Islam Critiqued needs names; hanifs in the time of Muhammad?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

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. 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. There is a peculiar feature of those Ishmaelites of the Hijaz in that one finds rare occasions of them testifying to their ancestry. Instead it is the non-Muslim writers of the early days of Islam that emphatically do so. This is because these Ishmaelites, contrary to most people of the region and beyond, lived in insularity, rarely in conflict with their neighbors. They did not need to affirm their identity and territorial borders, nor boast of the greatness of their armies and battles they would have fought against invaders. The objections and calumnies of Islam's enemies among the Arabs -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.

Islam Critiqued stuck with a problem; Abrahamic practices in Mecca?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

Even among the polytheist Arabs, like with the hanif previously mentionned, 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. The practice of tawaf at the Kaaba, the circlings/circumambulations symbolizes the notion that all human endeavours ought to have the idea of God and His oneness for their centre.

Although the Quran itself does not require a specific number of circumambulations 2:125,22:26 the prophet used to circle the Kaaba 7 times and sometimes more. There is nothing special about the number seven in Islamic rituals and it doesnt even appear in the daily religious practices. It is only if one focuses on a certain number(s) that erroneous conclusions are drawn. The prophet repeated, and asked people to repeat certain things a variety of times, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or even 20, all depending on appropriateness, common sense, educational or preaching purposes, or cultural understanding of his time.

The number seven entails a vast quantity in classical Arabic. This could have been the reason the prophet told his followers to repeat certain hajj rituals 7 times. With this notion in mind, the appropriateness of that number to certain hajj rituals becomes clear. Circling 7 times means that every possible thought and deed should have God at its center. Stoning the devil 7 times implies his casting away from every possible thought and deed. That is also why we refer to him in every day speak as well as in religious contexts, as 

"al shaytan alrajim/the pelted devil".

HE is pelted in thoughts and deeds through one's obedience to Allah. Pelting the stone walls during pilgrimage symbolizes this obedience to God, in contrast to disdain for the devil. With every stone that is disdainfully thrown, in contrast, a remembrance of Allah's greatness is uttered. The traditions speak of the devil appearing to Abraham as he was on his way to execute God's vision in regards to Ismail. Jibril instructed him to pelt the devil, who retreated then reappeared 3 times in total and every time Ibrahim listened to God's command to stone him. The pilgrims follow this example of Ibrahim, symbolizing their casting away of the devil by pelting 3 stone walls. Running 7 times between safa and marwa symbolizes trust in God despite the hardships of life, just as Hagar demonstrated in that same place, again, with the number 7 implying intensity of the trials of life, just as Hagar went through a difficult trial there.

As regards this number 7, what transpires from the HB Bible is that it is YHWH himself who attaches particular importance to that number, which was by the way, his day of rest following the difficult task of creating the world. In Josh6:1-8 prior to helping the Israelites with a miracle, YHWH insists that several deeds should be done 7 times precisely.

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.

Islam Critiqued finds Abraham's successors; the hanif remnants?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

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".

Islam Critiqued seeks footprints in the sand; Abraham passes by the Kaaba?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

One interesting historical narration is that, per Ibn Kathir, the horns of the ram sacrificed in substitution of Ismail were religiously preserved in the Kaaba and handed down from generation to generation, upto the times of Abdullah bin Zubair. When Hajjaj besieged the Kaaba in 692, and destroyed part of it, the horns too were destroyed (as a quick side note, inscriptions dated to 78AH attesting to the reconstruction and remodelling of the Kaaba have recently been found, thus providing an independent documentary verification of the event). Ibn Abbas and Sheibi both had seen the horns. Another narration attests to the pre-islamic Abrahamic connection and how falsehood was mingled with truth 

"When Allah's Messenger came to Mecca, he refused to enter the Ka`ba with idols in it. He ordered (idols to be taken out). So they were taken out. The people took out the pictures of Abraham and Ishmael holding Azlams in their hands. Allah's Messenger said, "May Allah curse these people. By Allah, both Abraham and Ishmael never did the game of chance with Azlams." Then he entered the Ka`ba and said Takbir at its corners but did not offer the prayer in it".

Abdul Muttalib, during the siege of Mecca by the Yemenite ruler Abraha, recited a prayer which clearly acknowledges that they recognized the House as belonging to Allah alone:

"O Lord/Allah! A man protects his family, so protect Your people. Let not their cross and their strength overpower You. If You want to leave our Qibla at their mercy, then do as You please".

Another major relic from the time of Ibrahim is none other than the 'black stone'. It is fixed on one of the pillars/arkan of the edifice. It is one of the original stones Abraham used to build the Kaaba, as he built other altars and places of worship to God throughout his journeys Gen12:6-8,13:4,18. That Abrahamic practice we are told in the HB, was left to his posterity that similarly built places of worship symbolized by stones erected as pillars Gen28:10,18-22.

Islam Critiqued denies Biblical prophecies; no trace of the Ishmaelite nation?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

When in the Torah, God promises -several times over- to turn Ishmael's progeny into a great nation, and a "great nation” in biblical terminology can never be a nation of idolaters, who among the descendants of Ishmael succeeded in fulfilling this promise? Where is the great nation promised to Ishmael, whose numbers would be as vast as the stars in the sky? Where is that great Ishmaelite nation that rose and then vanished without anyone ever knowing about it? The obvious isnt missed by many rabbis in their comentaries of the verse, as they see the rise of Islam as the fulfillement of the promise.

And that is one of the most outstanding manner in which one can verify the truthfulness of God's words, despite their successive destructions and scattering that almost took the Bani Israel to the brink of racial extinction, they have nevertheless remained and regenerated because they are linked with God by a covenant and so is the case of Bani Ismail, despite having almost entirely, besides the scattered hanif remnants, plunged into a state of spiritual ignorance (jahiliya) for thousands of years, nevertheless maintained their ancestral identity.

 In Gen15 Abraham's progeny is promised to dwell between the Nile and the Euphrates and in Gen37:25-28 we read of

"Midianite traders passed by; so the brothers pulled Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmailites for twenty shekels of silver. And they took Joseph to Egypt". 

The progeny of Ismail settled in the area from Havilah (beginning from around Yemen all the way to the north of the Arabian Peninsula, among the possible extent of the territory according to Biblical scholars) unto Shur (near gulf of Aqabah at the north east end of Red sea) Gen21:21,25:9-18, which essentially is the Hijaz where the descendants of Ismail have always identified themselves in, whether in ancient history or today. In the early 7th century Syriac Chronica Minora, the author remarks that there is nothing unusual for the Arabs to worship at the  "qubta" of Abraham since they have been doing so since ancient times in hommage to their forefather. In the words of the Jewish historian Josephus who wrote in the 1st century, after speaking of the Arabians of his time as practicing male circumcision at 13 in commemoration of their forefathers Ismail and Ibrahim

"When the lad was grown up, he married a wife, by birth an Egyptian: from whence the mother was her self derived originally. Of this wife were born to Ishmael twelve sons: Nabaioth, Kedar, Abdeel, Mabsam, Idumas, Masmaos, Massaos, Chodad, Theman, Jetur, Naphesus, Kadmas. These inhabited all the country from Euphrates, to the Red Sea: and called it Nabatene. They are an Arabian nation, and name their tribes from these: both because of their own virtue, and because of the dignity of Abraham their father".

This Nabatene country extends on a much larger area than the later northern Nabateans. It goes from the Euphrates to the Red Sea. Further, it is known that the later northern Nabateans with Petra as their capital originated from further south within the Arabian Peninsula. This makes the Nabateans in fact Arabs and it is only an arbitrary designation that created this distinction. Nabateans and the Hijazi tribes shared the same deities and the script used by early Quran scribes closely resembled that of the Nabateans.

Islam Critiqued is restless; Muhammad connects Mecca to Abraham?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

When in the Torah, Ibrahim prayed that Ismail might live "before the Lord", he was asking God that his firstborn and only son at the time be dedicated to His service at the altar. Anyone familiar with that terminology knows that throughout the Hebrew Bible, it applies to dedication to God, besides its use for the offerings made to God. Accordingly, Ibrahim settled his only son in a place where he would live "before the Lord" and worship Him 2:127, right besides the altar of sacrifice. Ibrahim prayed God that this Holy Shrine remain a purified sanctuary for the righteous pilgrims 2:125, that this unforgiving location be turned to a hospitable place for those seeking it 2:126,14:37,28:57 that he and his descendants remain free from worshiping idols

14:36"surely they have led many men astray; then whoever follows me, he is surely of me, and whoever disobeys me, Thou surely art Forgiving, Merciful".

Ibrahim asked that his descendants keep up prayer and be protected until the Day of Resurrection 14:40.

Judeo-Christian apologists often wonder as to the distances involved in Abraham having to travel between Beersheba where he had settled his family through Sarah and Mecca, where the Muslim tradition states he had settled his family through Hagar. From the beginning as he set himself out of his native area, Ibrahim travelled distances surpassing the Beerseba-Mecca distance, which is an approximate 10 days journey.. It was nothing out of the ordinary for frequent travelers, nomads, or traders to undergo 20 or 30 days journeys even in harsh terrains, so why would it be the case for an obedient servant of God whom Judeo-Christian tradition itself admits he was so submissive in his obedience that he set out to sacrifice his son to God. Neither did he hesitate to leave everything behind his native Ur in Chaldea, for a far away and unspecified location, in obedience to God Gen11.
His travels, they happened by foot, donkey's back, and he made many stops along the way, pitching his tent, building worship sites and altars, a practice that continued among his descendants. He used a donkey as he went to prepare the sacrifice of "the only son" Gen22. It is also to be noted that to the ancient, town-dwelling Hebrews the term "wilderness of Beersheba" comprised all the desert regions south of Palestine, including the Hijaz.

Islam Critiqued is sceptical of his own tradition; the seven sleepers in the Quran?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

This is a is a highly revered and respected Christian tradition known, among other titles as the seven youths of Ephesis. The miraculous events are believed to have started under the reign of the Roman emperor Decius that persecuted the belief systems contrary to the Greek state religion. The earliest manuscripts relating the story are Greek but the tradition itself predates these Greek writings, and was widespread geographically very early on after the actual events. Its appearance in the golden legends with added embellishments and modifications, intermingling reality and fiction, occured hundreds of years after other texts made references to it, including the lost original in Greek.

The golden legend version of the story is irrelevant in establishing the historicity of the original. The golden legends stories are inspired by ancient traditions drawn from multiple sources, including the New Testament, some having undergone more or less modifications. None of those rewrites claim to be the true version of the common events of the cave. Only the Quran claims, in its introduction to the story, to have the authentic and original version, in addition divinely inspired.

To validate the claim of the Quran borrowing a false story and passing it off as true, the critic must show what the original source of the story was, from which all later texts and traditions outside of the Quran find inspiration. Until that is achieved, it remains a case of one word against another. And no single Syriac text we have today includes every aspect of the legend as it circulated orally in the time of the Quran, or as the Quran evokes it. 

And once more, similarities doesnt entail borrowing. One first has to establish that the supposed (illiterate) author of the Quran had access to the similarities. One then has to explain how he cherry picked among a long list of books and traditions, besides other philosophies and thought systems, to form a well knit, flawlessly intricate narrative in its literary form that left the masters of eloquence of the time dumbfounded, as well as depth of contents that has not finished unravelling its subtleties. 

Why wasnt the source ever exposed nor came out to denounce him, leaving him reap the fruits of their labor. How wasnt this source detected given the largely exposed lifestyle of the time, the open circumstances in which the prophet lived and received revelation, as well as many other factors, not the least being that the Quran never claims to be relating something unknown in that particular narrative, repeatedly says it is a revelation in a long tradition of revelations. 

This means the superficial similarities might be remnants of revealed truths that eventually found their way into these apocrypha. In those writings from which the Quran supposedly draws, one can many times see how the superficial similarities are poorly weaved into the fabric of the story. The apocryphal writer, or his source, was aware of certain elements of the story but poorly integrated them in the whole account.

This is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin (Guardian), when talking about the textual and oral traditions contemporaries to it. It points out major mistakes in them, filters the Truth from falsehood 

21:24"this is the reminder of those with me and the reminder of those before me". 

The Quran confirming the past scriptures, as well as any tradition, oral or written, in which divine truths still remain 2:41, means that the principles taught by Muhammad come from a common source, which Muslims believe is the Source of creation, and can be found throughout these textual and oral traditions. This is pointed to in the common phrase "musaddiqan lima bayna yadahi". With the passage of time these traditions were burdened with additions, suffered from corruption and/or neglectful transmission. The Quran then acts as a criterion that distinguishes truth from falsehood. 

Therefore, and for argument's sake, to Muslims, it is irrelevant whether a story bearing similarities with a Quranic passage was even in circulation during and before Islam. It is even less relevant to Muslims whether the similarities were canonized in the Bible or not. By what standard is the current Bible canon more reliable than the apocrypha? And what proof is there that the unknown Bible compilers rejected these traditions based on these points common to the Quran? Does the current Bible canon even claim to relate every single aspect of the life of its Biblical characters? Is it quiet possible that during the tumultuous process of transmission of the Bible, more particularly the HB which was lost at least twice as recorded in the Bible itself, some parts of the overall transmitted traditions were retained by the editors charged with reconstituting the lost text, and who reflected their own socio-cultural background in the process? Could they have been Selecting what was appropriate for their storytelling purposes and what was not? Of course from a secular viewpoint, the Quran, as a later text, is irrelevant in determining the authenticity, original versions or actual beliefs of those who originated or penned the previous oral and written traditions, canonized or not. But then so is the NT irrelevant in determining those matters from the HB, just as within the HB itself parts are far removed in time and space from other parts, making certain books insignificant when exploring these matters from earlier or later books. However, as soon as one introduces the divine into the equation, then all groups Jews-Christians-Muslims are equal in their claims as regards the authority of one scripture over another. The only factor from a non-secular view point enhancing one claim over another, would be the group with the most authentic, contradiction-free scripture.

In today's mainstream academia, no Islamicist asserts the Quran was influenced by the textual and oral traditions of its milieu, let alone copies from them. Simply because there is no possibility to know whether the human mind who supposedly authored the text had access to those traditions or understood them. What academics do at most, is present what they see as similarities, without disregarding or minimizing the vast differences. On the other side of the spectrum are Judeo-Christian religious zealots and apologists whose methodology and ideas are vastly inherited from their medieval peers' polemical writings. In order to enforce their untenable, unproven claims of borrowing, they retrospectively cherry pick convenient snippets from within larger stories that have very little to do with the corresponding Quranic passages. Then, not only do they disregard the significant differences loaded with theological meanings, but go on magnifying the tiniest similarities to the maximum so as to serve their paradigm. In the process, they inadvertently attribute to Muhammad an encyclopediac knowledge of texts and traditions, as well as an army of unseen informants from a variety of backgrounds and cultures following him around. This weak methodology can be applied to any thought system so as to build up a case for plagiarism. 

The Judeo-christian scriptures themselves relate, through the successive prophets and inspired personalities, different stories that were known to the addressees. This doesnt mean their statements were inspired by these traditions floating around. Rather, the common truths found between these traditions, and the statements of the prophets come from God. There is a myriad of similarities between the HB and stories, texts, inscriptions, including the Ugaritic mention of Adam and Eve, the Mesopotamian myth of Gilgamesh where he is cheated of immortality by a snake who eats a plant (had Gilgamesh eaten it, it would have made him immortal. The elements are the same but play out differently). There were other such myths circulating in Babylon where the Israelites spent a long time in exile, of a hero tricked out of immortality through the device of a plant/food. One could extend the parallelism with the laws of Hammurabi, or the global flood, among many examples, all predating Moses' supposed writing of the Torah. Some of these similarities might be due, as in the Quran, to being remnants of ancient truths partially preserved by these different cultures. 

But other biblical parallels with predating writings and traditions obviously are copies of unsophisticated legends floating in the region. The oldest and original account of creation in the Bible isnt found in Genesis but in Isaiah, Job or the Psalms. God in these crude stories divides the seas and fights off aquatic monsters. The same is found in the Ugaritic tablets and in a language very similar to Hebrew, with the myth that creation began when the storm god Baal vanquishing the god of the sea Yam and his sea monster-serpent-dragon helpers. Isa27:1 has a very close wording to what a Canaanite says about Baal 

"When you killed Litan, the fleeing serpent, annihilated the twisty serpent, the potentate with seven heads". 

One shouldnt forget that the canonization of the Bible was a long and controversial process, influenced by men with doctrinal bias, and that the current Biblical text is far from being a valid criterion of what truly constitutes divine knowledge from purely human invention.

The Quran says regarding these courageous youths of Ephesis, that they openly refused worshiping false gods, even publicly denounced the pagan practices of their people 18:14-15. This attracted great hostility against them to the point their lives were threatened 18:19-20. Allah then guided and inspired them to seek a specific cave in which to hide 18:10-11,16. It must have been a hidden location, in an unexplored area, because its entrance remained unobstructed, the rays of the sun could still go in 18:17. There, they sought their Lord in prayer, to direct them to a favorable outcome 18:10. 

This is where the miraculous events begin, with God preserving their bodies by causing them to fall into a sleep that lasted several centuries 18:11-12. God Himself raised them up at the moment He saw fit 18:12,19. When they were awaken, they had no idea how long they had tarried, thinking they had just spent a few hours or at most a day. They were hesitant to go back to their town but had no choice, they needed to find some food. So one of them was cautiously sent with money 18:19. Once he payed with his ancient silver coin his identity was betrayed.

By that time, their disappearance had turned into a legend, various stories circulated about them. People were even conjecturing about them down in the times the Quran was revealed 18:22. But now they had nothing to fear as the pagan population was supplanted by a religion that saw them as saints, worthy of having a commemorative edifice built on their cave 18:21. It is interesting to note that the youths apparently wanted to remain secluded, even while the threat to their lives was gone and people acclaimed them as heroes. This reveals that they might not have fully agreed with the religion of the townsfolk although it clearly wasnt paganism anymore, as seen with the people's calling upon the one God 18:21. The townsfolk finally settled upon building a place of prostration, a masjid on top of their cave 18:21. 

This miracle, the preservation of these youths for centuries, served the purpose of settling the dispute people were having at the time concerning the concept of bodily resurrection 18:21.

In Christian tradition, after their death they were raised to sainthood and the power of intercession was attributed to them. The Jacobites Christians of Najran celebrated them yearly, with some church paintings representing them with a dog. Up to this day, the Orthodox Church commemorates them twice yearly.

Their historicity was never officially doubted until the 16th century that saw the rise of Protestantism and the period of Enlightenment. The first to voice doubts regarding it was actually a Renaissance scholar and cardinal, named Baronius, branding it as apocryphal. He was representing the thought process of his own time, which was all about discrediting anything medieval to raise the church's credibility to a highly sceptical, cartesian audience. And he did not discredit the story based on evidence, nobody can prove or disprove oral tradition when the source is unknown and when that tradition is believed for centuries as true. He rather labelled it an "improbability".

Again, it is the embellished version as found in the golden legends compilation that was subject to criticism and not the core story which can never be disproven. In a series of concessions to his cartesian audience, the cardinal selected that story among others because it isnt of primary importance to Christian tenets. Even though what one can find as "probable" and accepted within the NT, such as the resurrection story, is no more credible in terms of historicity and internal evidence, than the discarded story of the seven sleepers. But of course, this part of the Christian fable cannot be as easily dismissed since, according to Paul

"If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins".

Where the Quranic account departs from Christian tradition is regarding the theological derivations and some factual details. The Quran denies the intercession powers attributed to them, through their declaration of God's supreme power and unity. The Quran also teaches through them the universal principle that in some cases, unnecessary attention given to side issues deviates the focus from the deeper meaning of things and more important, pressing and immediate problems; for example when raised, some among them began guessing and disputing the time-span of their sleep, while others knew for a fact that only God possesses this knowledge. They relied on Him and began instead organizing the manner in which their immediate needs and problems should be solved. Similarly, as the townfolk discovered the truth some began going after the unnecessary details of the sleepers' identity, the various facts surrounding them, the length of time they spent in the cave instead of acknowledging God's all encompassing knowledge and pondering on the deeper significance of the miracle

18:26"Say: Allah knows best how long they remained; to Him are (known) the unseen things of the heavens and the earth; how clear His sight and how clear His hearing! There is none to be a guardian for them besides Him, and He does not make any one His associate in His Judgment".

The Quran also very appropriately hints at the overall confusion among later people as to the timespan of their sleep and other details. The Quran settles these disputes.
Among all saints of Christianity, had they not been mentioned, none would have known them in Islam, but God rehabilitated them as heroes of spiritual integrity, insisting and puting great emphasis that

18:13"We relate to you their story bil haqq/with truth/purpose/rightfully". 

The word covers that God takes back all rights to telling their story. It isnt the prerogative of the Christians and their false conjectures anymore. And by rehabilitating their truth, the Quran restores the purpose of God's miracle through them and how they benefited themselves from it

18:21"And thus did We make (men) to get knowledge of them that they might know that Allah's promise is true and that as for the hour there is no doubt about it".

Islam Critiqued is no book thief; Dhul Qarnayn was borrowed?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

The Alexander Romances, although often believed by critics of Islam as being the source of the Quranic Dhul Qarnayn, has an unclear date of composition, spanning between the 4th and 16th centuries. That is why it is legitimate to speculate that the borrowing charge against the Quran has less ground to stand on than the reverse, with the various authors of the romances actually inspiring themselves throughout time by the Quran and its comentaries.

The Alexander Romances is thought to be based on the lost Greek writing called Pseudo Callisthenes whose closest copy is a 5th century Armenian translation. What is of concern to Islam critics are the shallow and far fetched similarities between the Quran and the Syriac translation, of which no manuscript exists prior to the 18th century, and in which by the way Alexander is never given the title "two horned".

As to the 14th-16th century Ethiopic translation in which he is called "two horned", besides being irrelevant in trying to establish the title by which Alexander was known around the time of the revelation of the sura in 620, it is important noting that this work contains the authors' interpretative opinion and is based on earlier Arabic translations.

But back to the Syriac translation which is of main interest to the accusers.

Although originally believed to have been finalized towards the mid 7th century CE, this Syriac legend of Alexander ends with a passage about the gates built by Alexander and stresses parallels between him and Heraclius, the Byzantine Emperor. More importantly this same passage retrospectively "prophecizes" the invasion of the Huns in 515 CE and the coming of Heraclius in 629 CE, leading scholars to assume the passage is a later addition, written as a Byzantine propaganda shortly before the Muslim conquest of Syria around 634CE. It additionally speaks of an independent and major Arab Kingdom which can only be equated with the early Caliphate. In that conquest the Persians are contrasted with the Sassanids, and the Greeks with the Romans. This pushes the finalization of the passage to post date the revelation of sura Kahf pre-620CE. (as a side note even if one would be to assume the sura is Medinan then the onus is on him to prove it post dates the finalization of the Syriac romance).

Similarily and towards the late 7th century, a Syriac Christian adaption of the Alexander romance, called the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, was written as a response to the Muslim invasions equating Gog and Magog with the Muslims. Other factors have led scholars to push the final composition of the passage further to between the 8th and 15th century, as it was clearly reshaped as a means by which the author sought to console, through parallelisms, the Christians who had lost Constantinople to the Ottomans.

In short besides the Armenian translation which was itself reedited in the 13th century, all other versions have their earliest manuscripts post dating the Quran by centuries. This means that all these texts were written in an Islamic environment, including the Armenian translation, which could have affected the later development of the Alexander Romances.

Now although late manuscripts themselves arent problematic, they become so when one attempts establishing a borrowing claim from text to text. Besides the proven additions, it is impossible to determine what the Syriac text looked like towards its earliest potential time of inception, in 629CE. Even if one takes this earliest estimate, it still leaves the Syriac author with long enough time to be exposed to the Quranic Dhul Qarnayn, again revealed pre-620, orally or textually, integrating the Quranic elements so as to fit and embelish the Christian agenda as was done a few decades later in Pseudo-Methodius.

Even Josephus and Jerome's respective works with short passages alluding to a wall built by Alexander are known evolving texts and their earliest manuscripts post date the Quran by hundreds of years, and were both finalized when Pseudo-Methodius had gained sweeping influence accross europe. Finally, there exists zero proof that the similarities between the romances and Dhul Qarnayn were in oral circulation all over the middle East and Europe prior to the revelation of sura kahf circa 620CE while plenty evidence exists pointing to the finalization of all available versions of the romances, more particularily the passages with Quranic similarities, after the revelation of the sura and the spread of Islam.

Even if for argument's sake these traditions were in circulation, then it would still do nothing to undermine the Quran's authenticity. All these sources draw on earlier lost sources, as shown earlier, with the life stories of Cyrus the Great being the main inspiration. This puts these shallow critics in a lonely corner yet again, similarity between any of those alleged Quranic sources does not prove plagiarism. The common denominator between all of these sources, including the Quran, is the truth.
Now the manner in which that common truth found its way in the Quran is a matter of faith. To Muslims, it is divine revelation, and the opponents have nothing to disprove it.

There are many other Quranic stories besides that of Dhul Qarnayn, which are true and that are found in previous traditions. The same is the case with the Biblical text. The Quran doesnt shy away from that reality and in fact embraces it, being the muhaymin/guardian of the truth that is still found scattered among previous scriptures and traditions.