Islam critiqued wants no hitman prophet; Quran allows unjust killings?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

If we turn to the Quran, which the messenger embodied, it teaches that correct behavior must be that of modesty and humility in society 17:37, restraining one's anger and pardoning men in the case of transient dissensions caused by the devil

3:134,4:149,17:53"speak that which is best; surely the Shaitan sows dissensions among them; surely the Shaitan is an open enemy to man"

even when one's honor has been slandered with ignorance 24:22, never compromise one's uprightness of character and constancy in servitude to God, even moreso when confronting evil and hardships. This always results in a change for the better at least in one's own self and many times in the external conditions or the opposite party 13:22,41:34,42:40. All prophets embodied that principle and the Prophet Yusuf's story exemplifies it at its best, as his forbearance during his ordeals and steadfastness upon the straight path, changed not only his circumstances for the better but also the conditions of those who once even opposed him.

In 24:22 the believers are asked a rhetorical question; if they like that God forgives their faults, why do they not forgive other people's faults? The believer must make due allowance for human nature and not be too harsh with those who err 7:199"khud al aafuw/". They should therefore not ask for the hastening of evil instead of the good on anyone 17:11, including on one who is currently perceived as an enemy for he can very well reform himself and become a friend later 60:7 and even a brother in faith 3:103,8:62-3. The same principle is expounded in the HB in Solomon's wise utterings Prov25:21-2.

This Quran, and as embodied by the prophet, calls Muslims to treating others, whether close or far "neighbors", from one's own people or not, as they themselves would like to be treated. It was a way of life of the prophet who taught the people the general axiom that 

"Allah will not be merciful to those who are not merciful to mankind". 

Whenever the Quran encourages fair treatment, it does so by instilling empathy

4:9"Let those who would fear for the future of their own helpless children, if they were to die, show the same concern for orphans, let them be mindful of God and speak out for justice".

That type of imaginative role-reversal is a recurrent theme 4:36,42:23,83:1-6. Treating others even better than what is expected towards one's self, opens the possibility to create a positive change even in one's enemy 41:34,59:9. This shows how altruism in the Quran, although seemingly over empathetic, actually remains pragmatic by extending fair treatment even to one's enemies in certain cases. The prophet said

"Whoever would love to be delivered from the Hellfire and entered into Paradise, then let him die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and let him treat the people the way he would love to be treated".

In another narration of the prophet, those who are able to show such selflessness are described as neither belonging to the prophets or martyrs, but the prophets and martyrs will envy them due to their status on the Day of Resurrection.

"The best faith is to love for the sake of Allah, to hate for the sake of Allah, and to work your tongue in the remembrance of Allah. Mu’adh said, “What is it, O Messenger of Allah?” The Prophet said: That you love for the people what you love for yourself, and you hate for the people what you hate for yourself, and that you speak goodness or remain silent".

Many times the Quran starts or ends a passage about belief in the One God, with a statement about just dealings between men, always showing how faith and righteousness are inevitably linked to social interactions. The whole mission of the prophet Shuayb sent to Madyan is summed up thus

11:84"He said: O my people! Worship Allah, you have no god other than Him. And do not decrease from the measure and the scale".

From that perspective, the noble prophet Muhammad, like his predecessor, insisted on being fair in social transactions. He taught honesty in dealings to such an extent that should a storekeeper sell perishable goods in a wholesome state then the person who bought it from him and gives it in charity will earn him a reward similar to the one who gave the charity. And thus he would give advice such as forbidding 

"the sale of dates till they were good (ripe), and when it was asked what it meant, the Prophet said, "Till there is no danger of blight".

This selflessness thus negates any expectations and favor in return while lending a helpful ear to any type of "asker" 74:6,93:10. This is because everyone in this world may be subject to physical, spiritual or intellectual need.

This comprehensive attitude enjoined in the Quran, along with other such directives, takes the principle of the "golden rule" to new heights and should be labelled the "diamond rule". Slaves were an integral part of the household to such an extent that, as with other members of the biological family, women were allowed to unveil in their presence 24:31. This of course was a ruling of convenience, given the frequent interaction with the male servants going about their various assisting tasks within the household. But it further contributed to their thorough integration within the family sphere, solidifying the various rulings of consideration towards them.
They had to be fed and maintained without any psychological injury and for the sake of Allah, not seeking benefits of any kind from them in return

76:8-10"And they give food however great be their own want of it to the poor and the orphan and the captive: We only feed you for Allah's sake; we desire from you neither reward nor thanks: Surely we fear from our Lord a stern, distressful day. So God will save them from the woes of that day, and give them radiance and gladness. So God will save them from the woes of that day, and give them radiance and gladness".

What is remarkable here is that the Quran places even the need of the captive, regardless of his religion, above the need of the Muslim guardian himself. This is just one of the many passages that further dwarfs the judeo-christian notion of the golden rule.

So, even though the Quran does not pronounce an abstract concept like to “love your neighbour”, it does however articulate its reality and applications in a much more comprehensive manner, constantly interlinking worship of God with application of social justice.  

In a hadith, the prophet describes how the angel Jibril admonished him for the sake of the neighbours 

"Mujahid reported that a sheep was slaughtered for 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr. He asked his slave, "Have you given any to our Jewish neighbour? Have you given any to our Jewish neighbour? I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'Jibril kept on recommending that I treat my neighbours well until I thought that he would order me to treat them as my heirs.'"

Reciprocity in goodwill is so hardwired into the Quranic message that even when people meet and greet oneanother, the one answering should exceed the other in his greeting 

4:86"When a greeting is offered you, answer it with an even better greeting, or [at least] with its like. God keeps count of all things". 

The Islamic greeting is a supplication to Allah, that He might bestow peace on another. This known etiquette, which is a Muslim peculiarity, is a means by which people’s hearts are cleansed. It brings people closer together and reinforces their ties.

Islam critiqued finds fault with the prophets; blood on the hands of the messengers?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

As amply shown in a previous video to this same youtuber, the tolerance of the prophet, his patience and forbearance were indiscriminate and touched people from all social spheres

“Do not be mere imitators, treating well only those who treat you well and doing wrong to those who do you wrong. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong if they do evil”

  Aisha said

"The Messenger of Allah did not take revenge for anything against himself, but if the sacred law of Allah was violated then he would take retribution for the sake of Allah".

That is why one only finds the kind of reports as those concerning Asma bint Marwan who wrote poems that targeted the prophet personally, among the weak and discarded narrations. As a prophet of God and ruler, he was nevertheless not one to adopt the type of passivity that would result in the merciless becoming brazen and taking advantage of any apparent weakness. From that perspective, we can begin to understand why he sanctioned the execution of some people, and tactically fought others, though he may have wished that this could have been avoided.

An example to corroborate would be that of Kaab ibn Ashraf. Following the Muslim victory of Badr, the idolators and the Jews of Medina felt that their political position was greatly diminished. Only 2 years after his migration, the Prophet of God had managed to break the traditional pattern of power distribution in the desert. The enemies of Islam would meet clandestinely and encourage the composition and recitation of divisive poetry. Kaab ibn Ashraf, a Jewish chieftain of Banu Nadhir, was a poet of considerable fame and he used to recite in the gatherings fiery poems inciting the people to rise up against Islam. This was a clear breeching of the Medina covenant of peace with the Muslims, non partisanship which eachother's enemies. ibn Ashraf's particularity as compared to the other non Muslims and hypocrites that secretly disliked Islam and conspired against it, is that he openly joined the Meccan ranks with whom the community was at war, becoming a propaganda tool that composed eulogies mourning the Meccan chiefs slain in the battle of Badr and defamed Muslim women. The closest one can come to the kind of impact this kind of poetry had in Arabian tribal life in those days, is to remember the role propaganda played during the world wars of the 20th century, more particularly the 2nd one. The chief propagandists among the Nazis were regarded as top priority targets by Western authorities. The issue here is thus not that of low-level disparaging comments and mockeries, rather the kind of criticism with deadly ramifications. The Quran and hadith contain many instances of the prophet and the Muslims being the targets of mockery and ridicule, both in times of political weakness and strength, yet neither responded in kind nor retaliated violently. The Quran for instance in sura tawba relates how the Medina hypocrites would engage in injurious talk about the prophet, and this at a time where the Muslim community had become powerful. The only response they got from the prophet was that he socially ostracized them, refusing their charity donations, and leaving their fate to Allah in the Hereafter 

9:66"If We pardon one faction of you - We will punish another faction because they were criminals". 

He would even pray for the forgiveness of some of them, only to be rebuked by Allah for his undeserving empathy 9:80,63:6. Even so, the Quran would repeatedly call them to repent, and that God may show them mercy 

33:24"That Allah may reward the truthful for their truth and punish the hypocrites if He wills or accept their repentance. Indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful".

As to Kaab, his animosity was such that it is said the verse 4:51 speaking of Jews believing in idols alludes to him, when he accompanied a delegation from Medina to Mecca in search of an alliance against the Muslims, and publicly bowed to the idols to reassure the suspecting Quraysh 

"Your are people of Scripture and Muhammad has a Scripture and we are not completely sure that this is a scheme that you devised. So if you want us to go along with you, you have to prostrate to these two idols and believe in them". 

But being a coward he never attended the battles himself, preferring to plot and incite behind closed doors. His role in galvanizing the Quraysh prior to the battle of Uhud is well known, his wife herself is reported to have warned him that his life was at threat because of his actions. Although the prophet said that Kaab was deserving of being put to death since he should be treated as a combatant, he nevertheless did not plan the execution. It is to be noted that any modern government seeking to preserve the survival of its people in times of war, would look to target specific opponents whose death would have a more significant impact in the long-run in terms of avoiding further bloodshed. He was thus incited out of his hiding place and killed, which successfully prevented an all out war with the Bani Nadir. Other opinions say his assassination occurred after the battle of Uhud in response to an attempted murder of the prophet.

The critics of Islam wont find the kind of cold blooded, arbitrary and ruthless assassinations they try hard to attribute to the prophet and even if they succeed, which they wont, then it still takes nothing away from Muhammad's claim to prophethood, judging by the standards of the true prophets of the Bible, including David who assassinated an innocent man for the sole purpose of marrying his wife and yet it did not diminish an iota from his legitimacy as a prophet.

The fact is that so many factors in the prophet's life went against displaying any sort of positivity and mercy that one can only conclude that he had been preserved and guided by the Almighty from turning into an evil despot; never knew his father, hardly enjoyed the compassion of his mother, lost his grandfather, and then his uncle and dearest wife simultaneously, witnessed every single one of his children die save for one, who was treated like a menace and fugitive after decades of building a flawless reputation among his people, on top of that physically abused until he would faint, starved for years by his own people, and faced countless campaigns of character assassination, directed towards him and his household, driven out of his home, unto a foreign town only to find hypocrites there awaiting every opportunity to betray him, then watching assassination attempts against his life unfold regularly, as well as the murder and mutilation of his relatives and companions. Who could in such circumstances persevere and rise beyond negativity, displaying mercy, justice and empathy besides one divinely guided?

The Prophet never punished out of mere retaliation for a personal slight or injury. All his punishments, of believers and unbelievers alike, were for crimes committed against the public weal or infringements of the promulgated law; and even here his life contains acts of clemency in which he put mercy above justice. In 4:140 it says

"And indeed He has revealed to you in the Book that when you hear Allah's communications disbelieved in and mocked at do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them; surely Allah will gather together the hypocrites and the unbelievers all in hell".

This is a Medinan verse in which the prophet isnt told to forcefully silence the critics, even those mockers of the religion. He is simply to gracefully turn away from them and leave them to their own shamefull talk. A similar verse was revealed in Mecca 6:68.

Islam critiqued gets psychological; Muhammad desiring to marry Zainab?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

The prophet was at first reluctant to publicly announce the command to marry her and concealed it in his heart, fearing public reaction, until Allah brought it to light and definitely ended the notion that adopted children were blood children

33:37"and you concealed in your soul what Allah would bring to light, and you feared men, and Allah had a greater right that you should fear Him. But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them; and Allah's command shall be performed. There is no harm in the Prophet doing that which Allah has ordained for him; such has been the course of Allah with respect to those who have gone before".

And the 3rd repercussion of this marriage was to lift the burden which society put upon divorced women who were degraded and often couldnt remarry. The degradation of divorced women is still present in the Bible Matt5:31-32 and many societies throughout the world. 

That marriage, to a divorced woman, ex-wife of an adopted son, who in addition was now considered of far lower rank than the prophet because of her previous union with a manumitted slave brought down all theses social stigmas, unjust notions and illogical practices. So deeply were these customs anchored that to counter balance them the prophet, in addition to having practically exposed their falsehood with his marriage, according to history further stressed the psychological reform by giving the most public and generous marriage ceremony to his guests than he had done with all his other marriages.

Now we get to the juicy part which the malicious critics try misrepresenting as the truth. Besides serious defects in its transmission chain and the untrustworthy, sometimes entirely rejected persons that related it, one version of the story of Zayd and Zainab as reported in some traditions including in Tabari's tafsir, presents several absurdities that led it to be criticized by specialists in hadith and completely rejected. For instance Zaynab was the Prophet's cousin, he knew her through familial relations going back to Mecca.

He saw her and interacted with her 100s of times in his aunt's house, and it was the Prophet that arranged the wedding to Zayd in the first place. Besides the fact the Prophet was repeatedly providing marriage counseling to prevent the union from breaking up, what did he miss during all these years that he suddenly noticed during that short period during which Zaynab was married to Zayd? The idea that he suddenly noticed her "beauty" is an absurdity, because he had already seen that "beauty" multiple times before she was even married.

In pre-islamic times the dresscode for both men and women was much more liberal. There is nothing that the prophet would have missed from her appearance that he suddenly discovered now. He had plenty of opportunities to approach her without creating any polemic or transgressing any taboo. The prophet Muhammad isnt the biblical David who saw a woman's beauty for the first time and decided to forcefully take her for himself by setting up the assassination of her innocent husband. You dont suddenly have a heart change based on seeing something you have already seen multiple times before and neither do you secretly desire someone whom you had just arranged to marry with another and in addition provide not one or two, but repeated counseling to make the union work despite the difficulties.

 How could there exist any lust when the Prophet is trying to prevent the marriage from falling apart, and when the marriage occured right after the divorce meaning there is no way he could have lusted for her while trying to make her marriage work? It is interesting to further note that even those reports saying the prophet had a sudden heart change upon seeing Zaynab's beauty, depict him as hiding his feeling from Zayd  and repeatedly denying his desire for her, urging Zayd over and over to keep his wife despite the troubles in their marriage. The prophet could have covered up his "scheme" by using Zayd's own pretext to his advantage, when he came to the prophet complaining of her being "arrogant and hurts me with her words". Instead he would tell him to fear God and preserve his marriage. He uses neither direct nor indirect ways, not even the furthest hints and suggestions that could influence Zayd to break his marriage apart.

The Quran therefore expressly contradicts the story-telling of the seera writers who collected it. Not only because of its depiction of the incident that leaves no room to such polemics, as just shown briefly, but also due to the fact the verse is narrating a past event, prior to the verse's revelation. This unequivocally cancels the claim the prophet used the revelation to achieve a secret desire. The prophet did not go around reciting this verse, which wasnt yet revealed, nor any other verse in relation to Zaynab, prior to making his intentions towards her known publicly. After he was ordained to marry her, the Prophet feared the reaction of the people once he would make the announcement 

"you feared the people, when you should have feared God".

Aisha reportedly said that his fear was such that if any divine command were to be covered up by the Prophet, concealed and never made known, this would have been it. The verses points to the exact opposite of the hatemongerers' claims who think what the prophet was concealing in his heart was his lust for Zaynab while the verse says the Prophet concealed something that God wanted to bring to light. This paints God, or more absurdly Muhammad himself whom they say fabricated the Quran to suit his needs, as wanting to bring to light his own secret lust for Zaynab, in other words God wanted to humiliate his prophet, or more absurdly, Muhammad who invented the Quran explicitly issued a statement to expose and humiliate himself. Reason and truth are found elsewhere of course than this tangled web weaved by people who arent interested in truth nor reason. God "brought to light" not a secret lust, but a command to marry Zaynab for a social reform as regards adopted children

"so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons".

These words show that the consequence of what Allah "would bring to light", would stop the believers from having any "difficulty" ie repercussions or pressures in their society. How does the supposedly bringing to light of the prophet's secret lusts create this reform, as opposed to the bringing to light of the command to marry her, which the prophet already knew about but concealed due to his fear of the people's reaction? That is why, as a side note, Zaynab used to pride herself in the fact that the ordinance to marry her was purely divine, while there was always a human element that brought about the prophet's other unions.

The story of Muhammad's sudden crush for Zaynab isnt integrated in the prophet's biography prior to Tabari's time. That is 300 years after the the prophet's passing away. It doesnt appear in Ibn Ishaq's biography which precedes it, and neither is it found narrated by the early authorities in the field, such as Urwa bin al Zubayr, ibn Shihab al Zuhri and others.

The story could have entered the exegetical tradition through the channel of the qussaas, the story tellers, notorious for their elaborations upon the lives of the prophet's wives. In that case, recent scholars argue that the inspiration is the Biblical account of the prophet David's encounter with a naked Batsheba, followed by his lusting for her.

Islam critiqued not interested in Islamic justice; adoption in the Quran?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

Another crucial component of that marriage relates to the pre-Islamic perspective on adopted children. At the time, Arab custom considered adopted children as blood children. Besides being against nature, they would pass onto them the adopter's genealogy and name, thus confusing their identity. The overarching Quranic principle of preserving the adopted's true identity, as will be shown later, negates any practice that compromises this issue. This includes the modern practice of 'closed adoption' which usually conceals any disclosure of information such as the identities of the biological kin. Even if for some other reason the biological father is unknown it is still not a reason to confuse their identity by giving them the adoptive family's name because it neither corresponds to truth nor reality. In all cases, adopted persons can be addressed as brethren in religion or friends and there is no blame if they are sometimes referred to as sons metaphorically, out of affection, just as one would do with any person regardless of there existing blood relations or not 2:220,33:4-5. 

What the Quran does is abolishing the unnatural, unpractical, and even dangerous implications of treating non-relatives as blood relations while counterbalancing with an emphasis on practicality and moral duties towards the adopted. In Islam, the relation with an adopted person is that of guardianship, tutelage, training, protection, until he/she is mentally and physically able to enter into society, possibly using his/her own inheritance to live their life independently 4:2-7. It is not a father/mother - child relationship. 

Keeping the adopted's original identity secures his specific rights, and inherited wealth that are in the adoptive father's responsibility. This wealth is forbidden to be approached or released 6:152, until the child is fully grown and mature, having reached a mariageable age and intellectual maturity/rushd. After repeated testing by the guardian and once he is reasonably convinced of them having reached maturity, he may allow them to start up their own life anew 4:2,6,8,10. The property will be returned in the presence of witnesses in order to make sure that the guardian's judgement in the matter was sound.

Before that time, the guardian is warned not to consume with extravagance and hastiness the orphan's wealth and if he is a rich man then he should abstain altogether from even touching the property. The purpose of the Quran, again, as is the case with safeguarding their identity, is so that orphans are given the best chance to kick start their own life when they are able to.

However, the Quran adds its usual pragmatic instruction that if the guardian is poor then "let him eat reasonably" "out of" the profits of the orphan's capital, not "from" the capital itself lest it is eaten up completely 4:5. Then the Quran reminds again the God-fearing people, the spiritual aware, not to fall back to the previous unjust systems of share and swallowing the weak orphans' property because their offspring could very well be in the same situation 4:9.

This particular verse does not tell the people to show mercy and compassion, they are told to fear Allah as He is quick in requiting evil. It is a threat that whatever they swallow unjustly by usurping orphan's rights, is equal to swallowing fire into their bellies 4:10. Their soul is already burning for their deeds. In pre-Islamic times, orphans were abused by men who would take them under their wing only to take advantage of them not having any close relatives for protection and dispossessed them of their property which they rightfully inherited, replacing it with worthless belongings 4:1-2. The Quran, like past scriptures Prov23:10-11, strongly reprimanded this type of injustice as already shown. It laid stress on the relation between good care, kindness and compassion, as well as respect and honor towards the orphans with success in the Hereafter 107:1-3,93:9-10,89:17.

The HB echoes that notion Prov14:13. The emphasis of the Quran is such that even the sincere believers became afraid of taking orphans under their care lest they would act unjustly towards them. But they were reassured that Allah knows the sincere welldoers. They should mingle with the orphans as they do with any of their Muslim brethren, with sincerity of heart 2:220 caring for them patiently and compassionately 4:36,90:11-17, considering their needs whenever giving for charity 2:177,215. This is what qualifies one as among

90:18"the people of the right hand". 

Preserving the adopted's identity opens the possibility for inheritence rights besides those of the natural heirs 4:8,33. If the adoptive parents had no children or desire to give a specific portion of the inheritence to the adoptive child or else, they can do it in writing or even before their death 4:11-12.

It also prevents compromising the legitimate inheritence of biological offspring, even in some cases in Western societies making the adopted the complete heir in lieu of the blood children. Preserving the adopted's identity avoids the risk of accidental incest.

Another obvious problem is the lack of medical advantages of not knowing one's biological family. 

Islam does its utmost to guarantee the well being of the weak people of society, including the orphans, while at the same time making it clear they need to preserve their real identify and not be confused with one's own children.

This isnt a negation of adoption but rather of the practice of joining their name to one's own name and compromising their and the biological offspring's rights 33:4-5. This was the opportunity to erase these customs unfortunately still existing nowadays among non Muslims. Such a behavior is nothing short of identify theft, in addition making someone believe they are real children of the household in which they grow up. When such children realize the truth they suffer much disappointment and grief.

It is the responsibility of the entire community to help children in need. They should be taken in and nurtured but again, not confused with one's own children. Adoption in the Quran is thus more of a long term foster care which while offering guardianship for the individual, does not legally assume any biological kinship and rights. The Quran's stance therefore isnt against adoption, which is never banned, but against confusing the adopted person's identity.

All these crucial societal reforms are first introduced through admonishment in sura Ahzab 33:4-5 and then with the practical example of the prophet's marriage proposal to Zaynab, now ex-wife of an adopted son. This clearly drew a distinct line from any biological connection with the adoptive family. Nothing could strike harder and clearer at the root of that deeply ingrained belief other than a union one would consider incestuous precisely due to that notion. And none other than the most eminent member of a community, one whom an entire nation looks up to as the epitome of morality could do a better job at setting the example.

The point of the marriage of the prophet and Zaynab was therefore to implement a social reform, and the prophet, being the moral authority of his community as well as last transmitter of divine law 33:40, was the most apt in enforcing it. It is in that reform of principles that Muslims are obliged and commanded to follow the prophet's example. Marrying the ex-wives of their adoptive sons is neither a command nor necessity since the reform was already implemented by the prophet. But it should however never be hindered by all the false notions spoken of earlier and which the Quran came to reform, hence the statement that

"there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them".

Islam critiqued follows the path of the opponents; Zaynab bint Jahsh, who was she?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

The eighth wife of the Prophet was Zaynab bint Jahsh of the Asad tribe. This particular marriage had multiple aims. Zaynab was the Prophet's first cousin, from a noble lineage and at first, the prophet arranged for her to unite with Zayd ibn Haritha, a slave he had freed from his guardians, and whom he then adopted.

It was unthinkable at the time for such unions to happen between the daughters of the aristocracy and a slave even if he was freed. This was a radical step taken by the Prophet in order to bring down the sense of superiority the Arabs had over slaves. The process had already started through the countless verses of the Quran speaking of dealing with the weak people of society including slaves as one would deal with his own family 4:36 that it is allowed to marry from among them 4:3,25,24:32,33:50 since the primary criteria distinguishing the people including for marriage, is piety 25:77,34:7,49:13.

By persuading both Zayd himself who was hesitant and Zaynab along with her family who were skeptical as well, the marriage did finally happen and the Quran alludes to the context of skepticism as regards the prophet's decision in introduction to the story 33:36. But Zaynab could not overcome the deeply ingrained social class system she was brought up with. That she had personal tastes and requirements (unrelated to religion) that werent met in the person of Zayd (social status), doesnt make her sinful. It just exposes her limits in terms of self-sacrifice as regards her materialistic outlook of life. She would have been praiseworthy had she been able to restrain that aspect of her personality but she certainly isnt condemned for failing to do so. Even the prophets' wives are told to kindly divorce him and go live their own life as they please, without any disapproval put on them, if they cannot handle the humble lifestyle inside his household 33:28-29.

Zayd complained many times to the Prophet and wanted to divorce her at one point but the prophet would keep telling him to be patient and keep his own wife, for the command was meant at accomplishing a higher and beneficial objective

33:37"And when you said to him to whom Allah had shown favor and to whom you had shown a favor: Keep your wife to yourself and be careful of (your duty to) Allah".

Taqul, when used in the simple present in classical Arabic conveys the notion of persistence and continuity of a state, ie the repeated attempts of the prophet at hindering the seperation. Nothing less could have been expected from the noble prophet who many times is depicted as a fatherly figure to his people, providing them with sincere and pragmatic advises in their private lives

"Anyone who incites a woman against her husband or a slave against his master is not one of us".

But the situation did not improve and Zayd finally divorced her, about a year after they united and he had no more desire for her of any sort

"when Zaid had accomplished his want of her".

The marriage thus ultimately failed. Both sides couldnt surmount their differences and reform themselves. But this failure did not mean that the objective of the ordinance failed. This prejudiced society that was gradually being reformed was shown, through the union of people originating from both extremities of society and under a messenger of God's blessing, that the oft repeated Quranic principle that a person's merit should only be measured by his righteousness and God-consciousness, as strongly stressed just 2 verses prior 33:35, is a reality all members of the Muslim community must learn to deal with, even in such intimate areas as marriage.

Critics argue that the union's failure did not help to bring about the reform that the command was supposed to bring, but the object of the command was not to make a union work after several years of marriage, despite the parties' freewill so the objection is irrelevant. The object was to show in what a person's true merit lies in and this was succesfully established since the taboo surrounding the union of 2 persons from different social origins was broken.

Islam critiqued questions divine motive; why obedience to prophets?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

Let us now set the record straight by finding guidance in the uncorrupted word of God. God does not interact directly with the people and even when He spoke to the Israelites, He did not manifest Himself physically. He bestows the light of inspiration and prophethood on an individual -human or else 6:9,130,11:69,17:95,22:75,35:1- from any nation to lead it to the straight path 3:73-4,179,6:88,17:65,28:68,40:15,42:13,14:11,16:93.

It is so because not all people are fit to receive Revelation 2:118-9,6:124,74:52 just like not any type of electrical cable can absorb high voltage directly from the energy source. In the HB we read how the Israelites made that experience when revelation descended on them collectively, and consequently requested the experience to stop, fearing they would die. They then appointed Musa as their sole intermediary with God.

His guidance is not restricted 2:89-90,142,26:28,55:17,37:5,73:9 and sends it to all indiscriminately, like water from the clouds to answer the human need for spiritual guidance.

Among the major tenets that came with every prophet was unconditional obedience to them in the sphere of the religion. God's infaillible representatives, who selflessly spend every drop of their energy, night and day, for the purpose of causing spiritual awakening in their nation, are to be obeyed

5:12,3:50,71:3,26:106-108,124-126,142-144,161-163,177-179,4:64"And We did not send any messenger but that he should be obeyed by Allah's permission".

This obedience must be without hesitation 4:65 because their qualities of wisdom and authority were granted by God

6:84-90"These are they whom Allah guided, therefore follow their guidance".

The most glaring example of retribution and evil to befall a people who are hesitant to obey their prophet is that of the Israelites who were sent to wander 40 years in the desert and prevented entry to the promised land for having shown distrust in their prophet. Obeying the prophets in the sphere of religion and divine instructions is therefore tantamount to obeying the One who sent them

3:31,4:80"Whoever obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys Allah, and whoever turns back, so We have not sent you as a keeper over them".

In that area, a prophet's will is one that stems from God's will 53:3-4. It is natural then that it overrules someone's own will whether public or private 33:6. We thus find that the closest followers of the prophets, the most sincere and devout, were ready to give up everything, including their lives as instructed by these messengers of God 

"Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah said, “The wealth of no one has benefited me as much as the wealth of Abu Bakr.” Abu Bakr wept and he said, “My life and my wealth are only for you, O Messenger of Allah."" 

These followers understood very well that the will of a prophet stems directly from Allah's will and thus sacrificing their lives as commanded by these prophets was synonymous to laying down their lives to the One that sent them 

6:162"Say, "Indeed, my prayer, my rites of sacrifice, my living and my dying are for Allah, Lord of the worlds".

As Jesus said

Jn14:6"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

This obedience to prophets is reflected in the Torah that lists among the 613 commandements revealed at Sinai, the obligation to obey the prophet's instructions, and not doubt or test his promises and warnings Deut6:16,18:15. Belief in God and His prophets are inseparable to fulfill the conditions of correct faith. Here in the words of the righteous king Jehoshaphat

2Chr20:20"Hear me, O Judeans and inhabitants of Jerusalem. Believe in the Lord your God, and you will be believed; believe in His prophets, and you will prosper". 

Rejecting any of God's messengers is equal to rejecting God

6:33,2:98,59:4"they acted in opposition to Allah and His Messenger, and whoever acts in opposition to Allah, then surely Allah is severe in retributing (evil)".

See the Hebrew Bible in Ps2:12 speaking of accepting David with sincerity of heart as God's anointed or incur God's anger.

Obedience is the one and only area in which God and His prophets are one in principle. It just is a practical reality, which is why we have many verses speaking in one breath of obedience to Allah and His messengers. Allah is the issuing Authority and the messenger is the means by which divine authority is implemented. There are no ambiguities between the role and position of each, just as no confusion exists when verses lump in one group God, the messenger and the believers 

63:8"And to Allah belongs [all] honor, and to His Messenger, and to the believers, but the hypocrites do not know". 

This required obedience is why prophets and messengers, even prior to their calling, had to be unique examples of moral qualities and worthiness, virtue among their nations 3:161,164,33:21,68:4,21:51,74-90 recognized as such and chosen for that 6:87. They already possess a heightened sensitivity to spirituality.

During their mission, their high morality became a means by which their addressees were purified

3:164"Certainly Allah conferred a benefit upon the believers when He raised among them a Messenger from among themselves, reciting to them His communications and purifying them, and teaching them the Book and the wisdom, although before that they were surely in manifest error".

This is reflected in the rabbinical writings on Prov13:17 which they believe is in reference to Moses

"A wicked messenger falls into evil, but a faithful emissary brings healing". 

Muhammad for example was notoriously known as al-amin (the trustworthy). He carried that principle so firmly in his life that later on during prophethood someone asked him,

‘Is it possible that a Muslim may be a coward?’ He replied, ‘Yes.’ They asked, ‘Is it possible that a Muslim may commit adultery?’ He replied, ‘Yes.’ They asked him, ‘What is it that a Muslim cannot possibly do?’ He replied, ‘A Muslim cannot tell a lie".

When the Meccan pagans were busy renovating the Kaaba, the black stone had to be removed from its socle and when the work was finished each tribe and clan wanted the exclusive privilege of placing it back on its socle. The verbal dispute almost turned to a civil war until Muhammad, prior to his prophetic call, intervened and was directly accepted as mediator and was unanimously given the much sought after responsibility to place the black stone in its place.

His integrity was such that when he migrated from Mecca, and because even at that advanced stage of antagonism between him and the polytheists he was still trusted with his own persecutors’ belongings with him for safekeeping, he instructed Ali to stay behind in Mecca, in order to return all these people's trusts. Ali stayed back for three days and three nights to complete his task and then migrated in turn. Contrast this behavior with the supposed divine order to the Israelites, according to the Biblical narrative, to take all of their previous masters' belongings in their escape. The prophet Muhammad had a pattern of high conduct which he maintained throughout his life, especially in regards to trusts. When he was asked about the picking up of a "Luqata" (fallen lost thing) he replied,

 "Recognize and remember its tying material and its container, and make public announcement (about it) for one year, then utilize it but give it to its owner if he comes".

 The Quran, which the messenger embodied, stresses the importance of maintaining justice indiscriminately, upholding covenants and trusts, respecting one's word.

Prophets such as Noah, Salih and Shuayb are also given as examples of refined souls 11:28,63,88. This particularity put aside, they remain human beings, open to comitting mistakes outside the religious sphere in which they are divinely protected, as amply reminded in the Quran.

All these qualities do no bring on prophecy but make one worthy to be its recipient. Once selected, they are granted wisdom to be able to judge rationally between the people and apply God's laws revealed to them as well as the instinctive knowledge of good and evil 28:14,12:22,2:213. The granting of revelation is in fact a continuous reward that they experience 6:154. The prophets in the Quran are treated as the embodiment of God's Mercy to His creatures 21:107, they can never be cursed, loathful sinners as slandered in other writings. That is why they are to be obeyed, unflinchingly by those who come to believe in them.

It is important to distinguish, that blind obedience isnt required from the get go, but only once one has been reasonably convinced of the truth they are carrying, through pondering on all the signs and arguments presented in their message. Also, that blind obedience isnt required in everyday affairs, areas in which the prophets werent divinely protected, could and did commit mistakes, but in matters of religion. By the message they are worthy of carrying and their sublime morality, prophets are distinguishers of truth and falsehood, bearers of good tidings and warners; they bring the good news of paradise to the righteous believers, and warn of Allah's chastisment to those who reject the truth and commit sins, disrupting the natural law of justice in this world whether on a spiritual or social, human level 57:25.

The parallel is made in that verse with iron which Allah has sent down in order to emphasize the firmness and strength of this divine justice that, if needs be, should forcefully be applied

"Truly we sent our prophets with clear proofs and with them we sent the Book and true measure, so that the people rise in justice, and we sent iron in which there is great firmness and benefits for people, surely Allah is Strong, Mighty".

By these functions, and their successful completion of their tasks, the prophets in themselves will be a proof which shall be presented on the day of gathering and judgement against those seeking vain excuses 7:164,77:5-6. Each prophet, or a rightly-guided person from among the followers of the prophets who had performed the duty of preaching the Truth in the community, or any means through which the message of the Truth had reached the community, will testify that the warning was duly transmitted to its respective nation 28:75.

Islam critiqued inadvertently exposes Bible; reason for attacking the prophets?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

One of the basic themes of the Bible is the Israelites trying to justify their sins by blaming others. They were chastised for sins they comitted because they were "misled" by their leaders. At one point for example they chose Jeroboam over Solomon's son thus causing God to reveal their eminent uprooting and scattering

1Kings13:15-16"..because of the sins of Jeroboam that he sinned and that he has caused Israel to sin".

In other cases they attacked the prophets, a few examples were given earlier. It was because Aaron yielded to the people's demand for an idol to be built, that many were put to death. Sometimes it is the prophets' own sins that caused the community to be chastised. In 2Sam24,1Chron21 God gives David 3 options to forgive a deed inexplicably considered as a sin; the census of his population. Yet a previous census had been conducted in Israelite history, as far back as Moses without any reproof Ex30. So the 3 options for that terrible sin of David was to punish the Israelites with famine, or with a plague or at the hands of their ennemies. David chose the plague which resulted in 70'000 deaths.

Tens of thousands of them were massacred by the Philistines under divine decree, because of Eli's 2 sons' unrighteousness and corruption of the priesthood. The sin of these 2 sons also brought about a divine curse upon Eli's lineage, with the death of all young men raised in his household for having failed to prevent the wickedness of his 2 sons despite the warnings 1Sam2-4. Similarily in 2Sam21 God tells David that the Israelites' famine was because of what Saul and his household had done to the Gibeonites, so David turned over seven of Saul's progeny to the Gibeonites, who promptly executed them thus satisfying their desire for revenge. Later, king Jehoram is condemned for misguiding the Israelites into idol worship, a crime for which God would deliver them to be plundered and destroyed at the hand of their pagan neighbors 2Chr21:12-20.

As regards their sins and atrocities they commited as they invaded foreign lands, they are depicted as "divine decrees". The kingdom of Israel was torn appart and divided due to Solomon's sins of polytheism, in turn blamed on his numerous wives. Yet this punishment for Solomon's own sin, was inflicted later, in the reign of his son Rehoboam. Solomon was spared this sorrow in his lifetime because of his father David's righteousness.

Other major themes and causes for scriptural corruptions are the rampant tribal prejudices. Abraham's "only son" suddenly becomes the second born son Isaac, rather than firstborn Ishmael. God rewards Jacob's deception of Esau to be the covenant's upholder. God curses one line (Jeconiah) in favor of another (Solomon) for the Messiah's lineage. YHWH takes sides among their internal tribal conflicts as in Judges20,21 with the massacre of the Benjamites by the remaining Israelites or in 2Chron13 with YHWH's blessing of Abijah, king of Judah (southern kingdom) to wage war against Israel (northern kingdom) ruled by Jeroboam (not from the line of Solomon) that resulted in no less than 500.000 deaths among His "chosen people".

When the whole community in general, and the religious scholars and priests in particular, became involved in deviations and immoralities, their guilty consciences impelled them to invent excuses for justifying their own bad conduct.

As they committed heinous sins like shirk, sorcery, adultery, treachery, falsehood and the like, they blemished the pure characters of their own Prophets by ascribing such sins to them as were most shameful even for an ordinary good man, not to speak of a prophet so that they could justify their own wicked deeds. They didnt even spare God Himself in the process Who openly takes sides with the sinful, issues cruel and unwarranted punishments, allows His chosen race to be abusive and ungodly in their wars.

As a final note, the hatemongerers among the Jews and Christians attribute to the last prophet, the prophet Muhammad, without any basis, all the slanders and calumnies which their scribes had imputed to their prophets and eminent leaders. Although, much to their dismay, the sins that they have assigned to the prophet Muhammad do not even come close in scale and scope of what their predecessors attributed to the previous prophets.

What bellies the position of these misleading critics is that the prophet Muhammad could have repeated in this final revelation all the charges against the Biblical prophets so as to justify his own alleged slip into idolatry, his greed, lust and love for blood. He could have easily picked up countless examples of men who comitted sins far greater than what is being accused of and pointed that despite their sins, these men's claim to prophethood remained unshaken. But the Quran consistently and repeatedly absolves the previous prophets of these malicious charges and places their standard of morality on such a high level that the prophet Muhammad would many times feel humbled by the description that the Quran makes of them. For example he once said he would not have had Yusuf's strength of character when he provided the interpretation of the king's dream while unjustly imprisoned

"I would not have done so until I put a condition on them that they let me out...May Allah have mercy on Yusuf.  May Allah bless him for his patience, and Allah will forgive him.  I could not have done that...".

Why obedience to the prophets, who needs them anyway?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

It is normal for someone coming from a Judeo-Christian background to question the idea of unconditional obedience to the prophets. It is in fact expected that someone whose tradition depicts its prophets, religious leaders and eminent personalities in the worst possible manner to be suspicious of these supposedly righteous men of God. Anyone familiar with these man-made scriptures shouldnt be surprised at seeing sins like idolatry, adultery, murder and the like being attributed to the Biblical prophets.

It is a common theme in the Bible that the many divine chastisements that befell the Israelites were due to sins which they were mislead into commiting by their own prophets, leaders, kings. This is besides the rampant tribal prejudice running allthrought their history, the puerile villification of characters and the internal conflicts.

 Here it should be quickly worthwile mentioning the tribal tension surrounding the Davidic line. After Solomon's death, his kingdom was divided, allegedly as a divine punishement for his sins, including the sin of idolatry which eventually dragged the entire nation. We see here how the divine justice plays out, punishing others for someone else's crime. Most certainly, far from that noble prophet being the instigator of this greatest sin and the cause of its re-introduction into the Israelites' lives, this yet again confirms the nation's constant and stubborn ingratitude. Moses had foreseen their turning away from the straight path into the sin of idolatry. Virtually all prophets that followed him kept on condemning them for that constant fall out into the ways of the pagan nations.

This lack of faith resulted in them majoritarily defecting from the house of David and the divine covenant itself. The nation sceeded in 2; the kingdom of Israel to the north with Samaria for capital and the rebellious and polytheist Jeroboam as its king, and the tiny kingdom of Judah, comprised of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, who had remained faithful to David and Solomon's royal line, with Jerusalem as capital to the south and Solomon's son Rehoboam as king

Hos12:1"Ephraim has surrounded me with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit, but Judah still rules with God, and with the Holy One he is faithful". 

Both kingdoms remained at war with one another throughout their respective leaders' reigns.
It certainly isnt difficult to imagine how this inter tribal hatred can result in the kind of insiduous accusations as David, Solomon and other prophets were victims of. The Hebrew Bible is literaly filled with such examples.

Lot whom Judaism does not consider a prophet but was certainly among the most God-fearing in his nation, had incest with his daughters who begat his children Gen19:30. Yet this only righteous man among his decadent and sinful people was just extracted from a nation destroyed because of sex related crimes. What is more intriguing is that according to the Hebrew text, once his eldest daughter got him drunk and finished the sexual act with him, he realized what had happened but nevertheless got drunk again the same night and had incest with his second daughter. That is besides the issue of God not preventing the misdeed of those He had just saved. He could have simply told them that there were other men in the town of Zoar they had just reached. The reason given by the scribes that the daughters worried about the extinction of the human race, thinking no men were left upon the earth, is further discredited considering the simple fact that they certainly interracted with the people of Zoar to get the alcohol that got their father drunk with, or the nearby settlement of Abraham Gen19:28. 

Regardless, this surreal tale has the 2 daughters eventually begetting 2 boys, Moab, and Ben-ammi. Moab is the ancestor of the Moabites and Ben-ammi the father of the Ammonites who just so happen to be the competing kingdoms to the west of Judah. Thus is explained the origin and inferiority of non-Jewish neighbours. Thats another instance in the HB where the sins of others explain God's disapproval, cursing or punishing of others. Instead of being Abrahamic tribes and thus equally entitled to the land as the Israelites, the Moabites and Ammonites became foreign invaders with no rights to the land. That the whole tale is a retrospective account aimed at portraying negatively a certain people, is seen from the anachronism of having Moabites or Ammonites in the patriarchal period, while there were none.

As to David, the great prophet, he brings Batsheba to him and has sex with her after he saw her bathing from his roof top. But he had first to plot for her husband's murder 2Sam11. This is because once the woman got pregnant through this sin punishable by death Lev20:10, David could not get her brave husband, Uriah, to leave the battlefront and have him sleep with his wife to hide the sin.. The brave soldier refused the comfort of his home while his commander was at the battlefield. David tried getting him drunk and leave the warfront but he still refused. Time was running out and the sin was going to become apparent. David then arranged for Uriah to be put at the front line  where the fighting was fiercest, then have the army retreat and let him be killed. The plan succeeded and Batsheba became David's wife.

In the Quran on the other hand, in sura Saad/38 David is given ghafr/covering/protection in authority and judgement. He is reminded of his eminent status in the world as well as the qualities expected from one who has been drawn near to God; wisdom in judgement between men, steadfastness in God's way and rejection of all falsehood, whether coming from inside or outside one's self. The slanderous scribes of the Bible however still found a way to disparage him and his household despite his lofty character, blindly passing off his enemies' malicious talk as facts, probably even contributing to it. The death of Batsheba's husband and subsequent marriage to David was too much of a coincidence for their lowly mentality and thus accused David of adultery and murder. They constantly needed to shift the blame for their own sins and subsequent destructions, on their leaders' "misguidance".

The true God does not let the names of his noble servants, the prophets and their households to be dishonored in this manner

24:23-5"Surely those who accuse chaste believing women, unaware (of the evil), are cursed in this world and the hereafter, and they shall have a grievous chastisement. On the day when their tongues and their hands and their feet shall bear witness against them as to what they did. On that day Allah will pay back to them in full their just reward, and they shall know that Allah is the evident Truth".

Despite reproaching him of his evil act through the prophet Nathan Ps51, the divine biblical justice played out, not by punishing David himself who had commited the sin but by promising bloodshed within his household, which almost resulted in civil war and even the destrucion of all his followers 2Sam19, the hatred and attempted overturn of his rule coming from among his own sons. Sure David the sinner was at one point forced to flee Jerusalem during the revolt of one of his sons Absalom and the social chaos his father's sin had created. But what is it compared to having his wives taken from him and lying with others in front of all of Israel like worhtless prostitutes 2Sam12?

Solomon broke God's covenant, and at the instigation of his hundreds of foreign polytheistic wives (700) and concubines (300)

1Kings11"went after Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. And Solomon did what was displeasing to the Lord, and he was not completely devoted to the Lord as was David his father. Then did Solomon build a high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab on the mountain that is before Jerusalem and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon".

His multiple marriages were also a transgression of the Torah Deut17:17,Neh13:26. Contrary to the lowly depiction that is made of him by the scribes of the Bible, instead of his posessions and power leading him to excess and sin, the Quran depicts him as increasing in gratitude and never faltering from God's remembrance despite these favors

38:30"And to David We gave, Solomon. Excellent was the servant; indeed, he was (always) returning (to Allah)".

Noah was a drunkard who laid naked in his intoxication Gen9:18-25 and the talmudic scholars assert that he was either castrated or sodomized (they're not really sure which of the two) by his 4th son Cham/Ham while unconscious (Rashi; Sanhedrin 70a). These are the descriptions they give of a man whom they traditionaly do not view as a prophet yet he not only received comunications from God, but was also one whom the Torah says was

Gen6:9"a righteous man he was perfect in his generations; Noah walked with God".

Their tradition also contradictorily speaks of him having had in possession the staff of Adam, that would later be owned by Moses, which only the righteous may manipulate.
Still in the Talmudic accounts, as a result of not being able to have more children, Noah cursed Cham's innocent 4th child (Canaan), turning him black and exiling him to Africa, thereafter condemning Cham and his descendants to be his brethren's slaves. This apparently seems to be the justification for black slavery. Still among the list of Talmudic "anecdotes", Ham's descendants would be led out of Egyptian captivity "with bare buttocks" as a retribution because of Ham who saw his father’s nakedness and did not cover it Isa20:4.

Sucking the tongue of your grandchild to relieve him

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

Not every saying and action of the prophet is meant to be emulated. One doesnt need, in all cases, to apply saliva or suck on a child's tongue to relieve him from thirst as the prophet and desert Arabs did when in the absence of water in the extreme conditions of their environment. 

"The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, heard Hasan and Hussein crying while they were with their mother, so he hurried to them and he said: What is the matter with my boys? Their mother said: It is thirst". As the water source had dried out, the Prophet called out: "Does anyone have any water?" As nobody answered, he asked for one of his grandchildren be brought to him "He massaged his tongue and moistened it until he calmed down".

This obviously is a practical solution to a specific situation. We arent talking here of rubbing adult tongues and ears with one's saliva as some are depicted in the NT Mk7:33,Jn9:6.

Islam critiqued exposes double standards; weak hadiths depict true Muhammad?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

Thats a very naive picture of what Muslims believe. First of all It is very compelling to read how the Quran says that it is itself the best hadith.

39:23"Allah has revealed the best HADITH, a book conformable in its various parts, repeating, whereat do shudder the skins of those who fear their Lord, then their skins and their hearts become pliant to the remembrance of Allah; this is Allah's guidance, He guides with it whom He pleases; and (as for) him whom Allah makes err, there is no guide for him"  

45:6"These are the communications of Allah which We recite to you with truth; then in what HADITH would they believe after Allah and His communications".

Anything besides that best hadith, Allah tells us that the rightly guided are those people who use their brains and reflect over them, following only the best and discarding what is inapplicable or that contradicts the Quran

39:18"Those who listen to the word (qawl or saying), then follow the best of it; those are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men of understanding".

The Quran contains such warning because

31:6"of men is he who takes instead frivolous hadith to lead astray from Allah's path without knowledge, and to take it for a mockery".

These verses warning to keep the best hadith and discard all frivolous and counterproductive talks, useless and misleading narratives, provide clear evidence that idle tales were even being disseminated at the Prophet's time. If this was then already a problem reaching such levels that the Quran had to correct it, then how much worse did the problem potentially manifest after the prophet's death? It further tells us to investigate thoroughly any information of importance related by an untrustworthy source 49:6.

Muslims are not required to accept whatever rumor and report is disseminated about their prophet or on his behalf, no matter who the narrator is. If the Quran itself plainly corrects its messenger in every day life, besides the prophet himself admitting to making mistakes in common affairs, how much so should one be prudent when deciding on the truthfulness of a story? Neither does the Quran request the outright dismissal of the report based on the unreliability of the source. It simply advises caution in the authentication process of the narration itself which doesnt only include reliability of the transmitor but also of the information in light of certain established facts.

For example all ahadith on a particular subject should be gathered together to form a better picture and establish a pattern, which will then become a criterion of authenticity. That is just common sense for anyone with a slightest spark of intellectual honesty, seeking to interject into a discussion occuring centuries ago, reported differently, through various angles and people in each repetition within a vast corpus.

This opens the way to the possibility that the source might be telling the truth despite its untrustworthiness. Hadith scholars mostly stress on scrutinizing the narrator and do not give much importance to scrutinizing the content of the report. It should also be noted, a few verses down in 49:12 it warns not to harbour ill thoughts of others who have not shown through their words or deeds any misapropriateness or imorality. People should first and foremost think well of one another, abandon the kind of outright suspicion and ill founded inquisitiveness (with harmful objectives).

Here are some major defects leading hadith scholars to either discard or view with caution certain reports, which happen to be mostly valued by the ignorant critics of Islam. The biggest red flag is when some of the numerous Muslim hypocrites (munafiqeen) whom the Quran repeatedly condemns and warns the true Muslims against 63:1-2, are detected in a chain of transmission. They were the ones who murdered the prophet's progeny shortly after his death. Another major source of corruption came from the early generations of Muslims themselves who in their zeal would embelish and exagerate reports in the prophet's favor. There is also manipulation from Islamic sects seeking to produce documentary evidence in favour of their views, forgeries by people with good intentions in order to admonish sinners and promote piety. Others narrators were motivated by tribal and regional prejudices, succession rivalries following the prophet's death.

Some had personal ambition such as pleasing a ruler by condoning certain acts of theirs through a supposed similar action by the prophet. It is interesting to read in a non-Muslim writing of the early 9th century, which is a little before the main hadith books were compiled, the Zuqnin Chronicle says of his contemporary Muslims

"They are a very covetous and carnal people, and any law, whether prescribed by Muhammad or another God-fearing person, that is not set in accord with their desire, they neglect and abandon. But what is in accord with their will and complements their desires, though it be instituted by one contemptible among them, they hold to it, saying: "This was appointed by the prophet and messenger of God, and moreover it was charged to him thus by God".

These same ones would attempt suppressing a potential spirit of revolt among the people by promoting the notions of determinism and predetermination. Some would lie on the spur of the moment to fit the forgery in a discussion and increase one's credibility. Differences among jurists prompted some scholars to fabricate traditions to support their own legal positions. Together with forgeries, there were omission and supression of true ahadith sometimes imposed through death threats by the rulers.

There were also Jewish myths, used by story-tellers, who would include them in their narrations. They wanted to answer the popular sense of curiosity in trivial, spiritualy inconsequential details in the lives and times of former prophets. These israeliyyat were mainly written by the early converts from the people of the book. Under Abubakr's caliphate for instance, Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin ‘Aas, an ex-Jew took possession of many books gathered by the Byzantine Christians following the battle of Yarmouk, and he would use the informatiom therein to comment on certain Quran passages and disseminated many of the stories among the Muslims, which would be used by later comentators. The technical term itself was not used systematicaly before Ibn Kathir. Although before him, the Andalusian exegete, Abu bakr Ibn al-Arabi mentionned it. Ibn Taymiyya, the mentor of Ibn Kathir, and Ibn Taymiyya's contemporary al-Tufi discussed israeliyyat before Ibn Kathir. Keeping in mind the existence of so many published and unpublished tafsirs, it is virtually impossible to identify the commentator who was the first user of the term israeliyyat in a technical sense. These reports have been always understood as an amalgam of truth and falsehood. The Muslim story tellers would take for basis the Quranic text, then add the Jewish traditions from the converts where they deemed it most fit, resulting in a commentary that is neither Quranic nor Jewish. Some other Muslims became influenced by non-Muslims and their scriptures, implementing non-Muslim standards and customs as Islamic traditions with no relation to the Quran, true traditions of the Prophet or Islamic philosophy.

One other thing to be kept in mind is that many of the early writers, particularily the seera writers such as Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Al Waqidi, Ibn Saad were concerned by amassing and compiling all the material available or what was being talked about, surrounding any historical event or in comment to a verse, fearing they could be lost, without authenticating them. This shows the integrity of the Muslim tradition that did not seek to supress any information related to the life of the prophet and the early Muslims, nor invent things so as to advance their agenda. Such an endeavour would have been close to impossible to achieve anyway. There never was a centralized system of collecting information. Each narrator and historian took whatever was available to him, in his time and place. These historians, after gathering all that was floating around in oral tradition in regards an event of interest, would in the same time write down as many names among the chain of narrators as they could, so as to leave time and room for the specialists whose life was dedicated to sifting through the reliable and unreliable reports. They did not even attempt to examine the various reports in order to inform the reader of what they considered to be the reasons for various incidents. The biographers this way avoided taking responsibility for adopting a particular account when conflicting reports existed. Adopting specific accounts would mean discrediting the authenticity of other reporters and their accounts. And since was not their expertize, they preferred leaving it to the muhaddithun. When the experts finished selecting the authentic reports, the remainders were neither physically destroyed nor erased. They were instead kept as examples of what constitutes a weak narration, for future references and studies. That is the difference between the Muslim tradition and the Judeo-Christian one that shamelessly accepts within its authentic collection of writings the most ridiculous and insulting things about God and the prophetic history, without any critical consideration for either the chain of transmission or the soundness of the content of a tradition. Neither do the Muslims take at face value the reports that over exalt the prophet and the early Muslims. If after deliberation they were deemed weak or unreliable, they were kept nevertheless if there was any moral lesson to derive from them. These weak and rejected narrations are well known to the Muslims, although the misinformed, unqualified critics of Islam make ample use of them to serve their anti Islamic propaganda machine.

These historians thus left the authentication process to the following generations in search of the truth. The famous historian Tabari for instance says in introduction to his work that his primary duty was to faithfully transmit whatever information he could gather, the responsibility is then on the reader or listener to verify not only the authenticity of the reports based on the transmitters' reliability, but also based on reason. As a case in point, the statement 'za'ama or za'amu often precedes Ibn Ishaq's reports implying the inherent caution of something being 'alleged'. This should make it clear for any sincere enquirer that there is more than a hint of a caution that the veracity of the statement he compiles is not necessarily determined as fact. Many narratives are this way injected with Arabic terms by the historians transmitting them, suggesting caution for the reader to undertake. Technically speaking, a seera book is a collection of reports about the prophet and his companions arranged in a chronoligical order with little attention given to reliability. The goal being to have as little gaps in time as possible.