Acts17apologetics prophets casting studio; Satanic verses a disqualifying criteria?

In answer to the video "What Do You Hear: True Prophet or False Prophet?"

Let us see how this favorite of Islam's opponents holds up to scrutiny. 

This noble Book is not the result of some human whim. It was an inspiration to Muhammad 42:52, whose descent is independent of his will and desires 53:3. Allah says of his messenger

69:44-47"if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand, And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart: Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath)".

The prophet wont be able to successfully pass off something false as divinely inspired because by the manner of his sudden death, those around him will understand that the prophecy of preservation came true and that what he was about to utter, or started uttering was false.

Should he even misinterpret and lie over the true meaning of what is revealed to him, his heart would be sealed and he would become like the worst rejectors among his nation, blindly wandering on 42:24. Other verses issue similar warnings against tampering with the Quran to such an extent that it was imprinted in the psyche of the memorizers and all the believers. 

When the malicious critics of Islam try using this divine pledge of protection, something no other scripture has ever had, against the prophet, they do nothing but shoot themselves in the foot. For instance when they connect the symptoms of the prophet's death, years after ingesting a poison, to the statement in 69:45-47 about instantly (not progressively) seizing and puting him to death should he try passing off as revelation something that isnt, then they are still testifying inadvertently to the Quran's authenticity; The prophecy came true and the false prophet, God forgive them for that saying, was put to death and prevented. 

When they quote from the false, discredited and discarded story of the "satanic verses" where the prophet says

"I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken"

then they are equally attesting to the preservation of the Quran. The same report states that this supposed "coming back to his senses" was caused by Gabriel, who

"came to the Messenger of God and said, "Muhammad, what have you done? You have recited to the people that which I did not bring to you from God, and you have said that which was not said to you".

Even if we assume in the worst case, just for argument's sake, that the prophet did pass off as revelation something that wasnt, then there is still the inescapable fact that he was under constant watch, immediately reprimanded for his deed, and the false revelation pointed and discarded from the rest.

Before getting into the story itself, it is important to note, we Muslims take Allah's word for it, He bears witness that what has been revealed to His Prophet has been done

4:166"with His knowledge, and the angels bear witness too and Allah is sufficient for a witness".

Merely coming down from the heavens was not sufficient to prove its divine origin. It could have been done through satanic agencies, or could have been polluted with confusing falsehood had God not made all necessary arrangements that no evil spirit could interfere with it. God and the angels commanded to deliver the Quran 2:97,80:11-16 bear witness that the revelation right from the start of its descent, to its reaching down to the prophets and up to its communication and delivery to the people is duly protected and guarded against change and alteration, from whatever source it might come. And God encompasses his messenger and protects him from any evil interference during all these processes

10:61,72:26-28"He makes a guard to march before him(the messenger) and after him, so that He may know that they(the messengers) have truly delivered the messages of their Lord, and He encompasses what is with them, and He records the number of all things"  

19:64"and we(angels of revelation) do not come down but by the command of your Lord; His is whatever is before us and whatever is behind us and whatever is between these".

All prophets were confronted to the machinations of evil spirits, trying to interfere with their desire to establish the truth. They did so through any means they could, such as by inciting their enemies further against them, propagating falsehood, attempting to make them compromise some of their principles with their enemies', but God protects His message from corruption and ultimately defeats their falsehood and obstacles, and establishes the Truth instead 6:56,22:51-55,41:26,68:9,10:15,17:73-4.

Acts17apologetics unearth a disastrous scandal; the devil interfering with the prophets?

In answer to the video "What Do You Hear: True Prophet or False Prophet?"

When the devil creates obstacles to counter the messengers' desires, ie their desires to establish the truth, this obstacle becomes a trial for the people. 

This is speaking of the difficulties experienced by the messengers and their followers in the face of adversity. The people respond differently to these trials. Some go further in their rejection and doubts. Others become persuaded of it being the Truth based on the simple observation that, had the revelation been false and leading people astray, evil forces wouldnt have been so restless and agitated in their opposition. We see this phenomenon today, all around us and the restless but fruitless efforts by the opponents of Islam, trying hard to convince Muslims to abandon their faith. Also, the unwavering stance of the messengers in the face of these obstacles provides further proof for their selflessness and sincerity, more particularly in the basic notion of monotheism which evil entities were most focused against 10:104-6.

The satanic verses polemic, regardless of its authenticity, perfectly fits this scheme by the evil entities -human and jinn- to oppose the messengers' desire to establish the truth. With it, they try creating doubt and confusion in the mind of the people. 

This story, from an authentic viewpoint is rejected by ibn Ishaq who is himself among the transmitters, as quoted by Tabari in introduction to the story

"About this story Imam Muhammad bin Ishaq, the compiler of sirah, was asked, he said: ‘This is from the fabrication of the heretics.’ And he wrote a book on the issue".

As to the chain coming from ibn Abbas, it has the known liar and forger al Kalbi in the isnad. More on that point further below.

Nowadays, even among western scholars of Islam, studies by the likes John Burton, Uri Rubin, Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila, Gerald Hawting, Nicolai Sinai and Patricia Crone have all expressed profound reservations about the historicity of the story. It is also discarded through simple textual analysis. The alleged verses do not fit the passage in 53:19-23 which actually is a condemnation of idol worship, as well as the larger context which reinforces the incorruptibility of the divine revelation, affirms God's all encompassing power and negates intercession which is what the polytheists precisely believed regarding their lesser gods.  The sura itself begins with a forceful announcement that 

53:2-5"Your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred, Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed, Taught to him by one intense in strength.." 

From a textual criticism viewpoint, the story fails miserably; not a single manuscript exists proving its existence. The main words that constitute the passage are unique to it, not found anywhere in the Quran. This is the criteria of authenticity known as "hapax legomena". Not only that, but al gharaaniq/the cranes is a word that the Arabs have nowhere used to describe their gods, whether in their poetry or in their speeches.

Despite these irrefutable basic facts, the story was used in the past and nowadays to create doubts in the minds of the believers and to obstruct the establishement of the truth. And this despite the fact that it isnt a Quranic statement, nor a prophetic tradition, not even an authentic statement of one of the Companions. At best it is a statement of a tabi’i, ie non-eye witness expressing what he considered to be the reason for the revelation of a particular passage. 

Al Albani for instance grades the chain through ibn jubayr from ibn Abbas as sahih mursal, meaning in hadith terminology going back to a non contemporary to the prophet, a tabi'i. Ibn Kathir before him considered at best the chains to be mursal, adding that none are sahih. This is because we have a statement from ibn Abbas in sahih Bukhari that the prostration in sura najm occured at the end of the sura, not its middle, and in a different context, as Muslims still do today. This contradicts the information that came down to us through weaker chains in the story of the gharaaniq. Al Qurtubi thus rightly observes that the isnad of the story is munkar/disconnected and that it

"was not mentioned by anyone from the people of authenticity". 

Al Razi, long before, in his tafsir al kabir rejected the story on the same basis. What is further interesting is that according to Al-Bazzar as quoted by ibn Kathir, he could not find any chain to the story that was not disconnected, except the one with the forger al-Kalbi in it. 

In summary, not a single chain goes back directly to the prophet, or to a companion, while we have companion reports about the incident without the storytelling part of the satanic verses. One of the narrators, al Muttalib, was in fact a polytheist at the time of the recital of surah najm/53, and he was among the few (Musnad 8034) who did not prostrate when everyone else did. Prostration in sura najm has nothing to do with the prophet's alleged compromising stance. Prostration is required at the end of the sura, in relation to an actual command to prostrate, long after the section where the satanic verses were supposedly included. Nor is prostration required solely in sura najm but rather at 15 other occasions scattered throughout the suras of this mighty Quran. So despite the fact that the authentic narrations do speak of prostration at the recital of sura najm/53 yet nothing is said of the satanic interference or the whole polemic surrounding the revelation of the passage starting at v19. The authentic reports relate how the first time the sura was publicly recited, it had such an impact upon the listeners that not only the Muslims followed the prophet's prostration, but many among those present from the pagan Quraysh were equally overwhelmed and fell with their faces to the ground. What can at most be deduced is that this polemic was invented to cover up this sudden defection, or temporary complacent attitude by some idolaters, with a few of them remaining standing out of pride. It is important to mention here that both the Quran and ahadith relate the mesmerizing effect the recitation of the Quran had upon both believers and disbelievers. Regardless of contents, the language itself, like captivating music, had such impact upon a people known for their deep appreciation of eloquent language and poetry, that they would call it magic, sorcery, produced with assistance of the jinn etc. The staunchest enemies of the prophet would listen in secret to the recital of the Quran at night. These were a people who recognized and understood, highly valued eloquent speech. They would fall down prostrate in admiration of the most eloquent poets, as al Farazdaq did to one of Labid's poems. This is a point difficult to recognize unless one is familiar with the standards of the Arabic language, and the culture of the time. As an illustration, we may see even today, people loving a type of music regardless of how conflicting with their values the lyrics are, even dancing to it.

Also, no historical connection exists between sura 53 and 22, the first revealed 5 years into the prophetic call and the latter in Medina or for the earliest estimates 8 years after sura 53.

Finally, regardless of authenticity (no matter how strong the evidence against the story is presented, Islam's restless enemies will keep regurgitating it), there is nothing embarrassing about the satanic verses story. It depicts how the prophet and the revelation were ultimately protected through divine intervention. This, contrary to discrediting the Quran, enhances its credibility as miraculously preserved. Further, this story places the Ishmaelite prophet right along the pattern of the biblical prophets. Those orientalists and Judeo-Christian critics conveniently brush aside the depiction of their prophets; deceived by sorcery (Moses) or influenced by evil to the point they become murderers, adulters and even idolaters (Aaron, David, Solomon). But contrary to their ishmaelite counterpart, God did not even intervene to straighten them in the process.

As to Criteria of embarrassment, it doesnt constitute an argument in favour of the story's authenticity. Christians invented and transmitted the infancy Gospel of Thomas' wicked, murderous Jesus as a child. Does it mean it is true because the author was Christian and would therefore not make up something shameful about Jesus? In the history of Islam, as in Judeo-Christianity, people invented things in regards to their own religious figures for all sorts of reasons, whether to advance a wicked or pious agenda. Second, what is embarrassing in a context isnt in another. For example the story can easily be seen as a pious fabrication, to prove that God protects His messengers, as shown earlier.

Apostate prophet worries; can a true prophet be rejected by his family?

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

The prophet was accepted by not only his people, but the entire Arabian peninsula, enemies and friends alike. It is interesting to note that despite the calumnies the likes of what this youtuber is levelling, Muhammad is told that despite all opposition he will be dignified 94:4. The elevation of the prophet's remembrance besides having initiated in his own life is an ongoing, virtually unceasing exponential worldwide phenomenon. It occurs when the time of adhan followed by one of the timed prayers arrives, and does so continuously a few minutes later in a close-by location and by a certain point, the cycle starts again for another prayer at the origin. 

Another interesting nuance between Muhammad and Jesus is that while Jesus was opposed by his closest relatives, Muhammad was first and foremost recognized and accepted by his own bossom friends and people of his household. They knew him intimitely and would have detected those discrepencies which exist in the actions of a deceiver abroad and at home. 

This is strongly corroborative of his sincerity. Jesus on the other hand was rejected in his hometown and by his family, despite his own parents knowing of the wonderful circumstances of his birth and childhood! His own mother, who gave birth to him miraculously, and his brothers James and Jude even thought he had gone mad Mk3.

Apostate prophet digging for corpses and finding gold; the prophet Muhammad's leniency?

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

His tolerance, patience and forbearance, as shown from the few examples earlier, were indiscriminate and touched people from all social spheres

“Do not be mere imitators, treating well only those who treat you well and doing wrong to those who do you wrong. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong if they do evil” 

Aisha said

"The Messenger of Allah did not take revenge for anything against himself, but if the sacred law of Allah was violated then he would take retribution for the sake of Allah".

This attitude of the prophet, his forbearance was a pattern which remained throughout his 23 years of prophethood, whether at the best or worst moments the community went through. For instance following the defeat at Uhud due to some of the troops breaking up against the prophet's orders, allured by the spoils left behind by the retreating pagan army. The victory was on the Muslim side up to that point, after which the opponents took the upper hand. Even in such situations, where the lack of discipline of some, brought death and defeat on the nascent community, the prophet did not behave as would have been expected from a field commander and nation leader. He did not judge, condemn or punish the guilty and deserters.

3:159-161"And it was by Allah’s grace that you dealt gently with your adherents, for if you had been harsh and hard of heart, they would indeed have broken away from you. Pardon them, then, and pray that they be forgiven. And take counsel with them in all matters of public concern; then, when you have decided upon a course of action, place your trust in Allah, for, of certainty, Allah loves those who place their trust in Him. If Allah supports you, none can ever overcome you; but if He should forsake you, who could support you thenceforth? In Allah, then, let the committed Muslims place their trust. And it is not conceivable that a prophet should deceive [in military affairs or in anything else], since he who deceives shall be faced with his deceit on the Day of Resur- rection, when every human being shall be repaid in full for whatever he has done, and none shall be wronged [by any injustice]".

Despite the unsettling situation, he remained a tranquil and friendly administrator, fully involved into improving the society he belonged to. He acknowledged the deficiencies of human nature especially in times of war. At that moment it the prophet had to have a clear mind to understand the individual circumstances that led these first-time offenders to do what they did. He had to think with his heart, not to react in proportion to the adversity that resulted from their lethal mistakes

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

That is why one only finds the kind of reports as those concerning Asma bint Marwan who wrote poems that targeted the prophet personally, among the weak and discarded narrations. As a prophet of God and ruler, he was nevertheless not one to adopt the type of passivity that would result in the merciless becoming brazen and taking advantage of any apparent weakness.

From that perspective, we can begin to understand why he sanctioned the execution of some people, and tactically fought others, though he may have wished that this could have been avoided. 

An example to corroborate would be that of Kaab ibn Ashraf. Following the Muslim victory of Badr, the idolators and the Jews of Medina felt that their political position was greatly diminished. Only 2 years after his migration, the Prophet of God had managed to break the traditional pattern of power distribution in the desert. The enemies of Islam would meet clandestinely and encourage the composition and recitation of divisive poetry. Kaab ibn Ashraf, a Jewish chieftain of Banu Nadhir, was a poet of considerable fame and he used to recite in the gatherings fiery poems inciting the people to rise up against Islam. This was a clear breeching of the Medina covenant of peace with the Muslims, non partisanship which eachother's enemies. ibn Ashraf's particularity as compared to the other non Muslims and hypocrites that secretly disliked Islam and conspired against it, is that he openly joined the Meccan ranks with whom the community was at war, becoming a propaganda tool that composed eulogies mourning the Meccan chiefs slain in the battle of Badr and defamed Muslim women. The closest one can come to the kind of impact this kind of poetry had in Arabian tribal life in those days, is to remember the role propaganda played during the world wars of the 20th century, more particularly the 2nd one. The chief propagandists among the Nazis were regarded as top priority targets by Western authorities. The issue here is thus not that of low-level disparaging comments and mockeries, rather the kind of criticism with deadly ramifications. The Quran and hadith contain many instances of the prophet and the Muslims being the targets of mockery and ridicule, both in times of political weakness and strength, yet neither responded in kind nor retaliated violently. The Quran for instance in sura tawba relates how the Medina hypocrites would engage in injurious talk about the prophet, and this at a time where the Muslim community had become powerful. The only response they got from the prophet was that he socially ostracized them, refusing their charity donations, and leaving their fate to Allah in the Hereafter 

9:66"If We pardon one faction of you - We will punish another faction because they were criminals". 

He would even pray for the forgiveness of some of them, only to be rebuked by Allah for his undeserving empathy 9:80,63:6. Even so, the Quran would repeatedly call them to repent, and that God may show them mercy 

33:24"That Allah may reward the truthful for their truth and punish the hypocrites if He wills or accept their repentance. Indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful".

As to Kaab, his animosity was such that it is said the verse 4:51 speaking of Jews believing in idols alludes to him, when he accompanied a delegation from Medina to Mecca in search of an alliance against the Muslims, and publicly bowed to the idols to reassure the suspecting Quraysh 

"Your are people of Scripture and Muhammad has a Scripture and we are not completely sure that this is a scheme that you devised. So if you want us to go along with you, you have to prostrate to these two idols and believe in them". 

But being a coward he never attended the battles himself, preferring to plot and incite behind closed doors. His role in galvanizing the Quraysh prior to the battle of Uhud is well known, his wife herself is reported to have warned him that his life was at threat because of his actions. Although the prophet said that Kaab was deserving of being put to death since he should be treated as a combatant, he nevertheless did not plan the execution. It is to be noted that any modern government seeking to preserve the survival of its people in times of war, would look to target specific opponents whose death would have a more significant impact in the long-run in terms of avoiding further bloodshed. He was thus incited out of his hiding place and killed, which successfully prevented an all out war with the Bani Nadir. Other opinions say his assassination occurred after the battle of Uhud in response to an attempted murder of the prophet.

The critics of Islam wont find the kind of cold blooded, arbitrary and ruthless assassinations they try hard to attribute to the prophet and even if they succeed, which they wont, then it still takes nothing away from Muhammad's claim to prophethood, judging by the standards of the true prophets of the Bible, including David who assassinated an innocent man for the sole purpose of marrying his wife and yet it did not diminish an iota from his legitimacy as a prophet.

The fact is that so many factors in the prophet's life went against displaying any sort of positivity and mercy that one can only conclude that he had been preserved and guided by the Almighty from turning into an evil despot; never knew his father, hardly enjoyed the compassion of his mother, lost his grandfather, and then his uncle and dearest wife simultaneously, witnessed every single one of his children die save for one, who was treated like a menace and fugitive after decades of building a flawless reputation among his people, on top of that physically abused until he would faint, starved for years by his own people, and faced countless campaigns of character assassination, directed towards him and his household, driven out of his home, unto a foreign town only to find hypocrites there awaiting every opportunity to betray him, then watching assassination attempts against his life unfold regularly, as well as the murder and mutilation of his relatives and companions. Who could in such circumstances persevere and rise beyond negativity, displaying mercy, justice and empathy besides one divinely guided?

This is why we find in this Quran, and as embodied by the prophet, that it calls Muslims to treating others, whether close or far "neighbors", from one's own people or not, as they themselves would like to be treated. It was a way of life of the prophet who taught the people the general axiom that 

"Allah will not be merciful to those who are not merciful to mankind". 

Whenever the Quran encourages fair treatment, it does so by instilling empathy

4:9"Let those who would fear for the future of their own helpless children, if they were to die, show the same concern for orphans, let them be mindful of God and speak out for justice".

That type of imaginative role-reversal is a recurrent theme 4:36,42:23,83:1-6. Treating others even better than what is expected towards one's self, opens the possibility to create a positive change even in one's enemy 41:34,59:9. This shows how altruism in the Quran, although seemingly over empathetic, actually remains pragmatic by extending fair treatment even to one's enemies in certain cases. The prophet said

"Whoever would love to be delivered from the Hellfire and entered into Paradise, then let him die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and let him treat the people the way he would love to be treated".

In another narration of the prophet, those who are able to show such selflessness are described as neither belonging to the prophets or martyrs, but the prophets and martyrs will envy them due to their status on the Day of Resurrection

"The best faith is to love for the sake of Allah, to hate for the sake of Allah, and to work your tongue in the remembrance of Allah. Mu’adh said, “What is it, O Messenger of Allah?” The Prophet said: That you love for the people what you love for yourself, and you hate for the people what you hate for yourself, and that you speak goodness or remain silent".

Many times the Quran starts or ends a passage about belief in the One God, with a statement about just dealings between men, always showing how faith and righteousness are inevitably linked to social interactions. The whole mission of the prophet Shuayb sent to Madyan is summed up thus

11:84"He said: O my people! Worship Allah, you have no god other than Him. And do not decrease from the measure and the scale".

From that perspective, the noble prophet Muhammad, like his predecessor, insisted on being fair in social transactions. He taught honesty in dealings to such an extent that should a storekeeper sell perishable goods in a wholesome state then the person who bought it from him and gives it in charity will earn him a reward similar to the one who gave the charity. And thus he would give advice such as forbidding 

"the sale of dates till they were good (ripe), and when it was asked what it meant, the Prophet said, "Till there is no danger of blight".

This selflessness thus negates any expectations and favor in return while lending a helpful ear to any type of "asker" 74:6,93:10. This is because everyone in this world may be subject to physical, spiritual or intellectual need.

Apostate prophet wont stop being amazed; indidscriminate human empathy in Islam?

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

The comprehensive attitude enjoined in Islam, towards one's fellow man, as exemplified both in the Quran and the ahadith through the many references previously provided, takes the principle of the "golden rule" to new heights and should be labelled the "diamond rule". 

Slaves were an integral part of the household to such an extent that, as with other members of the biological family, women were allowed to unveil in their presence 24:31. This of course was a ruling of conveniency, given the frequent interraction with the male servants going about their various assisting tasks within the household. But it further contributed to their thorough integration within the family sphere, solidifying the various rulings of consideration towards them.
They had to be fed and maintained without any psychological injury and for the sake of Allah, not seeking benefits of any kind from them in return

76:8-10"And they give food however great be their own want of it to the poor and the orphan and the captive: We only feed you for Allah's sake; we desire from you neither reward nor thanks: Surely we fear from our Lord a stern, distressful day. So God will save them from the woes of that day, and give them radiance and gladness. So God will save them from the woes of that day, and give them radiance and gladness".

What is remarkable here is that the Quran places even the need of the captive, regardless of his religion, above the need of the Muslim guardian himself. This is just one of the many passages that further dwarfs the judeo-christian notion of the golden rule.

So, even though the Quran does not pronounce an abstract concept like to “love your neighbour”, it does however articulate its reality and applications in a much more comprehensive manner, constantly interlinking worship of God with application of social justice.   

In a hadith, the prophet describes how the angel Jibril admonished him for the sake of the neighbours 

"Mujahid reported that a sheep was slaughtered for 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr. He asked his slave, "Have you given any to our Jewish neighbour? Have you given any to our Jewish neighbour? I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'Jibril kept on recommending that I treat my neighbours well until I thought that he would order me to treat them as my heirs.'"

Reciprocity in goodwill is so hardwired into the Quranic message that even when people meet and greet oneanother, the one answering should exceed the other in his greeting 

4:86"When a greeting is offered you, answer it with an even better greeting, or [at least] with its like. God keeps count of all things". 

The Islamic greeting is a supplication to Allah, that He might bestow peace on another. This known etiquette, which is a Muslim peculiarity, is a means by which people’s hearts are cleansed. It brings people closer together and reinforces their ties.

The Prophet never punished out of mere retaliation for a personal slight or injury. All his punishments, of believers and unbelievers alike, were for crimes committed against the public weal or infringements of the promulgated law; and even here his life contains acts of clemency in which he put mercy above justice. In 4:140 it says

"And indeed He has revealed to you in the Book that when you hear Allah's communications disbelieved in and mocked at do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them; surely Allah will gather together the hypocrites and the unbelievers all in hell".

This is a Medinan verse in which the prophet isnt told to forcefully silence the critics, even those mockers of the religion. He is simply to gracefully turn away from them and leave them to their own shamefull talk. A similar verse was revealed in Mecca 6:68.

The Muslims entered Mecca but the keys to the Kaaba were with Uthman Bin Talha, a non-believer who locked the door of the holy sanctuary upon learning of the Muslims' entrance in Mecca. He hid, refusing to hand over the keys, until Ali found him and snatched the keys from him, openned the Kaaba and the Prophet entered, prayed in it, after which revelation came down

4:58"indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are belong to..".

The prophet understood that the Shaybah family had to be returned their possession; he thus ordered Ali to return the key to Uthman Bin Talha and excuse themselves. Ali then went to Uthman and gave back the key and presented their apologies for the wrong he had done to him by forcibly taking the key. Uthman b. Talha was shocked, he could not believe Ali was giving back the key to him as instructed by the Prophet Muhammad, the conqueror of Mecca, who could have done as he wished with anyone and anything within the city. Ever since, the guardianship of the Kaaba remained with Bani Shaybah, which is bestowed upon the elders of the family until today.

The soldiers and men of Quraysh who once levelled armies seeking to exterminate the Muslims by all means, persecuted and starved the Prophet and his powerless followers in the early days of his Call, brutalised and killed Muslim prisonners, war criminals in every sense of the word, came to the Prophet submissively. 

They thought they would most certainly be slain, just as they would have executed the Muslims had their tirelessly repeated plans worked. They knew very well that within their own customs retaliation and hatred were the rule of the game within the fabrics of the society and its order. Hatred and hostilities were passed down from one generation to the next and unwillingness to perpetrate revenge was considered a defect.

While attributing the promised victory to Allah alone, the Messenger, in the manner of the great men of God who show magnanimity once they are at the climax of their power and glory, contented himself with uttering what a previous Prophet, noble as him had uttered in similar circumstances. The prophet Joseph before him told his brothers who came to him in submission, seeking forgiveness for their faults against him

12:92"There shall be no reproof against you this day; Allah may forgive you, and He is the most Merciful of the merciful".

The prophet continued

"Let every wealth (wrongfully seized), every blood (wrongfully shed), and every revenge to be exacted belonging to the days of jahiliyyah be trampled under my foot, except the guardianship of the Kaaba and the bearing of water at the time of the pilgrimage; they shall be returned to their people (the Quraysh)".

The noble prophet finally recited the Quran verse which constitutes the epitome of divine justice

49:13"We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honorable of you with Allah is the one among you most careful (of his duty); surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".

With these words, Muhammad was giving a general amnesty to all Quraysh and all the Meccans. To realize the degree of generosity from the Prophet, one must recall the life threatening hardships which these people imposed on him and now that they were completely subdued by him, instead of thinking of vengeance, or at the very least demanding apologies and reparations, which was certainly his due, he forgave them. This way he was displaying his function of "rasul", the embodiement of God's mercy to mankind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In another narration,

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

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

"As-Sâmu ‘alayk (Death be upon you)”.

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

“And upon you”.

When Aisha felt compelled to add,

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

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

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

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

41:34"repel evil with what is best"

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

"as though he was a devoted friend".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"it was possible that they might repent".

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

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

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

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

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

"Who would rid me of this pestilent fellow?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muhammad believed

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

this is why Allah tells us to

"follow him so that you may be guided".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Quran contains such warning because

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

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

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