Apostate prophet learns a new term; Islamic slavery vs Western slavery?

In answer to the video "Islamic Slavery"

No religion other than Islam promoted the liberation of fellow humans in bondage as an act of humanity and virtue, beautifully reflected in Sura 90. That is a fact the Judeo-Christian critics of Islam, who try misrepresenting ISlamic slavery with their twisted biblical paradigm in mind, will have to deal with. 

The overarching approach of Islam towards slavery, as already seen and as will be further developped, is thus to reduce the access to servitude and expand the way towards freedom.

in light of the above, clearly, the Quran dismisses the western and judeo-christian notion of slavery by giving a new meaning to the term. 

A slave in the Quran is nothing more than a former war prisonner captured during defensive warfare, and taken under care in a Muslim household because he couldnt be ransomed in benefits of any kind or freed unconditionally. Both Male and female war prisonners who became mulk yamin/right hand possession now fell under masters who treated them kindly to such an extent they had to be guaranteed a share of the inheritance if present along with other weak members of society taken under care 4:8. The prophetic traditions on the prophet's closest entourage and how they interacted with their slaves, all corroborate these facts. 

Critics often disregard the overall description that is made of the prophet in relation to slaves, that of his closest entourage, let alone the many Quranic injunctions on the matter, whenever they engage in their polemics. They begin isolating ahadith, which is the worst method of objectively approaching that vast corpus of fragmented, disconnected incidents, in the life of the the early Muslim community, and then draw their hasty conclusions. Clearly, Islam, the prophet and the Quran are completely in favor of freeing slaves, even without preconditions, simply as an act of benevolence 2:177. Yet we read a few instances where the prophet cancelled some people's desire to manumit their own slaves, either after their death or while still alive. He is described as freeing a part while selling another. If he was against setting slaves free altogether, as the insiduous polemicsts try to portray, then why allowing the manumission of some of them? He surely had the power and authority to keep them all into slavery. The reason he divided them this way is simple, once one objectively considers other similar instances, while of course, keeping in mind what was said about the noble prophet's core attitude in regards to slaves. These partial cancellations of arbitrary manumission came in specific contexts, that of Muslims that had no other assets that could be used to settle a debt than their slaves. 

It is very clear in the light of a narration in Bukhari where an indebted man pledges to free/manumit his only valuable possession which he could have used to settle his debt instead. The prophet used to personally settle the debts of those who had no assets. But it wasnt this indebted man's case, which is why the prophet cancelled that pledge and settled the debt by transfer of ownership of the slave. It would have been unfair for the prophet to use his limited assets to settle this particular debt when other indebted people were more entitled to his gracious and compassionate help.

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".

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.

The people at that time accorded no dignity to slave-girls and anyone marrying such a woman immediately became an object of scorn. Through 2:221 the believers are encouraged to marry their female-slaves instead of choosing a pleasing unbelieving woman, and the believing women are also told to choose their male-slaves above an idolater if they wish to marry. By qualifying the word "bondswoman" with the adjective "believing" and leaving the word "idolatress" without any condition, emphasizes the principle that a believing woman, even if she is a slave, is better than an idolatress even if she comes from a noble family, in adition posessing all desired outward physical qualities. 

It is to be kept in mind that to the Quran's primary addressees, as is even the case nowadays, establishing ties of various interests through marriages with a honorable family was a priority. The Quran turns that notion on its head, not with any example, but with that of slaves whom the ancients saw as the lowest human beings in society.

24:32 further encourages the believers to marry from their pious male/female slaves so that if some of them are poor, then they will be freed and enjoy more sustenance

"And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, Allah will make them free from want out of His grace; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing".

This reinforces the fact that the ultimate criteria for judging an individual is his piety, the verse clearly tells the believers to choose from any member of society while at the same time emphasizing the good gesture in Allah's eyes to marry a male/female slave and freeing him/her. The verse also point to the fact that not all slaves are poor "if they are needy".

Apostate prophet explores Islamic social care; treatment of slaves?

In answer to the video "Islamic Slavery"

The divine grant of mastery over their enemies doesnt give Muslims sanction to treat them as they wish. As shown earlier whether in the Quran or through the practice of the prophet, Muslims must treat them with care, almost as full members of a household. The reason being that through an exemplary conduct those former enemies might open their eyes to the real, unfiltered truth of Islam, free from the distortions of those that only seek to disparage it, and possibly reform themselves. The prophet once commented 

"you bring them tied in chains on their necks (capture them in war) and they later embrace Islam". 

This comment was utterd in relation to the verse qualifying Muslims as the best of nations, conditionally on their rightful conduct and forbidding evil. It is precisely this uprightness that turned enemy combatants, captured in war, into Muslims.

However, because the Quran repeatedly speaks of freeing slave as an act of great virtue, it warns against creating situations that could lead to the captivity then ransoming of slaves, through the example of the Jews of Medina. They entered into alliances with warring pagan tribes and fought, killed, enslaved then freed their own brethren while considering it a "pious act" 2:83-85. Such a behavior would not only be against the letter of the law but also its spirit 

"Malik related to me that he had heard that Abdullah ibn Umar was asked whether a slave could be bought on the specific condition that it was to be used to fulfil the obligation of freeing a slave, and he said, "No"...Malik added, "There is no harm, however, in someone buying a person expressly to set him free". 

Malik continues that in his opinion, the best course of action in this case is to exclude non-Muslim slaves. Choice must be made among those who neither were in the process of being freed, nor burdens to the owner due to physical impairement or bearing his child. A Muslim slave belonging to any of those categories is therefore not a valid kaffara/atonement. Even if he wasnt of those categories, Malik describes the slave as mu'min, meaning sincere and pious believer, which has more merit than simply being labelled Muslim. This way the intrinsic worth of the slave is enhanced to the maximum 

"Malik said...There is no harm in freeing a christian, jew, or magian voluntarily, because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'either as a favour then or by ransom,' (Sura 47 ayat 4) The favour is setting free".

The very fact of calling the manumission of slaves one of the greatest acts of charity, piety and benevolence towards men 2:177,9:60,90:11-18 shows that having them in one's possession is not the preferred way ultimately even though a short term captivity in the specific context of wars is sometimes necessary. 

The captives of the very first Islamic battle of Badr, were freed on ransom (in form of money depending on each prisoner's financial capacities or work like teaching ten Muslim children how to read and write), while those of the tribe of Tay were freed without any ransom. Some would reform themselves and cease their hostilities towards the Muslims, but others would go back headlong into battle whenever the chance to fight and kill Muslims presented itself. 

For example Abu Izza was among the anti-Muslim coaltion at Uhud. He had been taken as a prisoner of war at Badr and then released by the prophet without a ransom because he was poor and had a large family. The condition for his release was that he would not take part in further anti-Islamic activities, especially verbal provocations, as he was known for his eloquence. If relatives were captured they could not be separated. It is then that the Quran progressively introduced the notion of freeing slave benevolently as a great virtue. 

As already noted, slaves were a source of livelihood and labor, even to Muslims who had to treat them with care. That is why it is considered a great act of generosity if done unconditionally. Even if the person wasnt prepared to go to such charitable extent, the Quran still encouraged freeing them through other avenues such as atoning for certain sins like missing a fast, breeching a vow made hastily concerning a lawful thing, accidental homicide, and many other small acts common in this society 4:92,5:89,58:3. As an act of virtue, Ali emancipated 1000 slaves, purchasing them from his own money. The Prophet emphatically stated on many occasions that, in the sight of God, the unconditional freeing of a human being from bondage is among the most praiseworthy acts which a Muslim could perform.  

No religion other than Islam promoted the liberation of fellow humans in bondage as an act of humanity and virtue, beautifully reflected in Sura 90. That is a fact the Judeo-Christian critics of Islam, who try misrepresenting Islamic slavery with their twisted biblical paradigm in mind, will have to deal with. The overarching approach of Islam towards slavery, as already seen and as will be further developed, is thus to reduce the access to servitude and expand the way towards freedom.

Apostate prophet is brushed aside; Islam enters and reforms slavery?

In answer to the video "Islamic Slavery"

To remedy this deeply rooted social habit, Islam first and foremost never places the acquisition of slaves as a demand of religion. This means that when the institution of slavery is absent altogether from Muslim society, the divine law remains complete. 

Secondly it limits the acquisition of slaves by confining it to the war prisoners in the defensive war campaigns, specifically those that could not be ransomed, thus forbidding the enslavement of a free person. This is how God gives mastery to those who fight in His ways, over those that seek to extinguish the light of truth. As ordained by Islam and as will be seen in details later on, it is but the most logical and humane manner of dealing with the enemy in war; they could obviously not free them at once and re-ignite the war, nor execute them all, nor set up a camp for them in which they would overburden state treasury and demand inefficient logistical organization with poor spiritual and psychosocial impact, but instead were sent among the Muslims themselves who were to treat them as quasi-members of the household. 

"they (slaves or servants) are your brothers, and Allah has put them under your command. So the one under whose hand Allah has put his brother, should feed him of what he eats, and give him dresses of what he wears, and should not ask him to do a thing beyond his capacity. And if at all he asks him to do a hard task, he should help him therein".

These former enemies could see and experience first hand the values and morals of Islam, after which they could eventually be freed. 

From all the ways that provided an avenue for slave acquisition, the Quran kept only one, as already said because of it being a logistical necessity, and more importantly, helped protect the captives’ lives as well as offer them a possibility of reform. Possession of slaves in Islam is therefore unrelated to financial wealth. When slaves were bought, it was for the purpose of emancipating them immediately as a righteous benevolent action or to atone for a sin. 

They only could be acquired as collateral war prisoners, together with their belongings brought at the battlefield such as horses, camels, useful weapons. If they weren't ransomed in exchange of Muslim war prisoners at the hands of the enemy, they were then distributed in Muslim households in which the Islamic label of a "slave" would make the best western modern system of social care pale in comparison

"Narrated Anas: I served the Prophet for ten years, and he never said to me, "Uf" (a minor harsh word denoting impatience) and never blamed me by saying, "Why did you do so or why didn't you do so?"

That is why the prophet in a reported case advised against the freeing of a particular slave, although he and the Quran repeatedly encouraged and freed slaves indiscriminately. Some people are better off living and benefitting from that Islamic system than to be left in society to fend for themselves

"Narrated Maimuna, the wife of the Prophet that she manumitted her slave-girl and the Prophet said to her, "You would have got more reward if you had given the slave-girl to one of your maternal uncles."

To further corroborate that principle, the prophet said about the one 

"who has a beautiful slave girl, so he teaches her good manners, then he frees her, then he married her seeking the Face of Allah by that; then he will be given his reward twice".

Wars, past and present, justified or not, result in death, destruction and misery. The defeated party is always the one bearing the brunt of suffering. Among the consequences of wars, oppression, economic blockades, geopolitical bullying, post colonial damage and the like, that we see till this day are asylum seekers and refugees fleeing their homeland. Many of them die in the process, never see their families again or simply dont succeed and go back home without a solution. Looking realistically at the situation, one has to determine what would be the best course of action for the victor, ethically, spiritually and economically. Whether they retreat with the loot, in addition instauring a system that keeps drawing upon the local wealth, turning their backs and "closing their borders" or deal with the collateral damages. Once a party is defeated, its resources, including human are at the mercy of the victor. Families lose their pillars of support, leaving women and children helpless. Male refugees die by the hundreds till this day, seeking to feed their families back home, as stated earlier due to all types of oppression. Most of the time for these women, returning to their families adds more misery to an already impoverished community whose resources are lost or to be shared with the victorious party. That is not to speak of the general state of confusion in a community following defeat in war, adding burden upon burden for those left behind. The inevitable result is exile and more misery, or joining the victor whose increased wealth can afford extending the household to war captives and their children. This is the most pragmatic scenario in a war situation.

Muslims are warned however that even in a context of legitimate war, they can never be motivated by the perspective of capturing prisoners or acquiring any type of material gains over the main objective, the complete and entire defeat of their enemies and oppressors 8:67-71. So the type of slavery allowed in the Quran, up to this day if the conditions are met, isnt the one where free innocent human beings are captured and sold like a merchandise. In fact the Quran emphatically condemns this type of human trafficking through the story of prophet Yusuf, as will be shown below.

The Quran gives 2 clear options towards war prisoners, either of the 2 can be applied from the moment of their capture following their defeat at the battlefield, until the threat of war has subsided 47:4. They can be given an unspecified favor, such as being taken care off within a Muslim household or even unconditionally freed 2:177. The second option is to be ransomed for benefits of any kind, including monetary compensation as happens when a prisoner is bailed out, or in specific services as would be the case with prisoners doing community works, or in mutual prisoners. When a female captive gives birth to her owner's child, her status and conditions change 

"The Messenger of Allah forbade the sale of the (slave) mothers of one's children (umm al walad), they can not be sold, nor gifted, nor inherited. The master will make use of her while he is alive and when he dies she shall be free".

It is possible that some companions werent aware of the prohibition, and sold these categories of servants. A practice that happened even under Abu Bakr. Nothing indicates the prophet or close companions seeing and allowing the practice, as denoted with the "we" 

“We used to sell our slave women and the mothers of our children (Umahat Awaldina) when the Prophet was still living among us, and WE did not see anything wrong with that”. 

Umar, when he saw people doing it, forbade it in accordance with the prophet's command. 

Should the threat of war cease while there still are prisoners who havent benefited from the above 2 methods, then they can be employed as servants in a Muslim household where they must be treated on an almost equal level as other members of the household 4:36. At that point, if a slave who can offer any good contribution to society decides to be set free can enter into a written agreement with his guardian stipulating the terms and conditions of his manumition 24:33 which would more often than not be a term of service, i.e. you work for me for this many more months in my fields so I can recover my investment. This basically burdens the owner with only those right hand possessions that are of no value to society, after those that were capable of fending for themselves requested and eventually received their freedom. What this essentially means is that the burden of slavery in the end ultimately fell on the owners. Any capable slave that wanted to go into society, earn a living and get married would, and in addition the owner actually must offer financial assistance for the achievement of that objective. 

In fact some of the spendings of zakat are aimed at helping those masters who have entered into a manumition contract (mukataba) with their slaves 9:60. In one narration Anas b. Malik refuses to write a mukataba for a slave, so the caliph ʿUmar orders him to do it, paraphrasing the verse 24:33 ‘Write [a contract] with them if you see good in them!’, and making him swear an oath that he would do so. The majority opinion as attributed to Umar, Uthman, Aisha, and Ibn Umar, as well as the prophet is that the mukatab remains a slave until the last dirham is paid. Ibn Abbas reportedly stated that the slave is freed upon making the contract and merely owes the amount as a debt. Somewhere else we read, including in an alternative view from Umar that the slave is freed and the remainder converted to a debt upon paying half. Ibn Masud said that this occurs after one third or one quarter. The caliph Ali reportedly said that the mukatab attains freedom in proportion to what he has paid off. This seems to match a number of Prophetic hadith that discuss the rights and responsibilities of the mukatab becoming more like a free person the more they have paid off in certain numerically specified juristic matters. All this shows the flexibility of the issue of manumition.

Apostate prophet is Django unchained; Slavery in the Quran and the life the prophet Muhammad?

In answer to the video "Islamic Slavery"

Slavery wasnt invented by Islam or Christianity, it existed long before. In ancient times almost all nations from the Romans to the Greeks regarded slavery as something natural. Aristotle thought that

"..some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right."

The elites throughout India, Persia, Rome, the Arabian Peninsula, Romania and Greece regarded them as some commodity not worthier than cattle and had the power of life or death over them. The Judeo-christian scriptures hardly improved the status of slaves, as human traficking was allowed even if it involved one's own children. Severly scourging the slave was permissible so long as the beating did not immidiately bring about the slave's death Ex21:20-1.

The mosaic law, which Jesus abided by to the letter and instructed his followers to do the same, still allows purchasing them like any other commodity, detaining them and passing them down against their will Lev25:44-46,Deut15:16-17. Slaves can be forcefully seperated from their wives married under slavery, and from their children who are to stay with the master should the slave request and gain his freedom Ex21:2-4. By keeping his family as hostages, the master is almost sure to keep his slave permanently. For hard labor purposes, the only restriction to slave acquisition is that it was forbidden for Jews to enslave one another for hard labor. However, throughout history they could, and did, sell one another to slavery for a different purpose than their non-Jewish slaves, they were employed for works that did not involve physical toil Lev25:40-46. 

Solomon, during the building of the Temple and his own palace made ample use of non-Jewish slaves during 20 years of hard labor.

Slaves had to lookup to their masters as equals of God Col3:22-24, respect and fear them in servitude as they would serve Jesus Ephes6:5, submit to even harsh masters 1Pet2:18. So inconceivable is it that a slave may one day rise above his cursed status and gain responsibilities that the earth is pictured as quacking at the thought of it Prov30:21. The subjugation of a slave is an essential part of religion

1Tim6:1-4"so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered..These are the things you are to teach and insist on. If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing".

As stated earlier, being nothing more than an ISraelite prophet in a long line of prophets, Jesus himself never banned slavery and in fact even endorsed unquestioned submission of slaves to their masters Lk17:7-10. Slave trafficking became an organized business through the Christian nations of Europe and America who captured slaves by thousands from their colonies.

They packed them like sardines in ships according to a precise mathematical calculation to maximize profit and many died on the way. Before leaving, the ships were blessed by priests. Christian priests themselves participated in the trade, especially in Angola, and justified it by saying they were baptizing them. Towards the end of the 18th century, some Arab nations participated in the slave trade too. The end of slavery in the christian world did not come by the hand of the church. It was a handful of moralists who rose slowly against it. Their cries werent heard in britain until 1807 when it was no longer profitable to the economy and the governement wanted to cut expenses especially in the sugar plantations after they lost their global monopoly.

The prophetic traditions are clear as regards the treatment of slaves. In his famous sermon in 'Arafat, on 9th Dhul-hijjah 9 AH, during his last pilgrimage, the Prophet said,

"...and your slaves, see that you feed them such food as you eat yourselves and dress him with what you yourself dress. And if they commit a mistake which you are not inclined to forgive then sell them, for they are the servants of Allah and are not to be tormented..."

As a side note, the selling refered to here is certainly not in the context of trade. It is the best solution for both parties to seperate with lesser harm. The guardian is here confronted to a situation where the slave comits a grave offense. The prophet's compassionate words refer to the slave's misdeed as a mistake, although from the guardian's perspective it is unforgivable and deserving of a harsh treatment. This wording of the prophet is in line with the Quranic injuntions of being more lenient towards the weaker members of society in case of an offense 4:25. The conditions for having a slave in Islam, as already shown, is costly. Parting with them could not be done immidiately because the guardian had to recover some of his investment somehow. He would thus be tempted to become harsh towards his slave until he could get back some of his costs and then free him. The prophet thus proposes a pragmatic solution that keeps in view justice, with the guardian recovering some of his investment, and compassion, with the slave avoiding punishment and being transferred to a new household where he could have a fresh start.

From Risalat al-Huqooq

"And the right of your subject through being your slave is that you should know that he is a creature of your Lord and is made of the same flesh and blood. And you only own him, but you are much too inferior to God and you have not created him. And you have not created his hearing and sight, nor do you provide his daily sustenance; rather it is God who gives you sufficiency for that. Then He subjugated him to you, entrusted him to you, and provisionally consigned him with you. So protect him there, and treat him well, just as He (God) has treated you well, and feed him with what you eat yourself, and clothe him with what you clothe yourself. And do not burden him with what he cannot withstand. And if you dislike him, you ought to let him go and replace him, but do not torment God's creature. And there is no power but in God". Slaves are even covered by the law of equal retribution "Samurah ibn Jundub narrated that the Prophet had said: “He who kills his slave shall be killed, he who amputates his slave shall be amputated and he who castrates his slave shall be castrated.”

In pre-Islamic Arab society, slavery was also an established institution. Slave men and women were found in almost every house, their number was a symbol of status. They were mainly prisonners of wars, or even debtors who were enslaved, then distributed among the armies or sold in the market places like animals. They were a source of cheap labor and livelihood for thousands.

Islam critiqued needs a clue; follow uswa hasana in all circumstances?

In answer to the video "Allahu Akbar"

All Of the prophet Muhammad'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 should emulate the best; humility of uswa hasana?

In answer to the video "Allahu Akbar"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just as Muhammad was uswa hasana, Ibrahim and the believers in his nations are called uswa hasana 60:4-6 and to follow the prophet 3:31 means to follow the revelation sent to him 6:106,33:2.

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

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

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

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

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

Islam critiqued doing the usual guesswork; what is Uswa Hasana?

In answer to the video "Allahu Akbar"

As is explicit in the Quran, the divine protection of the carriers of the revelation pertains strictly to the revelation itself. But in everyday affairs, the messengers, who are still humans endowed with freewill and thus the potential, if not to sin due to their heightened level of spiritual awareness, to make mistakes, they are left to their own devices in their everyday lives to fight off the assaults of evil forces.

No prophet was in a constant state of communication with the divine realm. The hadith and Quran itself speak of long periods where revelation had stopped, and the subsequent tauntings of his enemies on the issue, the questions of his followers and his anxious anticipation.

The Quran never came to correct the prophet's worldviews in terms of knowledge of nature and general causality, neither of his contemporaries but rather guide him and the rest of humanity through him, to the most complete, advanced human spiritual knowledge. The divine protection  therefore only pertained to the Quran which is the source of that perfect spiritual knowledge. The prophet was "uswa hasana" in his application of the Quran, just as following Jesus' way, as he is quoted saying in the NT, meant following his footsteps in his application of the Torah. "The way" of Jesus Jn14:6 is outlined in Lk10:25-28 where he commands strict observance of Jewish laws. In that passage from Luke he is asked about the conditions of salvation and the questionner quotes from 2 passages. The first is Lev19 which details certains laws like the observence of the sabbath and admonishes to

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

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

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

As one can clearly see, one is justified before God, not by faith alone but by deeds too. Consequently the Nazarenes, Jesus' early group of small band of followers, observed all Jewish customs outlined in the Torah but differed from Jews in that they recognized Jesus as the Messiah.

The Nazarenes grew among the Israelites but persecutions forced them to go into hiding, with Paul playing a central role in their persecution prior to his convertion. After he joined their ranks, he started influencing the group leaders, namely Peter and James, to reach out to Gentiles. With more non-Jews entering the fold, many Jewish customs were abandonned Acts15:1-29 and the Nazarenes who were centered in Jerusalem gradually became isolated.

The main Christian movement started looking up to Paul for leadership, instead of Jesus' brother James, a strict observer of Jewish Law and considered as Jesus' successor in non-canonical Gospels. With the establishment of Christianity as a state religion in Rome by Constantine in the 4th century, this small original band definetly fled Jerusalem, in the surrounding deserts and managed to survive outside Palestine as they are mentionned by Jerome upto 380AD to have lived in the Syrian desert. Among them the Ebionites (who claimed to descend from the original Jewish disciples led by James) and Elchasites who rejected Paul as a charlatan and his teachings as falsehood, as well as the Zadokites, Essenes, Rechabites, Sabeans, Mandaeans etc. They had their own writing which they considered scripture, composed of an oral tradition attributed to Jesus, and some HB books. Their writings are known, among others as Gospel of the Nazareans, Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Ebionites. They would later write that Paul was a false apostle who taught heresy based on the fact he was a failed convert who was disappointed with Judaism and therefore motivated to teach against its laws (circumcision, kashrut, etc..). Unfortunately the group that opposed them and their practices gained more converts, obviously as it appealed much more to non-Jews, more particularily the hellenized Romans and Greeks.

The Nazarenes and similar groups were inevitably marginalised while the more and more dominant groups decided what the Church’s organizational structure would be, as well as its official creeds, or which books would be accepted as Scripture. The group that became "orthodox", further sealed its victory, by the pens of early writers like Iraeneus Justin Martyr and Tertullian, claiming that it had always been the majority opinion of Christianity, Jesus and his apostles.

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 commited by the prophet. No indication of major sins, let alone intentional, are found concerning the prophet, anywhere in the hadith corpus or the Quran. Yet we find the Quran reproaching him even the slightest unfitting action for a man of his standing, actions which none would find problematic.

This is the etiquette that Islam has taught to man. A man might have performed the highest possible service to Allah's Religion, might have offered countless sacrifices in its cause, and might have exerted himself extremely hard in carrying out the rites of His worship, yet he should never entertain the thought that he has fulfilled the right his Lord had on him wholly, the Sustainer who maintains him and the universe at each instant. Rather he should always think that he has not been able to fulfill what was required of him.

This reveals an important point, something the prophets have always been aware of as seen in their constant prayers for forgiveness and protection, the inherent imperfection of humans, their shortcomings in the face of divine perfection. One should therefore never feel self-righteous or self-sufficient in any endeavour.

Islam critiqued revisits ancient battle; Muslims attack the Jews of Khaibar?

In answer to the video "Allahu Akbar"

This was an epic Muslim victory and defeat of the warmongerers.

The defeat the Jews had suffered at the battle of the Trench, where they had allied with the near totality of the Arab pagan tribes for the purpose of exterminating the Muslims, did not deter them. They were making preparations behind their settlements of Khaybar and the gardens of Fadak where 14000 of them lived inside 7 well fortified strongholds, for a final showdown with the Muslims.

Their chief, Yusayr ibn Razam, joined with the Arab tribe of Ghatfan, along with the banished Jewish tribes of Nadir and Qaynuqa that were allowed, by the prophet, despite their former treacheries, to find refuge within the fortress with their Jewish brethren.

A little prior to the battle, the prophet authorized the assassination of Abu rafi'. The Khazraj tribe asked for the Prophet’s permission to kill him. Permission was granted provided that no women or children would be harmed, an instruction that was respected despite Abu Rafi's wife almost foiling the attempt. This happened prior to the siege of Khaybar, where he was mercifully allowed to remain following the defeat of the Jewish-Meccan alliance that nearly decimated the Muslims at the battle of the Trench. Abu rafi' kept on actively inciting the Muslims' enemies from within the fortress. Wars were started and innocent people lost their lives because of such incitements. The prophet thought that such a move would dissuade the people of Khaybar from pursuing their belligerent attitude but it did not.

To demonstrate their strength, Ghatfan captured 20 camels of the Prophet after killing their herdsman and capturing his wife. Their intriguing and use of their wealth to incite tribes against the Muslims left the prophet Muhammad with no choice but to put an end to their machinations and betrayals. Leaving them to freely behave in that way and slowly build up their opposing alliances would again put the Muslim survival at risk, just as they had almost caused the extermination of the Muslim community in the previous battle of the Trench.

Ibn Ishaq reports that when the prophet first arrived at Medina he invited the peaceful Jews of Khaybar to Islam with a letter, which after reminding them of the prophetic history and how he fits in it, does not put any blame on them if they sincerely reject his call

"I adjure you to tell me if you find in that revelation which Allah sent down to You, that you should believe in Muhammad. If you cannot find that in your scripture, no displeasure will fall on you. Guidance will be distinguishable from error, and I invite you to Allah and to His prophet".

This call, from which they arent liable in case of rejection after sincerely and objectively considering the prophet's message, in light of their own scriptures, was made at a time where they had not yet displayed the machinations, war incitements and enemy alliances they would actively participate in a few years later against the Muslims at the battle of the Trench. A few years later then, as he reached the fortress and to make sure that he would not inadvertently cause innocent Muslim casualties, who would have accepted the invitation he had made a few years back in times of peace, he waited for the sound of the morning call to prayer. This was a common practice of the prophet which he had done in other cases

"Whenever the Prophet went out with us to fight (in Allah's cause) against any nation, he never allowed us to attack till morning and he would wait and see: if he heard Adhan he would postpone the attack and if he did not hear Adhan he would attack them".

When the time came and the call to prayer wasnt heard, the green light was given to attack and to apply the unalterable divine law of retribution, as amply demonstrated in both their scriptures and the Quran. Whenever a messenger is sent to a people with an undeniable manifestation of the truth, and that the people reject it knowingly and attempt to kill him, then they are destroyed either by a heavenly disaster or by the hands and swords of the prophet and his partisans. Those believers and their prophet are then are then made their successors in the land. This is an unquestionable pattern in the semitic prophetic history.

When Ali spearheaded the assault he asked the prophet on which basis (not that there were no basis, rather which among the basis) should he fight them, the prophet replied, on the basis of that very divine law alluded to earlier

"O Messenger of Allah, on what basis should I fight the people?” He said: “Fight them until they bear witness that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. If they do that, then they have protected from you their blood and their wealth, except for a right that is due, and their reckoning will be with Allah".

Again, a very important point to reiterate, these Jews were peacefully invited to Islam many years back and were never bothered for their refusal to accept it. The prophet only engaged them in battle when they initiated hostile activities against him and the Muslim community. It is the mercy of the prophet that, despite having full authority of applying the divine penalty for continuously rejecting a prophet's call, in addition attempting to murder him and his followers, gave them nevertheless the option of surrendering to the divine law and walk free. This also shows that the Muslims' priority in their case was not their wealth rather the application of the divine law. Yet they still refused, just as they had in the past stubbornly and arrogantly rejected prophets from their own people telling them to adhere to their own books.

They were thus forcefully subdued for 2 completely legitimate reasons, first their wordly crimes, and then the transgression of rejecting a prophet in their midst. It is to be noted, as said in the report, had they accepted Islam at that moment then it would have only warded off the divine wordly destruction from them but not their moral accountability before God for their past crimes.

As a quick side note, before getting into the details of that battle, it would be appropriate to compare the progressive manner that inevitably led the prophet Muhammad finally engaging to war with the settlement of Khaybar, and the Jews' own standards of behavior in wars. Along with the known, compulsory genocidal warfare, during which no atrocities towards men, women, children, cattle and plants may be spared, there are laws relating to optional warfare, for the sole purpose of Israel's "national glory" as labelled by their rabbis. In such cases, any random nation the Israelites arbitrarily choose, and set themselves out to conquer can either be "peacefully" submitted, resulting in the enslavement and taxation of its population, or in case of their rejection of the "peace offer", a military subjugation resulting with the execution of all adult males, the capture as spoils of war of their women, children, and livestock

Deut20:10-14"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby".

In addition, should it be necessary to completely subdue that nation

2Kings3:19"you shall fell every good tree, and you shall stop up all springs of water, and you shall clutter every good field with stones".

In the land of Canaan, those natives that werent driven out or exterminated as per the Torah's injunctions during the invasion, were subdued into slavery Josh17:13. Their descendants suffered the same fate under Solomon's rule 1Kings9:20-1. After all and as stated in both the HB and the Talmudic writings (Eleazar ben Shammua) , the purpose of creation and the reason why the heavens and earth are maintained is for the chosen race to observe Torah. That is what the Quran would have looked like, and how it would have instructed its people to behave towards the foreign nations and the weak that come under their possession, had it been penned by the ancients of its time to whom such attitude was regarded as expected and acceptable.

At Khaybar it was a different story, thank God not in anyway comparable to the Jews' own standards.

A detachement of above 1000 men was sent to their fortresses. It took the Muslims 20 days of siege and several assaults led by Abu Bakr then Umar and finally Ali who vaillanty pierced the fortress and inflicted heavy casualties in the Jews and pagan ranks. After their defeat, the tribes of Bani Nadir and Qaynuqa were expelled and over those that remained, Muhammad proposed putting their own chief Yusayr ibn Rizam as Governor of Khaybar over his fellow Jews. In exchange he had to recognize the Prophet's legislative authority, not religious, he was allowed to keep his and his people's religion. He in addition was to ensure that none among his people would ever again engage in hostilities or stir up anyone against the Muslims. He accepted but on his way back to Khaybar where he was escorted with his 30 men and some armed Muslim men, he regretted his decision and attacked the Prophet's messenger, killing him. Followed a heavy fight from which no Muslim died and all Jewish soldiers were killed except 1 who escaped.

With the collapse of their last fortress, the Jews did not pose any more threat to the Muslims. Those that were expelled had their immovable properties confiscated and redistributed to the homeless among Muslims, who still had no dwelling places since their migration from Mecca. Those that were allowed to stay, remained on the condition that they could be expelled anytime should they return to treachery, desire for war or instigating others against the Muslims. They could keep their property but in exchange had to provide the Muslims with part of their crops, they had to relinquish their insularity and participate in the life of the whole community with the rights and obligations that naturally ensue.

Following the death of Yusayr ibn Rizam, another Jew, Ibn Rawahah was placed as governor. This is the prophet's mercy, as a chief of state and having that community entirely subdued to him, did not place a Muslim nor a tyrant above them. Instead, he instructed the Jews be allowed free practice of their religion. Now the believers had inherited under divine sanction their lands and wealth just as other unrighteous people's possessions were entirely given to them as spoils

Neh9:25"And they captured fortified cities and fat soil, and they inherited houses full of all good, hewn cisterns, vineyards, and olive trees, and fruit trees in abundance, and they ate and were sated, and they became fat, and they enjoyed pleasures with Your great goodness".

The Ishmaelites and their prophet however did not behave anywhere remotely like the Israelites and their prophets did whenever the lands of their enemies were granted to them by God, disregarding all ethics of war and humanitarian principles.

Islam critiqued feels threatened; Takbir!

In answer to the video "Allahu Akbar"

What is this typical Muslim terminology "Allahu Akbar" and in which cases should it be used? In Islam this phrase is one of the supreme affirmation of strict monotheism. The HB for example doesn't teach strict monotheism but rather a mix of monolatry and monotheism, with an evident inclination towards the former.

While the Quran unequivocally dismisses other deities as inert, senseless and powerless pieces of wood or stones, fabricated lies incapable of removing or modifying an affliction or benefiting those worshiping them, interceding for them, treats them as figments of a corrupt mind's imagination, false conjectures attributed to real or imaginary entities etc, the HB does not speak of false deities that way.

This is reflected in the many biblical texts exhorting the Israelites not to follow other gods, lesser in greatness than the God of Israel 2Chr2:4, a tacit acknowledgement of the existence of those deities. For example in Judges11:24, Jephtah tries to resolve a territorial dispute by telling the Ammonites that the land of Israel had been given to the Israelites by YHWH, while their lands had been given to them by their god Chemosh.

When the Quran urges the believer to proclaim God's greatness (takbir/Allahu akbar) it firstly is in relation to His mastery over all things known and unknown, concrete and abstract. It isnt in relation to other, lesser deities, but in terms of any innovation or description, whether consisting in giving Him non-existing partners, children, behavior etc anything that may compromise His perfect attributes, His being above any likeness 17:111,56:74,87:1.

Besides this primary monotheistic connotation, it may be uttered in all kinds of wordly situations if the purpose is to express God's supreme control, the establishment and prevailing of the divine will. Although what constitutes the true divine will is a matter of personal interpretation sometimes. This opens the door to misusing the phrase to inappropriate situations and by unworthy people.

CIRA international zoology confusion; honey from bee's belly in 16:69?

In answer to the video "Bees Make Honey in the Bodies - Scientific Miracles of the Quran Ep. 8"

16:69"Then eat of all the fruits (thamaraat) and walk in the ways of your Lord submissively. There comes forth from within it a beverage of many colours, in which there is healing for men; most surely there is a sign in this for a people who reflect"

The Arabic for fruit in the sense of apples, oranges etc. is faakiha as in 38:51,43:73,44:55 etc.
Thamaraat (plural) comes from the root TH-M-R and it means the product of the tree of fruit and otherwise. It is conceptually used to point to any product of anything. The verb is athmara (to produce) as in 6:141 where we are told to eat from the tree's product (thamarihi) when it produces (athmara). The word implies that what the tree produces are fruits but it does not mean fruits in every context it is used.

Here are a few examples from the Quran;
-14:37,28:57 (any type of product of the earth that can be used to sustain human life)
-2:25 (the product of one's good deeds in heaven)
-2:155,18:42 (the product of one's effort or the wealth)
-7:130 (the ruining of Pharaoh's crops/earth product)
-2:266,47:15 (all kinds of products, fruits or else found in heaven)

16:69 says that the bee eats from all kinds of PRODUCTS at-thamaraat (not from all kinds of FRUITS fakiha). Earth and plant products include flowers. Although, bees certainly do eat fruits as well if given the opportunity, the Quran here did not state so. It could have used the specific word for fruits/fakiha, as it does in many places. It has instead eloquently used a word that includes fruits, as well as other plant and earth products.

16:69 further says that there comes forth from within the bees a variety of beverages (shirab) containing benefits for mankind. The Quran here could have said 'asal as it does elsewhere 47:15 if it meant honey. But again, as with the use of thamaraat, it has eloquently avoided a restricted word and instead uses a broader term adapted to the honey making process. Honey begins as a type of beverage coming out of the bee's stomach. Bees first extract nectar through their mouth tube, then store it in their extra stomach, also called the honey stomach or crop. It is a pocket inside their abdomen, a little in front of the ventriculus, the other stomach they use to digest their food. Inside this honey stomach, the nectar mixes with enzymes that modify its chemical compostion. The resulting liquid is regurgitated and drank by another bee. The process is repeated until the partially digested nectar is deposited into a honeycomb.

At that point, bees start fanning the honeycomb with their wings so as to evaporate the water, resulting in honey. It is thus accurate for the Quran to say that a drink comes out from within the bee. Eventually, that drink, once processed becomes beneficial for humans.

As a side note, it is interesting that the gender used for the working honey bee, is the feminine, since the females are the ones collecting the nectar. All the verbs related to the bee are in the 2nd person feminine singular form (attakhidhi/take, kuli/eat, asluki/follow). This is because in the singular, the bee is in the feminine form nahlat. In the plural, it assumes the irregular masculine form nahel. It is common in Arabic to interchange between genders in the plural.