Apostate prophet looks with suspicion; the prophet couldnt take verbal attacks?

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

On the issue of criticism, Islam is realistic and pragmatic. One can only engage in a discussion when the opposite side wants to conduct a constructive dialogue. There are several ways it gives to identify the sincere critic. 

When the critic's aim is to objectively assess the Islamic arguments, carefully listen and evaluate the Islamic position, instead of shutting his ears or pretending to listen while preparing his counter arguments, telling others to do the same, raising irrelevant objections just for the sake of discrediting, without any solid basis for argument, isolating a word or a sentence from its context, hairsplitting it so as to make it a basis of doubts and accusations, misconstruing words so as to prevent them being properly understood 4:46,40:4-5,56,41:40 then a meaningful discussion can be engaged

16:125"with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner".

The prophet's own life and ability to take on criticism is testimony to this. As well, Muslims can freely mingle with kindness and justice with any non-muslims who do not seek to fight Islam, do not opress Muslims unjustly 60:8-9.

Bukhari for example reports an incident where the prophet was disrespected in front of a large gathering. A companion felt so offended that he requested to kill the culprit. The prophet refused, just as he rejected the Muslims' desire to mutilate a captured Quraysh leader following the battle of Badr, Suhayl b. Amr, by uprooting his front teeth

“so that he could never preach against the Messenger”.

Compare this as a side note, to David's unwarranted mutilation of the Phillistines, among a long list of crimes and sins for which he never was reprimanded since in God's eyes only his adulterous behavior was considered sinful 1Kings15:5. The prophet similarily did not allow his followers to assassinate a man that had spoken in favor of uprooting the Muslim leadership shortly after the defeat of Uhud. On another occasion in Medina, Ibn Salool a known hypocrite constantly working to undermine the prophet's authority, rudely cut the prophet as he was preaching to an audience

“Stay in your home. If someone would like to hear your message, they will come to you.”

In another narration,

“Now leave, the smell of your donkey bothers us.”

The Muslims became irate upon hearing these insults, but the Prophet forbade them from retaliating. When he received Urwa b. Mas‘ud as he was still a pagan an representing the enemy side, during the negotiations for a peace treaty, he was physically and verbally abusive but despite the companions threatening him with their weapons, and the fact that some time ago Urwa's tribe, of whom he was the chief, assaulted the prophet, he honored this ambassador’s stay and hosted him for as long as he stayed. There are many other such incidents, like his eloquent answer to a group of Jews' playing on words and saluting him, inside his home, with

"As-Sâmu ‘alayk (Death be upon you)”.

The prophet was at that point in a position of authority in Medina, meaning that just as in our days where verbally assaulting authority figures makes one liable to prosecution, he would surely have been justified in exercizing his judicial authority. He instead answered

“And upon you”.

When Aisha felt compelled to add,

“Death be upon you, along with the curse of Allah and His wrath!”

The prophet admonished her against being vulgar and instead answer this kind of talk gently. It is this same gentleness that made a leading Jewish figure convert. Zayd b. Su‘na was astonished at the prophet's response to his public disrespect, under the false pretext that he had failed paying his debt as agreed. Not only did the prophet hold back his companions from doing any harm to Zayd but added

"O ‘Umar, we do not need this…Go with him, pay off his loan, and give him twenty additional sâ‘ (32 kg) of dates because you frightened him.”

It was that response that convinced Zayd b. Su‘na to embrace Islam. That incident is similar to when a Bedouin to whom the prophet owed a camel was repaid with a better one although he demanded it in an uncivil manner that vexed the Companions. They were again, as in the previous examples about to hurt him before the prophet prevented them. That attitude extended to occasions when even his family members were slandered, such as when a Muslim believed and spread the false rumours of adultery on Aisha's part. Not only did the Prophet ultimately forgive this man who had slandered his wife, but he even admonished Abu Bakr, Aisha's father from boycotting this man, especially since he was related to Abu Bakr and used to receive charity from him. More astounding is the pardoning of Habbar ibn Al-Aswad who had once caused his daughter Zaynab to fall from her ride as he was pursuing her, inflicted her with injuries that eventually led to her death several years later. All such instances are in conformity with God's injunction to

41:34"repel evil with what is best"

so that eventually one who is viewed as an enemy might become

"as though he was a devoted friend".

Besides his reported prayers even for Abu Jahl's sake at a time when he was among his staunchest opponent, his supplications for Abu Huraira's pagan mother who used to insult the prophet even when the prophet had full power in Medina, on one occasion, the Prophet silently smiled when Abu Bakr refrained from responding to a rude and insulting person. But when Abu Bakr eventually spoke up, the Prophet became angry and left, later telling him that

“An angel was with you, responding on your behalf. But when you said back to him some of what he said, a devil arrived, and it is not for me to sit with devils".

Even when he permitted the killing of Thumama b. Uthal, the chief of Banu Haneefa who had assassinated a number of the Prophet’s Companions, and had even plotted to kill the Prophet himself, yet when he was captured, not only was he given to drink from the prophet's own she-camel but after repeated invitation to Islam and repeated rejection, was eventually set free. He returned to the prophet's mosque and eventually converted, impressed like many others by the prophet and Islam's high morality. He knew he deserved the death penalty, as seen from his own answer

"If you do me a favour, you will do a favour to a grateful person. If you kill me, you will kill a person who has spilt blood. If you want wealth ask and you will get what you will demand"

yet the prophet neither was vengeful, nor wanted favors and much less money from him, despite his influential tribal position. Upon his arrival to Mecca and after an enthusiastic declaration of faith, in his zeal he implicitly answered a questioner that he had always been a Muslim

"When he reached Mecca, somebody said to him: Have you changed your religion? He said: No! I have rather embraced Islam with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)".

The prophet had to temper Thumama's overzealousness later on; when he returned to his tribe and the most influential among the people of Yamama converted after hearing his story. Thumama convinced them to halt all grain supply to the Quraysh. Such a sanction would have been highly effective in draining the Quraysh, but the noble prophet interceded on behalf of those very ones that had starved him and his early companions in a ravine, persuading the people of Yamama to resume trading with Quraysh, preferring to take the harder but nobler route to victory than the faster one at any cost

"The Messenger of Allah (Sallalahu Alayhi Was-Sallam) did not have to choose between two matters, but that he chose the easier of them as long as it was not a wrong action. If it was a wrong action, he was the furthest of people from it".

There are other similar instances of the prophet catching a person red handed trying to murder him, even while easily having power and right to exact revenge, but instead chose forgiveness. It was the case with Fadala b. ‘Umayr after the conquest of Mecca where he had full dominion over the people. I was also the case before, with the Bedouin man (al-Ghawrath b. al-Harith) that sneaked to him while he was asleep following a military expedition. The prophet woke up while he was about to unsheeth his sword and kill him, but calmly reasonned with him at that point and let him go free.

After unmasking the Jewess Zaynab b. al-Harith that had given him a poisonned lamb to eat, he refused to kill her and even forgave her. On his return by night from the expedition of Tabuk and as he was riding his camel on a route passing above a ravine, a group of camel riders came fast in his direction in an attempt to scare his own camel that he might fall into the ravine. 

The prophet however sensed their intentions and preemptively gestured so as to scare the coming camels and signify to the men that he uncovered their plan. They consequently quickly retreated. Even though the prophet's companions identified the perpetrators, the prophet isntructed them not to denounce them because

"it was possible that they might repent".

Apostate prophet is hypothesizes; Muhammad would have murdered them all if he could!

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

The youtuber asks and struggles, he wants to know what would have the prophet Muhammad done to his opponents if he had full power over them. 

First, the story of the killing of the poetess Asma bint Marwan, although tirelessly picked up and repeated by Islam's critics has no ground to stand on, hence its rejection by the scholars. Here is how this improbable story goes. The killing was supposedly done by night, in her home, by Umayr Ibn Adi who was blind at the time and who in addition was Asma's ex-husband, meaning there could be private personal reasons for her murder. This blind ex-husband was able to go in by night without getting noticed while coming in, killing her and getting out. Besides the unreliable matn/content it is also rejected due to its isnad containing a hadith forger at its source. 

Similarly the alleged killing of some 120year old Jewish man named Abu Afak for his verbal abuse of the prophet, instigating people to war and to kill him personally (al-Zarqani, ibn Kathir), is considered of no basis by hadith scientists. Again, no isnad at all, especially in the particular bit where the prophet allegedly said

"Who would rid me of this pestilent fellow?"

Neither Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, nor Al-Waqidi or ibn Sad have given the isnad for it.

As to the ex-Muslim Ibn Khatal who had killed a Muslim soldier, and his two singing girls, the account of their killing is only found in ibn Ishaq, with a weak transmission chain, and there are highly reliable ahadith on the prophet forbidding the killing of women, children and elderly. He is for instance described as asking for the community's gathering upon hearing of a slave woman's murder. Apparently the death of a slave woman was important enough so that the prophet Muhammad convened the whole community to deliberate on the case. How is justice brought about when a slave dies after some time following a severe beating from his master Ex21:20-1?

"he assembled the people and said: “I adjure by Allaah the man who did this to stand up.” The blind man stood up and came through the people, trembling, and he came and sat before the Prophet".

Notice the perpetrator's nervousness, knowing that such a behavior has always been disapproved by the prophet. In Islamic law, the victim's family is entitled to request either the execution of the criminal or monetary compensation. 

In this case the slave-woman's family were 2 underaged children and the murderer himself. Neither the minors nor their father were in this case eligible to request compensation and neither would the father's execution by the state constitute a fair decision in relation to the children who would then become orphans. In light of these details and others which the hadith doesnt give fully, the prophet ruled that no blood money will be given in that case, the father will be indirectly paying anyway as he is bound to provide for his children (whom he affectionately referred to as his pearls). The hadith is also unspecific on whether or not a penalty was later imposed on the murderer, and neither does it indicate that killing for verbally abusing the prophet is justifiable in all circumstances.

Apostate prophet paparazzi attitude; stalking the prophet to copy his every moves?

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

All his practices and utterances, outside of the Quran, cannot be automatically assumed as divinely inspired, and the Quran itself sometimes disapproves of some of his deeds and words 66:1,80:1-10. 

The same is the case of other prophets, including as eminent as Ibrahim who, despite of being an illustrious example to emulate, immitating him does not include all aspects of his life deeds 60:4. That is why the Quran repeatedly announces obedience to the messenger instead of 'Muhammad', albeit they are the same person. The 'message' remained connected to the 'messenger' and it was in this capacity of the 'messenger' that Muhammad needed to be obeyed. 

The Prophet forbade Muslims to write down anything other than the Quran. And effectively, the traditions weren't compilled until centuries following his death. The reason was that he used to make statements and deal with people in different ways that were the result of particular circumstances, which narrators might believe to be of universal and permanent bearing. From divine knowledge, the prophet Muhammad had only access to what His Lord granted him 6:50,7:203,72:26-7. That knowledge took the form of a divine scripture to

16:64"make clear to them that about which they differ, and (as) a guidance and a mercy for a people who believe".

Muhammad believed

7:158"in Allah and His words (the Quran)"

this is why Allah tells us to

"follow him so that you may be guided".

To follow Muhammad means to follow what was sent to him from signs and/or revelation

7:157"and follow the light which has been sent down with him".

This reflects in the hypothetical scenario of a people not having received a messenger, complaining that had they had one in their midst, then they would have followed God's signs, not necessarily the messenger

28:47,20:134"..O our Lord! Why did You not send to us a messenger so we would have followed YOUR SIGNS (not the messengers) before we were humiliated and disgraced?".

Again with the example of the qiblah, we are told to only follow Muhammad in what Allah has commanded him

2:143"and We did not make the Qiblah that you observed in the past except that We know who follows the messenger from the one who turns back upon his heels".

It is very compelling to read how the Quran says that it is itself the best hadith.

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

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

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

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

The Quran contains such warning because

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

These verses warning to keep the best hadith and discard all frivolous and counterproductive talks, useless and misleading narratives, provide clear evidence that idle tales were even being disseminated at the Prophet's time. If this was then already a problem reaching such levels that the Quran had to correct it, then how much worse did the problem potentially manifest after the prophet's death? It further tells us to investigate thoroughly any information of importance related by an untrustworthy source 49:6. It does not request the outright dismissal of the report based on the unreliability of the source but simply advises utmost caution in the authentication process of the narration itself which doesnt only include reliability of the transmitor but also of the information in light of certain established facts. This opens the way to the possibility that the source might be telling the truth despite its untrustworthiness.

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

Apostate prophet needs reassurance; can a perfect man ask to be protected from sin?

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

This uswa hasana in no way implies that the prophet was a perfect creation. 

For example, after having described their outstanding moral and spiritual qualities, the Quran nevertheless asks the prophets to constantly seek istighfar/protection (from sins), for themselves and their followers too 47:19 and several prophets are quoted throughout the Quran asking for ghafr 30:24,35,71:28. This way the Quran teaches an important lesson; it does not behoove the foremost among his servants, let alone other regular believers that they should harbor a feeling of perfect righteousness or prideful accomplishment in front of God

53:32"therefore do not attribute purity to your souls; He knows him best who guards (against evil)".

The believer should keep in mind that only God is perfection and as a demonstration of his understanding of such concept, should constantly seek God's forgiveness for any shortcoming as well as protection for future potential flaws and blemishes. This concept is pervasive throughout the Quran, starting with the single most repeated sura, sura fatiha. This type of spiritual humility is requested even from those that perform the most commendable deeds of the religion, so that they never fall into arrogance and self-righteousness 73:1-20. It was under this state of mind that the prophet implored his Lord for ghafr in this world, just as he will do in the hereafter 66:8.

 Some reports say he used to implore Allah for protection one hundred times every day, as he was commanded by the Quran itself. 

And he used to do so even after 48:2 was revealed telling him his past, present and future sins are forgiven. He did so out of humility and to set the standard of modesty in face of divine perfection 

"The Prophet used to offer night prayers till his feet became swollen. Somebody said, to him," "Allah has forgiven you, your faults of the past and those to follow." On that, he said, "Shouldn't I be a thankful slave of Allah?" 

No human, no matter how close to Allah in terms of revelational experience, will ever be faultless. This verse 48:2 does not say what type of sin, intentional or not, major or minor, was commited by the prophet. No indication of major sins, let alone intentional, are found concerning the prophet, anywhere in the hadith corpus or the Quran. Yet we find the Quran reproaching him even the slightest unfitting action for a man of his standing, actions which none would find problematic.

This is the etiquette that Islam has taught to man. No matter how selflessly one might have exherted himself to please the Creator, one should never entertain the thought that he has fulfilled the right his Lord had on him wholly, the Sustainer who maintains him and the universe at each instant. Rather he should always think that he has not been able to fulfill what was required of him. This reveals an important point, something the prophets have always been aware of as seen in their constant prayers for forgiveness and protection, the inherent imperfection of humans, their shortcomings in the face of divine perfection. One should therefore never feel self-righteous or self-sufficient in any endeavour. The prophet said 

"All the sons of Adam make mistakes/khatta'in, but the best of those who commit mistakes are those who are given to repentance".

When a prophet of God, the last human capable of willfully sinning, asks for God's mercy not even following a sin, but out of fear of not performing an act of worship to its full extent, then how much more so should the regular believer be conscious of his shortcomings in regards to God?

This is the characteristic of the men of God, who never become complacent and arrogant, whether in their duties towards fellow men or towards God, especially so when they reach the climax of their power and glory and that before that point they were constant and steadfast upon the straight path regardless of their ordeals. Success instead causes them increase in spirituality and far sightedness in their dealings with men and their duties towards God. The prophet, and the Muslims through him, is told to do the following, after seeing the unfolding of the prophecy of entire victory

110:3"Then celebrate the praise of your Lord, and ask His forgiveness; surely He is oft-returning (to mercy)".

In addition to teaching man spiritual humbleness, this also conveys the idea that should one attain some victory, it should not lead to pride and vanity, but to remembrence of God and gratitude, as well as seeking ghafr/covering, protection from sins. Even if the prophecy proved true in the days of Muhammad, and even more so today as Islam is still spreading worldwide, a believer shouldnt be boastful about it as many Muslims usually are when speaking of the spread and success of their religion.

The prophet was therefore certainly not "uswa hasana" in how he ate (with the right hand because the left was used for relieving in cleaning oneself after), slept or saw the nature around him. Anyone is free to imitate his lifestyle and adopt his worldviews as found in extra Quranic writings, if one finds any personal benefits in doing so but that isn't a religious requirement nor relevant to it, and that is explicitly stated in the Quran itself. 

With that in mind, when the prophet made deductions as related in the ahadith, pertaining to his natural environement, general causality and basic observation of certain phenomenon, it is only expected from him that they would fit what the ancients of his time would find "plausible". These views however, right or wrong, no matter how extraordinary they might seem in light of our current knowledge, have no bearing on the Quran itself, which is again, pledged to be fully protected. It would have been interesting to have had written records of how the previous prophets saw the world, as we have with Muhammad, and see who among them held the most "unscientific" personal views. 

Just as Muhammad was uswa hasana, Ibrahim and the believers in his nations are called uswa hasana 60:4-6 and to follow the prophet 3:31 means to follow the revelation sent to him 6:106,33:2. Muhammad and the Muslims are told to follow the way of Ibrahim, this can only be achieved through the Quran which is the reminder of his way 16:123,4:125,3:95. It was indeed the Quran that guided Muhammad to the way of Ibrahim 6:161. The Quran also says to follow the pious, humble believers 31:15 and this again only means to follow them in their obedience to Allah's commands, in their belief in His revelation because

6:116"if you obey most of those in the earth, they will lead you astray from Allah's way; they follow but conjecture and they only lie".

The prophetic sunna is thus the manner in which the prophet applied the timeless ordinances of the Quran in his own time and place. It does not necessarily include his personal likes and dislikes, or particular recommendations which in the vast majority of cases the prophet himself never claimed were inspired. He gently declined eating a roasted lizard out of personal taste, leaving those around him to freely eat as they wished. Certain of his own standards of body hygiene, like trimming the mustache, letting the beard grow, using the toothstick, sniffing water into the nose, clipping the nails, washing the knuckles, removing hair from the underarms, shaving pubic hair, cleaning the private parts with water, rinsing the mouth etc, or the manner he slept, ate or dressed, all reflected the needs, culture and manners of a specific time in history.

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"