Refuting the "Satanic Verses"

Before we show its inauthenticity we''ll be giving a defense of it. 

This is evidence of the prophets prophethood as which false prophet would immediately contradict something he said prior and would be willing to say “what i had spoken before was from satan but god has now corrected what came before.”

it furthermore proves the prophets honesty

All of the prophets life and quranic message was consistent with the prophet being honest and trustworthy and the quranic message being mainly concerned about monotheism. Saying “how can we trust the prophet now? what if he said another verse from satan?” Comes down to whether you believe he’s a prophet or not. When you first accept his prophethood on clear grounds then you will have no doubt that if this ever happens god will rectify it with gabriel immediately. The same way god rectifys all the prophets mistakes immediately in the quran. 

on the intentions of the prophet did he try and have islam more palatable for the quraysh? Was he not genuine in his unwavering monotheism? 

we have narrations to show that the prophet wasn’t willing to change for money, women or to allow for some leway with some days them worshipping Allah and other days the idols So for the prophet to INTENTIONALLY misattribute them to Allah is out of character.

The satanic verses story also shows that EVEN when satan puts words in the prophets mouth which is the closest thing he could be doing to corrupt the religion god fulfils his promise of preserving the final religion by rectifying it.

Here are some quotes from ”Before Orthodoxy” by Shahab Ahmed”

He also provides a defense to it had it been authentic correcting those who say it’s theologically problematic

"Thus, many people used to deny this, even if they allowed for other possibilities regarding him, whether before prophethood or after it, due to their assumption that this would imply an error in delivering the message, and he is infallible in delivering the message by consensus. The agreed-upon infallibility is that he cannot persist in an error in delivering the message by consensus. Therefore, it is not known that any of the polytheists ever became alienated from him because of this. Rather, it was reported that they became alienated when he returned to condemning their idols after they thought he had praised them. Thus, their alienation was due to his persistence in condemning their idols, not because he said something and then claimed that Satan had cast it upon him.

If this did not cause alienation, then other things are even less likely to do so. Moreover, it is established that abrogation (of previous rulings) alienated some groups, as stated: ‘The foolish among the people will say, “What has turned them away from their qiblah (direction of prayer) which they used to face?”’ [Surah Al-Baqarah: 142]. And His saying: ‘And when We replace a verse in place of another – and Allah knows best what He reveals – they say, “You are but an inventor [of lies].” But most of them do not know. Say, “The Holy Spirit has brought it down from your Lord in truth to strengthen those who believe.”’ [Surah An-Nahl: 101-102].

Thus, the substitution that they explicitly stated was alienating and used to drive people away from him was not something that must be denied about him. How, then, with returning to the truth – something that has not been known to alienate them – which is far less alienating? For abrogation involves transitioning from one truth to another truth, while this involves returning to the truth from something that is not the truth.

Allah, the Exalted, said regarding Dawud (David, peace be upon him):

"And Dawud became certain that We had tested him, and he asked forgiveness of his Lord and fell down bowing [in prostration] and turned in repentance. So We forgave him that, and indeed, for him is nearness to Us and a good place of return" [Surah Sad: 24–25]

And He said to Musa (Moses, peace be upon him):

"Indeed, the messengers do not fear in My presence, except he who has wronged; then substituted good after evil—indeed, I am Forgiving and Merciful" [Surah An-Naml: 10–11].

As for the argument that it is impossible for prophets to err because they are meant to be followed and one cannot follow a sin, it is said to such a person: One is only commanded to follow what the prophets were affirmed and approved upon, not what they were prohibited from. Similarly, one follows them in what they were affirmed upon and not abrogated, and not in what was abrogated.

Thus, emulating them becomes a legislated and commanded practice. This does not negate the possibility of them doing something prohibited,*for which they are corrected and not affirmed upon. Nor does it negate the occurrence of abrogation in some commands, even though it is agreed upon that following abrogated laws is not permissible.

What further clarifies this point is that abrogation creates a greater aversion for people. When a person transitions from one position to another and states: "What I was upon before was the truth, commanded by Allah, and my transition from it is also the truth, commanded by Allah," this is more likely to create hesitation than if one were to say: "I abandoned what Allah did not command me to do."

Indeed, everyone praises the one who says the latter. However, for the one who says, "My command for this was true, and my prohibition from it is also true," this creates aversion among many ignorant individuals and is rejected by some, including the Jews and others.

The Christian hypocrisy

Christian’s believe that bad fruits = someone being a false prophet. And bad fruits here is characterised as bad deeds as mentioned by augustine.

John chrysostom wrestles with the idea that this would mean that true prophets  like david in the old testament were false prophets. However he reconciles this by saying a prophet can turn into a false prophet and later be redeemed as a true one.

 “What then? Did not David, being good, bear evil fruit? Not continuing good, but being changed; since, undoubtedly, had he remained always what he was, he would not have brought forth such fruit. For not surely while abiding in the habit of virtue, did he commit what he committed.”

Credits to DeenResponds.

"Islamic Dillema" Refuted.

slideshow by IslamicApex

https://nkcsd-my.sharepoint.com/:p:/g/personal/728504_nkcschools_org/EeTliqDInF9GrXRcT5MTTvEBLL-dFT9jNqffOdT8nytuuA?rtime=m2PrMut23Ug

"Allah Deceives"

We have no problem in Allah SWT “Showing something that gives the impression of something else besides reality” if this is for the greater good or if it’s as a source of punishment or humiliation for someone.

Allah swt being described as one that “deceives” or one that “plots” is fine

But we can’t title him these names because he doesn’t perform these in the absolute sense. Only in the sense of when it’s beneficial.

So for example in the Quran Allah swt says

وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا ٱلْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ٱبْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ ٱللَّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَـٰكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ ۚ وَإِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ ٱخْتَلَفُوا۟ فِيهِ لَفِى شَكٍّۢ مِّنْهُ ۚ مَا لَهُم بِهِۦ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلَّا ٱتِّبَاعَ ٱلظَّنِّ ۚ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًۢا ١٥٧

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the messenger of Allāh." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.1

It was made appear to the jews that jesus pbuh was crucified. Now Allah swt showing something that is misleading to “deceived” is perfectly fine and in line with his omnipotence. As long as Allah SWT is not doing so unjustly or not uttering a lie.

 Allah swt can punish evildoers by giving them illusions to have them perceive reality differently

And if it benefits believers Allah swt can do the same for them.

وَإِذْ يُرِيكُمُوهُمْ إِذِ ٱلْتَقَيْتُمْ فِىٓ أَعْيُنِكُمْ قَلِيلًۭا وَيُقَلِّلُكُمْ فِىٓ أَعْيُنِهِمْ لِيَقْضِىَ ٱللَّهُ أَمْرًۭا كَانَ مَفْعُولًۭا ۗ وَإِلَى ٱللَّهِ تُرْجَعُ ٱلْأُمُورُ ٤٤

And [remember] when He showed them to you, when you met, as few in your eyes, and He made you [appear] as few in their eyes so that Allāh might accomplish a matter already destined. And to Allāh are [all] matters returned.

so for example here in the battle of badr Allah swt  Made the disbelievers appear as few for the believers and the same for the disbelievers

This was to ensure both parties don’t hesitate in battle and ensuring such a battle occurs, would ensure victory as Allah decreed. So it’s a beneficial outcome for the muslims to distort reality for them while bad for the kuffar that lead to their annihilation in battle.

Example of Allah distorting reality for someone for their own good 

A believer is walking on a path where a landmine is planted by the enemy force, if Allah swt wills he can distort reality whereby the believer sees that there is fire there so he can avoid the land mine.

An example for the destruction of someone is if there was a group of kuffar and they are 50 in number. They’re waiting for the right time to attack a group of muslims who are 1000 in number. If Allah wills to destroy them by making the muslim appear to be 10 in number instead which then leads to the kuffar heading straight to battle that ultimately would be a good thing.*

 SHOWING BIBLICAL HYPOCRISY

God has no problem in using deception to kill an evil person. And we wouldnt object to this as God can deceive evildoers to their death and that would be a good thing not bad 

It says specifically  “ So now the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all these prophets”

So god has no issue with using deception to get what he wants

The objections are based on the claim that God deceiving someone is against His nature because deception is a detestable act. This would entail conflicting attributes.

To deceive or mislead are generally deficient or detestable traits, especially when unprovoked. However, when someone is on the receiving end of deception, it is a praiseworthy trait to retaliate and beat them at their own game. It shows that you are capable and have more power than the one initiating. If a person allows himself to be deceived, he has deficiencies such as being unaware, lacking foresight and being unwise.

Thus, when these words are attributed to subjects that fall into the first category, they are deficiencies. When they are retaliatory and justified, they are praiseworthy.

The following passage of القواعد المثلى (Al-Qawaa’id al-Muthlaa) by Shaykh Muhammad Bin Saalih al-Uthaymeen r.a. expresses this point in detail: