Islam critiqued needs a stronger venum; Poisonning the prophet?

In answer to the video "Muhammad, Psychology and Satan"

Assuming the poison story to be true, why didnt God's prophet die on the spot with those who ate the poisonned meal. Our opponents will keep on scratching their heads about this. Instead he lived on for years, fasted every year in the scorching desert heat, fulfilled all his duties of statesman, army commander, husband, counselor and friend, and conquered Mecca. He destroyed the idols with his own hands and fulfilled every prophecy made at the beginning of his call.

What the opponents need to realize is that the reason he did not die then, is because God didnt allow the prophet to die until his mission was accomplished. 

5:67"O Apostle, deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people"

Muhammad died a natural death and he didnt even need to appeal to Christ in order to neutralize any type of injested poison as embarrassingly proposed by the Greek writers of the Gospels Mk16:18. After all Christians do believe in their potential in performing even greater miracles (Greek "erga") than Jesus Jn14:12.

God was definitely supporting His prophet after he ate the poisoned meal, just as He supported him before despite the difficulties and attempts at his life. He was not immidiately put to death or disallowed to continue his mission and transmitting his message after injesting the poison. The opposite would have been the case had he been a false prophet or had done something at that point heavily disapproved of by God, as forcefully warned in the Quran would instantly, not progressively, happen to him 69:45-47. This defeated the "test" that the Jewess desired to make the prophet go through, as it says in one version of the report that she wanted to kill him with the poison

"Thereupon he said: Allah will never give you the power to do it".

The effect of poison as intended by the one using it is immidiate or very short term death of the victim, as happenned to one companion that ate the meal at that occasion with the prophet. The objective however of immidiate death or harm was defeated in regards the prophet.

It isnt uncommon in Jewish history to attempt poisoning a prophet sent to them. That is what they did to the prophet Jeremiah's food. In Jer11:19 it lit. says

"Let us destroy his food with wood"

ie Let us put poison into his food. This Jewish woman that poisoned the prophet's meal and his companion wanted to see

"if you were a Prophet, then Allaah would tell you about it, and if you were not a Prophet the people would be rid of you".

This as a side note bellies the unfounded allegation in anti-Islamic circles that the woman offered the poisonned meal in revenge for the killing of her family. She was testing his prophethood. So the prophet took a bite and sensed the poison, and immidiately said to all those taking part in the meal to withdraw their hands from it, although most had already eaten from it at that point. It was unfortunately too late for one of his companions who died from it. Miraculously, that companion was the only casualty of the incident, and this allowed the unveiling of an intricate outcome and lesson from the event. The prophet then confronted the culprit.

This woman thought that a prophet claimant dying in such circumstances would expose him as a liar but the opposite happenned: his companion died and Muhammad lived on until

"This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion".

The JEwess Zaynab bint al harith was later forgiven by the prophet. Other versions state that when Bishr ibn al-Bara’ ibn Ma’roor died as a result of the effects of this food, then the prophet executed her as a qisaas punishment, while others yet like ibn Kathir maintain that she even converted to Islam, seeing that the prophet passed her "falsification" test and was thus left alone. She initially approached the prophet with the meal after the treaty negotiations with the Jewish leadership of Khaybar had ended.

In such circumstances it would have been against decorum and basic sensitivity to refuse it based on suspicion. In ancient times, especially in rural cultures till this day, refusal to share a meal when the host clearly displays his peaceful intentions is a sign of treachery and mistrust. The Quran relates how Abraham was fearful of his guests that refused the food he offered them despite his clear hospitality 11:69-70. There were no means to the prophet Muhammad by which to chemically test the meal and verify his suspicion. His detractors wouldnt have missed this opportunity to charge him with accusing an innocent woman without proof. Neither did he behave like the kings and leaders of times past by having someone taste the food before he ate nor would it have ever been in his thought and character to have forced the woman to eat it herself or forced any of the Jews to eat it to prove that it was not poisoned. In accordance with his lofty character and prophetic status, he wanted to show that he was willing to trust the Jews, hoping that, perhaps, they will be guided. He did not yield to suspicion, even with the enemy. Yet, by eating, he did not show any lack of wisdom because showing suspicions without proof is not the way to build a relationship. And the prophet, in accordance with the Quran's commands was never one to be inconsiderate of others or sceptical of their inner condition.  Especially in the context of warfare, the good treatment of captives, as the prophet was here exemplifying, is expected to soften their hearts towards Islam. But if they act treacherously despite the Muslims' honourability, they will be overpowered just as they had been 8:70-71.

What is interesting with Bishr is that he was the only one, together with the prophet, that sensed the poison during the meal. Although the prophet spat out the morsel in his mouth after briefly chewing on it, Bishr, seeing him beginning to eat, trusted his judgement and swallowed his bite prior to the prophet's reaction. The remaining Muslims did not sense the poison and started eating, just like Bishr, trusting the prophet's judgement, until everyone was told to stop. This is where something strange occurs. Bishr, according to most reports dies instantly, as well as a dog that ate a morsel of the poisonned meal. The prophet lives on but suffers occasionally from the effects of the poison while it had no consequence on the remaining Muslims. Bishr's martyrdom revealed the deadly nature of the poison. The prophet's sickness proved the entire meal was toxic, not just Bishr's portion. The remaining Muslims' immunity was miraculous, given that the whole meal was poisoned. Had only Bishr or only the prophet been afflicted, one could have argued that a specific part of the meal was poisoned or that a specific individual was particularly sensitive to the poison. If the prophet was safeguarded and that someone else, together with Bishr were afflicted, someone could have said the prophet was simply lucky. The Prophet's sickness was necessary to prove that no human being will be allowed to put an end to his life, despite being clearly poisoned, until his mission is accomplished. The manner in which these events unfolded show that God was in full control.

The poison story, assuming it happenned, is actually just 1 of the many attempts at the life of God's prophet, keeping also in mind all the battles in which he himself took part against the rejecters, but never did God allow his messenger to die before the end of his mission, like Moses wasnt allowed to die through all his jihad battles until his mission was fulfilled.

 The poison certainly did injure him and cause him sustained pain, but nowhere does it say or hint that it was the direct cause of death. The poison damage on his body was just one of many scars the prophet carried with him until his deathbed, whether due to the years of hardship, starvation and persecution or the years of battle. Despite all that, he still lived beyond the average life expectancy of his common folk and only once his mission was completed. He saw with his very eyes every single prophecy made in the earliest years of prophethood fulfilled, cleansed God's chosen and blessed land of Mecca and restaured it to its original Abrahamic purpose.

Neither Moses nor Aaron, according to the convoluted HB, even get to fulfill their life mission of entering the promised land, despite the battles they led. They are suddenly dispatched from the narrative for the most ridiculous reasons. Moses was condemned by God for some misdeed and put to death while his

"eyes were not weak nor his strength gone".

His heartfelt prayer was denied

Deut3"Let me, I pray, cross over and see the good land on the other side of the Jordan..But YHWH was furious with me on your behalf and would not listen to me. YHWH said to me, “Enough! Never speak to Me of this matter again!"

If anything, the argument of sudden death as a sign of divine disapproval, a charge misapplied to the prophet Muhammad in relation to the poison story, fits instead the biblical Moses, put to death at the highlight of his prophetic career and while he was in full health. Even if, in the worst case, Muhammad's death is directly correlated to the Quranic warning in 69:45-47 not to falsely attribute a statement to God, then it still means the prophecy came true, that Muhammad was physically prevented from altering it and that the Quran is the authentic, preserved and protected word of the Creator. The verse says his hand will be seized the moment he tries doing so, then killed. The words imply even a minuscule uttering in God's name. It would be impossible for him to walk around making lengthy speeches up. That is why the verse comes in a passage where Allah stresses the divine origin of the Quran, and then states the hypothetical scenario, following by a reiteration of its veracity. But assuming for argument's sake Muhammad at some point lied and was killed by God, this must then mean that all he previously spoke in God's name, was true revelation uttered by a true prophet.

Just for arguments' sake, even if the prophet Muhammad had died from the delayed effects of the poison, this is certainly not an argument against his prophethood, not according to Zaynab bint al harith's own HB criteria for the identification of prophets as outlined in Deut18, nor in light of the Bible's own reports of the constant assaults, some succesful and others not, against true prophets' lives.

As a final note it is ironic that those trying to cast doubts on the truthfulness of Muhammad's prophethood by misrepresenting this story are mainly if not only Christians, who firmly believe in the Greek Testament and its depiction of Jesus' ignoble, humiliating and accursed end which probably no true prophet, even those murdered by the sinful Israelites, ever were inflicted with. What does that do to Jesus' credibility as a man sent by God, judging by those critics' own standards?

Islam critiqued places Muhammad in a pattern; The suicidal prophets of God?

In answer to the video "Muhammad, Psychology and Satan"

This weak charge often presented by the opponents against the prophet Muhammad specifically, will be easily done away with, after this little introduction.

In the bible, the scriptures of our opponents, we read how the rebellious trend of the ISraelites did not abate all throughout their exodus from Egypt Ex16:3 and beyond, as decried by all prophets subsequent to Moses. At one point they quarelled to such an extent with Moses that they almost stoned him to death, thus showing their mistrust and very shallow belief in God that had just lead them out of slavery, showing them all sorts of miracles along the way, Who fed them with heavenly food Ex16:4-15,17:1-4.

In their incessant insolence they did not spare Moses even in his private, conjugal matters, causing God Himself to wrathfully descend on the culprits Numb12,Ex2:21. Disregarding the burning fire of God that almost consumed the camp because of their ingratitude, this continuous attitude would reach a point where Moses would even ask God to spare him the burden of prophethood on such wretched people by terminating his own life, which actually is an indirect thought of suicide Numb11.

Now we get to the charge levelled by this youtuber, of supposed suicidal thoughts of the prophet Muhammad at the beginning of his revelational experience. Firstly, this incident with Moses described earlier, together with that of Jesus, form at least 2 scriptural examples of alleged suicidal tendencies among Biblical figures. Jesus, who saw the moral injustice and strife of the world he lived in, felt that if he killed himself, it would benefit the world. He devised an elaborate plan of crucifixion, instead of jumping off a cliff or slashing his wrists, one which would be an appeal to gain the sympathy of others Jn10:17-8. One may add that the idea was initially planted into Jesus' mind through a satanic suggestion

Matt4"Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down".

There are other ways to look at Jesus' death all of them as damaging to the Christian position; assuming it was not a satanic suggestion, Jesus' death was a wilful suicide sketched with his co-equal divine partners prior to his incarnation 

Jn3:16"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son". 

If not willful, then forced suicide since Jesus begs his father 3 times to relieve him from this impending crucifixion whose eventual occurrence he knew about long ago, but backed off from at the last moment, until he submits to the Father's will 

Lk22"not my will but yours be done". 

As to the Bukhari report in which the prophet is described as being so sad when revelation stopped for a longer time than usual that he contemplated throwing himself off high mountains, the part speaking of suicide is seperate from the rest of the hadith (we have heard) and without isnad, as noted by Bukhari. The same hadith is reported in several compilations as well as Bukhari itself, without any mention of the suicide part, which is a weak report without basis. Such a rumour might have originated in someone seeing the prophet frequently retreating to the surrounding hills, as he naturally did when revelation was interrupted, and then drew the wrong assumption about suicide. That assumption which began to circulate got mixed up with real facts.

There is also the issue of Gabriel depicted as repeatedly dissuading the prophet from his attempts, as if one supernatural appearance and reassurance wasnt enough. As a final sidenote, contrary to the Quran and the traditions, neither the HB nor the NT condemn suicide although several people are reported to have done it and/or thought of it, including Moses and Jesus as shown above. Coming from such an incomplete background, the critics have no basis to accuse any Muslim figure of supposedly contemplating suicide.

In the Quran we read

5:32"For this reason did We write upon the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men".

This ordinance in the Quran is universal, both for unjustly murdering or preserving a soul. The Quran further adds a clause of self-defence and application of justice to the moral principle, a clause which is present in the law of and teachings of every prophet of God

"unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land".

This clause in addition outlaws suicide

6:151"and do not kill the self that Allah made forbidden to violate except by the right".

The "right" being the establishment of justice in the case of manslaughter or corruption in the land. It even isnt permissible to desire death, as per the prophet's saying

"Let none of you wish for death on account of an affliction that befalls him. If he has no alternative, let him pray, O Allah! Give my life so long as the life is good for me, and take away my life if death is good for me".

From a higher, spiritual perspective, the Quran says mankind has a purpose and sufferings actually contribute positively to its achievement. The harder the situation the higher the opportunity to attain that purpose. Islam is the only religion that gives a positive outlook on life and satisfactorily answers the issue of evil, hardships and suffering.

Islam critiqued remembers a cosy Christmas; Jingle bells of the devil?

In answer to the video "Muhammad, Psychology and Satan"

There are narrations speaking of the effects of revelation, not only on the prophet but on those around him; his camel would sit and sink into the sand, a close companion whose knee happenned to be under that of the prophet almost shattered, among the examples. When he described it at times coming to him "like" the sound of a bell (meaning something similar but not the same) it was to convey to his addressees in terms they could relate to, what he was personally experiencing.

As a side note, the hadith saying the "bell is the musical instrument of the Satan" obviously is speaking of the real, physical thing unlike the similitude the prophet was using in reference to a certain type of revelation.

Further it isnt speaking of bells used at any occasion but for musical purposes that invite devilish, inappropriate behavior. It is well established in classical Arabic, let alone Semitic languages in general as seen from Jesus' calling Peter "satan" in the NT Matt16:23, that when someone or something is associated with the devil, most of the time it is understood as a metaphor for its evil consequences. For example in Medina the Muslims suggested using bells at first to signal the arrival of the time of prayer, showing that bells arent always associated with evil. Eventually someone was designated to vocally call the people to prayer.

As to the short hadith saying those who travel with dogs and bells are shunned by the angels, although it is hard to ascertain the context from which the saying is taken from and to which question/remark/incident the prophet was answering/reacting to, it could be infered that it is speaking of specific cases since, whether in the hadiths or Quran, one finds full and unrestricted permission to use dogs on a hunting trip.

It could therefore be in reference to stealthy war expeditions and military preparations, which the Muslims often undertook and that could be compromised by noisy bells and dogs, hence the angels' (that are repeatedly said to accompany the believers in battle) disapproval. All of the various manifestations of revelation on him were far removed from any sign of neuronal illness, as some malicious critics have recently suggested, since he never lost consciousness or memory during the process.

Islam critiqued has a condition; Obsessive compulsive calumnies?

In answer to the video "Muhammad, Psychology and Satan"

The obsessive compulsive opponents of Islam sometimes humourisly project their own condition upon the prophet. He used to repeat certain things therefore he must have had some kind of disorder. This charge is based on ahadith where the prophet instructs people to repeat certain things 3 times, like knocking on a door. There is nothing special about the odd number 3 but it is commonly understood even nowadays that knocking once, twice or 4 times isnt a proper way of announcing oneself at someone else's home. This instruction also teaches to not remain too long outside a person's home since that person might have his own reasons for not opening the door or answering back.

Just as there are no OCD symptoms with people writing children's books and stopping at the number 10, the same is the case for most people counting until 3 before starting something, jumping etc. It is only if one focuses on a certain number(s) that erroneous conclusions are drawn. The prophet repeated, and asked people to repeat certain things a variety of times, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or even 20, all depending on appropriateness, common sense, educational or preaching purposes, or cultural understanding of his time.

Islam critiqued makes psycho analysis; Angry prophets, false prophets?

In answer to the video "Muhammad, Psychology and Satan"

The prophet Muhammad did feel immense guilt during his mission. The Quran would repeatedly explain that he shouldnt at all, the sinners' rejection wasnt due to some inner flaw in him or the message he was conveying, yet the prophet, like all prophets, grieved over the doom of his nation. But in Muhammad's case, his grief was much more intense since he initiated the end of prophethood. He would pray for the sinners to be forgiven, even the hypocrites, at a stage of his prophethood in Medina when such individuals tried destroying the Muslims from within. The Quran would tell him that such empathy is misplaced and fruitless 9:80. Yet when the one known as the leader of the hypocrites passed away, the prophet still offered funeral prayers for him, after which the Quran forbade him this attitude 

"When `Abdullah bin Ubai (the chief of hypocrites) died, his son came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Messenger! Please give me your shirt to shroud him in it, offer his funeral prayer and ask for Allah's forgiveness for him." So Allah's Messenger gave his shirt to him and said, "Inform me (When the funeral is ready) so that I may offer the funeral prayer." So, he informed him and when the Prophet intended to offer the funeral prayer, `Umar took hold of his hand and said, "Has Allah not forbidden you to offer the funeral prayer for the hypocrites? The Prophet said, "I have been given the choice for Allah says: '(It does not avail) Whether you (O Muhammad) ask forgiveness for them (hypocrites), or do not ask for forgiveness for them. Even though you ask for their forgiveness seventy times, Allah will not forgive them. (9.80)" So the Prophet offered the funeral prayer and on that the revelation came: "And never (O Muhammad) pray (funeral prayer) for any of them (i.e. hypocrites) that dies." (9. 84)".

His forbearing forefather Abraham before him similarly argued with God to spare people deserving to be wiped out for their sins 11:75-6. Ibrahim pleads with God for the whole nation of Lut, not only for Lut. Not because he sided with the sinners but to avert the death of everyone, sinners and righteous alike, including Lut. Hence the statement that "Lut is in it" of 29:32 in reaction to the first encounter with the messengers, as they said they will destroy everyone in the town. This type of intercession is not about forgiveness, as in the prohibition of 9:113. Abraham's "intercession" in Genesis is the same. He pleads for the town by virtue of the righteous in it, even if "perhaps ten will be found there". These potential 10 are Lut's few followers alluded to in the Quran 29:32. It is worthwhile noting here the Quran's rectification of typical HB naive anthropomorphisms. God has to go personally to Sodom to confirm the news that came to Him about the wickedness of its people Gen18:21. Then begins the unrealistic back and forth bargaining with Abraham where God says what He would do depending on what He finds out once He gets to the city. The Quran, as it always does in its retelling of defective HB narratives, protects God's omniscience 

29:32"We are more knowing of who is within it. We will surely save him and his family, except his wife. She is to be of those who remain behind".

Moses too, following the same pattern, is shown interceding for the Israelites 7:155. He also intercedes for the Egyptians 7:134-5. This is because in the Quran, contrary to the HB account, the purpose of the successive plagues was to make the sinful people, including Pharao, mend their ways. 

The primary prophetic function however, is delivering warnings and glad tidings. Intercession is not what prophets are sent for, rather a natural result of their empathetic disposition towards their own people and families who are among their addressees. It is a personal choice by the prophets, not a divine requirement. Throughout the Quran, the prophet is referred to with the word nadhir, though often simply rendered "warner" the term in classical Arabic implies the type of warning of an imminent danger stemming out of genuine concern and compassion for the addressee. But it isnt simply an emotional, erratic, or difficult to grasp type of warning. Rather it is made clear and obvious 67:26"I am only a nadhir mubin/obvious, clear warner".

Christians see prophetic intercession as necessarily flowing from their unbiblical "loving God" mantra, because it fits their father-son/sacrifice plot. However, the normal course of action in the prophetic pattern is that rejection eventually leads to destruction of an entire nation save the prophets and their righteous followers (if there are any). That is why at the golden calf incident, prior to Moses pleading for the community, God says 

Ex32:10"Now leave Me alone, and My anger will be kindled against them so that I will annihilate them, and I will make you into a great nation". 

Everyone besides Moses it seems, was implicated, from close or far with idolatry. God then reconsiders what He would have normally done, which is to wipe out everyone at once, leaving it to the Israelites themselves to purge their ranks from those more directly involved in the sin. 3000 apostates were slaughtered in a day, with many more marked for death pending execution. The second day, thinking enough was done to earn the remaining guilty forgiveness, Moses intercedes once more but is rejected, as the chapter ends with the statement that "the Lord struck the people with a plague, because they had made the calf that Aaron had made". A similar situation occurs with the incidents of the scouts. The Israelites anger YHWH again, He decides to wipe everyone out, Moses intercedes, but only gets a delayed punishment. Instead of exterminating the whole nation right away, God decreed for them a 40 years desert wandering during which the land would be entirely prohibited to enter. The purpose was to eliminate the generation of guilty, making place for others that would in turn be tried with the privilege of entering the blessed land, together with those that had not shown distrust in God at the initial command Numb14:1-39. Through this 40 years "slow death" God caused a separation between the obedient and the defiant as reflected in Moses' prayer in the Quran 5:25. Although Moses accepted God's decree, understanding that the guilty only got what they deserved, it nevertheless grieved him to see them in that condition "grieve not for the iniquitous".

Jesus, on the day of resurrection will be confronted to the delusion of his followers who ended up idolizing him and his mother. In response he will completely dissociate himself from their sin, declaring his submission to God alone. He will then leave the matter in Allah's hands, whether He deems it fit to punish them. And finally, Jesus, forbearing and empathetic like all prophets towards their followers, will suggest the possibility of forgiveness by virtue of Allah's might and wisdom 5:116-8.

Muhammad once said

"My example with my nation and my people is that I see them trying to jump into the fire, and I’m holding onto their belt trying to drag them out, and they want to try to disobey me and jump into the fire".

During some of his khutbas he would speak with so much concern and passion of the impending danger of the day of judgement that his otherwise radiant merciful face would be transformed, his eyes turning red, his voice increasing along with his anger and fear

9:128"Indeed, there has come unto you an Apostle from within yourselves: heavily weighs upon him [the thought] that you might suffer [in the life to come], full of concern for you [is he, and] full of compassion and mercy toward the committed Muslims".

Of course no prophet would remain emotionless or with a blank, expressionless face when addressing his people with warnings. It would have been interesting to have access to preserved descriptions of Moses' face when he tore his clothes appart from desperation and asked God to terminate his life Numbers11 from frustration of having to deal with the constant opposition of his people, as described throughout the book of Exodus.

One also may wonder what would have been Jesus' face like, and his gesticulations for instance when he was angered by his close disciples' repeated incapacities to understand his implicit messages or when he kicked out the money-lenders from the Temple, threatened the Israelites with divine judgment, which includes destruction, for their rejection of him. An even more imposing sight would have been to see and hear Jesus as he went off on his tirade against the Jewish elite calling them all sorts of injurious names from "sons of hell" to "race of vipers" etc. terms that would later gladly be picked up by the Roman and Greek former pagans turned Christian antisemites, in their persecutions of those responsible for the death of their hero. That is besides YHWH's dragon like description, fuming through his nostrils as he issued his threats of punishment Jer17:4.

As he was grieved and over passionate in his admonitions, God would advise the prophet Muhammad not to destroy himself with sorrow, belief cannot be imposed on anyone 18:6,26:3,35:8. The Quran tells him not to show impatience for their lack of receptivity and to go on with his mission as bidden. The success of his mission doesnt depend on the people accepting his message at all costs, rather to bring about a wilful intellectual and moral revolution for the establishment of a righteous society. The process must be natural, not supernatural, so that people might naturally enter this exemplary society based on their rationality, high ideals, best principles of life.

If he cannot endure that lengthy and emotionally painful process patiently, and if he imagines that a miracle, conforming to their whims would break their spiritual inertion, then God tells him, he should try by himself to bring about such a Sign and search for it in the heavens and the earth but at the end he will understand that

6:33-6"Only those accept who listen; and (as to) the dead, Allah will raise them, then to Him they shall be returned".

In other words, and as Jesus tells the Pharisees that similarly challenged him for a sign

Mk8:11-13"Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it."

Jesus categorically denied them the performance of Signs, and effectively, Jesus never appeared to those very people who demanded him a miracle after his alleged resurrection. Whoever follows this Quran does it for his own good and whoever rejects it, then Muhammad is only a warner

27:92,20:54,10:41"And if they call you a liar, say: My work is for me and your work for you; you are clear of what I do and I am clear of what you do".

He was sent with the truth and to create discipline by setting practical examples, with the same basic warnings as the messengers and prophets of old 35:24,53:56 so that

25:57"he who will, may take the way to his Lord". 

Islam critiqued finds compromising clue; Quran believes in magic?

In answer to the video "Muhammad, Psychology and Satan"

The Quran, as seen earlier through the word SIHR, commonly translated magic or sorcery, means an act of deception of the senses. That deception is fully encompassed by God's knowlegde and power, not allowing it to affect anything or anyone except by His own will, meaning it has no power in and of itself

"they can harm none thereby save by God's leave".

It further states that the only thing one can be sure of, is that seeking such a means of deception is harmful to the seeker himself, and will never benefit him in anyway

"they acquire a knowledge that only harms themselves and does not benefit them".

This is demonstrated by the clear declaration of the 2 angelic messengers of Babylon, Harut and Marut, telling the people not to become deniers of the truth by misusing what was revealed upon them from knowledge. But that is exactly what many did. Following the examples and whisperings of evil beings (men or jinn), they began practicing the knowledge acquired from the messengers in deceitful ways, contrary to the original intent, ultimately harming themselves only and not benefiting from the practice in anyway, shape or form. Had the "sorcery" ritual been succesful in its evil objective, they would have found some kind of benefit in it, yet the Quran negates that this endeavour can result in any kind of benefit.

We find that notion reflected in the ahadith where the prophet stated 

“There is no ‘adwaa (contagious diseases), no tiyarah (bird omens), no haamah (various superstitions in regards to dead people), and no Safar (unlucky month in pre-islamic times or the bite of a serpent inside the belly causing hunger)”. 

Each of these processes may only have an effect if God allows it. Contagious diseases were known to the Arabs, and the prophet stated 

“Flee from the leper as you would flee from a lion” 

just as he warned 

"the cattle suffering from a disease should not be mixed with healthy cattle". 

This is meant so as to avoid infections. However, one should keep in mind that nothing has any effect unless God allows the process to occur 

“The Messenger of Allah said: ‘There is no ‘Adwa, no omen, and no Hamah.’ A man stood up and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, what if a camel has mange and another camel gets mange from it?’ He said: ‘That is the Divine decree. Who causes the mange in the first one?’”

The prophet here, as well as the Quran in many places, convey the notion of ultimate monotheism, Allah as the only uncaused cause, as the ultimate cause of all things and processes. The pre-islamic Arabs either removed Allah from the equation when attempting to explain an observable phenomenon like infection, or invented a cause, like bad omens.

It is with such perspective in mind that the passage of sura falaq where we seek protection with God from the

113:4"nafathat fil uqad"

must be understood. The phrase lit. means "the blowers on knots". It was an idiom in pre-Islamic Arabia designating all supposedly occult endeavours. The Quran negates that such practices can benefit in any way the one that resorts to them and has labelled them a sin. The sin consitsts not in that they might possibly harm anyone using magical powers but in the very thought of possessing some supernatural abilities without God's license. 

When we seek protection from the evil of those who practice occultism, not from their actions or supposed powers and effects, we recognize the principle already stated in

2:102"they can harm none thereby save by God's leave".

We put our trust in God against all evil endeavours, not to undo any kind of magic spells. Just as the 2 angels' noble teachings can be used in an evil manner, contrary to the original intent, the Quran itself can be misused in a similar way, contrary to its original intent. There are verses, the mutashabihaat, that allow mutliple understandings because of the general nature of their words and context, as well as the subject treated, and all are acceptable so long as they agree with the rules of language and the muhkamat verses. But as stated in the passage speaking of the issue, those in whose heart their is perversity go after the mutashabihaat solely to create confusion, through ascribing arbitrary conclusions to those verses 3:7. As regards Harut and Marut, the verse 2:102 isnt specific on the nature of the revelation upon the angels. But what is known is that it was a divine revelation, not magic or deceptive tricks. 

The verse speaks of 2 groups transmitting knowledge to completely different ends;

- the shayateen (men or jinn) that teach sihr/trickery combined with what they learned from the angels, for sinful ends. The reason they would need to do so would be to deceive the people into thinking that sihr is a divinely condoned practice. This is done up to this day with charlatans using Quranic passages in fanciful ways and rituals. This includes the use of devices upon which one puts his trust instead of Allah

"the prophet said: Verily, spells, amulets, and charms are acts of idolatry".

Even Quran amulets, although not a prophetic practice, all schools of Islamic thought agree that their only virtue is in reminding one to invoke the sacred words they contain.

- the angels that teach divine revelation, warning their audience of whom they perceived the inclination to disbelief, not to misuse that knowledge to evil ends and thereby damage their soul. Some did not heed the warnings and only learned from them the bits that cause harm. As already explained and as seen everyday, the Quran itself can be misused in such a manner, with people taking bits of passages, stripping them from the direct and wider context, then applying that knowledge in harmful ways.

As a side note on 113:4, if we disregard the idiomatic understanding of the verse it can be understood in a different way that equally fits the context. Nafathat is the plural of naffath, which is an intensive nominative from nafatha, meaning primarily he blew. But nafatha also can be taken for inspiring ie influencing the mind. Uqad, the plural of uqdah doesnt only mean knots but also judgments, management, regulating and ordering of one's affairs, a promise of obedience or vow of allegiance. Naffathat fil uqad can also thus be those who put evil suggestions into the resolution of men or into the management of their affairs.

What should finally be kept in mind as a decisive Quranic position whenever those issues of magic, or witchcraft are presented as some influencing factors in wordly causality, is that Iblis himself, the archdeceiver and ultimate external source of evil is presented in the Quran as no more than a mere whisperer, unable to coerce in any way those that listen to his suggestions, hence his description "waswas ilkhannas"/the whisperer that withdraws.

Islam critiqued finds example of integrity; The uncompromising prophet?

In answer to the video "Muhammad, Psychology and Satan"

The Quran relates how the prophet's opponents among the pagans and the People of the Book did everything to make him compromise his revealed principles with theirs, forge verses or deliberately corrupt them. Much to their dismay, the message was divinely protected from the interference of the evil ones -men and jinn- from its descent from heaven all the way to its uttering by the prophet. During that time the prophet was repeatedly warned 2:145,10:37,42:15 and never allowed to yield one bit to them despite the hardships he and his followers suffered. Like the prophets of old, who despite the pressure to alter the divine messages and make them more appealing he answered

2:120,10:15,13:37,17:75,68:9,69:44-7,40:66"Say: I am forbidden to serve those whom you call upon besides Allah when clear arguments have come to me from my Lord, and I am commanded that I should submit to the Lord of the worlds".

As reflected is sura qalam, which is among the earliest Meccan suras, pressure was already being imposed on the prophet at the onset of his mission to change and compromise his message. It is to be noted, when the Noble Book unapologeticaly warns its messenger in the context of temptation to yield to his opponents, these frequently seen conditional statements do not mean that the prophet was actually tempted in doing so.

There are many implicit meanings to these warnings, including that regarding the obligation to abide by the divine law/sharia, there is no difference between a prophet and a regular believer. The second thing is that, seeing that the prophet is warned, how much more should they be careful of their responsibilities in upholding the principles of this revelation. And finally, seeing and hearing that the messenger is in no position to change anything in Allah's ordinances, the enemies should know that it would be fruitless to even think of approaching him with such objective.

When the prophet Micaiah the son of Imlah was under the same kind of pressure, he answered, knowing the dangerous repercussions of refusing to yield to the rejecters

1Kings22:14"As the Lord lives, for what the Lord will say to me, that will I speak".

The prophet Isaiah was equally warned not to yield to the disbelievers' requests Isa8:11 who, unhappy with his strong warnings and admonitions, would openly demand that he should forsake the straight path, the true God and give them false prophecies

Isa30:10-11"You shall not prophesy for us true things. Speak to us with smooth talk; prophesy mockery".

The prophet's opponents practiced deception upon him, and tempted him with greed, held out threats, and raised a storm of false propaganda against him, and persecuted him and applied economic pressure and social boycott against him. Yet the prophet did not compromise an iota of what was revealed to him, even in the direst Meccan period. Although he did experience fear at the consequences, never did he withhold a word that needed to be uttered in the face of his opponents, so as to soften their stance. Even when his uncle and protector Abu Talib was pressured by a Meccan delegation to withdraw his tribal protection of Muhammad and the Muslims, he firmly replied: 

"0 my uncle, if they placed the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left hand to cause me to renounce my task, verily I would not desist therefrom until Allah made manifest His cause or I perished in the attempt". 

The prophet then turned to depart until Abu Talib called him back 

"Say whatever you please; for by the Lord I shall not desert you ever". 

It is to be stressed that the prophet took this stance when his uncle, his last resort, seemed on the verge of letting him down. This attitude, besides the established reputation he had as a man of great integrity by his friends and foes, before and after the revelation, confirm the testimony of God Himself about His chosen one 

68:4"And indeed, you are of a great moral character".

The Quran also presents situations where the prophet is showing fear in communicating certain revelations to his people 5:67,33:37 fearing their reaction, judgements or tauntings but the Quran would compel him to keep transmitting what he is receiving, not to ever

11:12"give up part of what is revealed to you"

showing how he wasnt acting according to his whims

2:120"If you (Muhammad) give in to their whims and desires despite the knowledge that has reached you, you will have no protector or helper against Allah". 

In short, they did all that could be done to defeat his resolve. But just as he repeatedly, from the onset of his mission, rejected any compromise in religion, even less with the basic concept of monotheism 10:104. Since the earliest Meccan verses, he was admonished to distance himself from all rijz/filth 74:5. The mufassirun have included all kind of spiritual evils under that term, idolatry, sinfulness, impurity etc. The wording here does not imply a previous tendency or involvement in those evils. It assumes a scenario so as to enforce the point that everyone is liable to punishment for transgression 

10:106"And do not invoke besides Allah that which neither benefits you nor harms you, for if you did, then indeed you would be of the wrongdoers".

The conditional form of the second part of the verse shows that the premise is a warning, not an accusation. There are many such statements where the prophet is urged to stay away from someone or something that is against the truth revealed to him 26:113,28-86-8 or to behave in a certain way that is upright 

33:1"O Prophet, fear Allah and do not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise. And follow that which is revealed to you from your Lord. Indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted". 

Their hopes of finding common ground between Islam and their ancestral beliefs which they showed they werent truly attached to and were ready to compromise so long as their worldly interests were preserved, was definitely shattered with the very first word of sura kafirun 

"Say: O kafirun". 

That simple word "qul/say" unambiguously showed them that what the prophet was presenting, his answer to their offers, wasnt his that he would be in a position to negotiate; a third party was sending a message through him and, contrary to them, was so firm in his position that a forceful announcement of dissociation had to be made. That opening word reveals another important point, the sending authority wants to make a strong, unforgiving statement and is pushing the messenger to communicate it despite his often described soft character, gentleness and even sometimes reluctance to transmit a particular message, as described in the Quran.

The second verse elaborates 

109:2"I do not serve that which you serve". 

It follows by refuting any possibility of amalgamating Islam's monotheism with the polytheism of its addressees 

"Nor will you worship that which I worship". 

The next verse increases the intensity of the declaration of acquittal as it shows that the prophet never even considered worshiping their idols before his prophetic call so how could they imagine he would make any compromise with them now that he has received the Quran 

"Nor did I worshiped that which you worshipped". 

This is thus the monotheistic pattern of the prophet, his constancy that began before his call. He had dissociated himself from all practices linked to polytheism, and was wandering in search of guidance as to how to properly worship the One Creator. 

Muhammad was always troubled by witnessing the bestial behavior, the families who viewed a firstborn daughter as a disgrace and would burry her alive among other savage practices and the polytheism of the idol worshipers. The Quran pictures an intense scene on the day of Resurrection, where the parents responsible of such horrendous act would be so contemptible in God's sight that they would not be addressed regarding the killing of their infant. So undeserving are they of being directly spoken to that God will turn to the victim, the one without a voice in this world and even if she had one would not be heard, and ask her if there exists any minutest fault for which she might have deserved to be murdered in that way 81:8-9. In their savagery, short mindedness and lack of God-consciousness they would sometimes not even spare their sons, for fear of poverty and lack of sustenance 6:151. It is to be noted that this abhorrent practice has perdured throughout time, and in a more widespread fashion in the form of abortion, most often for the same kinds of reasons. Fear of being able to sustain a child, in any aspect, can never be a reason for taking away his right to live 17:31. Sustenance at its source, does not reach anyone but by God's leave. 

The temptations of Mecca had no power over the disciplined soul of Muhammad whose prime concern was contemplation. He did not like to frequent the Meccan social gatherings and activities. Sometimes when overcome by the pain of such sights, he would retire for meditation in a small cave known as Hira on the Mountain of Nur two miles from Mecca, he would fast and spend long hours in contemplation far from vice, immorality and idol worship. The cave is an extremely isolated small crevasse high in a mountain which even those passing very near to it, if they ever ventured at that desolate, rocky and hardly accessible place, would not notice. Only those who have been there can understand its remoteness and isolation. It is as if the prophet was drawn to this place, suitable for a spiritual retreat.
Muhammad was taking a different direction than his people, advancing on his path of evolution and spiritual perfection, although being totally unaware of the requirements of the true faith, solely relying on his innate moral uprightness with which every human being is born and which compelled him at most to be repulsed by the ungodly habits and rituals around him and at least to never participate in their practices. For example he is said to have been keen to avoid the idols placed at Safa and Marwah while making runs between those places. 

The report by abd al Mundhir, a known falsifier and fabricator of traditions unanimously rejected as unreliable stating the prophet once sacrificed an offering to an idol prior to his prophethood has been discarded by all hadith scholars. 

Such was the situation of the hanif remnants among the Arabs, those that tried maintaining the legacy of Ibrahim, retiring away from their community, to the desert, a cave or against the walls of the very house built by their forefathers Ibrahim and Ismail whom they constantly remembered, searching and wondering about the original and complete manner in which they should worship the Almighty but that was now almost entirely lost and forgotten.  

The ingrained guidance which Allah has equipped all mankind with, although allowing the possibility of avoiding the great moral harms and reasonably coming to believe in the most basic tenets of correct faith (monotheism and hereafter), it cannot explain the complete and exact requirements of the Creator whom the upright person is convinced of. Despite his awareness in those fundamental principles, the person therefore remains lost and ineffective in his search for an explicit guidance to know his obligations, how he should discharge them, how he should direct all possible aspects of his life in total subservience to God. Such person remains wandering in perplexity in search of the truth until he is shown the ultimate and precise manner in which his Creator is to be served 

12:3,42:52,93:6-7"Did He not find you an orphan and gave you shelter? And found you lost and guided you?". 

It is important to note here it doesnt speak of being lost from the straight path. One can be on the straight path all the while yearning and unsuccessfully looking for the best and ultimate way to progress on it, until it is shown explicitly. The difference between a prophet and philosopher is that the former, after seclusion and deep insight gets the truth and wisdom from God whereas the latter arrives to a glimpse of it or sometimes falls short of it by himself. Consequently, we find that the books of ancient philosophers, and of those that developed their theories after them, could not stand the test of subsequent criticism, resulting either in exposing flaws or entirely discrediting their lines of thought. As to the branch of philosophy that claims to investigate the realm of metaphysics through rational thought, the Quran categorically denies these attempts since it states that the concepts of God, Hereafter and revelation are parts of the knowledge of the unseen/ghayb, meaning beyond the reach of human perception. That knowledge is only imparted through revelation and thus all true metaphysical endeavors depend on it. Although the Quran continuously encourages humanity to inquire into and reflect upon the visible world to acquire knowledge, and understand through it the rational need for the resurrection, judgement and hereafter, in the case of knowledge of the unseen, it aims to guide the individuals during that process 

96:4-5"He taught mankind that which they did not know". 

Any philosophy that is not guided is in great error when dealing with the metaphysical realm, a realm transcending our sense-experience, making its direct intuition or experience impossible. 

That condition the prophet was in, of seclusion and desperate seeking of the truth, as well as God's remedies to his concerns, inner questions and difficulties, is captured in sura duha and sharh. So, just as God, in answer to Ibrahim and Ismail's prayers, showed them the manner in which they and those after them should engage in worshipping Him 2:124-131, as was done to Adam who was taught the manner in which to invoke God and seek forgiveness 2:37,7:23,20:122 God showed the true rituals to Muhammad in answer to his spiritual quest, restoring them to their true form and purpose after they had been disfigured with time. There is a lesson of humility, for a servant to reverently ask his master for the best way to please him, as Ibrahim asked his Lord, and to not be self-conceited in thinking that one knows best how to outwardly behave when addressing the Lord of creation just as one wouldnt disrespect the basic conduct to have when facing a mere worldly ruler. The form of a ritual is just as important as the sincerity in its execution.

In the musnad we read of a neighbor overhearing a conversation that occurred between the prophet, prior to his call, and Khadija at their home 

"wallaahu laa a'budu allaat wal uzza walaahu laa a'budu abadan" 

"I dont worship al-laat and al-uzza and i will never worship them". 

This could have only happened when they had just been married. Had the prophet been a worshipper of the idols prior to his call or during his marriage for some time, he would have had to provide some explanation for his sudden change of attitude, yet we read Khadija respecting his position without showing any sign of surprise 

"leave that al-laat, leave that al-uzz".

Islam critiqued digs up old calumnies; The prophet Muhammad, bewitched, possessed, or neither of the 2?

In answer to the video "Muhammad, Psychology and Satan"

There is no connection between the charge of demonic possession, and the hadiths about the prophet being bewitched.

Magic or witchcraft are qualified with the word sihr, from the root S-Ha-R meaning to make things look other than what they actually are, ie deception. There are 3 ways one can try and achieve that objective; the trick or slight of hand, the chemistry and the psychological manipulation, all of them meant at deceiving one into perceiving something else than what is actually occuring. These practices have therefore no intrinsic power. Sorcery at that time consisted of worshipping the jinn and straying from monotheism and that is why the Quran and the traditions warn against these practices.

Throughout the Quran, sorcery has always been associated with evil-mindedness, perverse beliefs, evil deeds and terrifying intimidation of people. It in addition is an act of apostasy to believe in the influence of false gods and the jinn who were worshipped in the process. Muslim jurists the likes of Malik ibn Anas considered sorcery as a manifestation of its practitioner’s perverted faith and prescribed punishments for it.

When relating Moses' public confrontation with Pharaoh's sorcerers, the Quran says that they

7:116"saharoo aAAyuna alnnasi/they tricked the eyes of the people",

the point being that magic is about tricking the eyes to think that what it sees is reality when it is not. There are some reports in hadith literature speaking of people attempting to bewitch the prophet, and even succeeding for a short lapse of time, confusing him in conjugal matters. In Bukhari and Muslim, the time span under which the prophet was affected is said to be 40 days. Weaker reports as narrated by ibn Saad from ibn al Hakam speak of 6 months. None however speak of whatever the prophet was afflicted with as "black magic". The scholars have referred to it as illusion, in conformity with the meaning of the word as stated earlier. It is known that to the prophet, besides being dutiful in his prophetic task of conveying the divine message, an area beyond the reach of evil interference, his second priority was being dutiful as a husband. Due to his outstanding daily responsibilities, the Quran gave him leeway in that aspect and yet, as attested in the traditions he would do his utmost to spend in an equal amount of time with each of his wives. Since this aspect of his private life was most important to him, he thus felt confused in that specific matter and in nothing else, by whatever evil had affected his perception of reality. It is not like the author of the illusion had intended to affect this specific matter in the prophet's life. Assuming the reports as true for argument's sake, a crafty magic trick/illusion can certainly confuse anyone momentarily, in any kind of matter, just as what happened to Moses as he was deceived by the sorcerers' slight of hand 20:66. 

Both Moses and Muhammad were eventually given the inner strength by God to heal from the effect. Further, something which is highly inconvenient to those Islam critics who mainly use those reports to discredit the prophet, he actually is described therein as receiving a vision indicating the author of the sihr as well as the location of the device he used. False prophets dont receive divine visions and after finding the device, the prophet doesnt destroy it because God cured him, meaning the tool used had no power in and of itself. 

"Those around him said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, should we not head toward that evil person and kill him?’ He said: ‘As for me, Allah has cured me, and I dislike causing evil to other people’. This is of the forbearance of the Messenger of Allah”.

To further corroborate the prophet, in such cases simply advised observing a certain diet, relevant to his own environment, composed of 7 ajwa dates of the type growing in Aliya near Medina, eaten over 7 days at breakfast as a means by which the body is detoxified as well as safeguarded from the psychological manipulations of sihr (the health benefits of that diet were thought to keep the mind sharp and aware against such endeavors).

This is far from, and not even comparable to the absurd idea proposed in the Greek Testament of Christians able to neutralize deadly poison in Jesus' name.

It is to be kept in mind however that the supposed confusion the prophet was victim of, never pertained to divine comunications, an area time and again declared as protected from any interference, human or else, from its descent from heaven until it is delivered to the prophet's heart and transmitted to the people. The Quran for example, in the context of truthfulness of prophethood and divine origin of the Book, repeatedly denies the claims made by his contemporaries that he might be demon possessed or under the effect of the jinn 16:98-100,26:221-3,69:41-2,81:22-25 or under a spell or that he is himself a magician/sorcerer 17:47-8,25:8-9,38:4,51:52-6 as other prophets were similarily calumnied.

Islam critiqued witnesses devilish attacks; Satan opposes the messengers?

In answer to the video "Muhammad, Psychology and Satan"

Before getting into the story of the satanic verses, 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 occured 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.