Where is the blessed nation of Ishmael?

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

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.

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 commentaries of the verse, as they see the rise of Islam as the fulfillment 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 homage 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.

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 desenchanted; Ibrahim also a perfect human?

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, such as the reported instance where 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 (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), the manner he slept, ate or dressed, all reflecting the needs, culture and manners of a specific time in history.

 A case in point would be the instance where the Prophet allowed an adopted freed slave who had reached puberty to drink his adoptive mother's breast milk, to put the husband at ease. As adoption in Islam doesn't entail blood relationship, this action created a fostership link, making it impossible for them to be married afterwards. This was an exception to the general rule that fostership is only possible prior to 2years old, and was allowed by the prophet to bring peace within this household where the young man had been living for years prior to reaching puberty. Neither he could be turned out, nor was his adoptive mother to have to veil in his presence. The solution was relevant to the Arabian culture of the time.  Furthermore, the situation in which this household found itself, occured while the Quranic restrictions as regards adoption and veiling were being revealed. No cases would thus arise in the future where the permission of the prophet as regards late fostership would apply. Of course, and as understood by the hadith commentators the servant did not touch his mistress or drink from her breast, as it would have defeated the purpose of the act from the start. The hadith doesn't say to drink FROM her breast but her breast MILK.

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, imitating 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 compiled 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 immorality. People should first and foremost think well of one another, abandon the kind of outright suspicion and ill founded inquisitiveness (with harmful objectives).

Islam critiqued searching for the perfect leader; uswa hasana is a faultless prophet?

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

Uswa hasana, as already stated in introduction in the previous article, 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. 

A man might have performed the highest possible service to Allah's Religion, might have offered countless sacrifices in its cause, and might have exerted himself extremely hard in carrying out the rites of His worship, yet he 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.

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.

Can the infaillible prophets make mistakes?

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

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. In that passage from Luke he is asked about the conditions of salvation and the questionner quotes from 2 passages. The first is Lev19 which details certains laws like the observence of the sabbath and admonishes to

"Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the LORD".

The 2nd passage quoted by the questionner is the second is Deut6 which speaks of loving the One God and obeying His commandements

"keep the commands of the LORD your God and the stipulations and decrees he has given you. Do what is right and good in the LORD's sight..obey all this law before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness".

As one can clearly see, one is justified before God, not by faith alone but by deeds too. Consequently the Nazarenes, Jesus' early group of small band of followers, observed all Jewish customs outlined in the Torah but differed from Jews in that they recognized Jesus as the Messiah. The Nazarenes grew among the Israelites but persecutions forced them to go into hiding, with Paul playing a central role in their persecution prior to his convertion. After he joined their ranks, he started influencing the group leaders, namely Peter and James, to reach out to Gentiles. With more non-Jews entering the fold, many Jewish customs were abandonned Acts15:1-29 and the Nazarenes who were centered in Jerusalem gradually became isolated. The main Christian movement started looking up to Paul for leadership, instead of Jesus' brother James, a strict observer of Jewish Law and considered as Jesus' successor in non-canonical Gospels.

With the establishment of Christianity as a state religion in Rome by Constantine in the 4th century, this small original band definetly fled Jerusalem, in the surrounding deserts and managed to survive outside Palestine as they are mentionned by Jerome upto 380AD to have lived in the Syrian desert. Among them the Ebionites (who claimed to descend from the original Jewish disciples led by James) and Elchasites who rejected Paul as a charlatan and his teachings as falsehood, as well as the Zadokites, Essenes, Rechabites, Sabeans, Mandaeans etc. They had their own writing which they considered scripture, composed of an oral tradition attributed to Jesus, and some HB books. Their writings are known, among others as Gospel of the Nazareans, Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Ebionites. They would later write that Paul was a false apostle who taught heresy based on the fact he was a failed convert who was disappointed with Judaism and therefore motivated to teach against its laws (circumcision, kashrut, etc..). 

Unfortunately the group that opposed them and their practices gained more converts, obviously as it appealed much more to non-Jews, more particularily the hellenized Romans and Greeks. The Nazarenes and similar groups were inevitably marginalised while the more and more dominant groups decided what the Church’s organizational structure would be, as well as its official creeds, or which books would be accepted as Scripture. The group that became "orthodox", further sealed its victory, by the pens of early writers like Iraeneus Justin Martyr and Tertullian, claiming that it had always been the majority opinion of Christianity, Jesus and his apostles.

Who needs sinless prophets, certainly not a Jew or a Christian!

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

Contrary to the claim, this is an undisputed tenet of Islam, present throughout the Quran.

Just like the sinlessness of prophets is a pervasive theme in the Quran, internally consistent and theologicaly sound, on the other hand the sinfulness of prophets is equally pervasive in the Bible. The Quran says, throughout their missions, the prophets, including the prophet Muhammad, felt the emotions of anger, mercy, apprehension, sorrow but Allah, by keeping a continuous relationship with them, revealing His word progressively during their prophetic career, comforted them with peace 37:181 increased their supreme character, spiritual awareness, protected them and the revelation from deviation and transgression. Many verses testify to the prophets' moral infaillibility. The prophets are mukhlasin "purified ones" 38:45-48, protected from all perspectives 72:26-28,22:52-54, guided by Allah 6:84-90,39:36-37,18:17 and no such person can be led astray by any misleading agency. After being chosen and guided the prophets are bestowed with favors from Allah. The Quran praises them for their highest degree of obedience and humility before Allah and draws a clear line of seperation between them as a praiseworthy group deserving to be honored by Allah and those who follow their low desires and go astray 19:58-59,4:69,1:5-7. 

Prophets never went astray in their communication, implementation of the divine will. That is why Allah has unconditionally ordered the believers to obey and fully trust their prophet 3:31-32,4:80,24:52 and this requires tremendous responsibility hence the necessity of moral infaillibility. The divine protection, termed 'ismah in Islamic terminology, is not in contradiction with the prophets' freewill. God has increased their spiritual awareness to such a degree that they distinguish good and evil much easier than an average person. But they are not compelled in their choices 45:18,39:65-66,2:120,20:16.

It is in this sense that Prophets hold a general degree of superiority over all human beings

6:86"..and every one We made to excel (in) the worlds"

and it is only in this sense that they deserve the people's reverence. Here, a great quote by Keith Ward – Professor Oxford

"It seems highly probable that, if there is a God, there will be some such communication of God’s nature and purpose. There will be revelation, or a finite communication of divine truth through a medium of great beauty, wisdom, moral insight and spiritual power. It may be a text or a person, or a text communicated through a person who has an especially close relationship to God. Again, we have to judge as well as we can whether a person has such a close relationship to God. We will examine their lives for moral heroism, inspired wisdom, spiritual peace and joy, a sense of union with the supreme Spirit, and liberation from self. But it is reasonable to think that some humans will have an especially close and intense knowledge and love of God, or that God will take some human lives and unite them closely to the divine in knowledge and love. They will become the channels of divine revelation of what God is and of what God desires and for the world".

Jewish myths in Muslim traditions

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

The type of hadith classified as israeliyyat are Jewish myths, used by story-tellers, who would include them in their narrations. They wanted to answer the popular sense of curiosity in trivial, spiritually inconsequential details in the lives and times of former prophets. These israeliyyat were mainly written by the early converts from the people of the book. With Islam's fast advance throughout the Judeo-Christian communities of the Middle East, it is obvious that these converts would not at once totally free their minds from their previous religious tradition. Many continued to explain the Quranic narratives using their Biblical information. Under Abubakr's caliphate for instance, Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin ‘Aas, an ex-Jew took possession of many books gathered by the Byzantine Christians following the battle of Yarmouk, and he would use the information therein to comment on certain Quran passages and disseminated many of the stories among the Muslims, which would be used by later commentators. The technical term itself was not used systematically before Ibn Kathir. Although before him, the Andalusian exegete, Abu bakr Ibn al-Arabi mentioned it. Ibn Taymiyya, the mentor of Ibn Kathir, and Ibn Taymiyya's contemporary al-Tufi discussed israeliyyat before Ibn Kathir. Keeping in mind the existence of so many published and unpublished tafsirs, it is virtually impossible to identify the commentator who was the first user of the term israeliyyat in a technical sense. These reports have been always understood as an amalgam of truth and falsehood. 

The Muslim story tellers would take for basis the Quranic text, then add the Jewish traditions from the converts where they deemed it most fit, resulting in a commentary that is neither Quranic nor Jewish. Although Muslims in their exegetical and non-exegetical works tried as much as possible to keep them out of their works on the Quran, they were not always successful in that endeavour. Muslim scholars since Tabari, ibn Atiyya, al Khazin, ibn al Jawzi etc all spoke of these traditions with various ethnic terms evoking their Judeo-Christian origins "the claims of the people of the scriptures", or "what the historians of the people of the book invent" etc. The prophet himself was alert to the potential intrusions of Jewish traditions in the minds of his followers. Umar once asked a Jew from Medina to copy for him sections of the Torah, and when it was presented to the prophet "his countenance changed then he said to Umar;

"Were Moses to appear in your midst and were you then to follow him and abandon me, you would go astray. Of all peoples, you are my lot; just as of all the prophets I am your lot"

Islam critiqued provokes further discussions; magic in Islam?

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

On a more general note, unrelated to this youtuber's coments, i will clarify the Quran's general stance on the issues of occult sciences. 

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

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

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

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

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

Both Moses and Muhammad were eventually given the inner strength by God to heal from the effect.

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

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

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

This is far from, and not even comparable to the absurd idea proposed in the Greek Testament of Christians able to neutralize deadly poison in Jesus' name. It is to be kept in mind however that the supposed confusion the prophet was victim of, never pertained to divine communications, an area time and again declared as protected from any interference, human or else, from its descent from heaven until it is delivered to the prophet's heart and transmitted to the people. The Quran for example, in the context of truthfulness of prophethood and divine origin of the Book, repeatedly denies the claims made by his contemporaries that he might be demon possessed or under the effect of the jinn 16:98-100,26:221-3,69:41-2,81:22-25 or under a spell or that he is himself a magician/sorcerer 17:47-8,25:8-9,38:4,51:52-6 as other prophets were similarly calumnied.

That deception, commonly called magic or sorcery, is fully encompassed by God's knowlegde and power, not allowing it to affect anything or anyone except by His own will, meaning it has no power in and of itself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

just as he warned 

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

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

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

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

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

113:4"nafathat fil uqad"

must be understood. The phrase lit. means "the blowers on knots". It was an idiom in pre-Islamic Arabia designating all supposedly occult endeavours. The Quran negates that such practices can benefit in any way the one that resorts to them and has labelled them a sin. The sin consists not in that they might possibly harm anyone using magical powers but in the very thought of possessing some supernatural abilities without God's license. When we seek protection from the evil of those who practice occultism, not from their actions or supposed powers and effects, we recognize the principle already stated in

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

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

As regards Harut and Marut, the verse 2:102 isnt specific on the nature of the revelation upon the angels. But what is known is that it was a divine revelation, not magic or deceptive tricks. The verse speaks of 2 groups transmitting knowledge to completely different ends;
- the shayateen (men or jinn) that teach sihr/trickery combined with what they learned from the angels, for sinful ends. The reason they would need to do so would be to deceive the people into thinking that sihr is a divinely condoned practice. This is done up to this day with charlatans using Quranic passages in fanciful ways and rituals. This includes the use of devices upon which one puts his trust instead of Allah

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

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

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

As a side note on 113:4, if we disregard the idiomatic understanding of the verse it can be understood in a different way that equally fits the context. Nafathat is the plural of naffath, which is an intensive nominative from nafatha, meaning primarily he blew. But nafatha also can be taken for inspiring ie influencing the mind. Uqad, the plural of uqdah doesnt only mean knots but also judgments, management, regulating and ordering of one's affairs, a promise of obedience or vow of allegiance. Naffathat fil uqad can also thus be those who put evil suggestions into the resolution of men or into the management of their affairs. What should finally be kept in mind as a decisive Quranic position whenever those issues of magic, or witchcraft are presented as some influencing factors in wordly causality, is that Iblis himself, the archdeceiver and ultimate external source of evil is presented in the Quran as no more than a mere whisperer, unable to coerce in any way those that listen to his suggestions, hence his description "waswas ilkhannas"/the whisperer that withdraws.

Solomonic lore and other occult sciences

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

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

The story of Solomon and the jinn as given in the Quran is meant at clarifying several issues. 

IT first and foremost is a forecful negation of popular superstitions like the supposed ability of some humans to control the jinn. Solomon was given unlimited mastery over them, had the capacity to summon and use the jinn, the evil as well as the good ones, at will, and for the accomplishement of positive actions only 27:17,38-41. This however was a favor from God and was done by God's express command. Their subjection, despite the rebellious nature of the sinful ones among them, was not of Solomon's own will or power and the jinns concerned had no say in the matter or else they would face God's chastisement. They were under God's complete control in the process 21:81-2 meaning Solomon by himself had absolutely no special ability that allowed him the possibility to master them the way he did, use them at will and without any fear of having to render an account 34:12,38:36-38. In Jewish oral tradition however, it is stated that Solomon was overpowered by one of those demons, Ashmadai who chased him from his throne. 

That such an eminent personality, favored by God and drawn near to Him, a prophet imparted knowledge of the unseen like all prophets, was not able to control the jinn except by God's will is an emphatic rejection of the claim that some random people with alleged powers have the capacity to summon them at will, and make them perform certain tasks (most of the time for evil purposes) or obtain hidden knowledge (another belief concerning the jinn rejected by the Quran 34:14). 

On a more specific note, it also negates the notion that solomon himself, contrary to the suspicions and calumnies of some of his contemporaries and the subsequent generations, used to practice the occult sciences

2:102"And they followed what the Shaitans chanted of sorcery in the reign of Sulaiman, and Sulaiman was not an unbeliever, but the Shaitans disbelieved".

We see traces of these allegations even in the Jewish historian Josephus' works. He relates how Solomon had, through incantations and the use of the occult sciences, mastery of demons, could perform exorcisms. He speaks of a Jew contemporary to him that made use of these Solomonic practices. Obviously the people misinterpreted Sulayman's ability, granted to him by God, of controling entities of the unseen for his own benefit. Such falsehood is abundantly found in a wide variety of Solomonic lore, including the 5th century CE Testament of Solomon, each drawing from oneanother as well as other lost sources, written and oral. Particularly among Greek Christians that used amulets, medallions seals or rings with his name. What we find in certain Jewish traditions in regards his perception of the language and behavior of birds, is that his ability wasnt a divine gift but due to his mastery of ornithomancy, an occult science involving birds (Pesika de-Rav Kahana, Ecclesiastes Rabbah). Here again, just as it does with his other supernatural abilities where clearly states they were divinely granted gifts to him, and that Solomon was humbly grateful to his Lord, it introduces the story of Solomon's interraction with the brid messenger with a prayer

27:19"My Lord, grant me that I should be grateful for Your favor that You bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I should do good such as You would be pleased with, and make me enter, by Your mercy, into Your servants, the good ones".

Islam critiqued compares the extremes; The disgraced mad poets and the noble prophets

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

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

When the prophet's opponents charged him for being a mad poet, the calumny does not come in the context of him putting religious themes in a poetic speech. Preislamic poetry abounded in themes varrying from vivid lustful language to history, soothsaying, propaganda, incitements against other tribes, to epic tales of honor, mentions of Allah and/or other deities, mention of Abraham and the sacrifice, praise of the holy sanctuary etc. So it is not true that the contemporaries of the prophet would find it odd for honorable and religious themes to be included in poetry. 

Yet when the Quran addressed each of those themes, it did so with refinement and a meaningful choice of words and structure that gave a multifaceted, intricate moral and spiritual dimension to the issue. They could not classify it in any genre due to many factors, including contents and form. The many intricate types and subtypes of the Jahiliyya poetry are well known, and it is the Quran's particular structure, not belonging to any of the established pattern, that made them unable to counter it.

Ibn Ishaq recorded al-Walid bin Mugira's reaction to the Quran:

"They said, "He is a kahin." He said, "By God, he is not that, for we have seen the kahins, and his (speech) is not unintelligible murmuring (zamzama) and rhymed prose (sajc) of a kahin." "Then he is possessed (majnun)," they said. "No, he is not that," he said. "We have seen and known the possessed state, and here is no choking, spasmodic movements, and whispering." "Then he is a poet," they said. "He is not that," he replied. "We have known poetry in all its forms and meters, and this is not poetry." "Then he is a sorcerer," they said. "No, he is not that," he said, "for we have seen sorcerers and their sorcery, and here is no spitting and no knots." 

When the prophet's early opponents completely ostracized the Bani Hashim and Muttalib by organizing a severe social and economic blocade on them, they in parralel also commissioned the most eloquent of their poets to ridicule him, his followers and his message. They propagated false rumors on him to all pilgrims coming in and out of the city who were his main audience, as well as in the markets. They maintained that the reason why the Quran appealed to people was not that it was revealed by God but because Muhammad possessed such a strong eloquent expression he could charm the people 21:3. They held that he fabricated the verses of the Quran with the help of some Satanic Jinn and presented these before the people in the garb of divine inspirations. The Quran mentions these charges at various places and then answers them

26:210-212"And the Shaitans have not come down with it. And it behoves them not, and they have not the power to do (it). Most surely they are far removed from the hearing of it".

The words "it behoves them not" imply that Satan would not do something against his own mission. This is the same kind of argument, as was adopted by Jesus in response to the Pharisees in Lk11. Evil forces have no power over it and it shows from the idolators and their jinns' failure to the Quran's repeated challenges to come up with 3 sentences like it. And on the accusations of him being an eloquent and demon possessed poet, the Quran would use simple observation to refute their claims, firstly by pointing to the well known and undisputed upright character of Muhammad

36:69-70"And We have not taught him poetry, nor is it meet for him; it is nothing but a reminder and a plain Quran. That it may warn him who would have life, and (that) the word may prove true against the unbelievers".

The Quran would also contrast those who followed the prophet and those who listened to and followed these kinds of mad, demon possessed poets

26:224-226"And those who are strayed follow the poets. Did you not notice that they wander everywhere? And they say what they practice not".

The verse raises the point that those who followed the poets had a sinful nature, because of the nature of the poems the likes of those of Imrul-Qays, incited in their hearts while those who were captivated by the Quran's eloquence, that was obviously different than the rhetoric of the enchanters, were another kind of people. What the prophet was reciting was obviously more than poetic lofty thoughts, and some predictions like those of the sooth-sayers, and those who will keep opposing him will be deprived of its wisdom 10:1-2.