Islam critiqued seeks the clues; the corrupt scribes of Israel?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

One of the basic themes of the Bible is the Israelites trying to justify their sins by blaming others. They were chastised for sins they comitted because they were "misled" by their leaders. At one point for example they chose Jeroboam over Solomon's son thus causing God to reveal their eminent uprooting and scattering

1Kings13:15-16"..because of the sins of Jeroboam that he sinned and that he has caused Israel to sin".

In other cases they attacked the prophets, a few examples were given earlier.

It was because Aaron yielded to the people's demand for an idol to be built, that many were put to death.

Sometimes it is the prophets' own sins that caused the community to be chastised. In 2Sam24,1Chron21 God gives David 3 options to forgive a deed inexplicably considered as a sin; the census of his population. Yet a previous census had been conducted in Israelite history, as far back as Moses without any reproof Ex30. So the 3 options for that terrible sin of David was to punish the Israelites with famine, or with a plague or at the hands of their ennemies. David chose the plague which resulted in 70'000 deaths.

Tens of thousands of them were massacred by the Philistines under divine decree, because of Eli's 2 sons' unrighteousness and corruption of the priesthood. The sin of these 2 sons also brought about a divine curse upon Eli's lineage, with the death of all young men raised in his household for having failed to prevent the wickedness of his 2 sons despite the warnings 1Sam2-4.

Similarily in 2Sam21 God tells David that the Israelites' famine was because of what Saul and his household had done to the Gibeonites, so David turned over seven of Saul's progeny to the Gibeonites, who promptly executed them thus satisfying their desire for revenge. Later, king Jehoram is condemned for misguiding the Israelites into idol worship, a crime for which God would deliver them to be plundered and destroyed at the hand of their pagan neighbors 2Chr21:12-20.

As regards their sins and atrocities they commited as they invaded foreign lands, they are depicted as "divine decrees". The kingdom of Israel was torn appart and divided due to Solomon's sins of polytheism, in turn blamed on his numerous wives. Yet this punishment for Solomon's own sin, was inflicted later, in the reign of his son Rehoboam. Solomon was spared this sorrow in his lifetime because of his father David's righteousness.

Other major themes and causes for scriptural corruptions are the rampant tribal prejudices. Abraham's "only son" suddenly becomes the second born son Isaac, rather than firstborn Ishmael. God rewards Jacob's deception of Esau to be the covenant's upholder. God curses one line (Jeconiah) in favor of another (Solomon) for the Messiah's lineage. YHWH takes sides among their internal tribal conflicts as in Judges20,21 with the massacre of the Benjamites by the remaining Israelites or in 2Chron13 with YHWH's blessing of Abijah, king of Judah (southern kingdom) to wage war against Israel (northern kingdom) ruled by Jeroboam (not from the line of Solomon) that resulted in no less than 500.000 deaths among His "chosen people".

When the whole community in general, and the religious scholars and priests in particular, became involved in deviations and immoralities, their guilty consciences impelled them to invent excuses for justifying their own bad conduct. As they committed heinous sins like shirk, sorcery, adultery, treachery, falsehood and the like, they blemished the pure characters of their own Prophets by ascribing such sins to them as were most shameful even for an ordinary good man, not to speak of a prophet so that they could justify their own wicked deeds. They didnt even spare God Himself in the process Who openly takes sides with the sinful, issues cruel and unwarranted punishments, allows His chosen race to be abusive and ungodly in their wars.

As a final note, the hatemongerers among the Jews and Christians attribute to the last prophet, the prophet Muhammad, without any basis, all the slanders and calumnies which their scribes had imputed to their prophets and eminent leaders. Although, much to their dismay, the sins that they have assigned to the prophet Muhammad do not even come close in scale and scope of what their predecessors attributed to the previous prophets. What bellies the position of these misleading critics is that the prophet Muhammad could have repeated in this final revelation all the charges against the Biblical prophets so as to justify his own alleged slip into idolatry, his greed, lust and love for blood. He could have easily picked up countless examples of men who comitted sins far greater than what is being accused of and pointed that despite their sins, these men's claim to prophethood remained unshaken.

But the Quran consistently and repeatedly absolves the previous prophets of these malicious charges and places their standard of morality on such a high level that the prophet Muhammad would many times feel humbled by the description that the Quran makes of them. For example he once said he would not have had Yusuf's strength of character when he provided the interpretation of the king's dream while unjustly imprisoned

"I would not have done so until I put a condition on them that they let me out...May Allah have mercy on Yusuf.  May Allah bless him for his patience, and Allah will forgive him.  I could not have done that...".

Islam critiqued loves impartiality; YHWH condemns the sinful prophets?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

There are no sinful prophets, only sinful scribes. And we know how YHWH's condemnation of those prophets always plays out, from Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon etc. It is almost never or on an insignificant scale that these sinful men are punished. It always is the community that has to carry the burden of its leaders' sins.

Anyone familiar with these man-made scriptures shouldnt be surprised at seeing sins like idolatry, adultery, murder and the like being attributed to the Biblical prophets. It is a common theme in the Bible that the many divine chastisements that befell the Israelites were due to sins which they were mislead into commiting by their own prophets, leaders, kings.

This is besides the rampant tribal prejudice running allthrought their history, the puerile villification of characters and the internal conflicts. Here it should be quickly worthwile mentioning the tribal tension surrounding the Davidic line.

After Solomon's death, his kingdom was divided, allegedly as a divine punishement for his sins, including the sin of idolatry which eventually dragged the entire nation. We see here how the divine justice plays out, punishing others for someone else's crime. Most certainly, far from that noble prophet being the instigator of this greatest sin and the cause of its re-introduction into the Israelites' lives, this yet again confirms the nation's constant and stubborn ingratitude. Moses had foreseen their turning away from the straight path into the sin of idolatry. Virtually all prophets that followed him kept on condemning them for that constant fall out into the ways of the pagan nations.

This lack of faith resulted in them majoritarily defecting from the house of David and the divine covenant itself. The nation sceeded in 2; the kingdom of Israel to the north with Samaria for capital and the rebellious and polytheist Jeroboam as its king, and the tiny kingdom of Judah, comprised of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, who had remained faithful to David and Solomon's royal line, with Jerusalem as capital to the south and Solomon's son Rehoboam as king

Hos12:1"Ephraim has surrounded me with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit, but Judah still rules with God, and with the Holy One he is faithful". 

Both kingdoms remained at war with one another throughout their respective leaders' reigns.
It certainly isnt difficult to imagine how this inter tribal hatred can result in the kind of insiduous accusations as David, Solomon and other prophets were victims of. The Hebrew Bible is literaly filled with such examples.

Lot whom Judaism does not consider a prophet but was certainly among the most God-fearing in his nation, had incest with his daughters who begat his children Gen19:30. Yet this only righteous man among his decadent and sinful people was just extracted from a nation destroyed because of sex related crimes. What is more intriguing is that according to the Hebrew text, once his eldest daughter got him drunk and finished the sexual act with him, he realized what had happened but nevertheless got drunk again the same night and had incest with his second daughter.

 That is besides the issue of God not preventing the misdeed of those He had just saved. He could have simply told them that there were other men in the town of Zoar they had just reached. The reason given by the scribes that the daughters worried about the extinction of the human race, thinking no men were left upon the earth, is further discredited considering the simple fact that they certainly interracted with the people of Zoar to get the alcohol that got their father drunk with, or the nearby settlement of Abraham Gen19:28. 

Regardless, this surreal tale has the 2 daughters eventually begetting 2 boys, Moab, and Ben-ammi. Moab is the ancestor of the Moabites and Ben-ammi the father of the Ammonites who just so happen to be the competing kingdoms to the west of Judah. Thus is explained the origin and inferiority of non-Jewish neighbours. Thats another instance in the HB where the sins of others explain God's disapproval, cursing or punishing of others. Instead of being Abrahamic tribes and thus equally entitled to the land as the Israelites, the Moabites and Ammonites became foreign invaders with no rights to the land. That the whole tale is a retrospective account aimed at portraying negatively a certain people, is seen from the anachronism of having Moabites or Ammonites in the patriarchal period, while there were none.

As to David, the great prophet, he brings Batsheba to him and has sex with her after he saw her bathing from his roof top. But he had first to plot for her husband's murder 2Sam11. This is because once the woman got pregnant through this sin punishable by death Lev20:10, David could not get her brave husband, Uriah, to leave the battlefront and have him sleep with his wife to hide the sin.. The brave soldier refused the comfort of his home while his commander was at the battlefield. David tried getting him drunk and leave the warfront but he still refused. Time was running out and the sin was going to become apparent. David then arranged for Uriah to be put at the front line  where the fighting was fiercest, then have the army retreat and let him be killed. The plan succeeded and Batsheba became David's wife. In the Quran on the other hand, in sura Saad/38 David is given ghafr/covering/protection in authority and judgement. He is reminded of his eminent status in the world as well as the qualities expected from one who has been drawn near to God; wisdom in judgement between men, steadfastness in God's way and rejection of all falsehood, whether coming from inside or outside one's self.
The slanderous scribes of the Bible however still found a way to disparage him and his household despite his lofty character, blindly passing off his enemies' malicious talk as facts, probably even contributing to it. The death of Batsheba's husband and subsequent marriage to David was too much of a coincidence for their lowly mentality and thus accused David of adultery and murder. They constantly needed to shift the blame for their own sins and subsequent destructions, on their leaders' "misguidance". The true God does not let the names of his noble servants, the prophets and their households to be dishonored in this manner

24:23-5"Surely those who accuse chaste believing women, unaware (of the evil), are cursed in this world and the hereafter, and they shall have a grievous chastisement. On the day when their tongues and their hands and their feet shall bear witness against them as to what they did. On that day Allah will pay back to them in full their just reward, and they shall know that Allah is the evident Truth".

Despite reproaching him of his evil act through the prophet Nathan Ps51, the divine biblical justice played out, not by punishing David himself who had commited the sin but by promising bloodshed within his household, which almost resulted in civil war and even the destrucion of all his followers 2Sam19, the hatred and attempted overturn of his rule coming from among his own sons. Sure David the sinner was at one point forced to flee Jerusalem during the revolt of one of his sons Absalom and the social chaos his father's sin had created. But what is it compared to having his wives taken from him and lying with others in front of all of Israel like worhtless prostitutes 2Sam12?

Solomon broke God's covenant, and at the instigation of his hundreds of foreign polytheistic wives (700) and concubines (300)

1Kings11"went after Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. And Solomon did what was displeasing to the Lord, and he was not completely devoted to the Lord as was David his father. Then did Solomon build a high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab on the mountain that is before Jerusalem and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon".

His multiple marriages were also a transgression of the Torah Deut17:17,Neh13:26. Contrary to the lowly depiction that is made of him by the scribes of the Bible, instead of his posessions and power leading him to excess and sin, the Quran depicts him as increasing in gratitude and never faltering from God's remembrance despite these favors

38:30"And to David We gave, Solomon. Excellent was the servant; indeed, he was (always) returning (to Allah)".

Noah was a drunkard who laid naked in his intoxication Gen9:18-25 and the talmudic scholars assert that he was either castrated or sodomized (they're not really sure which of the two) by his 4th son Cham/Ham while unconscious (Rashi; Sanhedrin 70a). These are the descriptions they give of a man whom they traditionaly do not view as a prophet yet he not only received comunications from God, but was also one whom the Torah says was

Gen6:9"a righteous man he was perfect in his generations; Noah walked with God".

Their tradition also contradictorily speaks of him having had in possession the staff of Adam, that would later be owned by Moses, which only the righteous may manipulate.
Still in the Talmudic accounts, as a result of not being able to have more children, Noah cursed Cham's innocent 4th child (Canaan), turning him black and exiling him to Africa, thereafter condemning Cham and his descendants to be his brethren's slaves. This apparently seems to be the justification for black slavery. Still among the list of Talmudic "anecdotes", Ham's descendants would be led out of Egyptian captivity "with bare buttocks" as a retribution because of Ham who saw his father’s nakedness and did not cover it Isa20:4.

Islam critiqued runs to a eunuch's defense; prophet's wanton punishments?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

The Quran gives to all people the benefit of the doubt. Muslims are told to assume the best rather than the worst in people, unless there are solid reasons for suspicion, especially if they are from one's own comunity 24:12-18. One's privacy, including the privacy of public figures, cannot be compromised based on suspicion 49:4-5,24:27-29.

The code of law of many developped nations do not issue a search warrant unless there is solid evidence to back up an accusation.

One's privacy, including the privacy of public figures, cannot be compromised based on suspicion 49:4-5,24:27-29. This notion reaches such an extent in Islam that one of the early caliphs suspected that a particular individual was committing adultery, jumped over his wall and caught him in the act. The man protested that even the caliph had no right to spy on him in this manner, to which the caliph relented, continued his inspection of the city and mentioned nothing of the man's identity to anyone. 

As always, when trying to understand a Quranic passage and even more so a particular hadith, it is with the aforementioned relevant information that one should interpret all related topics. For example when the prophet told Ali to go kill a man rumoured of adultery with Maria the copt, without requiring first the high standard of testimony, then it should be understood, as it was by the scholars of hadith, including as early as Jaafar al Saadiq, that the prophet was teaching those who slandered Maria, that presuppositions can be totally baseless and harmful. It is to be kept in mind that the prophet told Ali that whatever mission he sends him to accomplish, he must first make a proper investigation prior to acting as per the prophet's orders 

"Ali said: I said: O Messenger of Allah, when you send me on a mission, should I go and do what you tell me to do (with no delay) or witness and find out what someone who is not there cannot find out? He said: 'Witness and find out what someone who is not there cannot find out".

Ali acted exactly as per the prophet's recommendations, and as it turned out, the man in question was an eunuch, who was consequently left unbothered. The whole incident strongly demonstrated the prophet's as well as the Quran's repeated warnings against false suspicions. This eunuch's name was Jaarih and was gifted to the prophet along with Maria by an Egyptian notable, to serve Maria within the prophet's household. Common sense dictates that the prophet was aware of Jaarih's condition and that the Egyptian ruler had told him about it.  There is a reason why the hadith compiler himself did not include that narration in his book of legal judgments and so he did not understand it as setting a legal precedent. Furthermore this was by no means the only rumor spread by the prophet's malicious opponents. There are other occasions where the prophet and his household, as reported both in the Quran and ahadith were the unjust targets of slander and never did the prophet adopt such unilateral, punitive measures against the accusers or the alleged culprits. On would expect to find a precedent, a pattern indicating the prophet's supposed inclination for impulsive, arbitrary judgements the likes his opponents claim in regards the incident with Jaarih.

Islam critiqued prefers anything to Muslims; Who were the Uraina/Ukl gangsters?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

Before getting to the story, it is important to stress that in conflicts, the Quran always leaves the door open to a peaceful resolution and magnanimity. It however never denies the basic human right of self-defense when unjustly opressed beyond the limits where peaceful diplomacy can still stop this harassement and eventually reform the opposite party, when such oppression goes as far as threatening one's life. If in such case, one opts for a more conrontational stance, as most would tend to do when wronged, the Quran explicitly forbids any retaliation above and beyond what a person has himself received 2:190-5,16:126-8,22:60,42:39-43.

The very foundations of the divine law, as taught by all Prophets, is the establishment of justice and to argue a person has no right to seek his rights, or no say in the matter once guilt has been established, is an absolute wrong. In various types of social felonies, the Quran gives the right of having recourse to the law of "equitable punishment or compensation"/qisas, which is approximately equivalent to what Judeo-Christian tradition refers to as lex talonis 2:178,5:45. It is not an "exact same thing" situation, since killing another's child because he killed mine would be against all common sense, and justice. "Life for life" does not entail "your child's life in exchange of my child's life". The point is that the offending party must compensate with a life, the murderer's own life. It is a "punishment fits the crime" scenario. The definition of the word "qisas" itself stresses the importance of fairness and justice in the application of that system.

 As stated in 17:33, the retribution must never exceed the harm suffered. This blocks the way to blind vengence and actually helps society to seek reparation for a moral or spiritual harm in conformity with justice.

 However it is stressed that in both cases (self-defense and social justice) the opressed or the victim may show magnanimity and forgiveness in order to grow spiritually, an issue the Torah, which also mentions the law of retaliation, does not contain in its proper context. To its credit, the HB does speak in other places of self-restraint as a great virtue

Prov14:29,20:22,19:11"It is good sense for a man to be slow to anger, and it is his glory to pass over a transgression". 

This then means that the equitable physical injury is the maximum that the victim can ask for with preferrance for forgiveness and even better forgiveness. It says that such patient attitude is a great sign of spiritual might and courage, a blessing from Allah and the way He prefers for His creatures

3:134,16:126,41:34-36,42:43"And whoever is patient and forgiving, these most surely are actions due to courage".

This shows that the the spirit of vengeance is absent from the law, which is but aimed at reforming the society and deterring future vices. It is important noting the deep psychology behind the ordinance, issued by the creator of all things who knows humans inside and out; When it encourages, instead of imposing, this act of amnesty, it appeases the aggrieved party by giving it the position of superiority because the death penalty is a legitimate and authorized option.

Further, by knowing that execution might be an option, the instinctive reaction of seeking revenge killings is neutralized.

In case of murder, there are several aspects of wisdom in leaving the life of the killer directly at the mercy of the heirs of the murdered person. It firstly compensates to some extent the tremendous loss caused, because once the justice system has done its job of exposing the guilty, true justice consits in compensating emotionaly or materialy for those first and foremost concerned, ie the victims themselves.

The other wisdom in leaving the punishment of the killer in the heirs of the slain person's hands is that in case they adopt the preferred issue of being magnanimous, they do a big favour to the murderer and his family, resulting in many other benefits.

The prophet waived his right for equal retribution many times against his opponents once he had the power to execute justice

"Whoever suffers an injury done to him and forgives (the person responsible), Allah will raise his status to a higher degree and remove one of his sins” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi).

There are countless traditions about his life which clearly illustrate his forgiveness to others, but he had no right to force the believers to do the same, thereby negating their rights to resort to the law of retribution should they desire. As already said, although the Quran encourages magnanimity in these cases it can only be from the victim, on his or her own accord, without any pressure or influence from anyone, or without any interference from the authorities. This way, because it is an unexpected, benevolent act, it heals both the victim and the criminal.

When a group of armed men feinted conversion from the tribe of Ukl/Uraina/Urayna, taking advantage of the prophet's hospitality then captured his shepherd, tortured and murdered him before leaving with the camel herd, the prophet, as an embodiement of the state, could not force his penchant for leniency for a crime committed on someone else. Beyond being a crime against the shepherd, this was also a direct attack against the state and its citizen among whom these criminals had sought protection. Beyond being a crime against the shepherd, this was also a direct attack against the state and its citizen among whom these criminals had sought protection. The Islamic state was at that time subject to attacks from all sides, yet its leader and citizen had generously offerred shelter to foreigners who not only abused from their hospitality, in addition infiltrated the community, spreading violence and bloodshed. The prophet could neither impose magnanimity on the victim's family nor on a state which represents its citizen.

He therefore inflicted the law of equal retribution upon these cold blooded murderers in its full force; they were tortured the same way they did to the innocent hospitable shepherd who had given them food, drink and medicine when they were hungry, thirsty and ill, then they were left to die of thirst in the desert.

Although many later Quran commentators have linked this incident to the revelation of 5:33-4, there actually is no report that proves it. Ibn Umar even denies that this verse that limits the harshness of punishments upon criminals, is in anyway a divine disapproval of the prophet's severity. The law of equal retribution still stands and can be used in case one is subject to the same gruesome murder circumstances of the prophet's shepherd. 5:33-4 is unrelated to qisaas, the law of equal retribution, which concerns all members of a community. This passage rather it is a set of punishments for crimes which only the state has the final word for, committed against governement institutions, interests, laws, etc.

Islam critiqued against the death penalty; Violent sharia?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

YEs the Quran prescribes some harsh punishments, including the death penalty. How does that undermine its legitimacy as a divine religion? It doesnt. The only time the Quran allows death to a crime (without specifiying the execution method) as an extreme measure, among other severe measures, is murder 2:178 and spreading corruption in the land 5:33. And even in such cases, as well as others like theft where violent punishment is prescribed 5:38-40, physical punishement or death are only used against criminals who insist on transgression before the government is able to seize them. This speaks of criminals who actually have to be subdued by force so as to safeguard society. This is corroborated in the Arabic language where sariq (masc) and sariqa (fem) are adjectives and denote thoroughness and completeness in the characteristics of the word they qualify.

An important thing to keep in mind is that this punishement is one that is prescribed within a society where the just Islamic system is implemented as a whole, where its members earn their living fairly and have the entire right to enjoy it freely and securely, where a portion of their wealth is used to meet the needs of the less fortunate, and where such crime is totally unjustified. That is why when the Muslim state was stricken by famine under the second caliphate, that the government could not guarantee the needs of all of its citizen, Umar suspended the enforcement of the punishment for theft. When a camel belonging to a man of the tribe of Muzaynah was stolen by 2 men, Umar ordered their hands to be cut off. But when he learned that their master kept them hungry, he punished their master instead, imposing on him a fine equivalent to the price of two camels. But when the Islamic law is implemented to its fullest and that should a person shouldnt have to resort to theft to answer his basic needs, then it means the crime was meant at increasing one's wealth and status at the expense of others. The thief in that case is one that deems legitimate aqcuisition of wealth and status to difficult, so he seeks it through easier but illegitimate means. The Quran then counters that perverse mindframe by making it even harder for the one proven guilty to seek wealth in a legitimate manner, permanently reducing him, both in his appearance and abilities.

Islam critiqued fights human exploitation: Did the prophet trade black slaves?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

The prophet did not "trade" in slavery. Under the hudaybiya treaty, any Muslim from Meccan fleeing to Medina where the Muslim community was established, had to be returned to the Meccans. It was in such circumstances that a person whom the prophet did not know was someone's slave, sought refuge with him. When the Meccan master came looking for him, he would not return until the prophet gave him 2 of his own, and of his, the Meccan's, choice. The 2 chosen by the Meccan were black. He chose the best in his sight and although the bargain was not ideal for the prophet, he showed that he valued his own much more than his opponents valued theirs.

A report from Zad al Maad by ibn Qayyim, speaking of the prophet buying and selling slaves, gives a single example of such "transaction" which is none other than the one already spoken of by Bukhari above. As to the prophet buying slaves this is of course attested many times in the authentic reports, he bought them from other Muslims following their capture as war prisonners, to immediately emancipate them and set the example. The report from Zad al Maad gives other details which are dismissed by the hadith scholars, including Bukhari as inauthentic. This is mentionned in the footnotes of ibn Qayyim's complete version of Zad al Maad p163-165.

Islam critiqued needs orientations; to follow or not the prophets?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

All the prophet's 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).

Islam critiqued finds more idols; regular righteous Muslims?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

Just as Muhammad was uswa hasana, Ibrahim and the believers in his nations are called uswa hasana 60:4-6 and to follow the prophet 3:31 means to follow the revelation sent to him 6:106,33:2. Muhammad and the Muslims are told to follow the way of Ibrahim, this can only be achieved through the Quran which is the reminder of his way 16:123,4:125,3:95. It was indeed the Quran that guided Muhammad to the way of Ibrahim 6:161.

The Quran also says to follow the pious, humble believers 31:15 and this again only means to follow them in their obedience to Allah's commands, in their belief in His revelation because

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

The prophetic sunna is thus the manner in which the prophet applied the timeless ordinances of the Quran in his own time and place. It does not necessarily include his personal likes and dislikes, or particular recommendations which in the vast majority of cases the prophet himself never claimed were inspired.

He gently declined eating a roasted lizard out of personal taste, leaving those around him to freely eat as they wished.

Certain of his own standards of body hygiene, like trimming the mustache, letting the beard grow, using the toothstick, sniffing water into the nose, clipping the nails, washing the knuckles, removing hair from the underarms, shaving pubic hair, cleaning the private parts with water, rinsing the mouth etc, or the manner he slept, ate or dressed, all reflected the needs, culture and manners of a specific time in history.

 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.

Islam critiqued follows the prophet's example; humility and forgiveness?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

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.

Islam critiqued opposes ancient cultures; Breastfeeding adults?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

The critics often make use of particular ahadith related to specific events in order to paint them as a general rule applicable for all times. The misunderstanding stems from the idea that it is mandatory for Muslims to emulate every single deed of the prophet outside the religious sphere and that in everyday life, prophets in Islam are thought to be infaillible.

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 taunting 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. I will go into a slight digression here in order to parallel what is meant, in religious terminology, to follow a prophet. "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 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 conversion. After joining their ranks, he influenced the group leaders, namely Peter and James, to reach out to the Gentiles. With more non-Jews entering the fold, Jewish laws binding on the community were abandoned Acts15:1-29 and so was Jesus' "way". The Nazarenes who were centred in Jerusalem gradually became isolated. It is interesting noting that upon his arrest by the Jews and Romans, Paul was assumed to be Acts24"a ringleader of the Nazarene sect". Paul doesnt confirm the accusation, as it obviously did not conform to reality, and instead claims he follows the original path of Jesus. Paul's missionary activities progressively gained him a following among the gentile population which was more inclined looking up to Paul for leadership, instead of Jesus' brother James, a strict observer of Jewish Law, considered to be 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 definitely fled Jerusalem, in the surrounding deserts and managed to survive outside Palestine as they are mentioned 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, all the laws that constituted Jesus' "way".

Unfortunately the group that opposed them and their practices gained more converts, obviously as it appealed much more to non-Jews, more particularly 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.

This uswa hasana in no way implies that the prophet was a perfect creation. For example, After describing their outstanding moral and spiritual qualities, the Quran nevertheless asks the prophets to keep seeking 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; when the foremost among God's servants are denied any sense of complacency, then how far should regular believers be from harboring 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 committed 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.