Quran

[Niblo]

Abd-al-Hamid Siddiqui writes:

‘So great is the respect for humanly feelings in Islam that even the wanton destruction of enemy's crops or property is strictly forbidden.  The righteous Caliphs followed closely the teachings of Allāh, and those of His Apostle, in letter and spirit.  The celebrated address which the first Caliph Abu Bakr (Allāh be pleased with him) gave to his army is permeated with the noble spirit with which war in Islam is permitted.  He said:

‘"Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield.  Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path.  You must not mutilate dead bodies.  Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man.  Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful.  Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food.  You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone"’ (‘Introduction to the ‘Book of Jihad and Expedition’ of Sahih Muslim’).

Khaled M. Abou El Fadl – Omar and Azmeralda Alfi Distinguished Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law – writes:  

‘The Qur’an does not use the word jihad to refer to warfare or fighting; such acts are referred to as qital.  While the Qur’an’s call to jihad is unconditional and unrestricted, such is not the case for qital.  Jihad is a good in and of itself, while qital is not.  Jihad is good because it is like the Protestant work ethic: hard work toward a good cause. Qital—war—however, is a different matter altogether.  Every reference in the Qur’an to qital is restricted and limited by particular conditions; but exhortations to jihad, like the references to justice or truth, are absolute and unconditional.  On every single occasion that the Qur’an exhorts Muslims to fight, it hastens to qualify the exhortation by a command to believers to not transgress; to forgive; or to seek peace.  Although this fact is recognizable by simply reading the text of the Qur’an, this textual reality has strangely eluded a large number of Muslim and non-Muslim scholars of the Qur’an.  Nevertheless, it is beyond dispute that the Qur’an never endorses the military option without conditioning that choice in some significant way.

 ‘Puritans entirely ignore the Qur’anic teaching that the act of destroying or spreading ruin on this earth is one of the gravest sins possible—fasad fi al-ard, which means to corrupt the earth by destroying the beauty of creation.  This is considered an ultimate act of blasphemy against God.  Those who corrupt the earth by destroying lives, property, and nature are designated as mufsidun (corruptors and evildoers), who, in effect, wage war against God by dismantling the very fabric of existence.  Corrupting the earth entails the act of undoing and breaking down the ties and relationships that God has established through creation by disrupting the process of human intercourse and by destroying the very possibility of human beings coming “to know one another” through interactive social dynamics.

‘Most importantly, according to the Qur’an, war by its very nature is the primary contributor to this process of corruption that plagues and ultimately destroys human beings.  This is exactly why Islamic theology teaches that an integral part of the Divine covenant given to human beings is to occupy themselves with building and creating, not ruining and destroying life.’ (‘The Great Theft – Wrestling Islam From the Extremists’).

For sure, there are folk – Muslim and non-Muslim – who render ‘jihad’ as a ‘holy war’; but this rendition is incorrect.

 'Holy war’ renders ‘al-harb al-muqaddasa’; a phrase that does not exist in the classical Arabic of the Qur’anic text; nor in the ʼaḥādīth; nor the works of the Muslim theologians.

According to the Qur’an, no war is holy; not under any circumstance. 

I would like you to consider the following.  They are not mere rules; they are the Laws of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) – and any Muslim who breaks them, or who – being a commander – permits others to break them, will be held accountable on the Day of Judgement.

It is forbidden to start – or to participate in – a war of aggression.

It is forbidden to harm, in any way, non-combatants; women; children; the old; the sick; and those enemy combatants who no longer wish to fight, or who are prisoners of war.

It is forbidden to destroy property; homes; churches; synagogues; mosques; and so on.

It is forbidden to destroy crops or livestock, or to poison wells.

Please allow these Laws to soak into you; and then ask yourself: What would the world be like if these Laws were written into the Constitution of every nation state; and into the Standing Orders of every soldier, marine, airman (or woman) and sailor; and not just written down, but complied with…. from this very day, and for all time?

Ask yourself: What would the world be like if every person – every person, mind you – refused to act aggressively towards another; refused to harm another in any way whatsoever; refused to steal or destroy the property of another?
 

Blessings.

[Niblo]

Delete..duplicate post.

Edited March 12, 2023 by Niblo
Duplicate post

[Niblo]

Theplains writes:

‘As for the Quran, I suggest reading The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom. It deals with the status of non-Muslim populations (the dhimmis) after the conquest of their lands by Muslims.’

From the Amazon blurb:

‘The doctrine of the three choices (conversion, the sword, or the dhimma pact of surrender to Islam) is explained, including an analysis of the meaning of tribute payments (jizya) made by non-Muslims (dhimmis) to their Muslim conquerors.’

The relevant ʾāyah is ‘Al-Tawba: 29’:

‘Fight those of the People of the Book who do not (truly) believe in Allāh and the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allāh and His Messenger have forbidden, who do not obey the rule of justice, until they pay the tax and agree to submit.’

This is the so-called ‘Jizya Verse’.

This verse does not address all Jews and Christians, but only their young men of military age.

The offence is failing to pay what is due to the Muslim state in which these young men live.

These folk are tax-dodgers, not apostates from Islam!  They are not required to become Muslims, merely to pay the tax.

Muhammad Abdel Haleem, King Fahd Professor of Islamic Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, writes:

‘The jizya was one dīnār a year for every able-bodied male who could fight in the army – monks were exempted.  As non-Muslims they were not obliged to fight for the Muslim armies.  This is a liberal attitude, which recognised that it would be unfair to enlist people who do not believe in Islam to fight for the Muslim state, something which their own religion and conscience might not allow them to do.  The jizya was their contribution to the defence of the Islamic state they lived in.  Muslims, on the other hand, were obliged to serve in the army, and all Muslims had to pay the much higher zakāt tax, part of which is spent on defence.  When non-Muslims chose to serve in the Muslim army they were exempted from the jizya, and when the Muslim state could not defend certain subjects from whom they had collected jizya, it returned the jizya tax to them, giving this as a reason.  In return for the jizya non-Muslims also enjoyed state social security.’  (‘Understanding the Qur’an – Themes and Styles’).

The following non-Muslim citizens were exempt from paying the tax: women; children; the elderly; the handicapped; the sick; monks; hermits; and the insane.  Non-Muslim foreigners, whose residence in a Muslim State was temporary, were also exempt; as were non-Muslim men of military age who elected to join the State’s armed forces.

As you can see, a Muslim leader who was unable to provide his subjects with adequate security was obliged to refund the tax.  Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn, for example, returned Jizya payments to his Christian subjects when he was compelled to withdraw his army from Syria.

Sir Thomas Walker Arnold reminds us that:

‘The Emperor Heraclius had raised an enormous army with which to drive back the invading forces of the Muslims, who had in consequence to concentrate all their energies on the impending encounter.  The Arab general, Abū ʻUbaydah, accordingly wrote to the governors of the conquered cities of Syria, ordering them to pay back all the jizyah that had been collected from the cities, and wrote to the people, saying, "We give you back the money that we took from you, as we have received news that a strong force is advancing against us. The agreement between us was that we should protect you, and as this is not now in our power, we return you all that we took.  But if we are victorious we shall consider ourselves bound to you by the old terms of our agreement."

‘In accordance with this order, enormous sums were paid back out of the state treasury, and the Christians called down blessings on the heads of the Muslims, saying, "May God give you rule over us again and make you victorious over the Romans; had it been they, they would not have given us back anything, but would have taken all that remained with us.’ (‘Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith’).

 Muhammad Abu Zahra writes:

 ‘It is narrated that ʿUmar - May God Almighty be pleased with him - found an elderly Jew begging, so he asked him: 'Who are you, old man?'  He said, 'I am a man from the dhimma community.'  So ʿUmar said to him: 'We have not done justice to you in taking from you when you were young and forsaking you in your old age', so ʿUmar gave him a regular pension from the public treasury.’ (‘Zahrat al-Tafāsīr).

 ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb became the second Caliph of the Rashidun Caliphate in 634.  You may ask yourself why he acted in this way.

 Again, from the Amazon blurb (my emphasis):

‘(The author) describes the impact of dhimmitude on the human rights of non-Muslims in Islamic contexts around the world today, in the light of global Islamic resurgence and advancing Islamization, including pressure being exerted through the United Nations for states to conform to sharia restrictions on freedom of speech.

No Islamic country imposes the jizya.  It is no longer applicable, due to Islamic and international law.  In these countries, all people – regardless of their religion or status (citizen or visitor) – fall under the category of mu’ahids (contractually protected persons). 

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by Niblo

[Niblo]

Islander writes (my emphasis):

‘Most "moderate" Muslims in the West have learned to live in the West. They are the "backsliding" and "liberal" Muslims that have embraced the West for primarily economic reasons. They fled the ME because of the true Muslims; call them radical, orthodox, traditional, you name it. But that is the true Islam and not the sanitized version the political class has sold on primetime news.’

I have been accused (on another site) of not being a ‘true Muslim’ because I am a moderate – in effect, because I have not killed my wife (a Christian); or my two daughters (also Christian); or three of my Christian grandchildren; or my sister (an atheist); or all the rest of my non-Muslim family; or my non-Muslim friends, colleagues and neighbours). 

According to my accusers (and Islander, it would seem), it is the terrorists who represent true Islam.  It is they who truly understand what the Qur’an is saying. 

Islander has a problem:

If we are to believe him, then all the thousands of Muslim scholars today – all of whom draw their knowledge from the Qur’an and aḥādīth; and with this knowledge declare that terrorists are utterly wrong, and that their wanton violence is an evil to be fought against – are either fools who cannot comprehend their own texts, or else are deceitful liars, using their deceit to launch arguments against terrorists and terrorism.

And what of the 1.8 billion Muslims who live their religion day-by-day, according to their own texts, and never harm anyone?  According to Islander (it would seem), these people are also wrong.  Worse, they are not Muslims at all, since the only ‘true’ Muslim is – and must ever be – a terrorist! 

I would ask Islander to please explain the reason behind his unshakeable trust that terrorists are always right in their reading of the texts; and that the rest of us are always wrong in our reading of these same texts?

I’m at a loss as to what I – and Muslims such as I – have to do to gain the same level of trust in hearts of folk, such as Islander, as that secured by terrorists!

Why is it that terrorists (regardless of their ethnic origins, or religious affiliations) can kill so readily all those who disagree with them?  Noam Chomsky and Andre Vltchek provide an answer:

‘George Orwell had a term for it: “unpeople.”  The world is divided into people like us, and unpeople – everyone else who do not matter.  Orwell was talking about a future totalitarian society, but it applies quite well to us.  There is a fine young British diplomatic historian, Mark Curtis, who uses the term unpeople in his study of the post-World War II depredations of the British Empire.  We are not concerned with what happens to them.’ (‘On Western Terrorism - New Edition: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare’).

Islam rejects utterly the notion that certain individuals or nations are ‘unpeople’.  Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) created human beings as equals, who are to be distinguished from each other only on the basis of their faith and piety.  He tells us:

‘People, We created you all from a single man and a single woman, and made you into races and tribes so that you should know one another.  In Allāh’s eyes, the most honoured of you are the ones most mindful of Him: Allāh is all knowing, all aware.’ (‘Al-Hujurat: 13’).

Not only are human beings created as equals, they are given different paths to follow:

‘We have assigned a law and a path to each of you.  If Allāh had so willed, He would have made you one community, but He wanted to test you through that which He has given you, so race to do good: you will all return to Allāh and He will make clear to you the matters you differed about.’ (‘Al-Ma’ida: 48’). 

The message is clear: Whatever path we happen to be on – whatever law we happen to follow – we are each of us called to do good. 

What is also clear from the Qur’an (and I have mentioned this before) is that Christianity is intended to be – and to remain – one of the assigned paths.  This is what is says about Christians (and Jews):

‘Those who believe, and do good deeds, are the best of creation.  Their reward with their Lord is everlasting Gardens graced with flowing streams, where they will stay forever. God is well pleased with them and they with Him. All this is for those who stand in awe of their Lord.’ (‘Al-Bayyina: 7-8’). 

The Exalted promises paradise to those Christians who believe in Him, and who do good deeds.  He does not renege on His promises.  His promise is there for all to see.  How can anyone deny it? 

Continued:

[Niblo]

Khaled M. Abou El Fadl – Omar and Azmeralda Alfi Distinguished Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law – writes:

‘What type of arrogance permits a people to name themselves God’s soldiers and then usurp His authority?  What type of arrogance empowers a people to inject their insecurities and hatred into the Book of God, and then fancy themselves the divine protectors?  Of all the sins of this world, what can be more revolting than usurping God’s Word, and then misrepresenting God’s meticulous Speech?

‘According to moderates, God’s light is not owned by anyone, and so Muslims and non-Muslims can step into the light together.  They can share a partnership in which they come to know one another. In the process, they can cooperate to establish virtue and mercy on this earth - they can cooperate to prevent the corruption of the earth through the ugliness of ignorance, hate, war, and destruction. Moderates believe that supremacy belongs only to God.  Therefore, when they come to invite the other to step into the light, they do so with utter humility - the humility of knowing that it is impossible to avoid corrupting the earth, and also impossible to achieve any degree of Godliness on this earth, unless they can come to know the other.  It is this, the knowledge of the other, that is the requisite for the Divine gift of peace.

‘In the modern age, it would seem that terrorism is the quintessential crime of corrupting the earth.  When violence is committed against the defenseless, by stealth and without warning, the net effect is to spread fear and horror among God’s people.  Whether one calls the crime hiraba or terrorism, it is fundamentally the same thing.  Those who are familiar with the classical tradition will find the parallels between what were described as crimes of hiraba and what is often called terrorism today nothing short of remarkable.  The classical jurists considered crimes such as assassinations, setting fires, or poisoning water wells – that could indiscriminately kill the innocent – as offenses of hiraba.  Furthermore, hijacking methods of transportation or crucifying people in order to spread fear and terror are also crimes of hiraba. Importantly, Islamic law strictly prohibited the taking of hostages, the mutilation of corpses, and torture.’ (‘The Search for Beauty in Islam: A Conference of the Books’).

In another work he writes (my emphasis):

‘The highest stage of submission is to love God more than any other, even more than oneself, and for those who achieve this lofty position of loving God absolutely and completely, they become God’s beloved, endowed with true perception, wisdom, and compassion.  For human beings to love God necessarily means that they must love all that God has created and represents. 

‘It would make little sense to love God but hate God’s creatures and creation.  To truly love God, one must love all human beings, whether Muslim or not, and love all living beings as well as all of God’s nature.  To truly love God means that one must also detest the destruction of what God has created.  For those who reach the lofty stature of being God’s beloved, their hearts will be full with love for justice, and full of compassion and love for all.  As the classical scholars used to put it, if you find a man full of anger, resentment, hate, and cruelty toward human beings, animals, or nature, then know that the love of God has not entered his heart.  In short, it is impossible to love God or be beloved by God and not to exhibit the characteristics of Godliness.’ (‘The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists’).

 

 

[Niblo]

Pyreaux writes:

‘Allah has no children of any type?  In the "Satanic Verses" we got Al-'Uzza, al-Lat and Manah, the three daughters of Allah (53:19-20). No children, yet three daughter intercessor goddesses. This was in there for two centuries before they inserted 21-22, I think the whole interpolation of the tongue by Satan is a mere excuse that they tampered with the text to fit with their modern ideology, and Muhammad may not have been as strictly monotheistic as modern Muslims claim.’

Pyreaux is, of course, are referring to what, in the Islamic tradition, is known as the ‘story of the cranes’ (qiṣṣat al-gharānīq).

According to this story, which has a number of different versions, while the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was reciting sūrah ‘Al-Najm’ near the Kaʿbah – in the company of a number of Quraysh – Satan waited until he had reached ʾāyāt 19-20 (which mention three of the goddesses worshipped by the Quraysh) before whispering into his ear.  The Prophet is then said to have recited, or was heard to recite – different versions are offered – the words: ‘These are the high-flying cranes, whose intercession is to be hoped for!’ 

The Prophet is then said to have continued his recitation to the sūrah’s end.  The final ʾāyah (62) reads: ‘Bow down before Allāh and worship’; and we are told that the Quraysh were so delighted to hear their goddesses exalted, that they first joined in the prostration, and then celebrated the Prophet’s embrace of their religion.

Here is ‘Al-Najm:19-23’:

‘Have you considered al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā, and the third one, Manāt.  These are nothing but names you have invented yourselves, you and your forefathers. Allāh has sent no authority for them. These people merely follow guess-work and the whims of their souls, even though guidance has come to them from their Lord.’

‘(Disbelievers), consider al-Lat and al-Uzza, and the third one, Manat – are you to have the male and He the female?  That would be a most unjust distribution! – these are nothing but names you have invented yourselves, you and your forefathers. Allāh has sent no authority for them. These people merely follow guess-work and the whims of their souls, even though guidance has come to them from their Lord.’

And here are the same ʾāyāt, but this time with the so-called ‘satanic verses’ inserted, in emphasis:

‘(Disbelievers), consider al-Lat and al-Uzza, and the third one, Manat.  These are the high-flying cranes, whose intercession is to be hoped for! – are you to have the male and He the female?  That would be a most unjust distribution! – these are nothing but names you have invented yourselves, you and your forefathers. Allāh has sent no authority for them. These people merely follow guess-work and the whims of their souls, even though guidance has come to them from their Lord.’

Sayyid 'Ibrāhīm Ḥusayn Quṭb writes:

‘The very flow of the sürah makes such an addition absolutely impossible. In its entirety, the sürah shows the fallacy of the idolaters' belief in those deities and the legends they weave around them. How can such a couplet of praise for them be inserted into such refutation?  Even if we consider the argument of some who say that the couplet was heard only by the unbelievers, but not by the believers, it still remains unacceptable.

‘Those unbelievers were Arabs who had a fine sense of their own language.  How would they have felt had they heard this false couplet, followed by the verses stating: "Are you to have the male and He the female? That would then be an unfair division”?  

‘Shortly afterwards they would have heard the verses: "Those who do not believe in the life to come give the angels female names. Yet of this they have no knowledge. They follow nothing but surmise, but surmise can never take the place of truth." (Verses 27–28).

‘And these are even preceded by the verse: "Numerous are the angels in the heavens, yet their intercession will avail nothing until God has given leave to whomever He wills and with whom He is pleased." (Verse 26).

‘Had those Arabs, endowed as they were with a fine sense of language, heard this sequence after a supposed couplet praising their idols and confirming that they can intercede with God, they would not have prostrated themselves, because the whole context would have been flawed and crooked.  Those Arabs were not as stupid as the fabricators of these reports, to which Orientalists tried to give credence, either out of ignorance or to serve a purpose of their own.’ (‘In the Shade of the Qur’an: Volume 16’; my emphasis).

Dr. Muhammad Mustafa Al-Azami writes:

‘None of the transmission channels for recitation and none of the 250,000 extant Qurʾānic manuscripts contain these two verses which, by themselves, wholly contradict everything preceding them and following them, and in fact the very essence of the Qurʾān.

‘This fraudulent report has proven too charming for Orientalists to pass up’ (‘The History of The Quranic Text, from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments’).

Continued:

[Niblo]

It has been suggested – although not on this site – that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) included the ‘satanic verses’ because he wished to ‘entice the Meccans to join Islam.’

Shaykh Seyyed Hossein reminds us that: 

‘The Prophet was a man known for his honesty and trustworthiness who had, for several years before this incident occurred, along with his followers suffered terribly for condemning the idols of the Quraysh. He had also resisted several offers of money and power to relinquish his mission.  To have made such an enormous concession to idolatry would have undercut his message and authority and would have certainly destroyed his credibility in the eyes of his followers.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary’).

Abdullah bin Abbas relates that the Meccans offered to make Mohammad the richest man in Mecca; and to follow him as leader, only on condition that he did not speak ill of their gods.  When he refused, the Meccans suggested – by way of compromise – that he should worship their gods for a year, and that they should worship his for a year (Cf: Professor M. A. Abdel Haleem: ‘The Qur’an’).

In answer to this proposition, Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) commanded:

‘Say (Prophet), “Disbelievers: I do not worship what you worship, you do not worship what I worship, I will never worship what you worship, you will never worship what I worship*: You have your religion and I have mine.’ ('Al-Kafirun').

* If you keep to your present gods (see: Zamakhshari, al-Kashshaf, vol. iv) – Professor Haleem’s footnote.

Please note that ‘Al-Kafirun’ was revealed before ‘Al-Najm’.

According to Abdullah bin Umar (radi Allahu ‘anhu) – a Companion of the Prophet – Muhammad made it a practice to recite ‘Al-Kafirun’ during both the Fajr and Maghrib obligatory Prayer.  This claim is supported – with little variation in wording – in ʼaḥādīth related by Tirmidhi, Nasai, Ibn Majah, Ibn Hibban and Imam Ahmad.

The Prophet is said to have advised his followers to recite ‘Al-Kafirun’ before going to bed – as a protection against polytheism.  There can be no doubt that this sūrah was foremost in the Prophet’s daily practices.  

There can be no doubt, either, that the Meccans were well aware that the Muhammad was not prepared to compromise his belief merely to appease them, or their gods.

It is claimed that Muslim refugees – sent by the Prophet to Abyssinia for protection under the Christian Negus – returned to Mecca, on hearing the news that the Quraysh, as a result of the incident of the cranes, had reconciled with the Prophet.

Shaykh Seyyed Hossein Nasr writes:

‘Aside from the illogic of refugees from idolatry returning because their leader had embraced idolatry, their return is more easily explained, according to critics of the story, by the conversion of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, one of the most prominent adversaries of the young community, to Islam, bringing with him a level of political support that made it safe for the refugees to return.  Moreover, the Negus of Abyssinia was himself embroiled in a rebellion, which would have contributed to the refugees’ desire to leave.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary’).

It is claimed that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) rebuked the Prophet for reciting the ‘satanic verses’; and to have done so in the following ʾāyāt:

‘(Prophet), the disbelievers tried to tempt you away from what We revealed to you, so that you would invent some other revelation and attribute it to Us and then they would have taken you as a friend.  If We had not made you stand firm, you would almost have inclined a little towards them.  In that case, We would have made you taste a double punishment in this life, and a double punishment after death and then you would have found no one to help you against Us.’ (‘Al-Isra: 73-75’; my emphasis).

Please note that this sūrah was revealed towards the end of the Meccan period, one year before the flight to Medina (the ‘Hijrah’); some six or seven years after sūrah ‘Al-Najm’.

Where is the ‘rebuke’ here?  The disbelievers (no mention of Satan) tried to persuade the Prophet to ‘invent some other revelation’ and attributed it to his Lord.  With the Beloved’s help, the Prophet resisted.  Where is the fault here?

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) says: ‘We have sent down the Qur’an Ourself, and We Ourself will guard it.’ (Al-Hijr:9).

Continued:

[Niblo]

The Source of the Story:

In his translation of Ibn Isḥāq’s ‘Sīrat Rasūl Allāh’ (‘The Life of Muhammad.’) the Orientalist – the Rev. Alfred Guillaume – writes:

‘It is a pleasure to acknowledge the debt that I owe to the friends whom I have consulted in the many and various difficulties which beset a translator of such a long text as the Sira on which there is no commentary worthy of the name.’ (‘The Life of Muhammad’; my emphasis).

Ibn Isḥāq’s book was written over one hundred years after the death of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam).  His account is not drawn from witness statements; nor from any kind of official report.  It contains not a shred of corroborated evidence to confirm the veracity of the ‘satanic revelation’; no evidence that this ‘revelation’ was transmitted by honest, unbiased folk who, in their turn, had received the story from their forebears; back to actual witnesses.   

It is worth noting that the original text of the Sīrat Rasūl Allāh has not survived.  What we have is a copy by Ibn Hisham (died 833 CE). It is worth noting that ibn Hisham’s material makes no mention of the ‘satanic verses’.

Michael Cook, a revisionist, compares Ibn Isḥāq with the later commentator Al-Waqid, who is said to have added a deal of contamination – by means of ‘fictious writing’ (lies) – to Ibn Isḥāq’s narrative.

Cook writes:

‘We have seen what half a century of story-telling could achieve between Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi, at a time when we know that much material had already been committed to writing. What the same processes may have brought about in the century before Ibn Ishaq is something we can only guess at.’  (‘Muhammad’)

According to Patricia Crone – certainly no friend of Islam – the Sīrat (or rather, Ibn Hisham’s copy) is:

‘Full of contradictions, confusions, inconsistencies and anomalies…. We shall never know ... how the Umayyid caliphs remembered their prophet’ (cf: ‘Slaves and Horses – The Evolution of the Islamic Polity’).

The historian Tom Holland suggests that the Sīrat be compared to Homer; being popular literature, rather than history (cf: ‘In the Shadow of the Sword: The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World’).

Imam Malik – who, of all the collectors of ʼaḥādīth (Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, and so on) lived closest in time to the life of Prophet – was the complier of a very respected ʼaḥādīth collection, called ‘Al-Muwatta’.  In his ‘Uyun al-athar’ he denounces Ibn Ishaq as a ‘liar’ and ‘imposter.’ 

Guillaume’s translation of the Sīrat is the best known in English; but is not without is critics.  Some have questioned the reliability of his translation (cf: Abdul Latif’s ‘Ibn Isḥāq's Sīra, a critique of Guillaume's English translation: the life of Muhammad’; and Stephen Humphreys’ ‘Islamic History: A Framework for Inquiry - Revised Edition’).

The translation itself is a combination of ibn Hisham, and selected extracts from al-Tabari – the latter being indicated in the text by a single ‘Ṭ’. 

Al-Azami writes:

‘In this translation Guillaume resorts to dishonesties too numerous to mention.  Among them is the insertion of two pages from one of aṭ-Ṭabarī’s works, in which aṭ-Ṭabarī recounts this spurious tale for its curiosity value.

‘Guillaume never indicates his external quotations clearly, flanking them with parentheses instead of setting them apart from the main body of text, and preceding them with a ‘Ṭ’ which is vigorously employed but never explained.’ (Ibid.)

In his ‘The End of Biblical Studies’, Hector Avalos writes (my emphasis):

‘Today, with photocopiers and computers, one can make a million copies of a false claim. But the medium really makes little difference.  Any scribe in the ancient world could write down something that did not happen, and five thousand copies of that false report would not make that report any more true. Nor would it matter if the five thousand copies were fully contemporary with the claim. Since the number of copies of a claim has zero value for determining the truth of the claim, 5000 x 0 = 0 in terms of the validity of the New Testament manuscripts for determining the historicity of any claims therein.’

The same can be said of Guillaume’s sources.  In them we have, in his own words: ‘no commentary worthy of the name.’

Conclusion:

[Niblo]

Referring to the story, Shaykh Seyyed Hossein writes:

‘Many of the early commentators transmit this account with significant differences in setup, wording, and import.  Based on these accounts, it seems likely that many Muslims of the early centuries accepted that something like this incident actually happened or at least were comfortable enough with the story to pass it along as a subject of interest, as was often the case in the early tafsīr genre, which often registered material of varying quality that was sometimes at odds with a commentator’s own convictions.

‘Once it is analyzed more closely, however, the incident appears highly implausible for several reasons. 

‘Commentators who reject the account tend to begin by pointing out that the often contradictory versions of the story are poorly sourced and poorly corroborated (here, the Shaykh references ibn Kathīr’s ‘Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm’ and ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm al-Qummī’s ‘Tafsīr al-Qurʾān’) not unlike some other material to be found in the biographical and exegetical literature of the early centuries.

‘As al-Qurṭubī points out, commentators on the Quran and historians did not employ consistently rigorous filters for what they would record and transmit, and often strange and baseless material is to be found in their works.

‘Chronological considerations also cast doubt on the story, or at least its connection with 22:52 and 17:73–75. Sūrah 22 is considered by some to have been revealed in Madinah, while Sūrah 17 was revealed after the Prophet’s Night Journey and Ascension in the tenth or eleventh year of the revelation, in Makkah.

‘Many of the versions of the story place the “story of the cranes” in the fifth year of the revelation, at the time when some Muslims had sought refuge in Abyssinia. Sūrah 17 would have been revealed five or six years later, while Sūrah 22 would have been revealed at least eight years later, according to some chronologies. If either 22:52 or 17:73–75 was meant to give comfort or explanation to the Prophet, such a time lag would be highly unusual.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary’).

The Shaykh asks: Did the so-called verses of the cranes remain in circulation during that time?’

If the answer is ‘yes’, then we are forced to accept that the Muslims – throughout this time – must have been considered (by the Quraysh) fellow polytheists; fellow pagan worshippers.  

If the answer is ‘yes’, then why did the Quraysh continue to persecute the Muslims for their beliefs; a persecution that resulted in – and continued long after – the Hijra?

What court of justice would accept uncorroborated evidence, put together (albeit in all good conscience) by folk who – at the time of the events they portray – were not even born?

The ‘story of the cranes’ is quite contrary to specific statements of the Qur’an, and also to the tenor and purport of its entire text.  As such, it is a story unworthy of any credence.

Pyreaux claims that the so-called ‘satanic verses’ existed in the Qur’an for ‘two centuries before (the Muslims) inserted 21-22’ (‘are you to have the male and He the female? That would be a most unjust distribution!).

This would mean that the first four ‘Rightly Guided’ Caliphs of Islam – each one a Companion to the Prophet – were polytheists; along with the fourteen Umayyad Caliphs (661-750) and at least the first six of the Abbasid Caliphate (750 to 813 CE).   

The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. 

Pyreaux, please produce your proof.     

[Niblo]

Concerning the Preservation of the Qur’an:

Pyreaux writes:

‘I just hold little stock in Muslim opinion and preservation of the Quran, and to me that means Muhammad could have been a prophet, but when he died they all became apostate and only wrote down the Quran over a hundred years later in the middle of a war with Christians.’

According to Pyreaux, therefore, the Qur’an –  containing the ‘satanic verses’ – was written over a hundred years after the death of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam); and then amended, some two hundred years later, in order to remove these verses, and insert two others (see above).

Really?

The IDP Research Division reminds us that:

‘There is no doubt that the Qur'an was not only transmitted orally by many Muslims who had learned parts or the whole of it, but that it was also written down during the lifetime of the Prophet.  The well-known report about 'Umar's conversion shows that large passages of the revelation had already been written down even at a very early time, in Makka, long before the hijra, when the Prophet was still in the house of Arqam.’ (‘Understanding the Qur'an – Its History and Compilation’).

There is an expression: ‘jam' al-qur'an’.  It’s general meaning is to 'bring together the Qur'an'.

Even though the Qur’an was written down – in its entirety – during the life of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), it had not been brought together in a single book.  Abū Bakr (the first Caliph) assigned this task to Zaid bin Thabit; a young man in his early twenties, one of the Prophet’s most notable scribes.  Zaid was a ḥāfiẓ (a ‘guardian’ or ‘memoriser’ of the Qur’an; someone who knew the Qur’an by heart).

M.M. Al-Azami informs us that:

‘Zaid would accept only those materials which, according to the sworn testimony of two others, had been written in the Prophet's very presence.  Ibn Hajar's statement affirms this view, that "Zaid was unwilling to accept any written material for consideration unless two Companions bore witness that the man received his dictation from the Prophet himself.”  His contribution, we can summarise, was to collect all first-hand Qur'anic fragments, then scattered about Madinah, and arrange for their transcription into a master volume.’

‘In serving the Qur'an Abū Bakr acquitted himself most admirably, heeding its mandate of two witnesses for establishing authenticity, and applying this rule to the Qur’an’s own compilation.  The result, though written on rudimentary parchments of varying size, constituted as sincere an effort as possible to preserve the Words of Allāh.’ (‘The History of the Qur’anic Text).

Once complete, the compiled Qur'an was placed under the custodianship of Abū Bakr.

Concerning the ‘variants readings’:

Pyreaux make no mention of ‘qira'at’ (meaning ‘styles of recitation’).  The qira'at are a way of pronouncing the Qur’anic text; and there are seven authoritative schools of qira'at.  An example of the differences between two qira'at can be seen in the sūrah ‘Al-Fatiha’ (‘The Opening’):

‘In the name of God, the Lord of Mercy, the Giver of Mercy!  Praise belongs to God, Lord of the Worlds, the Lord of Mercy, the Giver of Mercy, Master (māliki) of the Day of Judgement.  It is You we worship; it is You we ask for help.  Guide us to the straight path (l-ṣirāṭa) the path of those You have blessed, those who incur no anger and who have not gone astray.’

Some qira'at recite ‘māliki’ with a long ‘a’ (as in the planet ‘Mars’); while others say ‘maliki’, with a short ‘a’ (as in ‘cat’).  In every case, the meaning (‘Master’) is the same.

The word ‘l-ṣirāṭa’ can also be rendered ‘as-sirata’.  Again, both pronunciations have the same meaning of ‘path’ or ‘way’.

Pyreaux makes no mention of the fact that, in the time of 'Uthman, the order of sūrahs (and of the verses within each sūrah) had been fixed, but that differences in ‘qira'at’ had become a problem.  There were disputes about the correct manner of recitation.  Certain tribes boasted that their method of recitation was better than others!  

'Uthman’s solution was to borrow the Qur’an of Abū Bakr (then in the possession of Hafṣah bint ʿUmar; a wife of the Prophet, and ‘Mother of the Believers’).  He then ordered four Companions – among them Zaid bin Thabit – to reproduce the entire script in perfect copies.  This they did.

According to some reports, Kufa, Basra and Syria each received a finished copy of the Qur’an; with one being sent to Madinah.  Other reports add Mecca, Yemen and Bahrain.  It is also said that 'Uthman retained a copy for himself. 

It must be noted that no copy was sent without a qāri (a ‘reciter’), whose task it was to recite the Qur’an in the manner he had learned through authenticated, multiple channels going back to the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam); ‘insofar as these channels lay in complete agreement with each other and (conformed with) the Qur’an’s consonantal skeleton’ (Al-Azami: ‘The History of the Qur’anic Text).

Pyreaux fails to mention this.

The IDP Research Division write: ‘Two of the copies of the Qur'an which were originally prepared in the time of Caliph 'Uthman, are still available to us today and their text and arrangement can be compared, by anyone who cares to, with any other copy of the Qur'an, be it in print or handwriting, from any place or period of time. They will be found identical.’ (‘Understanding the Qur'an – Its History and Compilation’).

Pyreaux also fails to mention this.

Edited March 12, 2023 by Niblo

[Niblo]

Concerning Tawḥīd:

The entirety of Islamic teaching rests on the principle of tawḥīd, meaning 'oneness'.  This is Islam's most fundament concept: Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) is One (Al-'Aḥad).

‘Say: “He is Allāh the One (aḥadun), Allāh the eternal.  He begot no one nor was He begotten.  No one is comparable to Him.’ (‘Al-Ikhlas: 1-4’; my emphasis).

When used of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla), the word 'aḥad expresses His Oneness to the highest degree of perfection; meaning He is One in His person, One in His attributes and One in His actions also.  In short, there is not the slightest possibility of duality in Him.

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) ‘…begot no one nor was He begotten.’ 

The sūrah denies categorically any form of Divine progeny.  This means that, for the Beloved, there is no chain of descendants; no dynasty of gods.

In sūrah ‘Al-Shura’ we find confirmation that: ‘There is nothing like Him.’ (ʾĀyah:156).

This verse contains the word ‘ka’mithlihi’; a word that uses two letters to describe likeness. 

The first (‘kaf’) is used to liken one thing to another to a great degree.  The second (‘mithl’) likens one thing to another to a small degree.  Linguistically, therefore, Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) is telling us that nothing at all can be compared to Him, not in the slightest degree. 

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) is not a man; does not possess a body of flesh and bones; was not once as we are; does not father children, and was not fathered. 

This is the teaching of the Qur’an.  I do not expect Latter-day Saints to accept this teaching, after all, they are not Muslims.

Blessings.

Edited March 12, 2023 by Niblo

[Hamilton Porter]

19 hours ago, Niblo said:

According to Islam, there were no Rasūl after Muhammad, and therefore no valid scripture; that, of course, includes the ‘unique scriptures’ of your own community.

For the Muslims, therefore, much depends on how Latter-day Saints interpret the Bible.  In short, is this interpretation – and consequent theology – grounds for declaring that Latter-day Saints truly are ‘Christians’?

If it is, then they are ‘People of the Book’.  If it isn’t, then they are not.    

Ok. So it seems like the fact that we believe in prophets after Muhammad is a deal breaker.

That we're less monotheistic than historical Christianity is an issue as well, although that fits the Bible better. Our non-monotheistic interpretation of the Bible jibes with Biblical scholarship but not with Christian theology.

Edited March 13, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[CV75]

Only mentioning this because I've come cross it a few times in the past few days, on this board and elsewhere:

Jive vs. Jibe vs. Gibe: What’s the Difference? (mentalfloss.com)

Jibe Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

jibe 1 of 3 verb (1)

intransitive verb

: to be in accord : AGREE —usually used with with

a story that doesn't jibe with the facts

[Hamilton Porter]

Medieval Jews believed Islam was a civilized religion and Christianity was a bloodthirsty one.

https://youtu.be/HjsLQtW1xbg

[theplains]

On 3/10/2023 at 3:09 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

The Book of Mormon doesn't have anything where God TELLS you to kill every man, woman, child, and leave the olive trees alone. It's not a genocidal handbook like the Book of Joshua.

Do you believe the prophets of the Book of Mormon believed or rejected what was written about God in the 
plates of brass held by Laban (which supposedly contained the 5 books of Moses - 1 Nephi 5:11)?

You are correct. The Book of Mormon does not depict this type of genocide but it does describe a separation
of people based on God cursing the people with the sign of black skin (Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for
these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them
that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever,
except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them - Alma 3:14).  

This same God in the Book of Mormon did so so the Lamanites would not be enticing to the Nephites (2 Nephi 5:21).

Alma 23:18 indicates that the curse was eventually removed from the Lamanites and followed them no more,
but it does not say if their skin color changed back to how the Nephites were.
 

On 3/10/2023 at 3:09 PM, Hamilton Porter said:

Christians put 3 out of every 4 Jews into gas chambers. Ask any Jewish person who treated them worse historically.

Unless you believe a person can be both a murderer and a follower of Christ at the same time. Putin
also believes he is acting in the will of God with the blessing of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Edited March 15, 2023 by theplains

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Unless you believe a person can be both a murderer and a follower of Christ at the same time. Putin
also believes he is acting in the will of God with the blessing of the Russian Orthodox Church.

This wreaks of no true Scotsman. 

Based on this logic, then any Muslim that commits terrorism isn't a true Muslim.

Christians have persecuted Jews for two thousand years. Overall, just look at the scoreboard: Muslims have historically treated Jews much better than Christians did, although that's admittedly a low bar.

White Christians suffer from tone-deafness and lack of self-awareness.

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Do you believe the prophets of the Book of Mormon believed or rejected what was written about God in the 
plates of brass held by Laban (which supposedly contained the 5 books of Moses - 1 Nephi 5:11)?

You are correct. The Book of Mormon does not depict this type of genocide but it does describe a separation
of people based on God cursing the people with the sign of black skin (Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for
these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them
that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever,
except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them - Alma 3:14).  

That's not good, if we go with the plain reading. That's also not as bad as believing God commanded genocide. 

 

[telnetd]

On 3/12/2023 at 6:13 AM, Niblo said:

‘Most "moderate" Muslims in the West have learned to live in the West. They are the "backsliding" and "liberal" Muslims that have embraced the West for primarily economic reasons. They fled the ME because of the true Muslims; call them radical, orthodox, traditional, you name it. But that is the true Islam and not the sanitized version the political class has sold on primetime news.’

I would recommend two books.

The Hadith: The Traditions of Mohammed (A Taste of Islam) Paperback – Illustrated, December 1, 2010
by Bill Warner (Author)

The Life of Mohammed: The Sira (A Taste of Islam) Paperback – September 17, 2010
by Bill Warner (Author)

There is no Islam without the Hadith.

Muhammad's interaction with Jews and Christians changed between the Meccan and Medinan
periods.  Peaceful in the beginning and then violent as Muhammad's political power grew.

[telnetd]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Christians have persecuted Jews for two thousand years. Overall, just look at the scoreboard: Muslims have historically treated Jews much better than Christians did, although that's admittedly a low bar.

I am reading a book called "The Lion of Judah" by now-Christian Rabbi Kirt A. Schneider". He does a very good job
of explaining how the rift between Jews and Christians began.

There would be no Israel today if Muslims were successful in wiping them out in 1948.

[Hamilton Porter]

38 minutes ago, telnetd said:

There would be no Israel today if Muslims were successful in wiping them out in 1948.

That comes with trying to build an ethnostate and driving out the indigenous population. It may have been necessary, in wake of the Holocaust, but there's no indigenous people who would've accepted an arrangement like that.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Hamilton Porter]

43 minutes ago, telnetd said:

I am reading a book called "The Lion of Judah" by now-Christian Rabbi Kirt A. Schneider". He does a very good job
of explaining how the rift between Jews and Christians began.

 

 

50 minutes ago, telnetd said:

The Life of Mohammed: The Sira (A Taste of Islam) Paperback – September 17, 2010

You should broaden your horizons and don't just read books written by Christians. Billy Bob always has an axe to grind.

I recommend Dan Peterson's biography on Muhammad. I haven't read it but I've read some of Dan Peteron's works.

[telnetd]

2 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I recommend Dan Peterson's biography on Muhammad. I haven't read it but I've read some of Dan Peteron's works.

The LDS Church has high praises for Muhammad even though he rejected many of the key teachings
of the New Testament and changed many passages of the Old Testament.

Here are just a few.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/1988/04/questions-and-answers/what-is-the-relationship-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-to-the-non-christian-religions-of-the-world?lang=eng

“The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers 
including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God 
to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.

Another is https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2000/08/a-latter-day-saint-perspective-on-muhammad?lang=eng

“We believe Muhammad encountered a divine messenger who informed him of his new calling as prophet. He
received revelations of new scripture that contains God’s word to mankind, and he established a community of
believers that developed into a major world religion.”

Unless you believe the Quran is also a corrupted book.

Edited March 15, 2023 by telnetd

[Hamilton Porter]

Yeah I know, what's your point?

[Hamilton Porter]

The Quran doesn't identify the son Abraham sacrificed:

Quote

Contrary to a widely held belief, the Qur'an does not specify the son's identity, merely mentioning "the good news of a prudent son" (Q. 37:101). It is revealing in this connection that the "official" Saudi translation by Muhammad Hamildullah feels obliged to parenthetically specify "Ishmael"! It was the exegetes who subsequently attempted to respond to this question. The great Qur'an commentator Tabari reports a number of opinions, most of which (including his own) favor Isaac on the grounds that it was Isaac and not Ishmael who was the object of a divine announcement. Several other exegetes come down on the side of Ishmael, and this is now the most widespread opinion in Islam. It is far from being a matter of consensus, however, and has not always enjoyed majority support.

Meir M. Bar-Asher, Jews and the Qur'an (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2021), 67.

[Niblo]

On 3/15/2023 at 4:14 PM, telnetd said:

I would recommend two books.

The Hadith: The Traditions of Mohammed (A Taste of Islam) Paperback – Illustrated, December 1, 2010
by Bill Warner (Author)

The Life of Mohammed: The Sira (A Taste of Islam) Paperback – September 17, 2010
by Bill Warner (Author)

There is no Islam without the Hadith.

You quote me as having said: 

‘Most "moderate" Muslims in the West have learned to live in the West. They are the "backsliding" and "liberal" Muslims that have embraced the West for primarily economic reasons. They fled the ME because of the true Muslims; call them radical, orthodox, traditional, you name it. But that is the true Islam and not the sanitized version the political class has sold on primetime news.’

These are not my words, but those of Islander.  I was quoting him.

Thank you for your recommendations, but I have a reasonable library of ʼaḥādīth; including the whole of Bukhari; Muslim; al-Tirmidhi; Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī; al-Nasāʾī; and the ‘Al-Muwatta’ of Imam Malik Ibn Anas.

I also possess the ‘Encyclopaedia of Islamic Law in Two Volumes’, by Yusuf Al-Hajj Ahmad’; ‘The Sacred Foundations of Justice in Islam: The Teachings of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib’, by M. Ali Lakhani, Reza Shah-Kazemi and Leonard Lewisohn; the ‘Qawaid Fi Ulum al-Hadith - Principles of Hadith’, by Shaykh Mawlana Zafar Ahmed Al Uthmani; ‘Fundamentals of Hadith Interpretation’, by Amin Ahsan Islahi; and Dr. Mohammad Hashim Kamali’s ‘A Textbook of Ḥadīth Studies - Authenticity, Compilation, Classification and Criticism of Ḥadīth’, and ‘Sharia Law – Questions and Answers’.

Does all this stuff make me one jot the wiser?  Not in the slightest.  I am, however, much better informed.

Islahi writes:

‘We can guard the religion only by sound knowledge.  The scholars must develop understanding of the basic sources of religious knowledge in Islam, the Qur’an and the Sunnah. The struggle to safeguard the religion demands firm, sound and uncompromising faith as well as commitment to obtain the true knowledge.’ (Fundamentals of Hadith Interpretation’).

What makes you think that a Muslim can obtain true knowledge of his religion from one who is an enemy of Islam? 

Would you, as a Mormon, seek true knowledge of your religion from, say, the Pillar Baptist Church which, in one of its YouTube videos, describes the Saints as ‘Latter Day Satans’?

Concerning the aḥādīth:

As you know, these are collection of traditions containing sayings of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) which – with accounts of his daily practice (the Sunna) – constitute the major source of guidance for Muslims, apart from the Qur’an.

The Prophet gave orders that no aḥādīth were to be written down while he lived (he did not want his own words to be mistaken for those of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla), as revealed in the Qur’an).

The aḥādīth are categorised as follows:

‘Sahih’:  Those reported by an unbroken chain of reporters whose integrity is judged, by the compilers, to be beyond reproach. 

‘Hassan’: Those that do not conform to the conditions laid down for ‘sahih’, in that their chain of reporters, while good, contains one weak ,though honest, reporter. 

‘Ḍaʿīf’: Those that do not meet the requirements adopted for the other two classes.  They have one or more defects in the chain of reporters, and are classified into several sub-classes, ranging from the ‘acceptable’ to the ‘fraudulent’ depending on the type and gravity of the defect in the chain of transmission.

Mawḍūʻ: Fabricated and wrongly ascribed to the Prophet.

Shaykh Al Uthmani writes:

‘The mawḍūʿ (fabricated, forged) is that which is deliberately concocted i.e. devised as a lie against the Messenger of Allah.  It is the worst type of weak ḥadīth and the ugliest.’ (‘Qawaid Fi Ulum al-Hadith - Principles of Hadith’).

Maqlūb: An ḥādīth in two different narrations, in which the names of the narrators have been changed.

The Muslim Community is divided as to the veracity of the aḥādīth

At one extreme are the Qur’anists; folk who consider all aḥādīth to be unreliable; worthy only of outright rejection.  At the opposite extreme are those who claim that to doubt the authenticity of even a single ḥādīth is to place oneself outside the fold of Islam.

The majority of Muslims appear to float somewhere in between.

Dr. Kamali writes:

‘Muslim jurists and ulama have developed elaborate methodologies for the authentication of hadith with the purpose precisely to enhance the scope of scientific objectivity in their conclusions.  This they have done in full awareness that in no other branch of Islamic learning has there been as much distortion and forgery as in hadith.’ (‘A Textbook of Ḥādīth Studies’; my emphasis).

There was extensive forgery of aḥādīth in the early decades of Islam, following the murder of Uthman – the third caliph.  According to Dr. Kamali, the killing of Uthman ‘dealt a heavy blow to the unity of the umma’, resulting in ‘the emergence of serious political differences and partisan groups such as Shia, Kharijites and Mutazila.’

An ḥādīth that stands in conflict with the Quran – such that no reasonable compromise or interpretation can reconcile the two; or that conflicts with the accepted behaviour of the Prophet, or with another ḥādīth; or that conflicts with human experience, or with the natural sciences must be rejected

Continued:

[Niblo]

You write:

'Muhammad's interaction with Jews and Christians changed between the Meccan and Medinan periods.  Peaceful in the beginning and then violent as Muhammad's political power grew.’

Muhammad Abdel Haleem, King Fahd Professor of Islamic Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, writes:

‘It has been argued that once Muhammad felt strong in Medina, he decided to fight, which he did not when he was weak in Mecca.  This assumes that he changed religious teachings according to whim or political expedience.  It also assumes that Islam was meant to consist only of the few teachings that were revealed in the Qur’an in Mecca, that the Muslims should always accept oppression and be forced to flee in the face of aggression and that the Prophet should lay himself open to being killed, a paradigm that clearly was not meant for Muhammad, his mission and followers.  Islam was obviously meant to grow into a much greater entity than it was in Mecca.  In fact, only two of the Five Pillars of Islam were introduced in Mecca, the creed and the five daily prayers.  Fasting in the month of Ramadan, which one would assume was suitable for Mecca, was introduced only in the second year in Medina, shortly before permission for military defence. Zakāh (obligatory tax on Muslims) and hajj were introduced later, so were the laws of marriage, divorce and trading, for example.’ (‘Exploring the Qur'an: Context and Impact’).

In short, differences in style – and content – between the Meccan and Medinan sūrah are the result of changing circumstances, and of developing community needs.

The Meccan sūrahs seek to establish the fundamentals of Islam; to declare the truth that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) is One (Al-'Aḥad) and Single (Al-Wāḥid); to confirm that human existence does not end at death, but that all will experience resurrection, judgement, reward and retribution; to declare that Heaven and Hell are realities (the Meccan idolaters did not believe such things); and to declare that polytheism and idolatry are unacceptable, for there is only one Lord.  These surahs make it perfectly clear that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) requires nothing less than a complete change in one’s way of life, through repentance and right action.

The move to Medina created the first Islamic state; a state responsible for its own development and protection.  Medina was a city where tribes came to settle disputes; this practice can be seen in the sūrah that were revealed there.  In an essay entitled ‘The Qur’an as a Source of Islamic Law’, Aḥmad Muḥammad al-Ṭayyib writes:

‘The Madinan parts of the Quran are distinguished by the promulgation of laws for personal affairs, society, and the state, including rules of marriage, child nursing (raḍāʿah), family maintenance (nafaqah), inheritance (mīrāth), usury (ribā), commercial transactions (buyūʿ) retribution (qiṣāṣ) and struggle in society and in the path of God (jihād) – all of the different laws that came to be a matter of concern for Muslims as soon as they were constituted as a community, with a state of their own, social institutions, an army, and a leader.’ (‘The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary’; by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, et al).

The following are Medinan sūrahs:

‘We have assigned a law and a path to each of you.  If Allāh had so willed, He would have made you one community, but He wanted to test you through that which He has given you, so race to do good: you will all return to Allāh and He will make clear to you the matters you differed about.’ (Al-Ma’ida: 48). 

The message is clear: Whatever path we happen to be on – whatever law we happen to follow – we are each of us called to do good. 

Al-Maida also gives permission for Muslim men to marry believing Jewish and Christian women (ʾāyah 5).  Under Islamic law , such women retain an inviolable right, not only to retain their Faith, but to practise it.

And this:

‘The (Muslim) believers, the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabians – all those who believe in Allāh and the Last Day and do good – will have their rewards with their Lord. No fear for them, nor will they grieve.’ (Al-Baqara 62).

And this, concerning those ‘People of the Book’ – an honorific title given to Jews and Christians – who are true to their religion:

‘Those who believe, and do good deeds, are the best of creation.  Their reward with their Lord is everlasting Gardens graced with flowing streams, where they will stay forever.  Allāh is well pleased with them and they with Him.  All this is for those who stand in awe of their Lord.’ (Al-Bayyina: 7-8; my emphasis). 

And also:

‘They are not all alike.  There are some among the People of the Book who are upright, who recite Allāh’s revelations during the night, who bow down in worship, who believe in Allāh and the Last Day, who order what is right and forbid what is wrong, who are quick to do good deeds. These people are among the righteous and they will not be denied (the reward) for whatever good deeds they do: Allāh knows exactly who is conscious of Him.’ (Al‘Imran: 113-115).

Take especial note of these ʾāyāt. 

I was a Christian for over sixty-five years.  It has been my privilege to know – and to love – many Christians who were shining examples of Christian love and good practice.  These verses assure me that they shall have their reward in Heaven; that every Christian, and every Jew, who carries the Beloved in their hearts, and who strives to do good, will have their reward.  This is a solemn promise, and the Beloved does not renege on His promises. 

Blessings.