Apostate prophet is disillusioned; prophets of God cursing disbelievers?

In answer to the video "Did Muhammad Forgive a Hostile Jewish Woman?"

Well Muhammad is a prophet in a long line of semitic prophet that were all sent as warners and givers of glad tidings, with prophecies of destruction and blessings depending on their addressees response to the divine calls. All of these prophets, whether Noah, Abraham, Moses or Jesus eventually invoked Allah's curse, which in Arabic translates to "laan", upon the most obdurate opponents seeking to harm the messengers. This Arabic "laan" means distancing from the mercy of God. Concretely, when the rejecters are eventually destroyed by the divine will, it is because the mercy of God has been removed from them. 

The most prominent evil personalities and groups of people, in the nations prophets and messengers were sent to, those whose behavior and rejection were most violent towards the prophetic message and the prophets themselves, were always pointed out by the prophets and scriptures of their specific time, with the prophets calling for God's curse and punishment to be inflicted upon them either in this world or the next, as well as the vindication of the righteous. The Quran sometimes mentioned them implicitly as in 44:47-50,74:11-27,91:12,96:9-19 or explicitly, as with Abu Lahab in Sura Lahab, but everytime, the exposition of their evil traits serves as a threat and warning to future people.

Among many Biblical similarities there is the case of the prophet David against Nabal and Doeg 1Sam25:39,Ps52, David's long-winded curse of Esau and his descendants who is implicitly meant

Ps109:8-15"May his days be few, and may someone else take his office of dignity. May his sons be orphans and his wife a widow. May his sons wander, and [people] should ask and search from their ruins..."

or the implicit mention of a group of people

Ps58:1-12"O God, smash their teeth in their mouth..Let them be rejected..The righteous man will rejoice because he saw revenge; he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked. And man will say, "Truly, the righteous man has reward; truly there is a God Who judges on earth".

Again a reference to a group of moral harassers and mockers upon whom David invokes God's curses Ps35:19-26. See also Ps63:9-12,69:22-29 or Ps137:8-9 in reference to the Babylonian oppressors

"Praiseworthy is he who will take and dash your infants against the rock"

or also Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar alternatively implied by the prophet Habakkuk who calls on God to destroy them throughout the chapter (Habakkuk2).

Another instance of allusion to a contemporary of the prophet happens in 68:10-16, where an individual's evil, sinful traits are exposed in order to lead the audience to distancing itself not only from the person in question but also from anyone bearing those immoral characteristics

"Do not at all yield to any mean swearer of many oaths, who is a slanderer and a backbiter, a hinderer of good and a transgressor, utullin/(connoting bad tempered, vengeful, coarse in manners, and shameless), and above all zanim/(connoting one known for his ignobleness and meanness. It is also used for those whose descent is unknown, which doesnt apply in this case to ibn al Mughirah who is implied here), only because he has abundance of wealth and children. When Our Revelations are recited to him, he says, "These are tales of the ancient times." Soon We shall brand him on the snout".

Because he thought he was a man of high prestige, his nose has been called a snout, and "branding him on the snout" means disgracing him. That is,

"We shall so disgrace him in the world and in the Hereafter that his mark of disgrace will become indelible".

The same idea is repeated elsewhere when speaking of the same kind of person to whom outward appearance is everything, and how the scorching wind of Hell destroys the skin, ie that most prominent aspect on which his entire personality is built and leaves him ugly. In the Hebrew Bible, with immense despise, God addresses Sennacherib of Assyria through the prophet Isaiah

2Kings19:28"I will place my ring in your nose and My bit in your lips".

See also Isa37:29 or Ps3:8 all speaking of severe and humiliating disfigurement of the wicked, a metonym for utter abasement. Here are other instances of curses by the prophets and their justifications. In the Quran it was not until after Pharao's obstinate rejection of God's signs that were actually meant at making him mend his ways 7:130-5,17:101-2,20:56,43:48 but that had the reverse effect of increasing his arrogance and folly, that his and his official's hearts were irreversibly hardened, kept away from the correct path 10:75-89,40:37.

It is interesting that the Bible says the entire opposite. Pharao's heart was hardened from the get go, before he even had a chance to reform himself by being exposed to Moses' message and miracles. In the Quran, instead of this being some kind of arbitrary and wanton divine curse, it is but a natural consequence of repeated, willful spiritual neglect to the point spirituality is degraded beyond repair. The Quran gives several transgressions, which, despite the warnings, brought Pharao closer to spiritual collapse; going as far as requesting for the building of a tower to reach for the heavens and disprove Moses' claims, misusing his powers without limits to prevent the people from practicing the true religion and establishing places of worship, and finally the direct attempt at murdering God's manifest messenger 44:20-22. Disbelievers of all times suffer the same consequences when they repeatedly deny God's signs 13:33. At that point, once it had been made clear that Moses' opponents will not desist from rejecting and will only increase further in their animosity, to the extent that Moses and his people had no other option but to flee, Moses invoked Allah's curse upon his enemies, asking that God might harden Pharao's heart and destroy what gave him the ability to oppress the people and corrupt the land, and God accepted Moses' prayer instantly. 

Similarily the nation of the prophet Nuh had reached such high levels of rejection and animosity towards their prophet, that a revelation informed Nuh that most of his nation will not believe no matter what and he should therefore stop grieving for their sins 11:36. 

All prophets, including Moses or Nuh, are sent as relentless reformers of their nations, first and foremost. Not as usherers of destruction. They are repeatedly depicted, as is done throughout the book as regards Muhammad, as grieving for their nations' sins, doing all they can to bring them to the path of righteousness. They remain in that passionate empathy for their people so long as the benefit of the doubt is there, in case their addresses still have a potential to desist from rejecting the divine message. But once it has been made manifest that their addressees will not desist and only increase in rebellion and hatred towards God, the messengers cannot remain empathic to those who willfully resist and hate God. 

Any believer facing an enemy of God, will treat that person as one's own enemy. Nuh then prayed for the spiritual blindess to be inflicted on the mischievous elite that kept opposing and leading people astray, so that they can swiftly become worthy of divine punishment, and the earth is cleansed from them and those who follow them and thus corruption ceases to be spread 71:24-8. Similar prayers of destruction as above, were made by prophets of the past the likes of Jeremiah or David, as reported in the Hebrew Bible, when confronted to the same kind of disbelievers

Jer12:1-3,15:15,17:18,18:18-22,Lam1:21-2,Ps5:10-11,7:10,55:16-24"May He incite Death upon them; may they descend to the grave alive..You, O God, shall lower them to the Pit of Destruction"

or here concerning the Amalekites

Ps68:2-4"May God rise; His enemies scatter, and those who hate Him flee from before Him. As smoke is driven away, You will drive [them] away; as wax melts before fire, the wicked will perish from before God. And the righteous will rejoice, yea, they will exult before God and they will delight with joy".

In Neh3:36-7 the prophet prays that the mockers be cursed, despised, and exiled as the Jews were. They were being derided as they were trying to reconstruct the Temple of Jerusalem just as Nuh and his followers were derided during the construction of the Ark.

Apostate prophet is stunned; uswa hasana, the perfect human being?

In answer to the video "Did Muhammad Forgive a Hostile Jewish Woman?"

As is explicit in the Quran, the divine protection of the carriers of the revelation pertains strictly to the revelation itself. But in everyday affairs, the messengers, who are still humans endowed with freewill and thus the potential, if not to sin due to their heightened level of spiritual awareness, to make mistakes, they are left to their own devices in their everyday lives to fight off the assaults of evil forces. 

No prophet was in a constant state of communication with the divine realm. The hadith and Quran itself speak of long periods where revelation had stopped, and the subsequent tauntings of his enemies on the issue, the questions of his followers and his anxious anticipation. 

The Quran never came to correct the prophet's worldviews in terms of knowledge of nature and general causality, neither of his contemporaries but rather guide him and the rest of humanity through him, to the most complete, advanced human spiritual knowledge. The divine protection  therefore only pertained to the Quran which is the source of that perfect spiritual knowledge. The prophet was "uswa hasana" in his application of the Quran, just as following Jesus' way, as he is quoted saying in the NT, meant following his footsteps in his application of the Torah. "The way" of Jesus Jn14:6 is outlined in Lk10:25-28 where he commands strict observance of Jewish laws.

dontconvert2islam seeks tabloids juicy news; any truth in the maria/hafsa affair?

In answer to the video "Muhammad’s Christian Female Slave"

Some critics have used an unreliable story, dismissed by the commentators for its weak transmission chain, in order to discredit the prophet. The verse supposedly alludes to Hafsa, to whom the prophet promised not to be intimate with his mulk yamin/right hand possession Maria the Copt. 

Maria was given to him out of reverence by an Egyptian prefect or notable. It is interesting to note that there are at least 2 similar precedents in prophetic history, with the Egyptian daughter of royalty, Hagar who was given to Abraham, and Solomon's unnamed Egyptian wife 1Kings3. The Egyptian notable wanted to establish political relations with the prophet, and this gesture was considered normal as per the decorum of ancient societies. Some reports say that two women were given, Maria and Sirin. The prophet freed Sirin whom he married to a close follower and took Maria as his concubine and lodged her in one of his followers' houses temporarily, Haritha, although some weak comentaries state she was lodged in Hafsa's house in the beginning. When Hafsa entered in her own private quarter that she had left for the day, and surprised the prophet and Maria in her own bed, she was angered. Not because, as the critics claim without the slightest shred of a proof that she was Hafsa's temporary slave but because that day was reserved for her. 

However the weak reports used by those very critics say that what the prophet had allegedly done with Maria in Hafsa's house was HALAL, meaning she must have been his own concubine, not a slave given to Hafsa temporarily. The prophet then requested her not to repeat what had occured, to avoid stiring up the already existing jealousy of the wives towards Maria, as depicted in several reports, who was given precedence over one of them on a day supposedly reserved for a wife. Besides its unreliability, the Quran itself refutes that story, due to several reasons including the fact that the prophet had complete liberty in matters of division of time among wives and concubines, something all his wives were aware of much prior to the alleged incident. He was not therefore bound by any time restriction and did not need to make any such promise not to be with his lawful concubine, as depicted in the incident. 

Also per the Quran, the object of what God's prophet forbade upon himself was to please his wives (plural). In this report, the object of the oath was to please one wife only (singular), the one that allegedly entered in her room and found him with his lawful concubine. Also, 66:3 says that a secret was divulged by God's prophet to one of his wives. Why would he need to tell what had just happenned to Hafsa and cause all the commotion if she hadnt had a clue of what had occured, and instead keep that perfectly legal act to himself? 

This negates the story from yet another angle because in it, the prophet's "secret" was found out by one of the wives who surprised him in bed with Maria. He was thus in no need to share that "secret" with her. There are several theories regarding what that secret was, some of them being concerning his succession, but that is another issue.

In conclusion it should be stressed that the prophet, assuming those convoluted reports on Maria and Hafsa as true, he did not do anything wrong or inappropriate for a prophet, as even clearly stated in those accounts. Per the Quran, mulk yamin are a category of lawful women not covered by the regulation on the division of time between multpile wives. The prophet was even absolved from these time restrictions with his wives, although he always divided his time as equally as possible between them. 

It should also be reminded that Maria was the prophet's only mulk yamin, or concubine as the Judeo-Christian critics like saying with their distorted Biblical paradigms of what concubines are. He had no other "concubine". Maria was offered to him, as described earlier, and he accepted for the sake of a greater socio-political aim. The prophet could have acquired many more such women as a result of his military victories, as other prophets did before him, including Moses, David or Solomon, and on a much larger scale, without damaging his legitimacy as a true prophet of God in the least. He could have even, out of lust, resorted to murdering an innocent man so as to marry his widow, just as the noble and pious prophet-king David supposedly did, as shamefully transmitted by the Biblical scribes. 

Finally, Nasa'i gives 2 occasions of revelation for the verse, both of them graded sahih. He first cites the incident with Maria without saying anything about Hafsa or anyone else "finding out" about the prophet's legal intercourse with his concubine. All it says is that Hafsa and Aisha would continuously harass the prophet about Maria out of jealousy until he promised them not to be intimate with her. This more authentic version of the supposed event agrees with the Quran's wording, contrary to the weaker, convoluted report described earlier. The second occasion of revelation per Nasa'i also invloved Aisha and Hafsa, both of them are again described as harassing the prophet to give up on something, but this time the object of their jealousy was Zaynab bint Jahsh. As a loving wife who knew the likes and dislikes of her husband, she used to offer him a variety of honey he very much appreciated each time he visited her. Aisha and Hafsa disliked that pleasant connection they had and thus schemed to put an end to it. As the prophet once came out of Zaynab's place, and knowing that the prophet would always pay attention to the manner he presented himself at all occasions so as to not offend anyone, Aisha told him that his breath smelled like maghafeer (a sweet drink that leaves a pungent smell). 

Being the sensitive and tactful person as described earlier, the prophet unsuspectedly promised not to drink this honey although he was very fond of it and had every right to it. Nasa'i further says that because these 2 reports are graded sahih it might be that they happenned very close to eachother prior to the revelation of the verse. 

Whether it is Al Qurtubi, al Tabari, Ibn Arabi, Imam al Nawawi, among many other scholars, they all state that the prophet's overstaying at Zaynab to have his favorite drink, against Aisha and Hafsa's desire, is the reliable opinion for the opening verse of al Tahrim being revealed.

dontconvert2islam wont break an oath; but can one ever be justified in doing so?

In answer to the video "Muhammad’s Christian Female Slave"

As already pointed, previously to the incident in the opening verses of Sura Tahrim, God sanctionned the expiation of oaths when it is something lawful. 

Nothing can be forcefully forbidden when God made a thing lawful 5:87, even if such an attitude happens to be motivated by the desire to please someone else, as in the prophet's case who sought to please his wives. Sometimes a human being under the influence of emotions without full consciousness of the seriousness of the undertaking, makes an oath and forbids to himself something permissible as was the case with the prophet, and in such cases the oath should be broken 2:225 and then atoned for 5:87-89. The first part of the verse

"why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you"

has a compassionate tone, because the prophet did it out of compassion. This however does not mean that he was justified in making something that is otherwise lawful, as forbidden. That authority has never been delegated to the Prophet, not to speak of any other man. The second part of the verse

"you seek to please your wives"

indirectly warns those who benefit from such act, not to knowingly take advantage of that situation. The position of a Prophet, and by extension that of any respected leader, is very delicate. Such eminent individual does not solely belong to himself but to a nation transcending time and space. The higher the person, the smallest sins are enlarged as if they were enormous. A minor incident experienced by an ordinary man in his life may not be of any consequence, but it assumes the status of law when experienced by a Prophet with a large a devout following looking up to him as the epitome of good manners and spirituality. The life of such a person must remain in line with the divine will, and openly explained to present the right example to follow

62:2"He it is who has sent unto the unlettered people an apostle from among themselves, to convey unto them His messages, and to cause them to grow in purity, and to impart unto them the divine writ as well as wisdom - whereas before that they were indeed, most obviously, lost in error".

Similarly, the prophet's pious wives too are to become an example for all women of the ummah, more than any other woman, they should be mindful of God's limits. The Quran often alludes to these notions in regards to the prophet, his wives and the leaders of a community in general, hence God's will to

33:33"remove from you all that might be loathsome, O you members of thehousehold, and to purify you to utmost purity".

Had the fine details of the prophet's oath and of the betrayal inside his household 66:1-3 been of any importance to the general message of the verses, then the Quran would have mentionned them but disclosing them was entirely irrelevant to the point and could even distract the audience's attention from it. The secret shared by the prophet and then disclosed by the wives, has thus been altogether ignored. What has been disapproved and pointed out in particular is the very fact that the secret was disclosed to another. The point of the passage is that the violation of the spouse's secrets violates the sacred law. And this applies whether to the husband or the wife. This is subtely alluded to at the end of the sura, where Mary the mother of Jesus is mentionned alongside Pharao's wife as the example to follow. The word describing her submissiveness is in the masculin plural/qanitin 66:12. This necessarily includes the male gender as well as females, otherwise it would have said qanitat.

This eloquent, linguistic precision makes her not only a role model to Muslim women in her chastity and submission, ie submission to the divine will, but also to Muslim men. 

It is interesting to note the tact of the prophet in such tense situation. When the disloyalty towards him from within his household was uncovered, he informed the guilty wife of SOME of what she had revealed, just enough so as to make his point, but refrained from informing her of it all to prevent her further abasement and shame

"he made known part of it and avoided part".

As reported in the traditions, this particular attitude was noted by some of the early followers, including Ali, and acted upon. It is to be noted that the Quran in several instances unveils to the prophet the secret behavior of his contemporaries, especially so among his enemies 2:14,76,3:119.

dontconvert2islam tries handling Quran AND hadith, Maria/Hafsa affair?

In answer to the video "Muhammad’s Christian Female Slave"

The issue of sura Tahrim is a very interesting one, obviously with implications far surpassing the superficial reading and hasty conclusions of this youtuber.

In Islam, certain oaths must as a duty be broken because they create an injustice through the prohibition of a lawful thing for the benefit of another party, and prevents one from acting according to God's directives. In addition, it may be that one takes an oath but because of changing circumstances later on, a more righteous course of action must be taken in opposition to the oath, then the oath must be broken and atoned for. Once the prophet expiated an oath he had made in order to make it possible for himself to be more charitable

"Once I went to Allah’s Apostle with a group of Al-Ash’ariyin, and met him while he was angry, distributing some camels of Zakat. We asked for mounts but he took an oath that he would not give us any mounts, and added, ‘I have nothing to mount you on.’ In the meantime some camels of booty were brought to Allah’s Apostle and he asked twice, ‘Where are Al-Ash’ariyin?’ So he gave us five white camels with big humps. ... ‘It is Allah Who has given you mounts. By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath".

Here the nobility of the prophet is such, instead of pretexting that he had taken an oath so as to avoid forfeiting high quality camels, he went out of his way to find those to whom he had made the pledge and broke it. What is interesting is that he would not be as liberal when braking an oath would be to his advantage, even if he, per the Quran, would be totally justified doing so. Sura Tahrim alludes to an oath the prophet had taken, to forbid something lawful for himself for the sake of pleasing his wives 66:1-2.

In the previous sura the Quran teaches to remain conscious of the bounds of God in situations of hate. This sura, on the other hand, teaches how these bounds should not be violated in situations of love. What also transpires is that Muhammad was a chosen one of sublime morality like the past messengers 3:161,9:128,68:4,33:21 ahead of his time in these matters, not abusing from his social position, taking into consideration the emotions and needs of his wives, as well as full of tact and magnanimity towards them as will be shown later on. 

The manner in which he embodied universal and Quranic principles and moralities led his closest entourage to be among his earliest followers, contrary to other prophets including Jesus, and one of his wives, Aisha, who loved and supported him throughout his life, is reported as describing him as a walking Quran. This means that whatever is stated in the Quran such as kindness towards women, prayers and charity, love and respect for poor, needy, orphans etc. can all be found in his life. His connection with the book was such, internalizing its warnings, glad tidings and lessons to such an extent that he once said of certain suras (Hud, Waqia, Mursalat, Naba, Takwir) passing over the upheavals of the Hereafter as having caused him to grow old.

He was evidently tender hearted towards his wives, hence him being described in some narrations as if that love was enforced upon him. Without that intensity in love, he would never have been able to marry and be dutiful to all the women that he did all the while maintaining his multiple responsibilities, as a prophet, leader, army commander, judge, friend, as well as his personal daily and long nights of spiritual dedication. Thus the prophet, although he embodied piety was not an ascetic in the sense that he renounced this life's ligitimate pleasures. That intense love, he had for his wives, and the additional burdens it created, were nevertheless made bearable by the comfort and tranquility the prayers provided him (Sunan an-Nasa’i 3939).

Biblical figures intermarrying with neighboring nobility?

In answer to the video "How Islam Shaped Its Sources"

Hagar, the legitimate wife of Abraham who gave birth to his legitimate son Ishmael, the "only son" who would later be taken for sacrifice to God, was the princess daughter of an Egytpian King according to even some Rabbinical traditions. As a side note it is interesting to note that David's great grandmother, Ruth, was a Moabite princess that preferred converting to Judaism and live as an ordinary member of the comunity. Her piety and good manners were well known, a book of the biblical cannon is named after her. Solomon became allied to the Egyptian king through marrying his princess daughter 1Kings3:1, just like Abraham, and loved her more than his other numerous wives 1Kings11. There are other such recorded unions, between Israelites and daughters of Egyptian nobility 1Chr4:18. 

In the Jewish encyclopedia, we read something even more interesting;

"While the two narratives, Gen. xvi. and xxi. 9-21, are not directly contradictory, the critical school, pointing to the fact that in both instances Hagar is expelled upon Sarah's request and with the reluctant assent of Abraham, and that in both instances she receives, while sitting by a fountain, a divine message foretelling the great destiny of her son, finds in these narratives two parallel accounts of the origin of the Bedouins, whose racial affinity with the Israelites the latter had to admit, while degrading them by tracing their origin to a concubine of their common ancestor"

Islam critiqued exposes gullible Arabs; where are the blessed nations of Ishmael?

In answer to the video "How Islam Shaped Its Sources"

There are countless sources that connect Abraham with the Arabs and those that desired to return to his ways, without any connection to Jewish and Christians ways, were considered hanifs. None among the Arabs ever contended with such facts. This whole tradition revolved especially around the legacy of the Kaaba. The ARAB (although later transmitted by Muslims) tradition on this point is so strong and of such old standing that the Quran every now and then refers to it as a matter of undoubted history, and the Arabs never contended with it. There isnt any trace of the Arabs tracing their genealogy to anyone else than Ismail. Islam didn't show up and made them believe this massive conspiracy by first causing a general blackout. 

The onus is on the revisionists and critics of Islam to establish that what the Arabs believe is their identity is not true or that they identified themselves as anything else than Ishmaelites prior to Islam. 

All their objections and calumnies -whether aimed at the the prophet's personality or his message- are reported and can be seen by anyone today, both in and out of the Quran. No eyebrow was raised as regards the Abrahmic connection to the Kaaba, yet it was the focal point and core of Muhammad's prophetic message. The same is the case concerning the monotheistic origin of some of their most highly revered rituals, although at the time stained with idolatrous practices. It is also interesting noting that although Abraham is clearly pictured as having been to and prayed at the Kaaba where he had settled a place of monotheistic worship together with his son, yet this is never done in a polemical tone against the b‪elievers of the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is thus inevitable that traditions about Abraham relating him to Mecca and its sanctuary were current in the peninsula well before the rise of Islam.

As appropriately noted by Goudarzi 

"It is well known that Ishmael did not occupy a prized position in late-antique Jewish or Christian thought. For Jews, he was an outcast, excluded from Abraham’s household and inheritance, a man of the desert who was worthy neither of the land nor of the law that was given to Isaac’s descendants. For Christians, Ishmael was above all the son of Abraham “according to the flesh” but not the spirit, the son of the slave woman who inherited the servile state of his mother, and therefore a type for the spiritually incapacitated Jews toiling under the burden of the law. Jewish and Christian writers depicted Ishmael as a foil for their beloved Isaac, a potential rival who resorted to violence and persecution, a man guilty of idolatry and sexual misconduct— whose menacing ambitions were nipped in the bud thanks to Sarah’s timely intervention". 

All these perverted and corrupt ideas were well established in the historical background of pre-islamic Arabia. The prophet Muhammad, or any Arab prior to Islam, had nothing to win in terms of credibility or eminence in the eyes of Jews and Christians by supposedly inventing family ties to Ishmael. Even the covenant of the land, as stated in the Torah, is open to any non-Israelite convert. Also, nowhere does the HB restrict the covenant of prophethood to the descendants of Abraham, be it Israelites or Ishmaelites. The notion of the Arabs or the prophet resorting to a radical re-shaping of their ancestry to gain any kind of legitimacy in relation to the people of previous scriptures is therefore not only improbable given the scale of the conspiracy but mainly useless and even counter-productive.

The question one should be asking one's self is how could Muhammad actually pass off the Kaaba as being built by Ibrahim, if the Arabs did not already believe it considering that Arab tribes had since antiquity been paying extensive homage to the Kaaba and its rites? It is the height of absurdity to say that in any culture, one would manage to fake not only his own identity but also that of an entire nation without anyone raising an eyebrow. This is worth emphasizing; for nothing was more obnoxious to an Arab than to ascribe a false or imaginary ancestry to him. Arab culture had such pride in its ancestral origins that when the Quran wanted to give a point of reference to how intensely Allah should be praised, it evoked the remembrance of their forefathers which Allah's remembrance must surpass 2:200. Despite the effects of modernism and the loss of oral culture, some Arabs even today still keep their ancient family trees that date to the time of Prophet. The Quraysh, the prophet's own tribe, was respected among the Arabs not only because it ruled over Mecca but also because of the nobility of its lineage. To come and argue that the prophet fabricated it is very unrealistic.

Even if we disregard these facts and suggest that the Arabs had a memory lapse, why would a people who had forgotten their common ancestor, accept the ancestor of another people as their ancestor too because the latter stated so, thus not only puting in question their identity but also compromising their claim on their prime religious site and by extension the economical benefits of being its custodians? Such an illegitimate attack on a people's known identity and its ancestral worship sites would have met with universal resistance, both from the preexisting idolatrous population of Mecca as well as from the Arab tribes.

Critics of Islam ignore these simple observations, forget that the starting point of studies on the Arabs concerning their origin, culture and religious identity should start from their own sources. This is a well-recognized modus operandi in ethno-historical studies of a group of people.

By the time of the prophet Muhammad, the assimilation of the Abrahamic legacy into the regional polytheistic systems was such that only a distant echo had remained in their minds from their spiritual connection to Abraham. Just as happenned to the Temple of Jerusalem that slowly became transformed into a pagan shrine and idols were introduced in it 2kings21 the prime symbol of monotheism in Mecca became thus radically transformed through pagan influence. As the Ishmaelites, like the Israelites throughout their history, drifted from the original path of monotheism, the Hajj pilgrimage became a celebratory occasion, and the Kaaba was stocked with idols and false deities supposed to bring the worshipers closer to the One God, Allah, whom they believed in. 

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

No other nation can be compared to the Ishmaelites' handling of their spiritual legacy and sacred shrine, than their own Israelite brothers. They could not maintain the way of their forefathers despite the constant sending of prophets to them to bring them back to the right path. When the Arabs were admonished and urged to reform, they qualified the warnings as

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

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

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

It repeats, time and again, its role as the guardian and preserver of the truth present in the past scriptures. Along with Abrahamic and monotheistic practices known in pre-islamic days, going back to previous prophets, was the Zakat which the people knew they had to give away to the poor but rarely practiced or misused 19:30-31,54-55,70:24,Deut14:28-29,26:12-14, fasting 2:51,183-187,7:142,Deut9:9,Ex24:18,34:28,Matt4:2,Lk5:33-6 prayer that continued after Ibrahim established it in the settlement of the Kaaba 14:37,19:55,Dan6:10,Ps55:18,1Chr23:30 until it was disfigured 8:35, animal sacrifice, circumcision. Other concepts propounded by previous prophets and which the Quran was reminding its addressees of, include the Resurrection, day of Judgement and accountability Matt13:24-43,1Kings17:17-24,2Kings4:17-37,13:20-1,1Sam2:6,Isa2:17,26:19,66:14,Ezek37:1-28,Ps71:20,Prov6:22,Prov31(see Rashi),Dan12:1-2,Quran29:36,54:36-9. There are pre-islamic poems with clear eschatological connotation, some of them speaking of the resurrection of the soul, and Allah being the judge of mankind. One such poems is that of Zuhayr who wrote in his muallaqat

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

Labid wrote

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

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

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

The Quran and the traditions speak of the hanif remnants that tried preserving the monotheism of Ibrahim, and these lines of poetry might echo these marginal beliefs. The majority of the pre-islamic Arabs however rejected bodily resurrection and otherworldy accountability, the Quran repeatedly condemns this attitude. This phenomenon is clearly seen with the "talbiya", the invocations the pilgrims coming from all over Arabia made during their rituals. Some of these have come down to us, referring to Allah as

"al wahid al qahhar rabb assamad",

while others clearly referred to the idols as subservient to him

"laa nabudul asnama hatta tajtahida li rabbiha wa tutabad"

or

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

and others spoke of the One Lord of the last hour

"rabba assa'a".

All of this shows the multifaceted shades of idolatry among the pilgrims, some of them praising Allah alone, others associating with Him while maintaining Him above the intercessors, and others still referring to the day of judgement. This confirms the Quranic statement that the original religion established at the sanctuary was Abrahamic monotheism. It got disfigured with time, polluted with foreign concepts, although it maintained a recognizable foundation of truth, which the last prophet came to revive. Sura 87, after summing up the pillars of divine truth, such as monotheism, intelligent design, resurrection, God's all-encompassing, intricate knowledge and sway over His creatures' affairs, spiritual purification through prayer and constant remembrence of God as being the ways to success in the Hereafter, it says that these are all concepts known, written and transmitted by the prophets, from Ibrahim to Moses. All of these things were known to the people whom Muhammad was addressing over 4000 years later but have been neglected for so long that only a dim remembrance of them remained

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

Muhammad revived the corrupted, obscured and forgotten way of Ibrahim

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

The climax of that revival occured when he entered Mecca triumphantly, cleansed the Kaaba of its idols and rededicated it to its monotheistic purpose. Prior to that physical uprooting, the Quran would remind the Meccans of their legacy and duty towards the Kaaba, in many verses beyond the scope of that discussion.

Islam critiqued fights the flow of history; Idol worship in the Abrahamic tradition?

In answer to the video "How Islam Shaped Its Sources"

Prior to the rise of the prophet Muhammad and the retribution befalling the heedless Ishmaelites, idol worship continued to flourish and even spread to the centers inhabited by their Christian and Jewish neighbors, namely Najran and Yathrib. The Jews of Yathrib tolerated idol worship, coexisted with it, and finally befriended it so as to develop their trade with the pagan Arabs. Although idolatry was important to the pre-Islamic Arabs, yet they did not develop any elaborate mythology around their gods and goddesses as did ancient people around the world such as the Greeks, Romans or Hindus. No trace of such things can be found in the pre-Islamic poetry and traditions. 

This fact further indicates that polytheism and idol worship were not indigenous to the Ismailite Arabs but were grafted on to the Abrahamic tradition. One of such polytheistic influences came from Noah's descendants. For instance it is documented in Arab history as well as the Torah that some of them -such as the branch descending from Ham- inhabited the region of Canaan. This Noahide branch reverted to idol worship. This is why in the HB these Noachide descendants of Ham, along with all pagan tribes including the Philistines who apprently knew God despite their perverted spirituality 1Sam4:7, were systematically slaughtered by the Israelites. The Canaanites and Noahide descendants had reached the utmost of their spiritual depravation Gen15:16,Deut9 and had to be uprooted in order to make way for a new nation to be tested in turn. 

Archaeological evidence suggests that Canaanite pagan worship was ongoing on the location of what would later become Temple mount. The Canaanite relatives of the Israelites, who are actually Abrahamic descendants, such as the Moabites descendants of Lot and Edomites whose father is Esau may very well have emulated their ancestors by worshiping YHWH. Jethro Similarily proclaims to Moses that YHWH is greater than all gods Ex18:7-12. Jethro was a Midianite-Kenite (from Midian the son of Abraham and Kenite from Cain whose descendants lived among all the people of the Levant). That monotheism preceding the arrival of the Israelites in Canaan was corrupted with time, as happened to the Israelites themselves. These non-Israelite Abrahamic descendants grafted their own evil inclinations and foreign religions to their original monotheism. These crimes made them unworthy of remaining in a land declared sacred by God and dedicated to monotheistic worship. The same would be done through the Ishmaelite prophet Muhammad, commanded to uproot, willingly or forcefully, those who had disfigured the religion of their forefather Abraham, who had perverted the purpose for which a settlement was established on that land of Mecca 8:34-35,53. 

The Quran names the idols brought by these Noachide descendants, and the Arabs of the peninsula adopted them 71:21 among other gods mostly because of the Nomadic migrations throughout the peninsula. It is well documented archaeologically that most gods of the Arabian peninsula were introduced into the Southern kingdoms of Saba and Himyar in the 2nd century BC, through these nomadic routes. This also led to the Arabization of these idols' names. Some of these idols of Noah's times who were associated with the One God 23:24 include the Nisr, which is the "vulture-god". It was worshipped all throughout the Middle East, whether it went by this name or another. 

After Noah, generations after generations kept returning to polytheism all the while they worshipped the One supreme God 23:31-44,11:53-4,46:21-2. The names of these idols were thus preserved, just as the Israelites in their books carried on the name of Baal and other regional gods whom they started worshipping again at different portions of their history. The Meccans were thus originally monotheists, who lapsed into idolatry. Just as the Israelites lapsed into idolatry as recounted in the Hebrew Bible even intermarrying with polytheist Canaanites.

Islam critiqued seeks Abrahamic legacy; the hanif of Hijaz?

In answer to the video "How Islam Shaped Its Sources"

The history records this legacy of Ibrahim and Ismail, especially with the hanifs, a term used first and foremost as an uncompromising opposition to polytheism 10:105,22:30-1,98:5. It also describes mankind's original predisposition to uprightness 30:30. Hanif stems from H-N-F, which is lexically very interesting. It means the foot that is tilted inwards so that the sole is exposed. In the highly metaphorical language of the Arabs, it became used for the one that exposes his inner self, his secrets, has nothing to hide due to his uprighteness, rectitude. The opposite of hanaf is janaf, indicating the outward inclination of the feet. It is used to imply crookedness of intent in 2:182. As to hanaf, a water tap is called hanafiya, from the same root, because of the straight manner that water comes out of it. A person born with a condition that made both feet point to eachother when walking was referred to as rajulun "ahnaf" because that person walks in a straight manner and can only change direction with difficulty. The common denominator to all these subtle meanings, is straightness, rectitude. 

Because to the pre-islamic Arabs, their forefather Ibrahim's spiritual way was independant of all belief systems of the time, be it the loathsome distortions of Judaism and Christianity or Idolatry, it was considered as close to man's original upright predisposition as one can be, and thus the word became associated with those seeking to emulate him 3:67,6:161. They were a minority that tried preserving the original monotheism of Ibrahim. They neither wanted to belong to Christianity with its notion of dying god incarnate nor to Judaism and its ethno centered deity.

These hanif remnants and keepers of the way of Ibrahim, like their forefather, severed their ties with their community and kinsfolk whom they found walking an erroneous path

43:26-9"And when Ibrahim said to his father and his people: Surely I am clear of what you worship, Save Him Who created me, for surely He will guide me. And he made it a word to continue in his posterity that they may return.".

These small groups of Meccan men and women detested the use of the Kaaba by the polytheists and kept their practice of religion monotheistic. They affirmed that the Abrahamic legacy had been distorted beyond recognition, whether by the Jews, Christians or Ishmaelites brethren, and these personalities were seeking a return to the pristine religion. The traditions mention their names and how their ways of life would lead them to harassement by the Idol worshipers. They include names like Uthman ibn Huwayrith, Ubaydullah bin Jahsh, Zayd ibn Amr ibn Nawfal Al-Nabighah al Ja'adi etc, as well as Muhammad the orphan whom they all knew and hence couldnt accuse him of change of heart

10:16"I have lived a lifetime among you before it".

Muhammad essentially raised himself, never worshiped the idols, never entertained the idea of doing so in the past 109:1-6. He would retreat away from the pagan environement to contemplate as some of his forefathers did, such as his great grand father the hanif, Hashim ibn Abd al-Manaf. He would remain in such wandering perplexity until his prophetic call came unexpectedly. His firm stance against associating with God and polluting the Kaaba reached its peak then, despite his opponents' demands to compromise his message with their beliefs 68:9. The Hanif rejected the consumption of meat slaughtered in the name of idols as well as other pagan rituals and abominable practices like the burrying of infants alive, which they openly decried. They performed circumcision and rites that were similar to the Israelite rites of the altar sacrifice even before the coming of Muhammad.

Josephus in his Antiquites speaks of the Arabs as Ishmael's descendants, way before the time of Muhammad, almost 500 years, saying they circumcized their children at 13 years old, as was still done in the times of the prophet, to commemorate their forefather Ishmael. 

Uri Rubin (Professor, Tel Aviv University) "The pre-Islamic Abrahamic sacredness of the Kaaba is clearly demonstrated in the belief that Abraham's footprints could be seen on one of its sacred stones. This belief is reflected in the very early verses attributed to Abii Talib in which numerous pre-Islamic places of worship are described in a manner which is totally independent of the phraseology of later Islamic sources. The verse referring to Abraham's' footprints reads "wa-mawtii Ibrahima fi l-sakhri ratbatun 'ala qadamayhi hafiyan ghayra na'ili/By Abraham's footprint in the rock still fresh / with both feet bare, without sandals". Later on, Muslim tradition applied to the stone bearing Abraham's footprints the Quranic epithet "Maqam lbrahim". Even the view that the haram, i.e., the sacred territory of Mecca, was founded by Abraham may be regarded as pre-Islamic in origin. Muhammad b. Habib (d. 245H/859), has recorded in his Munammaq a remarkable report saying that Quraysh once asked Thaqif to become their partners in the Meccan haram, in return for equal partnership of Quraysh in the territory of Wajj which was owned by Thaqif. Thaqif refused saying: "How can you be partners in a land in which our father settled, and dug it out of the rocks with his bare hands, without iron tools. And you have not founded the haram by yourselves. It was Abraham who founded it". In other words, Thaqif maintained that Quraysh had no right to make transactions with the Meccan land due to its Abrahamic sacredness. Later on, Muhammad established the haram of Medina on the model of the Abrahamic haram of Mecca".

There is a reason why virtually every non-Muslim writer that witnessed the rise of Islam, from polemicists the likes of John of Damascus that had every reason to refute Muslim claims, to Sebeos in Armenia and beyond, regardless of precise dating and authorship of the works attributed to various Judeo-Christian elite accross the region, almost all of them refer to the Abrahamic ancestry of Muhammad and the Muslims.

In a short Nestorian chronicle, the Khuzistan Chronicle written around 660, in the section concluding the death of Heraclius, the writer says

"the victory of the sons of Ishmael who overpowered and subdued these two strong empires, came from God."

The chronicler further observes

"Regarding the dome of Abraham, we have been unable to discover what it is except that, because the blessed Abraham grew rich in property and wanted to get away from the envy of the Canaanites, he chose to live in the distant and spacious parts of the desert. Since he lived in tents, he built that place for the worship of God and for the offering of sacrifices. It took its present name from what it had been, since the memory of the place was preserved with the generations of their race. Indeed, it was no new thing for the Arabs to worship there, but goes back to antiquity, to their early days, in that they show honour to the father of the head of their people. Hasor, which scripture calls "head of the kingdoms" (Joshua 11:10), belongs to the Arabs, while Medina is named after Midian, Abraham's fourth son by Qetura; it is also called Yathrib. And Dumat Jandal [belongs to them], and the territory of the Hagaraye, which is rich in water, palm trees and fortified buildings. The territory of Hatta, situated by the sea in the vicinity of the islands of Qatar, is rich in the same way; it is also thickly vegetated with various kinds of plants. The region of Mazon also resembles it; it too lies by the sea and comprises an area of more than 100 parasangs. So [belongs to them] too the territory of Yamama, in the middle of the desert, and the territory of Tawf, and the city of Hira, which was the seat of king Mundar, surnamed the "warrior;" he was sixth in the line of the lshmaelite kings".

Even among the polytheist Arabs, remnants of rites commemorating the Abrahamic legacy were maintained. For example, though they used to sacrifice animals on various idol altars at different places, their sacrificing of animals at Mina at the time of the pilgrimage was only in pursuance of the Abrahamic tradition. It was no sacrificing for any particular idols or their idols in general. Neither any idol nor any altar was there at Mina or Arafat. The ritual of sa'i or running between the two hills of Safa and Marwah is among God's signs. Just like foreign idols were brought to Mecca and integrated into the Kaaba, corrupting the Abrahamic legacy, some idols were placed on these hills. We read in the history books what caused this innovation. When 2 lovers named Assaf and Naila hid inside the Kaaba to be intimate, Allah turned them to stone statues. Associating this with a miracle, the Quraysh placed them each on one of the 2 hills, and as the generations passed, took them for deities. The association of the site with paganism repulsed some early Muslims, but God told them plainly not to worry, for the Safa and Marwa are among His signs, regardless of how the sinful generations mishandled them

2:158-9"Surely the Safa and the Marwa are among the signs appointed by Allah...Surely those who conceal the clear proofs and the guidance that We revealed after We made it clear in the Book for men, these it is whom Allah shall curse, and those who curse shall curse them (too)".

The re-institution of this location as a monotheistic pilgrimage site comes in the context of patience in adversity and trust in Allah, just as Hagar was as she frantically searched for help, running back and forth between these 2 hills, when she was settled in the location by Abraham, together with her infant child Ismail.

It is important noting, the Quran itself, throughout the verses laying out the hajj rituals 2:196,5:95-6,22:26-37etc doesnt link these rituals to Ibrahim, although it gives credit to Ibrahim for having initiated worship at the site and instaured the pilgrimage. 

This was part of the Quran's denationalization test of the Kaaba, placing it above any national pride, making its primary purpose to be a location where the one God is praised by all of humanity indiscriminately. These rituals should be done in God's name only. Every capable Muslim is bound to perform them at some point 3:97 with an upright state of mind before and during the journey 2:197.

Pre-Islamic oral tradition has preserved names of the non-polytheistic remnants in their midst, some of them already mentionned above. The Quran cites some of them, Luqman, as an example of wisdom, righteousness and gratefulness to the One God 31:12-13. This pure way of the hanif, the hanifiyya, Abraham's way, was something that none could contend with, whether Jew, Christian and even the Arab polytheists who knew him, his history and never denied that his "Way" was the Right Way. None denied he founded the Kaaba which he dedicated to Allah alone. That is why the pagans would simply argue that their idols did not supplant Allah, rather were merely intercessors 43:9,87,29:63,10:31,17:67,31:25. The complacency they felt as time went on made them believe that had they been doing anything wrong in their worship of Allah, then Allah himself would have already chastised them for it 16:35,6:148. 

The Quran therefore would repeat Abraham's life story while laying great stress on his antagonism to polytheism, as well as him not being part of any later group that claimed spiritual closeness to him, like the Jews and Christians. This was an admonishment, on one hand to the Arabs and the Quraish in particular. They regarded themselves as his spiritual and physical descendants. The people of the book and more particularily the Jews, thought the same and are told that Abraham instead was a pure submitter (lit. hanif muslim) as demonstrated throughout his upright life and unconditional submission to God

3:67"Ibrahim was not a Jew nor a Christian but he was a hanif, a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists".

In such background, the Quran would interpel Ismail's descendants and kept asking them to bring proof for their innovations 35:40-1, kept reminding them again and again about the One, supreme, all powerful Creator they readily professed belief in, yet placed interceding idols next to Him.

In the pre-Islamic poems of the likes of Jiran al-'Awd or Umayyah ibn Abi as-Salt, the hanifiya, "the way of Ibrahim" as he said, is mentioned by name and Ibn Ishaq quotes it in connection with the Yemenite ruler Abraha's attack on the Kaaba. Sirmah ibn Anas of the Banu Adyy ibn Al Najjar was another hanif, per the work of Isabah, that renounced idolatry and became a hanif and that he worshipped only the God of Abraham.