiliated but it would be honored by God instead.

God thus lifted Jesus up and did not leave a trace of him with them yet even without proof for their claims, the Israelites that wanted him dead managed to start a rumor that quickly spread and was believed. The resulting confusion was similar to that of the rumor of the prophet Muhammad's death during the battle of Uhud 3:144. Roman crucifixions occured daily and by the hundreds, of any agitators to the point that they would sometimes run out of wood for the crosses. The accusing Jews could easily pass off their boastful claims as fact in those circumstances, regardless of whether they truly believed their own claim or not. This rumor spread among both friends and foes. It is entirely possible at this point that not only the Jews were unaware of Jesus' true whereabouts, but neither were his followers. The confusing absence of a prophet has been a means of testing the followers left behind, whether they would remain on the clear path outlined by the prophet when he was in their midst, maintain his directives, or start innovating in the religion and go back to their sinful ways. This occured with Moses, as he retreated away from his people to receive revelation, just as it did with Muhammad when many fell into despair during the battle of Uhud, and later when he died 

3:144"And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels?" 

The Nazarenes, like the calf-worshiping Jews thus failed the test of steadfastness in the absence of their prophet. As the rumours of Jesus' death started by his enemies became widespread, his disillusioned followers retrospectively painted the whole thing as a divine masterplan, with all the Christologies that ensued. Those among them that maintained Jewish law were sidelined by Paul's movement very early on, and within just 2 generations the little remnant of Judaism within the Jesus sect was erased. It was supplanted by a wave of converts from the greco-roman world who found in this transformed and readapted original Jewish sect, a favorable echo for their own beliefs, naming this new religion, Christianity. 

It is thus meaningless to argue that because the corruptions the Quran denounces were introduced early on, then it follows that these were original teachings of Jesus. Had Moses and Aaron not quickly and violently corrected the corruptions to their teachings, executing the guilty by the thousands, nothing would have prevented the same kind of falsehood to be passed off as "genuine teachings" of Moses, as was done with Jesus 

5:117"I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness". 

Jesus did not have the occasion to do as Moses and Aaron did very early on so as to prevent the lies attributed to them from becoming "orthodoxy". However, if they escaped Jesus condemnation, it does not mean God was unaware of their evil doings.  

Isnt it surprising that the Lord's prayer taught by Jesus himself (as opposed to every other prayer that others taught to say in Jesus’ name), never mentioned Jesus, nor vicarious atonement, nor him as messiah, nor him as intermediary, nor any trinity, among anything else Christological? This foundational prayer is more anti-christian than any passage one may find in the entire Bible. 

We're not talking about the lack of Christological references in terms of labels, but in terms of concepts. The prayer is far removed from the ideas established by the Pauline movement, the creeds of the Church Fathers and later councils. Not only are those concepts absent but every sentence of the prayer clashes with mainstream Christian tenets. For example vicarious atonement, not only isnt it mentioned by name or implicitly as a concept, but in addition we have Jesus, who is supposed to be the embodiment of that notion, refuting it 

"forgive us our sins, as we have forgiven those who have sinned against us". 

No need for Jesus, forgiveness is attained through one's own efforts. The same is conveyed in the parable of the prodigal son Lk15. The unrighteous son is forgiven by his father simply for turning to God in sincere repentance. Not only is he forgiven but he is welcomed with a warm celebration. It is his state of contriteness that brought him back to life, not the blood on the cross "he was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found".

The idea of vicarious atonement stems from the notion of human depravity; none may claim righteousness on his own due to a sinful nature that pollutes every deed and thought. Yet Jesus undermines that notion too; temptation isnt the product of inherent human depravity and satanic influence. Rather it is God, who is perfectly righteous, whom the worshiper asks 

"not to lead us into temptation". 

Jesus teaches his followers to begin the prayer by calling upon "our" Father who is in heaven, not to the divine son who is on earth. Nothing distinguishes Jesus from a regular believer in terms of sonship to the Father. The same fatherhood that applies to him applies to the others. It is the Father's name only that is to be hallowed, His will is to be done, and He is the Sustainer of the devotees, including Jesus

 "Give us today our daily bread". 

These innovations might have initiated among Jesus' close circle, through re-interpretations of his teachings, or among the wave of new converts that supplanted them. To this new, outer circle, the claim that he was captured and killed resonated as closer to the truth and a more honest assessment of his disappearance. His gruesome death became an attractive narrative of heroism and martyrdom not only for the sake of his followers but for the entire human race. 

Jesus is portrayed as fearing death and wanting to avoid it Jn7:1,11:54,Luke 22:42. He begged God (himself) 3 times, putting his forehead to the ground, to take his soul before experiencing suffering and death in Matt26:38. He does not want to experience what he was about to go through but nevertheless submits his will to that of the father, whether he decides to make him bear the cup of suffering or not 

"Yet not My will, but Yours be done". 

Clearly, had he been given the choice, he would have refused "dying for the sins of mankind" despite having supposed foreknowledge of the divine plan of salvation since the beginning of creation, a plan which he himself sketched together with his divine partners. It also shows one of the co-equal partners submitting his will to another. Yet we never see the reverse, with the Father obediently submitting his will to the Son or the Holyspirit. That "hesitation" from Jesus cannot be attributed to his human nature as he himself states that it is his soul that feared and doubted Matt26:38. Then, when on the cross Jesus grieves for God's abandoning him. Even Revelations5 which is sometimes quoted to defend the notion of a predetermined divine masterplan of salvation through Jesus, is in fact speaking in eschatological terms, just as the whole book does. It speaks of the salvation of some people after events of great tribulation, ie the end of times. Then we have Heb5:7 throwing in the ambiguous statement that Jesus' prayers were heard and accepted by God, and this includes the desperate cry to "let this cup pass from" him. The realization of his prayer, his inability to take on the full brunt of the "sins of mankind" came in the form of Simon of Cyrene who relieved Jesus from his cross and carried it half way till Golgotha Matt27:31-33. 

This embarrassing change to the divine master plan of salvation forced another author in Jn19:17-18 to have Jesus carrying his own cross, the symbol of mankind's sins, all the way until he reached Golgotha where he was crucified. The cross in fact was not a Christian symbol until the 6th century. Could the whole "Simon of Cyrene" tale be orthodoxy's early response to a story popularised by certain gnostics that it was not Jesus but Simon who had been nailed to the cross?

The predictions Jesus makes as regards his impending death on the other hand are portrayed as willful self-sacrifice. In these versions, we see other inconsistencies. When he tells his disciples, several times and explicitly how he would die, they are taken by complete surprise when the events unfold Matt16,17,20,Mk8,9,10,Lk9,18. Not once are they depicted, following his supposed death, as patiently waiting his predicted resurrection after just 3 days. Neither are they depicted recalling the secret miracle once it unfolds. Even when he appeals to prophecies at the third and last prediction of his death 

Lk18:34"The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about". 

Clearly, there was a general atmosphere of confusion as to Jesus' disappearance, a confusion which the writers could not deny as it corresponded to the reality they knew about and witnessed. But, because they were writing from the lens that he was crucified, they had to retrospectively paint this confusion as a misunderstanding by the disciples of Jesus' clear predictions. Between Jesus' desire to avoid death, his repeated predictions as to his willful execution, the misunderstandings of the disciples, the story line lacks consistency and seems muddled. We see the same pattern with other major themes retrospectively applied to Jesus, such as his messiahship, again painted as shrouded in obscurity due to the "misunderstanding" of his closest disciples. The simple reason is that the historical Jesus did not go around claiming to fulfil the messianic predictions of the HB. The claim was later made for him. If he did, people would have laughed their lungs off, including the Romans. The Gospel writers, writing at least 50 years after the events knew that what Jesus accomplished had nothing to do with the highly anticipated establishment of the kingdom of God. They were thus left with no option other than painting the whole matter as they did.

Prior to Jesus becoming God, the pagans scoffed at the notion of a human savior dying a cursed death then resurrecting. But the later introduction and spread of the deviant notion of Jesus' divinity made the Christian religion fit more easily into their paradigm. As the Quran says in the context of Jesus' supposed divine sonship 

9:30"they immitate the saying of those who disbelieved before".

Gentiles of the region believed in Mithraism, a religion already spread all throughout Europe and Asia minor centuries prior to the birth of Christianity. Among such beliefs is the death and resurrection of Osiris. Those ritually sharing in that death and resurrection through baptism had their sins remitted. The pagan Roman authorities thus welcomed the new religion seeing it was in congruence with centuries of tradition of dying and/or mutilated savior gods. 

As the early church father Justin Martyr conceded

"when  we say...Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified, died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you (ie the pagans) believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus".

Paul, who was at most a hellenezied Jew, was explaining Jesus teachings in ways that were unheard of by Jesus' disciples. Paul's letters were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until 60-90 meaning Paul's theories were already established before the unknown writers of the gospels started their works and earlier Christian thought was quickly branded heretical. The church was so weak that within the same generation of the disciples, this Jewish sect of the Nazarenes, whose distinction from mainstream Judaism was only in the belief that Jesus was the messiah, turned upon its heels, abandoned Jewish law, adopted concepts unheard of anywhere in Judaism. There is a reason why the Gospel writers including Paul do not quote the Hebrew Bible but the Greek Septuagint which was hated by the rabbis as it represented the Hellenization of many Jews of the time. The early church thus became irrelevant very early on following Jesus' departure, due to Paul's efforts at supplanting it, dismissing Jewish law as obsolete, reinterpreting core Semitic concepts of God so as to appeal to his pagan audience.

After Jesus' death, Paul's main problem was to convince his Jewish audience that the messiah's death, without accomplishing any of the messianic criteria, instead of being a failure was actually a necessity. He did so by introducing the doctrine of total depravity, making all humans de facto sinners and therefore in need of an atoning sacrifice Rom7:14-25,Rom3:10-11,5:13,8:7-8,1Cor2:14,Eph2:1-3,Titus3:3. His addressees however already believed in the resurrection of the dead, in a just God who forgave the sins of a penitent heart. Nothing was missing in their system that Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection could fix. Paul's redeeming hero was a redundancy to them, so he was obviously met with fierce resistance wherever he preached his unscriptural ideas. This led him to eventually turn to the gentiles among whom he found a much more favourable audience. All this is evident from a cursory reading of the NT and the writings of Paul. That is how Christianity was shaped, using its target audience's sensitivities all the while toning down to the maximum its Jewish heritage.

The sect that "won" and became "orthodoxy" achieved victory by political rather than epistemic means. The dominant branch was but one among many early, conflicting Christian sects, as even reflected in Paul's letters and the desperate struggles he had with them to maintain control of his own congregations. The process was not a difficult one considering Mithraism's tendency to accommodate with other rival cults, throughout its vast geographical spread, before and after Christianity. Christianity of course wasnt that accommodating, doing everything to supplant it due to the disturbing similarities. Many Church Fathers (Justin, Origen, Tertullian) attempted rationalizing Mithraism's similarities with their religion; "satanic imitations" being the standard explanation. The fine details of those similarities are now lost due to the Christian destructions of all "mithraes" they could put their hands on as well as persecute its followers. The task of reconstructing which themes Mithraism absorbed from Christianity so as to embellish its own narrative, versus what actually pre-dated Christianity, becomes a speculative task. But the presence of such vehement defenses by church authorities reveals their major embarrassment, their discomfort at their opponents' accusations of plagiarism. Instead of engaging their critics in debate, these church fathers and other Christian "orthodox" writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries slandered their opponents with exaggerated or even false charges, shunned them or socially intimidated them. This pattern of engaging their critics is in itself revealing of their own insecurities.

It was in the 4th century that Pope Damasus I introduced the 25th of december as the birthday of Jesus (Christmas). In a move to gain the hearts and minds of the Romans, he used the immensely popular  ancient mid-winter solstice festival, which lasted for several days and culminated in the feast of 'Brumalia' on December 25th. This major celebration among pagans caused agonies for the Church, and since the early Christians had absolutely no idea of the day, month or even year of Jesus' nativity, it was a relatively easy matter to superimpose a Christian festival on the pagan one.

Easter similarly has its origins in a pagan celebration of nature’s resurrection, with rabbit and eggs symbolizing fertility and renewal. In fact it is well known that pagan Europe, up to the middle ages was undergoing a Christianization of their old rites and customs.

This process facilitated European conversions. One can extend the comparison to some extent in regards to what is celebrated nowadays as the Jewish new year or Rosh Hashanah. Although, as described in Lev23:24 some rituals are to be performed on the first day of Tishrei (actual day of the Jewish new year), none are related to a new year festival. This began in the 2nd Temple period. We don’t know what the religious life of the Jews was like during the Babylonian exile. But we do know that by the time the Jews returned to Israel and marked the beginning of the 2nd Temple period in 516 BCE, Jewish religious practices had profoundly changed compared with the pre-exile era.
For one, the names of the months that Jews use to this very day are the Babylonian names. Tishrei for example is a Babylonian month whose name derives from the Akkadian word tishritu - “beginning.”
In addition, the Babylonians took their New Year’s Day celebrations very seriously. They called the holiday Akitu (from the Sumerian word for barley) and Resh Shattim, the Akkadian equivalent of the Hebrew Rosh Hashanah. This was celebrated twice a year, at the beginning of Tishrei and the beginning of Nisan, and lasted for 12 days.

Jews absorbed this veneration for the New Year from the Babylonian example. But it was not immediately apparent upon their return – the Jewish rituals, including the ones performed on Rosh Hashanah developed over centuries.

Islam critiqued wont listen to the same thing twice; Repeating the tales of the ancients?

In answer to the video "Was Muhammad a False Prophet?"

By the time of the prophet Muhammad, the assimilation of the Abrahamic legacy into the regional polytheistic systems was such that only a distant echo had remained in the minds of the Ishmaelites of Mecca, from their spiritual connection to Abraham. Just as happenned to the Temple of Jerusalem that slowly became transformed into a pagan shrine and idols were introduced in it 2kings21 the prime symbol of monotheism in Mecca became thus radically transformed through pagan influence.

As the Ishmaelites, like the Israelites throughout their history, drifted from the original path of monotheism, the Hajj pilgrimage became a celebratory occasion, and the Kaaba was stocked with idols and false deities supposed to bring the worshipers closer to the One God, Allah, whom they believed in. Men and women would run naked throughout the holy precinct. Merchants from all over would travel to the Kaaba and set up shop during the pilgrimage.

People and tribes from all over Arabia would make the journey to Mecca to take part in the festivities. But this annual pilgrimage was in greater parts disconnected from the Abrahamic practice 22:26-7. It was simply a time to make money instead of being charitable, drink alcohol, and commit immoral acts. The importance of the annual event perdured despite the corruption. It was maintained by those that settled in Mecca, and the Arabs of the entire peninsula that got attracted to it with time. These are the points brought to attention in 2:196-7. And then until v203 great stress is laid on the spiritual dimension, forgotten and neglected, of that occasion.

No other nation can be compared to the Ishmaelites' handling of their spiritual legacy and sacred shrine, than their own Israelite brothers. They could not maintain the way of their forefathers despite the constant sending of prophets to them to bring them back to the right path.

When the Arabs were admonished and urged to reform, they qualified the warnings as

16:24,27:68"stories of the ancients".

These Ishmaelites vaguely recalled the Abrahamic ways, but found no other constructive argument in their opposition but by denigrating it as old and useless stories, based on its ancienty and supposed obsolescence, inaplicability to the current circumstances. They never qualify these stories as "false". It was in fact one of the Quran's oft repeated functions, to "remind" the people of the truth they were still somewhat aware of but that had been supressed by falsehood.

The Quran openly states that

26:196"most surely the same is in the scriptures of the ancients".

It repeats, time and again, its role as the guardian and preserver of the truth present in the past scriptures. Along with Abrahamic and monotheistic practices known in pre-islamic days, going back to previous prophets, was the Zakat which the people knew they had to give away to the poor but rarely practiced or misused 19:30-31,54-55,70:24,Deut14:28-29,26:12-14, fasting 2:51,183-187,7:142,Deut9:9,Ex24:18,34:28,Matt4:2,Lk5:33-6 prayer that continued after Ibrahim established it in the settlement of the Kaaba 14:37,19:55,Dan6:10,Ps55:18,1Chr23:30 until it was disfigured 8:35, animal sacrifice, circumcision.

Other concepts propounded by previous prophets and which the Quran was reminding its addressees of, include the Resurrection, day of Judgement and accountability Matt13:24-43,1Kings17:17-24,2Kings4:17-37,13:20-1,1Sam2:6,Isa2:17,26:19,66:14,Ezek37:1-28,Ps71:20,Prov6:22,Prov31(see Rashi),Dan12:1-2,Quran29:36,54:36-9.

There are pre-islamic poems with clear eschatological connotation, some of them speaking of the resurrection of the soul, and Allah being the judge of mankind. One such poems is that of Zuhayr who wrote in his muallaqat

"Do not conceal from Allah what is in your souls, trying to hide it. Whatever is concealed from Allah, He knows. It is delayed and entered in a register and stored up for the day of reckoning, or it is brought forward and avenged".

Labid wrote

"every human will one day come to know his striving when it will be disclosed before the God what has been extracted".

See also the lines of al-A'sha evoking fear of the final accounting

"when the resurrected souls will shake of the dust".

The Quran and the traditions speak of the hanif remnants that tried preserving the monotheism of Ibrahim, and these lines of poetry might echo these marginal beliefs. The majority of the pre-islamic Arabs however rejected bodily resurrection and otherworldy accountability, the Quran repeatedly condemns this attitude.

This phenomenon is clearly seen with the "talbiya", the invocations the pilgrims coming from all over Arabia made during their rituals. Some of these have come down to us, referring to Allah as

"al wahid al qahhar rabb assamad",

while others clearly referred to the idols as subservient to him

"laa nabudul asnama hatta tajtahida li rabbiha wa tutabad"

or

"rabb al thalitha ukhra/Lord of the third goddess"

, and others spoke of the One Lord of the last hour

"rabba assa'a".

All of this shows the multifaceted shades of idolatry among the pilgrims, some of them praising Allah alone, others associating with Him while maintaining Him above the intercessors, and others still referring to the day of judgement.

This confirms the Quranic statement that the original religion established at the sanctuary was Abrahamic monotheism. It got disfigured with time, polluted with foreign concepts, although it maintained a recognizable foundation of truth, which the last prophet came to revive. Sura 87, after summing up the pillars of divine truth, such as monotheism, intelligent design, resurrection, God's all-encompassing, intricate knowledge and sway over His creatures' affairs, spiritual purification through prayer and constant remembrence of God as being the ways to success in the Hereafter, it says that these are all concepts known, written and transmitted by the prophets, from Ibrahim to Moses.

All of these things were known to the people whom Muhammad was addressing over 4000 years later but have been neglected for so long that only a dim remembrance of them remained

23:83"Certainly we are promised this, and (so were) our fathers aforetime; this is naught but stories of those of old".

Muhammad revived the corrupted, obscured and forgotten way of Ibrahim

6:161"Say: Surely, (as for) me, my Lord has guided me to the right path; (to) a most right religion, the faith of Ibrahim the upright one, and he was not of the polytheists".

The climax of that revival occured when he entered Mecca triumphantly, cleansed the Kaaba of its idols and rededicated it to its monotheistic purpose.

Islam critiqued seeks some prayer tips; The Lord that hastens in fulfulling His prophet's desires?

In answer to the video "Was Muhammad a False Prophet?"

The prophet Muhammad, like many eminent prophets of the past, had a large household towards the end of his life. With such a large household combined with his prophetic duties and the turmoil of these early days in which he was involved in on a daily basis, he could not be expected to divide his time so as to satisfy each of the wives and potential concubines equally.

But as the Islamic history books explicitly denote, he tried to observe equality among them as much as possible. He used to visit sometimes his 9 wives at once. In that report, the Arabic doesnt denote sexual intercourse, on the part of that humble man in his late 50s who had in addition to balance his household duties with his extraordinary responsibilities as a spiritual leader and statesman. Some of his male companions might have assumed so, but it did not have to be the case.

And to further corroborate that the prophet, despite visiting all his wives, would only have intercourse with the one whose turn had arrived

"Narrated ‘Urwah: ‘A’ishah said: “O nephew! The Messenger of Allah would not prefer any one of us to another with regards to spending time with us. Hardly a day would go by without him visiting all of us. He would come close to each woman, without touching her, until he reached the one whose turn it was, then he would spend the night with her".

The flexibility of the law as regards the division of time is of course not speaking of the sustenance and rightful material needs of every wife. In this area, the prophet had to divide his resources among every household, in addition to the financial burden of taking care of the indebted of the community and the incessant guests who would be received at all moments. He is known to have been left with very little to spend on himself and his wives, leading to them often complaining about the relative ease in which other companion's wives were living. And this at a time where the community had grown more prosperous in Medina, an ease which was not reflected in the prophet's household 

33:28-9"say to your wives: If you desire this world´s life and its adornment, then come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing".  

The prophet thus, despite being absolved from strict obligations towards his multiple wives would nevertheless feel saddened whenever he delayed his appointed time with one of his wives

33:51"You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you".

This ordinance made sure that no reproach would be cast upon him, and neither would he be hindered by social pressures or customs. 

So although he had the peace of mind from a spiritual viewpoint that he would never be blameworthy, he still felt uneasy emotionally towards his wives whom he loved. And he did his utmost to spend as much time as he could with them all equitably. Aisha would say to him 

"If I could deny you the permission (to go to your other wives) I would not allow your favor to be bestowed on any other person". 

This statement from the prophet's youngest wife, and thus logically the most physically attractive in comparison to his other wives, shows the prophet tried as best as he could not to favor one wife over another based on his personal preference. There is an instance where he refused letting Aisha replace another wife on a day that wasnt hers 

"O Aisha, keep away from me, it is not your day".

 The prophet maintained as best he could that considerate pattern of behavior throughout his life, as narrated by Aisha:

 "When the ailment of the Prophet became aggravated and his disease became severe, he asked his wives to permit him to be nursed (treated) in my house. So they gave him the permission. Then the Prophet came (to my house) with the support of two men, and his legs were dragging on the ground, between `Abbas, and another man". 

Besides absolving the prophet, the ordinance also put all the wives and potential concubines on the same level as it concerned them all from God's perspective. Through it, they find the inner peace that the emotional sacrifice they shall endure, and which they all were fully aware of before accepting to marry the prophet, is for the accomplishment of a higher objective. Their merit with God will naturally be higher given their worldly sacrifices 

"this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be pleased, all of them with what you give them".

The verse ends with an affectionate message to the prophet's household in general, stressing that God is aware of the difficulties in all levels of life that they must endure, and their toll on their feelings

"and Allah knows what is in your hearts; and Allah is Knowing, Forbearing."

Aisha is indirectly described as expressing her initial frustration and spousal jealousy, when she supposedly stated in relation to 33:51 that

“I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires".

It is remarkable that the prophet would always abide by the restrictions divinely imposed on him but not the relaxations, as described above. In Sura Ahzab, around the verse quoted in the hadith, there are seven rules about marriage peculiar to the Prophet. Four of these granted him relaxations and three put restrictions. The Prophet certainly abided by the restrictions, but yet, for someone whose "Lord hastens his desires" he did not opt to benefit from two of the relaxations.

Had the idea of ‘convenient revelations’ any basis in that report from Aisha as claimed by Islam's opponents, to start with, there wouldnt have been any restrictions on the Prophet neither in this sura or other suras, to the exclusion of the rest of the believers. And neither would he have failed to take benefit of every relaxation, without having any guilty conscience as he just happened to have. It is further worthy to note that, in those relaxations pertaining to marital affairs described in 33:50-1, the prophet is a passive agent; it is the women that are given the option of seeking him in marriage, not the other way around. The bottom line is that, whichever one looks at it, nothing in the pattern of the life of the prophet supports the malicious charges against him.

Islam critiqued exposes convenient verse; 33:53, no more relevant?

In answer to the video "Was Muhammad a False Prophet?"

The prophet used to answer the call of freeman, slave, maid servant and destitute alike, shortening his prayer anytime someone would visit his open house so much so that his opponents spread it as a form of weakness and credulity while the prophet knew very well who to trust 9:61.

They would literally reproach him of being

"an ear"

because of his empathy and readiness to patiently listen to what anyone had to say.

But although at first glance that seemingly gave the impression of being credulous it in fact reveals a great leadership quality of keeping cohesion within a group. He knows very well the liars or people with ill intentions but does not immidiately expose them to the rest of the community so as to leave them the chance to reform themselves, as is commanded within the Quran itself.

This passive attitude should however not leave any ambiguity as regards the prophet's intellectual and spiritual stance, as denoted in the rest of the verse. Sometimes as reflected in 33:53, his leniency, kindess and forbearance to his folks would often lead to abuse. People would enter his house at anytime, preventing him and his wives from their spiritual duties and basic privacy requirements.

This injunction taught them certain rules of behaviour bearing on the life of such particular society, based on a true feeling of brotherhood, mutual consideration, and respect for the sanctity of each other's personality and privacy. This is the timeless lesson, applicable for all times, and which is now enshrined in the Quran through incidents that concerned the prophet. A report suggests that this verse was first revealed in the context of the prophet's marriage ceremony with Zaynab. Some of the guests stayed long after the event was over, in the prophet's home. The verse, according to the report from Anas came down some time after the incident, thus thwarting any attempt by modern critics to try and use the story as evidence of "convenient revelations". Besides, the ahadith speak of other occasion of revelation than this particular incident. This is due to the traditions and Quran commentaries, typically retrospectively applying events in the life of the prophet and the community as asbab alnuzul/occasions of revelation.

The Quran is full of such moral lessons, although illustrated through temporal situations, some of them related and others unrelated to the prophet.

Here are a few other examples 

24:62-63"surely they who ask your permission are they who believe in Allah and His Apostle". 

In the prophet's time, the sincerity of a person's belief in God and the one representing His will on earth, was measured by their obedience to the prophet. None could dare claim to submit to Allah while rejecting the means by which He was actively comunicating with the people. They could obviously not communicate with God directly and had thus to seek the messenger's guidance to know the divine will. This guidance from the messenger is still found both in the Quran and the sunna he left behind. The timeless application of the verse is thus in consulting both sources of guidance. See also 4:64.

Islam critiqued loses patience; humbleness in curiosity?

In answer to the video "Was Muhammad a False Prophet?"

Besides the twofold message that there is wisdom in having some things not known to us, that one should not ask about minutiae related to the religion which may have the opposite effect of making it obsessive compulsive, hard to follow and the potential danger of falling out of religion, the verse 5:101 also carries a timeless import in regards to one's understanding of the Quran itself. It teaches one not to be hasty, but instead wait for the detail that will elaborate on a topic requiring further explanation.

This detail, present in the book, will not cause the religion to become a burden. It will eventually appear as one progresses through the Quran with an open heart, as it is being revealed to oneself. For these reasons, the Quran is to be approached with patience 75:16, one should ponder and meditate on its verse before forming any adverse opinion.  

God's law as originaly intended is meant at providing spiritual purification. It would then be contrary to that purpose for God to make it complicated. He has lightened our burdens through a simple and natural sharia

22:78"and has not laid upon you an hardship in religion".

Man, being a creature endowed with freewill, has a frail spirituality 4:28 that makes him lack resolve when a moral crisis arises. That spiritual weakness is only a natural outcome of an original, untrained spiritual state just as a newborn is physically weak. Only the appropriate training, spiritual or physical can make one overcome the challenges, abstract or concrete 70:19-35. Therefore to facilitate the attainement of that goal, the sharia has been made simple and appealing to man's nature

2:185,5:6"Allah does not desire to put on you any difficulty, but He wishes to purify you and that He may complete His favor on you, so that you may be grateful".

Had Allah wished

2:220"He would certainly have caused you to fall into a difficulty; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise".

Even after mentionning clear prohibitions, the Quran stresses the soulful nature of the Sharia by declaring lawful these same things whenever the circumstances make it too burdensome to abide by them 5:3. God's law is thus very close to human nature, it does not run contrary to it, rather it is the disobedience to the law of the Creator that is unnatural. Neither is a person expected to be over-zealous in his religious duties

24:53"reasonable obedience (is desired); surely Allah is aware of what you do".

Sincerity, not perfection is required and so if one stumbles during the pursuit of the right course, God is forgiving 4:17,53:32. One can therefore clearly see that this notion of the naturalness and simplicity of the divine law is not based on some whims by the Muslim scholars and jurists, but on Quranic indicants which occur so frequently that they cannot be mere metaphors. It is the principle of facilitation/taysir of the sharia as stated in

2:185“God wills that you shall have ease, and does not want you to suffer hardship”.

This verse is treated as belonging to the category of muhkam/decisive or explicit verses, corroborated by many others cited above. The traditions reflect that Quranic axiom

“I was sent to people with the lenient, tolerant, True Religion”  

or  

“Do [good] deeds that are within your capacity”  

or  

“This religion is very easy and entails no hardship".

The prophet instructed Muadh as he sent him to Yemen

“Facilitate things for the people and do not make things difficult for them. Be kind and lenient [both of you] with the people, and do not be hard on them and give the people good tidings and do not reject them,”.

Based on the traditions and the Quran, the scholars have thus asserted that making things easy/taysir is one of the higher objectives of the Sharia. It aims at protecting the life, property, and dignity of the whole community without causing inappropriate hardships.

Throughout the ages, despite the mindless islamophobic rant, nations have been receptive to the teachings of Islam without any difficulty or hardship.

This is evidenced by the transformation that Islam has brought about in the daily lives of the Arabs, the Persians, the Copts of Egypt, the Berbers, the Tartars, the people of India, the Chinese, and the Turks, without these peoples facing any difficulty in discarding their age-old bad habits, or being compelled to abandon their good customs.

Islam critiqued finds wisdom in silence; appropriateness of curiosity?

In answer to the video "Was Muhammad a False Prophet?"

With the overarching Quranic notion of keeping God's directives simple and not burdensome, one can appreciate why the Quran tells the audience not to insist on investigating the unimportant things or minute details of a story. It diverts not only oneself but also others from the moral and spiritual import of the narration 18:22.

Similarily the Quran warns the Muslims not to ask questions about the things regarding which the Sharia is purposely silent 5:101 because such questions call for answers that tighten the limits of a directive, and then people are not able to follow them and as a result invite the wrath of God, as what happened directly and indirectly with the ISraelites. God wants that a directive be followed the way it is given. Difficulties should not be created by asking to explain what is concise and by asking to limit and restrict what is absolute and in fact

5:102"A people before you indeed asked such questions, and then became disbelievers on account of them"  

2:108"Would you then ask your Prophet such questions as were asked of Moses in former times? and whoever adopts unbelief instead of faith, he indeed has lost the right direction of the way".

The simplification of the Sharia/Law leaves room for human common sense and judgement, allowing different nations and communities to frame laws for themselves to meet new and changed situations. The Quran has laid down a handful of laws as explicit, while most provide a foundation and philosophical framework by which things can be negotiated, as long as it is in accordance with the principles of morality and wisdom laid down in the Book. The Prophet is reported to have said:

“The most sinful person among the Muslims is the one who asked about something which had not been prohibited, but was prohibited because of his asking”.

He further said

“God has set boundaries, so do not transgress them; He kept silent on certain things out of mercy for you rather than forgetfulness, do not ask about them”.

As is clear, the Quran doesnt prevent the honest debate and search of knowledge. Many Quranic verses begin with questions that are stated very compactly and their real purport becomes evident through their answer

2:189"They ask you concerning..".

The verse 5:101 rather warns against questionning that could lead to unnecessary complications in religious laws. In addition, and as demonstrated through the Israelites' example, such questionning also stems for shallow belief and hypocrisy. Asking questions, politely humbly with pure intent is never disallowed. The angels were permitted to voice questions to God directly 2:30. No religion says, almost at the end of every argument for its truth, to reflect, ponder, think for themselves. It invites sceptics to bring forth any constructive criticism and argument.

As just stated, the epitome of that principle is the angels' questioning God's plan for creation, questioning God Himself and yet they arent condemned at anytime. Justified curiosity is not wrong but even encouraged

21:7,16:43"ask those who possess knowledge if you do not know”.

In 58:1 a reference is made to an incident in which a pious woman had to face a severe difficulty regarding a religious issue; instead of becoming frustrated and showing distrust in God, she presented her case before Him and His Prophet with purity of intentions. Her difficulty was resolved and her case set forth as an example in the Quran: that of a person who adopted the correct attitude when troubles came her way.

Islam critiqued is a zealous journalist; Ask as many questions as you like, but remain God-conscious?

In answer to the video "Was Muhammad a False Prophet?"

This favorite of the misinformed critics of Islam will be addressed shortly, but in introduction it would be appropriate to mention one particular story. The Jews, in their arrogance, lack of obedience and will to bend to God's will, ie "stiff-necked" as Moses and other prophets labelled them collectively in their scriptures is demonstrated in 2:67-73 with their offensive behavior towards their prophet.

They accused him of ridiculing them when he simply conveyed God's command to sacrifice any cow in a ritual that would provide the community with answers as to the confusing circumstances surrounding a murder. They went on asking Moses that he might ask "his lord" as though He was not their Lord, for more and more particulars regarding which cow was to be sacrificed. After ridiculing their prophet, discrediting God's answers to their demands as unclear because

"to us the cows are all alike",

they finally reluctantly agreed to perform the ritual. The truth is that they were trying to delay it through their hairsplitting demands because they sought to hide the truth about the crime. This command to sacrifice a cow comes in the context of manslaughter as described in Deut21, with the taking of oaths over the blood of the sacrificed cow.

The Quran gives details on the first time this command was issued to the Israelites and their reaction when they actually had to put it to practice, their final acceptance of the command without any intention and conviction despite their prophet answering all their objections. When it was performed for the first time, the ritual resulted in the resurrection to life of the victim.

This exposed what they were trying to hide as well as provided a living proof for the concept of bodily resurrection. The Jews disagreed on this issue for long and for centuries until the coming of Jesus and his own miraculous evidence for the resurrection. Because of the dramatic demonstration, the ritual remained inscribed in their justice code as a means of atonement for an unsolved murder. It is interesting to note that in the time of Moses, other similar miracles were performed, such as when

Numbers21:9"Moses made a copper snake and put it on a pole, and whenever a snake bit a man, he would gaze upon the copper snake and live".

Together with condemning them for their rebellious trend, the passage above hints at another reality. Through this Quran as was done with the sending of prophets among them, God is 2:72 mukhrijun/continuously unveiling their lies.

However their disobedient trend would continue after that, their 

2:74"hearts hardened after that, so that they were like rocks, rather worse in hardness; and surely there are some rocks from which streams burst forth, and surely there are some of them which split asunder so water issues out of them, and surely there are some of them which fall down for fear of Allah". 

The verse eloquently increases the effect of its simile on the audience. It first gives a recognizable, observable point of reference that is already strong in itself, a dry rock. It then carries its audience's imagination further by alluding to abstract imageries that are stronger in intensity. This gradual rethorical device achieves a stronger impact on the minds than immidiately jumping to the most intense simile. This simile was relevant to the historical context of the Israelites. When they needed water they had seen it gush forth from one solid rock. They had seen how a mountain crashed down, humbled by Allah's glory 7:143. But their hearts, devoid of faith and fear of God remained rigid despite the intensity of miracles and divine favors they witnessed.

Their hard heartedness is a recurrent theme and accusation in their own Books Ezek3:7,Jer5:3etc.

This attitude of obscuring a simple religious directive is not restricted to this particular ordinance. They have done the same in other circumstances and for different reasons, and so God gave them free rein in forging their own laws. This resulted in them following their base desires and idolatrous tendencies

Ezek20:25-26: “Moreover, I gave them laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live. When they passed every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very gifts — that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am the Lord”.

God therefore shackled the rebellious souls of this "stiffed necked" nation with a law, the Torah, that would illuminate their way and lead them to the straight path. Their rebellious nature however took the upper hand, as it did even while Moses was among them performing miracles for all to see. Instead of humbling their selves, gratefully abiding by these directives meant for their own good, as David understood and did Ps19, they progressively took control of the laws, making their application only secondary to the man made practices that "validate them". Their ritualistic obsessions and hairsplitting conjectures basically turned the Divine law into a man made one. And this is another form of idolatry and God let them follow that path as a punishement, as He is described doing in Ezekiel, even letting them enshrine some of those laws in the written Torah. Divine law should instead be agreeable to the human soul, and if its recipients are mature and obedient, which was overwhelmingly not the case of the Israelites in their history, then it should make room for the evolving circumstances of the world. This adaptability however can never compromise the original spiritual principle and intent. This nature and purpose of the Mosaic law was rightly observed since the earliest days of Judeo-christian internal debates. In his dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr cites every aspect of the law, including the institution of sacrifice and observance of Sabbath, as burdens forced upon the Jews to contain their tendency to disobedience

"Wherefore, God, adapting His laws to that weak people, ordered you to offer sacrifices to His name, in order to save you from idolatry, but you did not obey even then, for you did not hesitate to sacrifice your children to the demons. Moreover, the observance of the sabbaths was imposed upon you by God so that you would be forced to remember Him, as He Himself said, ‘That you may know that I am God your Savior’ [Ezk 20.20]".

The Mosaic law in most part did not originate at Sinai but progressively came on the Israelites to contain their repeated disobedience and punish their endless conjectures on clear instructions. Many were then retrospectively painted as revealed to Moses since the beginning, and for different reasons. The Sabbath became a day of rest that mimics God's resting from creation Gen2,Ex20,31. Another passage gives a profoundly different reason for Sabbath. It is a remembrence of Egyptian bondage Deut5. This shows the confused manner in which tradition was transmitted prior to being written down.

In addition to the above example of divine stiffening of the law as a punishement, their scholars reached sometimes ridiculous heights of hairsplitting conjectures, which they obtained through subjective methods of deduction and then put forward as God's ordinances.

 Put briefly, the creators of the Oral Torah (the sages of the Mishnah and the Talmud) completely ignored the laws of the (Written) Torah, only using them as a convenient framework within which to legislate laws adapted to their own time. These ideas are expressed in the Talmud/Oral Torah, considered as God-given and revealed as the written Torah of Moses is.

Their known soulless interpretations and conjectures caused them to create insurmountable legal criteria. For example some purity rituals must be fullfilled before or just at the start of the Messianic era, but the preconditions are impossible to achieve due to the supposed impurity of the entire community. There is also the sacrifice of a "red heifer" whom none has been able to breed and raise yet, despite the continuous attempts up to this day. It is said that even Solomon, the wisest of all men, tried throughout his life to understand the matter of the red heifer and did not succeed.

The religion of Allah is not a burden, and neither is the set of ethical discipline it imposes upon man meant at narrowing down his feel of life 20:2, it rather is meant at enhancing it by deepening his consciousness of right and wrong. It is a blessing meant at purifying mankind or as the Quran says when speaking of the objective of religion being for spiritual tazkiya/purging. Allah calls it His favor and grace

4:113,5:3,2:231"and remember the favor of Allah upon you, and that which He has revealed to you of the Book and the Wisdom".

Here, this favor is described as being in the Book and the Wisdom refering to the body and soul of the Sharia respectively, to its commandments and their philosophy. This phrase is often used to connote the fact that God's guidance is perfectly balanced between both these aspects.

Allah has not ordained a soulless sharia concerned only with the body of deeds. The Quran constantly parallels internal with external purity and warns Muslims not to fall into the error of those before them, namely the Jews, who neglected the spirit of the Sharia for soulless external rituals and exagerated legal hair-splittings, superstitious restrictions and regulations. The prophet Muhammad actually came as a mercy to them and to relieve them from these shackles 7:157.

Allah has restored the Sharia to its original simplicity in order to lighten our burdens 2:286,4:27-8 because

"man is created weak".

This means man's weakness is due to the fact that he cannot by himself find the true path, he is in need of Allah's guidance. That is why the preceding verses speak of Allah's will to guide mankind, turn to us mercifully and lighten our burdens. 2:286 also implies that Allah could burden mankind with a difficult Sharia as a form of punishment as was done with the Israelites and as plainly stated in the book of Ezekiel quoted above.

When we create an innovation and complicate the Sharia on ourselves, then we will charge ourselves with greater burdens than God asked of us. God allows this to happen as a form of punishment.

What Allah demands from us is not unreachable and He does not impose what is beyond our power and understanding. This is why Allah expects us to answer the call of religion with

2:285"We hear and obey".

It is an unconditional declaration of faith and obedience to a system which is not meant, as already said, at narrowing down man's feel of life through ethical discipline and other teachings of the Quran but on the contrary, to enhance it by deepening his consciousness of right and wrong 20:2.

Islam critiqued delves to the dark side; How satanic are these verses?

In answer to the video "Was Muhammad a False Prophet?"

Let us see how this favorite of Islam's opponents holds up to scrutiny. 

This noble Book is not the result of some human whim. It was an inspiration to Muhammad 42:52, whose descent is independent of his will and desires 53:3. Allah says of his messenger

69:44-47"if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand, And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart: Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath)".

The prophet wont be able to successfully pass off something false as divinely inspired because by the manner of his sudden death, those around him will understand that the prophecy of preservation came true and that what he was about to utter, or started uttering was false. Should he even misinterpret and lie over the true meaning of what is revealed to him, his heart would be sealed and he would become like the worst rejectors among his nation, blindly wandering on 42:24.

Other verses issue similar warnings against tampering with the Quran to such an extent that it was imprinted in the psyche of the memorizers and all the believers.

When the malicious critics of Islam try using this divine pledge of protection, something no other scripture has ever had, against the prophet, they do nothing but shoot themselves in the foot. For instance when they connect the symptoms of the prophet's death, years after ingesting a poison, to the statement in 69:45-47 about instantly (not progressively) seizing and putting him to death should he try passing off as revelation something that isnt, then they are still testifying inadvertently to the Quran's authenticity; The prophecy came true and the false prophet, God forgive them for that saying, was put to death and prevented. 

When they quote from the false, discredited and discarded story of the "satanic verses" where the prophet says

"I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken"

then they are equally attesting to the preservation of the Quran. The same report states that this supposed "coming back to his senses" was caused by Gabriel, who

"came to the Messenger of God and said, "Muhammad, what have you done? You have recited to the people that which I did not bring to you from God, and you have said that which was not said to you".

Even if we assume in the worst case, just for argument's sake, that the prophet did pass off as revelation something that wasnt, then there is still the inescapable fact that he was under constant watch, immediately reprimanded for his deed, and the false revelation pointed and discarded from the rest.

Before getting into the story itself, it is important to note, we Muslims take Allah's word for it, He bears witness that what has been revealed to His Prophet has been done

4:166"with His knowledge, and the angels bear witness too and Allah is sufficient for a witness".

Merely coming down from the heavens was not sufficient to prove its divine origin. It could have been done through satanic agencies, or could have been polluted with confusing falsehood had God not made all necessary arrangements that no evil spirit could interfere with it. God and the angels commanded to deliver the Quran 2:97,80:11-16 bear witness that the revelation right from the start of its descent, to its reaching down to the prophets and up to its communication and delivery to the people is duly protected and guarded against change and alteration, from whatever source it might come. And God encompasses his messenger and protects him from any evil interference during all these processes

10:61,72:26-28"He makes a guard to march before him(the messenger) and after him, so that He may know that they(the messengers) have truly delivered the messages of their Lord, and He encompasses what is with them, and He records the number of all things"  

19:64"and we(angels of revelation) do not come down but by the command of your Lord; His is whatever is before us and whatever is behind us and whatever is between these".

All prophets were confronted to the machinations of evil spirits, trying to interfere with their desire to establish the truth. They did so through any means they could, such as by inciting their enemies further against them, propagating falsehood, attempting to make them compromise some of their principles with their enemies', but God protects His message from corruption and ultimately defeats their falsehood and obstacles, and establishes the Truth instead 6:56,22:51-55,41:26,68:9,10:15,17:73-4.

Whatever the devil creates from obstacles to counter the messengers' desires, ie their desires to establish the truth, becomes a trial for the people. This is speaking of the difficulties experienced by the messengers and their followers in the face of adversity. The people respond differently to these trials. Some go further in their rejection and doubts. Others become persuaded of it being the Truth based on the simple observation that, had the revelation been false and leading people astray, evil forces wouldnt have been so restless and agitated in their opposition. We see this phenomenon today, all around us and the restless but fruitless efforts by the opponents of Islam, trying hard to convince Muslims to abandon their faith. Also, the unwavering stance of the messengers in the face of these obstacles provides further proof for their selflessness and sincerity, more particularly in the basic notion of monotheism which evil entities were most focused against 10:104-6.

The satanic verses polemic, regardless of its authenticity, perfectly fits this scheme by the evil entities -human and jinn- to oppose the messengers' desire to establish the truth. With it, they try creating doubt and confusion in the mind of the people. This story, from an authentic viewpoint is rejected by ibn Ishaq who is himself among the transmitters, as quoted by Tabari in introduction to the story

"About this story Imam Muhammad bin Ishaq, the compiler of sirah, was asked, he said: ‘This is from the fabrication of the heretics.’ And he wrote a book on the issue".

As to the chain coming from ibn Abbas, it has the known liar and forger al Kalbi in the isnad. More on that point further below.

Nowadays, even among western scholars of Islam, studies by the likes John Burton, Uri Rubin, Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila, Gerald Hawting, Nicolai Sinai and Patricia Crone have all expressed profound reservations about the historicity of the story. It is also discarded through simple textual analysis. The alleged verses do not fit the passage in 53:19-23 which actually is a condemnation of idol worship, as well as the larger context which reinforces the incorruptibility of the divine revelation, affirms God's all encompassing power and negates intercession which is what the polytheists precisely believed regarding their lesser gods.  The sura itself begins with a forceful announcement that 

53:2-5"Your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred, Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed, Taught to him by one intense in strength.." 

From a textual criticism viewpoint, the story fails miserably; not a single manuscript exists proving its existence. The main words that constitute the passage are unique to it, not found anywhere in the Quran. This is the criteria of authenticity known as "hapax legomena". Not only that, but al gharaaniq/the cranes is a word that the Arabs have nowhere used to describe their gods, whether in their poetry or in their speeches.

Despite these irrefutable basic facts, the story was used in the past and nowadays to create doubts in the minds of the believers and to obstruct the establishment of the truth. And this despite the fact that it isnt a Quranic statement, nor a prophetic tradition, not even an authentic statement of one of the Companions. At best it is a statement of a tabi’i, ie non-eye witness expressing what he considered to be the reason for the revelation of a particular passage. 

Al Albani for instance grades the chain through ibn jubayr from ibn Abbas as sahih mursal, meaning in hadith terminology going back to a non contemporary to the prophet, a tabi'i. Ibn Kathir before him considered at best the chains to be mursal, adding that none are sahih. This is because we have a statement from ibn Abbas in sahih Bukhari that the prostration in sura najm occurred at the end of the sura, not its middle, and in a different context, as Muslims still do today. This contradicts the information that came down to us through weaker chains in the story of the gharaaniq. Al Qurtubi thus rightly observes that the isnad of the story is munkar/disconnected and that it

"was not mentioned by anyone from the people of authenticity". 

Al Razi, long before, in his tafsir al kabir rejected the story on the same basis. What is further interesting is that according to Al-Bazzar as quoted by ibn Kathir, he could not find any chain to the story that was not disconnected, except the one with the forger al-Kalbi in it.

In summary, not a single chain goes back directly to the prophet, or to a companion, while we have companion reports about the incident without the storytelling part of the satanic verses. One of the narrators, al Muttalib, was in fact a polytheist at the time of the recital of surah najm/53, and he was among the few (Musnad 8034) who did not prostrate when everyone else did. Prostration in sura najm has nothing to do with the prophet's alleged compromising stance. Prostration is required at the end of the sura, in relation to an actual command to prostrate, long after the section where the satanic verses were supposedly included. Nor is prostration required solely in sura najm but rather at 15 other occasions scattered throughout the suras of this mighty Quran. So despite the fact that the authentic narrations do speak of prostration at the recital of sura najm/53 yet nothing is said of the satanic interference or the whole polemic surrounding the revelation of the passage starting at v19. The authentic reports relate how the first time the sura was publicly recited, it had such an impact upon the listeners that not only the Muslims followed the prophet's prostration, but many among those present from the pagan Quraysh were equally overwhelmed and fell with their faces to the ground. What can at most be deduced is that this polemic was invented to cover up this sudden defection, or temporary complacent attitude by some idolaters, with a few of them remaining standing out of pride. It is important to mention here that both the Quran and ahadith relate the mesmerizing effect the recitation of the Quran had upon both believers and disbelievers. Regardless of contents, the language itself, like captivating music, had such impact upon a people known for their deep appreciation of eloquent language and poetry, that they would call it magic, sorcery, produced with assistance of the jinn etc. The staunchest enemies of the prophet would listen in secret to the recital of the Quran at night. These were a people who recognized and understood, highly valued eloquent speech. They would fall down prostrate in admiration of the most eloquent poets, as al Farazdaq did to one of Labid's poems. This is a point difficult to recognize unless one is familiar with the standards of the Arabic language, and the culture of the time. As an illustration, we may see even today, people loving a type of music regardless of how conflicting with their values the lyrics are, even dancing to it.

Also, no historical connection exists between sura 53 and 22, the first revealed 5 years into the prophetic call and the latter in Medina or for the earliest estimates 8 years after sura 53.

Finally, regardless of authenticity (no matter how strong the evidence against the story is presented, Islam's restless enemies will keep regurgitating it), there is nothing embarrassing about the satanic verses story. It depicts how the prophet and the revelation were ultimately protected through divine intervention. This, contrary to discrediting the Quran, enhances its credibility as miraculously preserved. Further, this story places the Ishmaelite prophet right along the pattern of the biblical prophets. Those orientalists and Judeo-Christian critics conveniently brush aside the depiction of their prophets; deceived by sorcery (Moses) or influenced by evil to the point they become murderers, adulters and even idolaters (Aaron, David, Solomon). But contrary to their ishmaelite counterpart, God did not even intervene to straighten them in the process.

As to Criteria of embarrassment, it doesnt constitute an argument in favour of the story's authenticity. Christians invented and transmitted the infancy Gospel of Thomas' wicked, murderous Jesus as a child. Does it mean it is true because the author was Christian and would therefore not make up something shameful about Jesus? In the history of Islam, as in Judeo-Christianity, people invented things in regards to their own religious figures for all sorts of reasons, whether to advance a wicked or pious agenda. Second, what is embarrassing in a context isnt in another. For example the story can easily be seen as a pious fabrication, to prove that God protects His messengers, as shown earlier.

Islam critiqued the restless woman defender; harsh hijab?

In answer to the video "Was Muhammad a False Prophet?"

The issue of women covering up is present in both the Quran and Christian scriptures

1Cor11:6"For if a woman will not veil herself then she should cut off her hair, but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil...for man was not created from woman but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man".

The HB states in addition, an indiscrete woman, regardless of her physical beauty and attire is as disfigured as a swine with a golden ring around its snout Prov11:22.

The code of interaction between opposite genders in the Quran isnt meant at discouraging or prohibiting it at all. The prophet's own wives interacted with visitors on a daily basis seeking their religious counsel.

What the Quran does, as with every aspect of human life, is to infuse it with God-consciousness so as to elevate the human being above the mere animalistic, material aspect of his existence. The Quran injects intergender interaction with modesty, chastity pragmatic caution that is beneficial both for the person itself and society at large. For example it is disallowed to greet the opposite gender through physical contact (handshake or kiss) instead of reciprocal smiles, good words and courteous gestures.

This is clear through the wording

24:30-31"yaghuddun min absarihim/to cast down of/from their look".

Its not saying to avoid looking altogether but to avoid staring, men and women alike. Looking at oneanother for a legitimate need like communication or identification does not constitute unhealthy staring with lustful motives. Neither is physical contact forbidden in the absolute sense, as the prophet would not take his hand away from a slave girl seeking his help and comfort 

"Any of the female slaves of Medina could take hold of the hand of Allah's Messenger and take him wherever she wished".

As can be seen, the Quran in intergender relationships focuses on self-restraint. This is not an unrealistic demand that suppresses or prevents social development. On the contrary it gives it a healthy turn, reducing the chance for misplaced thoughts and misunderstandings, as is so common in any culture when opposite genders interact.

The verse sets a standard for Muslim men and women, starting from the first contact which is visual, telling them both to approach the opposite gender with the correct mindframe, regardless of the person's suggestive or explicit behavior towards them. This not only helps the person itself to keep his morality in check, but also sends the right signal to the other person who is in turn morally stimulated in case of misbehavior.

The Islamic dresscode has the same twofold purpose, it conditions the person wearing modest clothing to adopt a healthy attitude when about to go in public, as well as sends a healthy signal to other people who are in turn influenced to modify their own behavior when interacting with the opposite gender. Women in addition, because they tend to wear ornaments, are told to put an additional level of caution

“They should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments”24:31.

The dangers to the general atmosphere of chastity in any society, in any culture, are very real and observable nowadays as it was case throughout times past, whenever these elementary rules of opposite gender interaction are neglected. The prophet even refered to as devils those women who arouse sexual attraction through their misbehavior

"Allah’s Messenger – may peace be upon him – saw a woman, then he came to his wife, Zainab, who was tanning leather, and fulfilled his desire, then he went out to his Companions and said: “A woman comes in the form of a devil and goes in the form of a devil. If one of you sees a woman, let him go to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart".

In Arabic the word for devil can be used for any entity that causes evil. As noted by the scholars of hadith, this narration is speaking of women dressed inappropriately in the public space. During the advent of Islam, more specifically in Medina where the hadith is supposed to have been spoken, sexual promiscuity and prostitution were known features of that society.

It is ironic, as a side note, that Christians "haters of the flesh" and anything sexual, often raise the aforementioned hadith to undermine the prophet's credibility. As if the embodiment of piety, as reflected by their priests who cannot marry, is the one who denies himself the pleasures of the flesh, regardless of it being legitimate or not. They forget what is stated in their own books as regards the 50 year old prophet David who murders a brave soldier to satisfy his uncontrollable lust towards the married Batsheba (younger than 10 in Jewish tradition). The incident did not reduce an iota of his truthfulness as a prophet of YHWH.

Far from behaving in such a shameful manner as described by the lying pens of Israel, the prophet Muhammad provides the most rational and upright manner to satisfy one's natural urges. Not through murders, rape or adultery but by coming together with one's own wife. Notice also the contrast between David's incident and the one in the hadith; Batsheba did not purposefully provoke David's lust but was simply making her toilet in her private area while the hadith talks of unchaste women in public provoking men.

Returning to the issue of Islamic modesty, the dress code isnt only meant for women, but both men and women whenever opposite sexes outside the familiar circle interact 24:30-31. The Quran uses Khumur and Julbab, a kind of head covering, for the woman's clothing 33:59. Far from being a form of subjugation rather it is the degradation of women judged on their looks and overexposed physically, in the Western media which is a form of subordination to the lust of men, and insulting to women.

As said earlier, the hijab conditions both men and women to adopt a proper inter gender attitude, leading even those that tend to be abusive among the men, those who do not, as per the passage's instruction, lower FROM their gaze, to regard women in a dignified manner and value them for their character, intelligence, moral qualities

“That they should be known as such and not molested”33:59.

For the woman, and the men too whom the Quran commands to dress with modesty, the adoption of such a dress code leads to more positive body image, less reliance on media messages about beauty ideals, and appearance than those who do not. Again, to emphasize the fact women, regardless of their suggestive or explicit behavior, their respect or not of the Islamic dress code, are not to be looked at in a lustful manner, men are to

24:30"cast down from their looks"

as well as

"guard their modesty".

This injunction comes before addressing even the issue of wearing the hijab. This puts first the responsibility on men and how they must behave towards women

 "The Prophet said, 'Beware! Avoid sitting on the roads." They (the people) said, "O Allah s Apostle! We can't help sitting (on the roads) as these are (our places) here we have talks." The Prophet said, ' l f you refuse but to sit, then pay the road its right ' They said, "What is the right of the road, O Allah's Apostle?" He said, 'Lowering your gaze, refraining from harming others, returning greeting, and enjoining what is good, and forbidding what is evil".

Notice once more the realism of the  Quran; it emphasizes lowering the gaze when addressing men, regardless of what the woman is wearing, because naturally, a woman's attractiveness is primarily in her physical features. But of course, not all men abide by this ordinance and thus to further protect women in the public sphere, it tells them to observe a modest and covered dresscode. Men too should dress modestly, but men do not need to go to the extent of wearing a head cover so as to avoid lecherous staring. Contrary to women, male attractiveness is not primarily in his physical features, but in his status, wealth, ambition, capacity to provide protection etc. 

There is a reason why even modern secular societies, which do not impose modesty and censorship in interaction between the genders and who in consequence experience tension, including harassments, as well as clashes between sexes are resorting more and more to physical separations between the 2 in the public sphere.  These rules of modesty apply across the social spectrum, to both free people and slaves who adopt Islam as their religion, and who, through their code of living signal to the outside world that they are not open to indecency. Nothing in the Quran's wording indicates an exemption of the rules of modesty for any member of the Muslim community, men or women. In the prophet's time, war prisoners, including women were non-Muslims in the vast majority of cases and so were not required to wear and follow the Islamic code against their will. There were also Muslim servants of course who, of convenience were exempt from covering their head as they went about doing their work in and out of the house, which obviously entailed being frequently seen by men. This however left them vulnerable to molestation by the hypocrites and the non-Muslims of Medina who didnt abide by the rules of lowering their gaze and avoiding unnecessary gender interaction. Regular Muslim women were obligated to observe the dresscode, screening their appearance. This constitutes an advantage in such mischievous atmosphere, as it dissuades lechery but at the end, regardless of a woman's attire, if a man is bent on acting inappropriately towards women and disregard the prescribed code of conduct, he will still abuse any type of woman he comes across. When commentators spoke of the female dresscode as a means by which free and slave women were separated, they were stating a fact related to how such society worked as described earlier. None of them said that Muslim slave women were generally forbidden or exempt from the same dresscode as regular Muslim women. Commenting on 33:59 ibn Hazm writes 

"The nakedness of a woman is her entire body excluding the face and palms only. The free man and male servant, the free woman and maidservant are equal in this respect; there is no difference… As for differentiating between the free woman and maidservant, then the religion of Allah Almighty is one, creation and nature are one. All of that in respect to free women and maidservants is the same, unless there is an explicit text to distinguish between them in any way such that it can be applied". 

This view is the default one in accordance with the wording of the Quran. Later jurists, to accommodate their leaders and environments used precedents from the time of the prophet and the companions to allow more flexibility in regards the dresscode of the servants. The accommodation most in line with the prophet's time was to allow women servants to unveil their hair and other minor body parts during their household activities. Just as mistresses are allowed, in the Quran itself 24:31 and for convenient reasons to unveil in front of their male servants 

"The Prophet brought Fatimah a slave which he donated to her. Fatimah wore a garment which, when she covered her head, did not reach her feet, and when she covered her feet by it, that garment did not reach her head. When the Prophet saw her struggle, he said: There is no harm to you: Here is only your father and slave".

No prophetic precedent exists however for the practice of letting slaves show their naked breasts, chests, or backs in public. And this, despite the prophet having several of those servant girls helping around his wives, just as many Muslim households had. Had there been a clear precedent, or that the Quran allowed it, Imam Malik ibn Anas wouldnt have publicly revolted against the practice in Medina to the point he asked the caliph to prevent it. As other schools of law had already allowed it, the caliph did not go against it. The jurists that came after the time of the companions, pushed these rulings of convenience to unhealthy extents, as seen with imam Malik's disapproval. But it seems the jurists themselves felt the need to introduce a caveat, as noted by ibn Taymiyya 

"Slave women during the Prophet’s time didn't use to cover themselves like free women, while their chances of spreading Fitna were less, and their ruling was like of the old women who didn’t need to take Hijab as Quran said in verse 60 of Surah Noor. But as far as the beautiful Turkish slave women of today are concerned, then they could not be compared with the slave women of the time of prophet Muhammad. These beautiful Turkish slave women should thus cover whole of their bodies and to safeguard themselves from the eyes of men".

Ibn Umar's "inspection" of slave girls at the market, as he put his hand in between their breasts and the area of their lower hips, was done above their clothes. Although this practice, which never occurred in the prophet's time or that of the companions is certainly questionable, it was obviously not done with sexual motive; it was done over the clothes and not directly on the breasts themselves. Slaves were seen as a commodity which had to be physically inspected by the buyer. As stated by ibn Taymiyyah 

"The default position is that the nakedness of a maidservant is like a free woman, just as the nakedness of a male servant is like a free man. When she takes on an occupation and duties, her prohibitions are reduced in comparison to a free woman, as a concession to her in showing only what needs to be shown… As for the back and chest, it remains in the default position". 

The misunderstood notion that slave girls were totally exempt from wearing the veil, and even forbidden from doing so is unfounded in the Quran, in the practice of the prophet and his companions. What one may find at most is a disputed statement showing Umar, during his caliphate, forbidding a slave girl from covering her head. This could have been to differentiate her as a servant inside the household, in which the incident occurred and where guests were received. Due to a servant's function of attending the guests and household chores, the ample Julbab would have been inconvenient, and hence the exemption from wearing it. This means the servants were now wearing clothes more revealing of their body features, not because these features were openly exposed but because their clothes were closer to the body to allow better movements 

"Anas bin Malik said: “The servants of Umar, may God be pleased with him, served us, revealing their hair, and their breasts were moving". 

A point to note is that Umar only requested his servant woman's head be uncovered and no other body part, neither did he make a general statement about slave women. Also, having female servants dressed for their work does not entail the Muslim guests are allowed to transgress the command of lowering their gaze, ie looking beyond what is necessary, which applies to all situations beyond their wives and own servants. Ibn Taymiyyah continues elsewhere 

"As for attractive Turkish maidservants, this cannot possibly be as it was in the time of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. It is an obligation for them to cover their whole bodies from being looked at".