Acts17apologetics find a Jesus rival; Allah, angels and Muslims pray to Muhammad?

In answer to the video "Why Muslims Pray to Muhammad (David Wood)"

Throughout time, the opponents of the prophets, because of their incapacity at denying the forceful arguments presented, reckoned that the only way in which they could tone down their ever increasing influence on the masses was to besmear their character and integrity

Ezek21:5"O Lord God, they say of me, 'Is he not an inventor of parables?".

Among their attacks, they would twist their prophecies publicly and deride the revelations

Ezek33:30-31"the members of your people who talk about you beside the walls and in the entrances of the houses..And they will come to you as a public gathering, and they will sit before you as My people, and they will hear your words but not fulfill them; instead they make them into jokes with their mouth; their heart goes after their gain".

These talks did cause them grief and sorrow however they were relieved knowing that God is their witness and, along with the angels, constantly showers them with blessings. Concerning the prophet who is the first and foremost in submission, obedience and devotion to Allah 6:14,39:11-12 we are told that

33:56"Allah and His angels send blessing/yusallun upon the Prophet".

Divine blessings are showered on him as was done with past prophets and messengers 37:113 such as Ibrahim, Ismail, Ishaq, Yaqoub, Musa or Ilyas. The Quran tells us to praise, these eminent personalities, remember their exalted status among later generations 37:108,119,129,38:45-49. Muslims consequently remember them along with all the righteous in the daily prayers. To add to the sense of appreciation from Allah, yusallun is in the present form, which conveys the sense of perpetuity and continuity of a state in classical Arabic. This makes the prophet constantly under Allah's blessings.

When Allah and His angels yusallun on the prophet just like Allah and His angels yusallun on the believers 2:157,33:42-43,40:7-9 it does not mean the ritual salaat of worship. Neither does the word yuqimu precede it 4:103 nor does it say ila/to or for, rather aala/upon.  There is no hint at anyone praying to any other than Allah, much less of Allah praying to someone else. Confusing doctrines such as these are found in Trinitarianism, with separate divine entities contingent on oneanother, praying, begging, receiving things, and needing permission from eachother.

Salat stems from s-l-y. It is used in concrete for the horses in a race whose heads connect with the lower back of the one in the front. In the vivid conceptual language of the Arabs, it became a metaphor for closeness in connection, reaching of a goal. All these apply to the ritual salat to God. The goal is Allah with whom a person connects through worship of Him exclusively, the One to Whom all praise is due in the Heavens and Earth and in the Hereafter 34:1. When the angels do salat upon (not to) the believers, the goal are the believers with whom the angels connect by worshipping Allah so that He communicates His blessings on them. At no point are the believers worshipped by the angels, although they are intended in the angels' worship to Allah. Similarly God tells the believers to do salat on their prophet 33:56. Their goal is the prophet and they connect with him by worshipping Allah so that He communicates His blessings on him. Never is the prophet worshipped, intentionally or not. 

The prophet Muhammad is commanded to reciprocate, and do salat on the people 9:103 as it will give them a sense of relief. Never did the prophet worship any believer. Finally when Allah does salat upon (not to) someone, such as the prophet, then similarly Allah's goal is the prophet with whom He connects, not by worshiping him, but by communicating His blessings on him. Salat is not equal to worship but may include it. Salat is a connection with a goal. The type of connection and goal are different depending on the sender and receiver. Between created entities their goal is to connect with oneanother, never through worshipping one another, rather through worshipping Allah that he might send his blessings. When God is the sender of salat unto His creation, He establishes connection with it not by worshipping it or any other entity, but by blessing it with His guidance 33:43. Had the action of Allah doing salat involve the worship of another entity so that it might bless another, then the result would instead be for that worshipped entity itself to cause the blessing. But the guidance comes from Allah alone 

"He it is Who does salat upon you, and His angels that He might bring you forth from the darkesses into the light, and He is merciful to those who put their trust in Him". 

Again, when someone does salat on another who isnt worthy, he will not receive Allah's mercy. This shows again, the implication of doing salat is to communicate something from Allah upon another, never from another divine entity. Consequently the prophet is told that he should not do salat (yusalli) on the disbelievers when they die because they have been forbidden from Allah's forgiveness 9:80,84. The result of Allah doing salah upon someone is therefore to bestow goodness from Himself on the person. But because mercy best encapsulates goodness from Allah, we find in the Quran and ahadith the salah from Allah equated with mercy from Himself 

2:157"Those are the ones upon whom are salawaat from their Lord and mercy. And it is those who are the [rightly] guided". 

The WAW which is translated in general as AND, also often means inclusion of a particular entity within the general more encompassing entity. The purpose is to highlight one aspect of the more encompassing concept. Salah from Allah therefore includes mercy, as well as other good things one may think of. Al Bukhari reports from Sufyan Ath-Thawri that 

"The Salah of the Lord is mercy". 

He also reports that

 "Allah's Salah is His praising him".

 The following narration, although weak also explains what is meant by the salah of Allah

 “The Israelites said to Musa: Does your Lord pray? Musa said: Fear Allah, O Sons of Israel! Allah said: O Musa! What did your people say? Musa said: O my Lord, You already know? They said: Does your Lord pray? Allah said: Tell them My prayer for My servants is that My Mercy should precede My Anger. If it were not so, I would have destroyed them.”

 In another equally weak narration 

“He (the Prophet PBUH) asked: ‘What is His Salah?’. He (Gabriel) said, He says: ‘Perfect, Most High is the Lord of the angels and the Spirit, My Mercy overwhelms my wrath.'”

The same reasoning applies to the greeting of "salaam" which is a supplication to Allah, that He might bestow peace on another. When Allah in turn greets with "salaam" He is bestowing peace from Himself upon another 

11:48"It was said: O Nuh! descend with peace from Us".  

To the dwellers of heaven, their peace will manifest by Allah appeasing their hearts to the fullest 

5:45-7"in the midst of gardens and fountains. Enter them in peace, secure. And We will root out whatever of rancor is in their breasts".  

No entity obtains salaam unless shown the way by Allah 

20:47,5:16"God shows unto all that seek His goodly acceptance the paths leading to peace/salaam and, by His grace, brings them out of the depths of darkness into the light and guides them onto a straight way". 

In sura yasin, when someone receives the word of peace from Allah, the verse ends by stressing Allah's mercy, because it is only through His mercy that peace enters the hearts of the believers 36:58. 

A comparable terminology is in regards to the concept of intercession. Speaking of the hereafter, the prophet said 

"Then the prophets and Angels and the believers will intercede, and (last of all) the Almighty (Allah) will say, 'Now remains My Intercession. He will then hold a handful of the Fire from which He will take out some people whose bodies have been burnt, and they will be thrown into a river at the entrance of Paradise, called the water of life. They will grow on its banks, as a seed carried by the torrent grows. You have noticed how it grows beside a rock or beside a tree, and how the side facing the sun is usually green while the side facing the shade is white. Those people will come out (of the River of Life) like pearls, and they will have (golden) necklaces, and then they will enter Paradise whereupon the people of Paradise will say, 'These are the people emancipated by the Beneficent. He has admitted them into Paradise without them having done any good deeds and without sending forth any good (for themselves).' Then it will be said to them, 'For you is what you have seen and its equivalent as well.'" 

The word for intercession here is Shafa'a which is linguistically different than tawasul. Shafaa of Allah is not a pleading action to another God. The people of paradise here recognize that it is Allah Himself who caused those people to enter heaven. This will be the ultimate act of Mercy, hence the people of paradise referring to Allah as al Rahman. Those sinners for whom Allah did not allow any intercession will ultimately be honoured by the shafa'a of Allah Himself, once their sins have been cleansed in the hellfire. The shafaa of Allah is to come between the person and his punishment, then doing as He pleases and deems fit; which is to take the person out of hellfire and place him in paradise. Shafaa between human beings entails that someone, allowed by Allah, comes between Allah and another person so as to honour and uplift that person.

By now it has been made clear, salat is an action that does not always include worship, neither by the sender nor to the receiver of the salat. Further it is not exclusive to the prophet Muhammad. He is a nabi like all the others between whom Muslims should never discriminate 3:84. Nor is the command to salla reserved for the prophets; it is a universal and recommended action between all believers equally. In any language words can carry different implications depending on the subject. We can extend the parallelism further. The entire Quran is the word of Allah, including its words of prayers and worship. When Allah revealed sura fatiha for instance, he was not worshipping Himself or another deity while He uttered it. Allah identifies Himself as the author of those words, meaning when He utters them, they will not apply to Him as they would to another. The sender of a letter containing instructions for another to follow, will not apply to the author if he begins reading those same instructions.

A similar terminology is God's repeated command that the believers should "aminu" in the prophet. Although often translated "believe", that rendition doesnt do full justice to the word which literally means to "make oneself safe in an entity" ie fully trust it. So the believers are to fully trust their prophet and feel safe in him just as he does in them 9:61.  

Finally, the tashahhud during prayer mentions the prophet, but also oneself and all righteous servants of God, present or not. The prophet said 

"When you send Salam on me, send Salam on all the Messengers, for I am one of the Messengers".

None of those individuals are glorified, nothing is expected from them, nor are they believed to be able to perceive these words of prayers directly. Calling upon them emphasizes their presence in one's mind. At all moments, God is glorified and asked to send His peace and mercy on them. Talking in this manner to someone absent and beyond sensory perception, dead or alive, doesnt deify the person. This is done very frequently in everyday life. Nothing is expected in return from that person nor is he thought to directly perceive what is said. This is in stark contrast with the worship of saintly personalities as is widely practiced in Catholicism. Saints hear the prayers directly, and are expected to fulfil particular needs of the devotees, either through their own power, or through intercession with a higher stationed entity.

In ancient times, the practice of necromancy consisted in conversing with the dead, inquiring and receiving answers from them through dreams or while awake. The occultist would lie in graveyards, dig up bones and speak to the dead person seeking answers for future matters. The practrice seems to have been widespread among the Israelites in the time of Isaiah (Isa8:19). Of course all this is far from the Islamic prayer in which Muslims ask God to bless the prophet, their own selves and all the righteous present or not. 

In Islam, dead people, believers and disbelievers alike, are alive in an intermediary realm until the day of resurrection 2:154,3:169,40:46. An inviolable barrier is placed between us and them preventing any type of interraction between these parallel realms 23:99-100. 

The only manner for those alive in that realm to know of things happening in our world, is indirectly. If God decides to convey to them information from the present world. For instance the prophet said 

"‘Allah has angels who travel around on Earth conveying to me the Salams of my Ummah". 

In addition, there are deeds they have left behind that can benefit them. Things such as an ongoing benevolent action that benefit people down the line (like planting a tree or digging a well) or beneficial knowledge, or a righteous child who will pray for his dead parent. 

This is a major Quranic theme, exemplified by the prophet and stressed upon the Muslims; that the best, most beneficial deeds are those that have God and one's fellow human being as motivating factor, no matter how insignificant 

"Allah's Messenger said, "While a man was on the way, he found a thorny branch of a tree there on the way and removed it. Allah thanked him for that deed and forgave him".

However the deceased wont be aware of those deeds while they are performed in his name, including prayers, until they are raised

"A man's status will be raised in pradise and he will ask, How did I get here? He will be told, By your sons' duaa for forgiveness for you". 

Acts17apologetics detect idolatry; Muslims worship the black stone?

In answer to the video "Why Muslims Pray to Muhammad (David Wood)"

The Kaaba, according to Arab history was constructed by Prophet Ibrahim and his son Ismail. One will find remnants from the time of Ibrahim, thus the 'black stone' fixed on one of the pillars/arkan of the edifice. It is one of the original stones Abraham used to build the Kaaba, as he built other altars and places of worship to God throughout his journeys Gen12:6-8,13:4,18. That Abrahamic practice we are told in the HB, was left to his posterity that similarly built places of worship symbolized by stones erected as pillars Gen28:10,18-22.

Whatever the origin of the Black Stone and whatever the origin of stone worship in Arabia, the pre-Islamic Arabs, neither of Mecca nor of the other places, are never found to have worshipped the Black Stone of the Kaaba. Neither was the Black Stone of the Kaaba symbolical of stone worship, nor were the Prophets Ibrahim or his righteous descendants that emulated his practice, stone worshippers on account of their having stone pillars at their altar. 

This is highly significant given the importance of the Kaaba to the pre-islamic Arabs, and of the black stone itself. Stone worship was deeply imbedded in their religions 

"We used to worship stones, and when we found a better stone than the first one, we would throw the first one and take the latter". 

And yet despite the presence of this special stone at their most revered shrine, they are never found worshipping it, or attributing to it any type of intrinsic power. Umar, who was a Meccan pagan prior to Islam, found it strange to include it in the religious rites. His reaction would have been different had the black stone any type of divine connotation to the polytheists. This shows that its significance was other to the Arabs, that just as the Islamic history teaches, it is an Abrahamic remnant. The Ishmaelite descendants, more particularly the hanif among them, of whom the prophet was part of, those that had tried preserving the way of Ibrahim contrary to the pagans among them, were emotionally attached to it for that reason.

Kissing the stone is a ritual done by Muslims out of imitation of the prophet, it isnt an obligatory ritual, neither is it the same as the respect given to statues. The earliest Muslims, as already said, did not feel the need to kiss it as part of their rituals, showing that it wasnt a pre-islamic habit among pagans. As the Caliph Umar said 

"I know you are but a stone that cannot hurt or help, and if i had not seen the messenger of God kiss you i would not kiss you".

The companions in fact refrained from forcing their way through so as to touch and kiss it during the tawaf/circlings, if the place was crowded (Sunan an-Nasa'i 2938).

Unlike the Catholics, who kiss statues with the intention of seeking nearness to those represented by those statues, hoping for a favor from them or nearness to God through them, or Hindus who kiss their idols hoping for the same, Muslims kiss the Black Stone without any personification, expectation or hope in it. Muslims do so on account of an emotional bond with it, and what it represents. Just as one would kiss a picture or random object, hand or individual out of pure emotional attachment. Being near or physically in contact with the black stone is for a Muslim an intense experience due to its ancestral importance, the remnant of the foundational stones of the edifice, as Abraham was erecting it. The remembrance it creates inevitably leads to spiritual uplifting. For comparison among the monotheistic faiths, one could parallel the experience with the Jews weeping during prayer while in contact with the remaining wall of their destroyed temple.

Similarly, later companions of the prophet had never prayed to Allah while in physical connection with parts of the Kaaba, neither were they aware of the prophet doing so 

"O Abu abdur-Rahman, why do I only see you touching these two corners?" He said: "I heard the Messenger of Allah say: 'Touching them erases sins". 

As in the example of the black stone, Had it been common in the pre-Islamic belief to worship the Kaaba itself then it wouldnt have been surprising for that companion to see another touching it during worship. When the prophet did so, he did not merely touch it but addressed prayers of forgiveness to Allah 

"He walked forward until, when he was between the two columns that are on the either side of the door of the Kabah, he sat down, praised Allah, asked of him, and prayed for forgiveness. Then he got up, and went to the back wall of the Kabah, placed his face and cheek against it and praised Allah, asked of Him, and prayed for forgiveness. Then he went to each corner of the Kabah and faced it, reciting the Takbir, the Tahlil and Tasbih, praising Allah, asking of Him and praying for forgiveness. Then he came out and prayed two Rakahs facing the front of the Kabah, then he moved away and said: “This is the Qiblah, this is the Qiblah".

The Quran further stresses that the Kaaba itself is of no intrinsic spiritual value beyond what God has commanded in regards to it. Without God's commission, no place has spiritual excellence or preference in its own essence. The direction in itself is therefore not something to be disputed and argued about. If one wishes to remain in a specific direction as if the place is intrinsically sacred then he may do so. He would have however disobeyed a divine injunction, prioritizing his personal desires and preferences

 2:143,148,177"and We did not make that which you would have to be the qiblah but that We might distinguish him who follows the Messenger from him who turns back upon his heels, and this was surely hard except for those whom Allah has guided aright...And every one has a direction to which he should turn, therefore hasten to (do) good works; wherever you are, Allah will bring you all together...It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteousness is this that one should believe in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets, and give away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for (the emancipation of) the captives, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in time of conflicts-- these are they who are true (to themselves) and these are they who guard (against evil)". 

This is the general principle behind every ritual, to do as one is told, as evidence of submission to the way of God.

There are thus no prayers to the kaaba or the stone. Rather prayers are offered to Allah while touching various parts of it. Not a single pre-islamic practice, as reflected by the companions' attitude to the kaaba, indicate kaaba worship. And the kaaba is only part of the hajj rituals. Just like Muslims pray to Allah while in the presence of that monument, they pray and ask Allah's forgiveness in many other situations, locations and touching other things, including slaughtering animals. All of which have their symbolic meaning similar to the ones described as regards the kaaba.

Acts17apologetics wont bow to any statues; Muslims pray to Kaaba?

In answer to the video "Why Muslims Pray to Muhammad (David Wood)"

When Solomon prayed God to listen to the people's prayers that are in direction of the Jerusalem qibla 1kings8, and that the prophet David's supplications were made facing it Ps5:8,138:2 or Daniel's 3 daily prayers were directed to it Dan6:11, none among these people were worshipping the Temple itself.

Muslims praying towards the Kaaba symbolizes 3 things, the fulfillment of the promise made to Ibrahim and Ismail as they were building the Temple long ago, the unity of the divine as reflected in the unified manner in which the prayer is performed, and the obedience of a community to a divine directive. Wherever Muslims are, they are to turn towards the direction of the sacred Mosque 2:146-150. Shatr which is the word used in reference to the direction to pray, means "half" and when used to mean direction, it implies towards the half of the earth where something is located.

The clear ordinance is therefore to "face the direction" where Kaaba is located. Regardless of what the earth's shape is, a particular point on the globe always has at least one direction in relation to another point. That the Quranic statement isnt meant to be an exact science but rather an approximate orientation is reflected in the practice of early Muslims, as well as a statement from God's prophet that "between East and West is a qibla". So one is considered, even today as practiced by many Muslims, as facing the direction of the Kaaba if facing the northern or southern hemispheres with each shoulder directed east and west. This statement is rooted in the pervasive Quranic notion that the spirit of the law must always remain the primary focus of the religion

2:142"The East and the West belong only to Allah; He guides whom He likes to the right path".

As similarly stated in 2:115,26:28,73:9 and more particularly in 2:177, Allah is the Omnipresent grasping the universe as a whole, present in all directions one may like to face and therefore Jerusalem, the Kaaba and all other places belong to Allah, Who intrinsically has no house and no place. The prophet Solomon in the Bible similarly conveyed that transcendental notion. After he had erected the Jerusalem Temple where God was to settle and "dwell in forever", the direction where all obedient servants were to face in prayer if they wanted to be hearkened by God in Heaven,

1kings8:27"But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You; much less this temple that I have erected".

This reality is also echoed in the book of Isaiah

Isa66:1"So says the Lord, "The heavens are My throne, and the earth is My footstool; which is the house that you will build for Me, and which is the place of My rest?". 

Without God's commission, no place has spiritual excellence or preference in its own essence. The direction in itself is therefore not something to be disputed and argued about. If one wishes to remain in a specific direction as if the place is intrinsically sacred then he may do so, however the core message would be missed; to obey a divine injunction above one's personal desires and preferences, and concentrate one's energy in outdoing one another in good deeds instead of disputing about what the Quran views as a moot point

2:143,148,177"and We did not make that which you would have to be the qiblah but that We might distinguish him who follows the Messenger from him who turns back upon his heels, and this was surely hard except for those whom Allah has guided aright...And every one has a direction to which he should turn, therefore hasten to (do) good works; wherever you are, Allah will bring you all together...It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteousness is this that one should believe in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets, and give away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for (the emancipation of) the captives, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in time of conflicts-- these are they who are true (to themselves) and these are they who guard (against evil)".

This is the general principle behind every ritual, to do as one is told, as evidence of submission to the way of God. That is one of the reasons prayers for instance, are made at specific times, with even intervals where they cannot be offered. Islam is the purest form of servitude to God's will, leaving no place even for religious arrogance 

"The Prophet forbade praying after the Fajr prayer till the sun rises and after the 'Asr prayer till the sun sets". 

One can of course recite the Quran, reflect on spiritual matters or make dua/supplications in those restricted intervals.

Acts17apologetics find Islamic flaw; Quran endorses black magic?

In answer to the video "The Deuteronomy Deductions: Why Moses Would Have Executed Muhammad (David Wood)"

The Quran rejects the popular occult sciences, like magic and witchcraft, such as those wrongly attributed to the prophet Sulayman by some of his contemporaries and those that followed 2:102. Obviously the people misinterpreted Sulayman's ability, granted to him by God, of controlling entities of the unseen for his own benefit. Such falsehood is abundantly found in a wide variety of Solomonic lore, including the 5th century CE Testament of Solomon, each drawing from oneanother as well as other lost sources, written and oral. Particularly among Greek Christians that used amulets, medallions seals or rings with his name.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is far from, and not even comparable to the absurd idea proposed in the Greek Testament of Christians able to neutralize deadly poison in Jesus' name. 

It is to be kept in mind however that the supposed confusion the prophet was victim of, never pertained to divine communications, an area time and again declared as protected from any interference, human or else, from its descent from heaven until it is delivered to the prophet's heart and transmitted to the people. The Quran for example, in the context of truthfulness of prophethood and divine origin of the Book, repeatedly denies the claims made by his contemporaries that he might be demon possessed or under the effect of the jinn 16:98-100,26:221-3,69:41-2,81:22-25 or under a spell or that he is himself a magician/sorcerer 17:47-8,25:8-9,38:4,51:52-6 as other prophets were similarly calumnied.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

just as he warned 

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

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

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

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

It is with such perspective in mind that the passage of sura falaq where we seek protection with God from the 113:4"nafathat fil uqad" must be understood. The phrase lit. means "the blowers on knots". It was an idiom in pre-Islamic Arabia designating all supposedly occult endeavours. The Quran negates that such practices can benefit in any way the one that resorts to them and has labelled them a sin. The sin consists not in that they might possibly harm anyone using magical powers but in the very thought of possessing some supernatural abilities without God's license. When we seek protection from the evil of those who practice occultism, not from their actions or supposed powers and effects, we recognize the principle already stated in

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

We put our trust in God against all evil endeavours, not to undo any kind of magic spells. 

Just as the 2 angels' noble teachings can be used in an evil manner, contrary to the original intent, the Quran itself can be misused in a similar way, contrary to its original intent. There are verses, the mutashabihaat, that allow multiple understandings because of the general nature of their words and context, as well as the subject treated, and all are acceptable so long as they agree with the rules of language and the muhkamat verses.

But as stated in the passage speaking of the issue, those in whose heart their is perversity go after the mutashabihaat solely to create confusion, through ascribing arbitrary conclusions to those verses 3:7. 

The passage 2:101-2 isnt specific on the nature of the revelation upon the angels. But what is known is that it was a divine revelation, not magic or deceptive tricks.

The verse speaks of 2 groups transmitting knowledge to completely different ends;

- the shayateen (men or jinn) that teach sihr/trickery combined with what they learned from the angels, for sinful ends. The reason they would need to do so would be to deceive the people into thinking that sihr is a divinely condoned practice. This is done up to this day with charlatans using Quranic passages in fanciful ways and rituals. This includes the use of devices upon which one puts his trust instead of Allah

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

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

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

As a side note on 113:4, if we disregard the idiomatic understanding of the verse it can be understood in a different way that equally fits the context. Nafathat is the plural of naffath, which is an intensive nominative from nafatha, meaning primarily he blew. But nafatha also can be taken for inspiring ie influencing the mind. Uqad, the plural of uqdah doesnt only mean knots but also judgments, management, regulating and ordering of one's affairs, a promise of obedience or vow of allegiance.

Naffathat fil uqad can also thus be those who put evil suggestions into the resolution of men or into the management of their affairs. What should finally be kept in mind as a decisive Quranic position whenever those issues of magic, or witchcraft are presented as an influencing factor in wordly causality is that Iblis himself, the archdeceiver and ultimate external source of evil is presented in the Quran as no more than a mere whisperer, unable to coerce in any way those that listen to his suggestions, hence his description "waswas ilkhannas"

Acts17apologetics back to basics; Satanic verses polemic?

In answer to the video "The Deuteronomy Deductions: Why Moses Would Have Executed Muhammad (David Wood)"

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

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

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

The prophet wont be able to successfully pass off something false as divinely inspired because by the manner of his sudden death, those around him will understand that the prophecy of preservation came true and that what he was about to utter, or started uttering was false. Should he even misinterpret and lie over the true meaning of what is revealed to him, his heart would be sealed and he would become like the worst rejectors among his nation, blindly wandering on 42:24. Other verses issue similar warnings against tampering with the Quran to such an extent that it was imprinted in the psyche of the memorizers and all the believers. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts17apologetics too credulous; Tabari authenticity?

In answer to the video "The Deuteronomy Deductions: Why Moses Would Have Executed Muhammad (David Wood)"

Many of the early writers, particularily the seera writers such as Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Al Waqidi, Ibn Saad were concerned by amassing and compiling all the material available or what was being talked about, surrounding any historical event or in comment to a verse, fearing they could be lost, without authenticating them.

This shows the integrity of the Muslim tradition that did not seek to supress any information related to the life of the prophet and the early Muslims, nor invent things so as to advance their agenda. Such an endeavour would have been close to impossible to achieve anyway. There never was a centralized system of collecting information. Each narrator and historian took whatever was available to him, in his time and place. These historians, after gathering all that was floating around in oral tradition in regards an event of interest, would in the same time write down as many names among the chain of narrators as they could, so as to leave time and room for the specialists whose life was dedicated to sifting through the reliable and unreliable reports.

They did not even attempt to examine the various reports in order to inform the reader of what they considered to be the reasons for various incidents. The biographers this way avoided taking responsibility for adopting a particular account when conflicting reports existed. Adopting specific accounts would mean discrediting the authenticity of other reporters and their accounts. And since was not their expertize, they preferred leaving it to the muhaddithun. When the experts finished selecting the authentic reports, the remainders were neither physically destroyed nor erased. They were instead kept as examples of what constitutes a weak narration, for future references and studies. That is the difference between the Muslim tradition and the Judeo-Christian one that shamelessly accepts within its authentic collection of writings the most ridiculous and insulting things about God and the prophetic history, without any critical consideration for either the chain of transmission or the soundness of the content of a tradition.

Neither do the Muslims take at face value the reports that over exalt the prophet and the early Muslims. If after deliberation they were deemed weak or unreliable, they were kept nevertheless if there was any moral lesson to derive from them. These weak and rejected narrations are well known to the Muslims, although the misinformed, unqualified critics of Islam make ample use of them to serve their anti Islamic propaganda machine.

These historians thus left the authentication process to the following generations in search of the truth. The famous historian Tabari for instance says in introduction to his work that his primary duty was to faithfully transmit whatever information he could gather, the responsibility is then on the reader or listener to verify not only the authenticity of the reports based on the transmitters' reliability, but also based on reason.

As a case in point, the statement 'za'ama or za'amu often precedes Ibn Ishaq's reports implying the inherent caution of something being 'alleged'. This should make it clear for any sincere enquirer that there is more than a hint of a caution that the veracity of the statement he compiles is not necessarily determined as fact. Many narratives are this way injected with Arabic terms by the historians transmitting them, suggesting caution for the reader to undertake.

Technically speaking, a seera book is a collection of reports about the prophet and his companions arranged in a chronoligical order with little attention given to reliability. The goal being to have as little gaps in time as possible.

Acts17apologetics reveals a false preacher; St Paul was inspired?

In answer to the video "The Deuteronomy Deductions: Why Moses Would Have Executed Muhammad (David Wood)"

As to the case of Paul alluded to above, it says in Deut18 that

"a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say...must be put to death"

and paul admitted speaking occasionaly his own words but still in God's name 1Cor7:25,2Cor8:8. How can "all scripture" be "God-breathed" 2Tim3:16 while at the same time including the words of one admitting to speak his own words, the same person who, as will be shown below, overtly encouraged deception as a legitimate missionary tactic? Contrast this with the forceful Quranic statement that

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

Also

Deut18:22"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously"

Paul fell flat on his face regarding his predictions on Jesus' second coming.
Even the NT's criteria compromise Paul's self-proclaimed divine authority. The false prophet is one that forbids marriage 1Tim4:1-3. Paul advised not to marry 1Cor7:1. The false prophet

"will bring the way of truth (ie the way of Jesus which his direct followers testified to) into disrepute"2Pet2:2

and Paul interpreted Jesus' teachings in ways which led to disputes between him and Jesus' early followers whom he sarcastically called "super apostles" and further considered himself superior to them, proudly declaring he "learned nothing" from them Gal2:6-9. This is the sheer arogance of one who never knew or met Jesus 2Cor11:4-5,22-24. There is a reason why Paul's letters display their ignorance of, if not purposefully dismiss the writings attributed to Jesus' disciples. It is said that false prophets'

"greed..will exploit you with stories they have made up"2Pet2:3

and Paul who had several contradicting versions of his alleged encounter with a "light" admitted using deception in his modus operandi

"I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it...crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery"2Cor12:11,16.

He openly encouraged lying when preaching Jesus, becoming like a Jew to win the Jew, and becoming like a gentile (one not under the law) to win the gentile Phil1:15-18,1Cor9:19-21, because

"The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached"

in order to

"win as many as possible".

The interesting result was that Christians not only were very successful at converting pagans (much less so with the Jews) but pagans in turn transformed Christianity into a hodge podge of neo-judeo/greco-roman religion, born at the council of Nicea in 325CE, in Alexandria which was the center of Hellenistic philosophies. This is in sharp contrast to what the Quran says about the inadmissibility of using deceitful and disgraceful means for the propagation of Truth

16:92-95,125"Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner".

This strategy helped him gather funds -not for the poor and needy- for the establishement and reenforcement of the Churches throughout the Roman empire and beyond 1Cor15,16,2Cor8,9. This fits another description of a false prophet in Micah3:11 whose motivation is money. It is from Paul's teachings and method of approaching the Jews that the Evangelical Zionists derive their missionary tactics. It consists in showing the Jews a strong support that they might be "provoked into jealousy" so that they might be convinced that God's help has come from the followers of the one they rejected (Jesus) because

Rom11"if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!".

Paul has a very peculiar feature, and that is one who consistently is found swearing that whatever he has is from God, contrary to what is preached in the New Testament, where Jesus is reported to have stated that such a thing was a quality of the Pharisees. Further, the very 'gospel' he was alleged to preach contradicted not just what was being taught in Galilee, but what was being taught in the Temple of Jerusalem itself. Paul was attacked in that Temple for what he was claiming. By the end of his life, he had to seek refuge with the pagan Roman Authority, because people, which were obviously his enemies within the other factions, wanted to kill him.

Acts17apologetics seeks different views; Quran's criteria of the prophets?

In answer to the video "The Deuteronomy Deductions: Why Moses Would Have Executed Muhammad (David Wood)"

In the Quran, through the story of ancient nations and prophets, it establishes a pattern by which to determine the truthfulness of one claiming prophethood. As previously stated, these are; uprightness in character which includes an unflinching, uncompromising stance as regards his mission, to have been foretold by previous prophets, having access to special knowledge, and prophecies coming true. This includes warnings of punishment for fighting and opposing the messengers. The Quran places Muhammad inside that pattern of the prophets, at a time when none, not even the nascent Muslim community whose fear and reluctance to engage in military confrontation is related in the Quran, could have imagined for him and his small band of followers to become victorious and establish themselves 37:171-182.

Muhammad then effectively rises up and says to his tribe that they will meet a similar fate. He made the claim while in a state of weakness, and augmenting his rhetoric that should have antagonized his people against him instead of gaining him followers. As expected the people then oppose the message and prevent the people from it and get punished by the sword. End of the matter. None after him came with any of the following and was able to back his claims up:

1) comes from a common background of his addressees, meaning they know him very well, yet claims to be a Messenger, in fact the Final Messenger of God

2) warns his people of Divine chastisement

3) the chastisement comes home to roost and the partisans of the Prophet are established in the land

This is the exact process that occurred with the Bani Israil in the time of Moses, with the drowning of the host of Pharaoh and the deliverance of the Israelites, with the uprooting of the Canaanites and the establishment of the way of God. Not to mention, the Quranic invitation to the Arabs to see or recall for themselves the fate of the deniers of Nuh, Lut, Saleh, Shuayb, Hud... It is a Book of Warning that has already delivered its judgment in this world

53:36"This is a warner of the warners of old" 54:42-5"Are the unbelievers of yours better than these, or is there an exemption for you in the scriptures?...Soon shall the hosts be routed, and they shall turn (their) backs".

As said in Deuteronomy regarding the awaited prophet

"If any man will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name, I myself will make him answer for it".

God Almighty says that Prophethood has ended with the Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet bore witness to the unity of God, and his deniers were punished in this life. For those who claimed to be Prophets after him did they remain unvanquished as per the tradition of Allah, did they emerge as triumphant leaders or does their life and death fail to bear witness to their claims?

For example Musaylima emerged shortly after the Prophet's death and was killed under the orders of Abu Bakr. Before him and contemporaneous to the prophet was Saf Ibn Sayyad. He would eventually be completely discredited and in fact convert to Islam. I will speak of him in more details in another video.

Another one was Bahaullah - though later his followers branched off into the Bahai faith which is based on the nice concept of unity of religions- he died a prisoner of the Ottoman Empire. There is also Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from Qadian, Punjab - his death is widely cited to be from either one of these diseases - cholera, diarrhoea, plague, or dysentery. Besides numerous prophecies regarding the timing and manner of his death were left unfulfilled - though Ahmadis now interpret those in a metaphorical manner- but the manner of death is hardly inspiring for one claiming to be a Prophet.

There is then Rashad Khalifa who was a modern claimant based on his theory of the number 19's pattern in the Quran. Well, besides being accused of paedophilia, he was assassinated and his theories entirely discredited.

But above all, their theories did not prevail and either remained confined to a small number of followers or were simply lost and forgotten shortly after their death.

Another modern claimant was Joseph Smith in the US who started the Latter Day Saints movement and is the founder of Mormonism. He too was unfortunately assassinated. As a side note even the Mormon story has more grounds to stand on from the point of view of authenticity, than the NT story, in that there are actually known then-living individuals who executed an affidavit saying that they had, themselves, seen something of the Mormon story whereas the NT is written by anonymous people with no first hand information decades after the alleged, unsubstantiated life of the NT Jesus.

Of all the new religions that have sprung up after Islam, one may perhaps say Sikhism is also there. But Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith, never claimed for himself Prophethood. Also, Sikhism emerged as a reform movement intertwined between Hinduism and Islam. The holy book Guru Granth contains quotes from Sufi saints as well.

One may also mention the case of Paul of Tarsus.

On the face of it, finality of Prophethood seems to be a tenuous claim. After all, potentially anyone can stand up and say that he is a Prophet of God - but so far all the instances in which this has happened has failed to even come close to the scale and scope of the Prophet Muhammad's mission.

Also, if we examine the entire career of these claimants - they have singularly and absolutely failed to match the life-chart of Prophet Muhammad and moreover their death poses even more questions than their life. What is even more interesting that none of them claimed to be the final Prophet, much less Jesus who predicted the coming of a powerful figure after him, the Paraclete, that shall bring justice to the world.

Acts17apologetics falsification test; Unmasking the false prophets?

In answer to the video "The Deuteronomy Deductions: Why Moses Would Have Executed Muhammad (David Wood)"

In the HB a false prophet is one:

- whose prophecies do not come true Deut18:22

- who speaks in the name of other gods Deut13

- who proclaims any precept of the Torah to be abrogated or adds to it Deut13:4-5. It is to be noted that a case is mentioned where a prophet -Elijah- was commanded to conduct the famous challenge of the two bullocks on Mount Carmel, even though that temporarily violated the Torah prohibition against offering sacrifices outside the Temple or places designated fit for the ritual by God. And this is an "accepted" innovation. The book of Ezekiel for example is so full of cases where the prophet overturns, adds to Torah comandements and revises historical incidents that the famous Talmudic "sage" Hananiah ben Hezekiah needed 300 oil barrels to keep him busy overcoming the contradictions. His successors praised him for not having to hide the book of Ezekiel that simply exposes the fact that its writer either had no Torah in his time or had a different one because he obviously knew for example the First Temple, its order of service, the laws of the priesthood and of the land and yet treats those issues differently.

The HB in Deut13 warns the people to be very suspicious of anyone with the ability to perform what may seem as unexplainable supernatural deeds. The NT similarly says false prophets may be allowed the performance of miracles as a matter of test to the believers Matt24:4-5,23-25,2Thess2:9-10. John the Baptist was a true prophet but performed no supernatural miracles Jn10:41,Matt21:25-26. Besides, to base one's faith on the sight of "miracles" is very dangerous for one never really knows whether the "miracle" was in fact an illusion or other clever trick. The prophet Moses' opponents reflected that reality when they described his miracles as illusion without external reality

7:132"And they said; whatever sign you bring us to bewitch us, we are not going to believe you".

As the HB says, God may even purposefully allow a false prophet to perform miracles as a test to the people, whether their hearts and minds will be dazzled and swayed into ungodly ways or remain steadfast in their faith. In Ex7:11 Pharaoh commands his court magicians to imitate with their magic Moses' miracles, and some of these miracles were in fact successfully replicated, showing that seemingly supernatural occurrences do not necessarily come from God. Miracles therefore, whether in the Quran or the HB, do not serve the function of attesting to an individual claim to prophethood, rather have the twofold purpose of comforting an already believing heart as well as demonstrate the tremendous responsibilities of those that witness it.

The Bible doesnt even give instructions on how to recognize demonic miracles because technically, they are no different than the divine ones. But it shows how to recognize if the author is a false messenger. The djinn, as described in the story of the prophet Solomon, are capable of what is deemed supernatural bending of the expected laws of nature. But what they have no access to, except as Allah deems fit, is knowledge of the unseen, information that could only be obtained through revelation. Knowledge of the unseen, and of information that could not have been accessible to the messenger, prophecies coming true, uprightness of character are all very strong indications of a person's claims of prophethood. That is why the Quran, although it never denies that its messenger could and did perform miracles, treats this aspect of prophethood as inconsequential in determining the veracity of the claim, dismissing the requests of the doubters and disbelievers and leaving the matter to the Creator. The sending of signs is at all times depending in His will and wisdom. The Quran therefore, in its arguments, brings repeated attention the aforementioned 4 aspects of prophethood, with an additional focus on knowledge; based on what authority, and knowledge do the disbelievers among the polytheists and people of the book persist in their denial and deviations 

46:4"Say, [O Muhammad], "Have you considered that which you invoke besides Allah? Show me what they have created of the earth; or did they have partnership in [creation of] the heavens? Bring me a scripture [revealed] before this or a [remaining] trace of knowledge, if you should be truthful."

In conclusion, messengership does not necessitate that the forces of nature be bent at will and upon request. Miracles are entirely dependent on God's will and the prophets are nothing but mere mortals tasked with transmitting a message of warnings and glad tidings

17:90-3"And they say, we will by no means believe in you until you cause a fountain to gush forth..or you should cause the heavens to come down...or bring Allah and the angels face to face...or you should have a house of gold...Say; Glory be to God, am I aught but a mortal messenger?"

The belief that whatever is written in the Torah is binding eternally is rooted in the belief that the promised messiah will reinstate all of the mosaic law that is now in great parts abandoned due to the Temple's destruction. Besides rendering Jesus' alleged sacrifice as a liberation from the "curse" of the law a useless concept, but that is another issue, not a single commandment the Israelites were given in the prophecy of Deut18, says that whatever the prophet commands in the name of God has to be in the Torah.

What it states unequivocally is that when this time comes and that this Prophet arises, a prophet that was still awaited in the times of Jesus, whoever does not hearken to his words whatever He speaks in the name of God, they will be held accountable. Deuteronomy 18 then clarifies how one can distinguish this Prophet from others, for which the answer is NOT that he follows the Torah eternally, but that whatever he states comes to pass in the name of the Lord. If one argues that every commandment is binding in the Torah for one to be considered a true Prophet, then this negates practically every single injunction given to the Israelites, i.e. the rites of sacrifice, which are included in Deuteronomy 12 and 17, among other. Why the Israelites arent going around driving idolaters from Israel, battling the descendants of certain specific nations whom they were commanded as an everlasting ordinance to exterminate off the earth's face, as well as not forsaking the Levites, because they have no inheritance? This surely has nothing to do with the rites of the temple and we know of countless Prophets in the Hebrew Bible that weren't driving out idolaters, between the time of Moses to this day even when the Temple was standing.

Further, as even the Hebrew Bible admits, Prophets have come and with other laws that would replace laws that were given by Moses, amongst them Solomon in Kings telling Israelites how to behave, even when the Temple is destroyed. Is every one of these Prophets a liar, despite the Hebrew Bible calling them true prophets? 

The fact is, God Himself has rendered most of the laws of the Torah obsolete, proving that the revelation to Moses and the Israelites was never meant to be the final law to the Jews, let alone mankind. And if one wants to argue that eventually, the messiah shall restore these laws at the end of time then one still has to accept that for the vast majority of Jewish history, God made these laws inapplicable. The notion of restoration of the Torah is actually a reaction by the scribes of the HB to the reality of their position, the revocation of the covenant through the abrogation of its laws.