Sam Shamoun "None Named John Before the Baptist?"

Sam Shamoun "None Named John Before the Baptist?"

When Zakariya was moved by the wisdom and deep spiritual insight of the young Mary that was put under his guardianship, he began praying God to grant him a child as pious and virtuous, that would help preserve the ways of righteousness among his deviant kinsfolk 

"..And indeed, I fear my successors after me..so grant me from Yourself a successor, Who should inherit me and inherit from the children of Yaqoub, and make him, my Lord, one in whom Thou art well pleased". 

Through His angelic messengers, God responded to Zakariyya's plea 

3:38-9,19:1-7"We give you good news of a boy whose name shall be Yahya: We have not made before anyone his samiyan". 

Zakariyya continued calling upon his Lord for further enlightenment and elaboration, which he kept receiving through the angelic messengers. The same type of back and forth communication would shortly later occur between Mary and God, through the angels 3:38-47. Both Zakariyya and Mary are in these verses addressing Allah through His messengers. God in turn replies through His angelic conduits of revelation. Several angels visited Zakariyya with the good news 3:39. When he expressed his astonishment to his Lord, one of those angelic conduits of revelation swiftly conveyed the live answer from his Lord "He said: So shall it be, your Lord says: It is easy to Me.." The same occured with Mary 3:45-47,19:20-21. This is consistent with the Quranic axiom that Allah only communicates with humans through a barrier or the sending of angelic messengers. 

Samiyan, describing the Zakariyya's future son, stems from S-M-W meaning elevation. It is used for the sky because it is raised high, as well as for a name because when one's name is called he rises, as well as for lofty attributes, because they set apart an entity from a group by raising it in status (see 19:65 in this regard). Literally the verse is saying that none has been "elevated" like Yahya before him. It can be elevation due to his name, or attributes, it is the context that decides and here, to claim that the context speaks of unprecedented appellation would be irrelevant. 

The verse says that none like him was born in Zakariya' family, because in the previous verse it is his own relatives whom he feared, and therefore an assurance was now given to him that the promised son would not be like the other members of his family. This is all the more true if one considers the conditions in which the prophet Yahyah/John, and shortly after Jesus, were raised. They both came to warn the Israelites who had in great majority fallen into spiritual degeneration, under heavy foreign philosophical and spiritual influences, divided into sects, seeking closeness with the pagan Roman authorities, some denying the resurrection, others forsaking the spirit of the Torah for their soulless man-made rituals 

19:12-5"O Yahya, take hold of the Book with strength, and We granted him wisdom while yet a child, And tenderness from Us and purity, and he was one who guarded (against evil), And dutiful to his parents, and he was not insolent, disobedient. And peace on him on the day he was born, and on the day he dies, and on the day he is raised to life". 

Yahya was thus given wisdom and divine knowledge very early on, while still a child, in answer to Zakariya's prayer. In the NT, the angelic announcement of John's birth to Zakariyya clearly shows that it came in answer to the latter's prayers for a son that would distinguish himself among his contemporaries due to his righteousness and capacity to draw back his nation to the straight path Lk1:11-17. John/Yahya's righteousness was such a distinguishing characteristic among his family and people that in the NT Jesus is reported to have described him as such 

Matt11:11"Verily I say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist".

That whole part of Zakariyya's life, expressing his basic natural human desire, after many long years of childlessness to have a descendant, and God's compassionate acceptance from his patient servant, and above all his wish for a righteous progeny was lost during the course of the transmission of Christian tradition. The Quran restored it, in honour of both Zakariyya and Yahya.

Yahya and Isa, among other prophets singled out in the Quran similarly are Arabicised versions of the native names of those whom the Greek NT calls Ioannes/John or Iesou/Jesus. John the Baptist, whose Hebrew equivalent is Yohanan, is called up to this day Yahia or Yahia Yuhanna by the Mandaeans who claim to be his disciples, and is referred to as such in their ancient writing the Ginza Rba. It is interesting that the Quran uses a word for him that isnt used for anyone else. It describes Yahya as

 19:13"hananan min ladunna/tenderness from Us" 

which is a paraphrase of the Hebrew Yuhanna/YHWH is gracious. 

As to Jesus, the exact name he had in his original tongue can only be speculated, based on the earliest writings with his name in Koine Greek and translations from Greek. The Greek Iesous is closer to the Aramaic Yeshu. There is also a very close sounding name in Hebrew, derived from the Biblical Yehoshua/Joshua. It was progressively shortened to Yeshua then Yeshu after the exiles returned to Judah from Babylon. In the time of Jesus, this name was common and a person named Yeshu may not have been named by the original Joshua/Yehoshua. The writers of the NT in Matt1:21 attempt to retroproject their Christologies unto Jesus using the etymology of the name. It is used throughout the HB to connote salvation from imminent physical danger but is now widened to include salvation from sin. Christologies aside, through his prophetic function he did save those among his people (the tribe of Israel only) from sin by calling them to he straight path and reforming their mishandling of the law.

More clues as to what his name sounded like can be gleaned from the Peshitta, a Syriac rendition of the Greek NT. The name Isho is used for Jesus which cannot be a transliteration of the Greek Iesous. Syriac sprung from Aramaic, which was spoken in the time of Jesus and most probably his native tongue. The Syriac Isho might have been pronounced the same way, or slightly differently as compared to the Aramaic original. Even in Syriac, the name Isho closely resembles the Arabic Isa. The name, as written in Syriac letters, can be both read as Yeshu and Isho. This might have been a deliberate device by the 2nd century Syriac authors of the Peshitta who sought to represent both Hebrew and Aramaic traditions of Jesus' name. The reason however for Christians to associate Iesous with Yeshua is because of the existence of a Hebrew noun which they think sounds similar and means "salvation"; y'shu'ah. Besides being a feminine word, it isnt even pronounced the same as Yeshua because of the muted first letter "yod".

Recently in Harra (southern Syria and northern Jordan) a safaitic inscription (1st century BCE to 4th century CE) believed to be by desert Christians addresses Jesus as ISA with the triliteral root Ain-Sin-Ya, corresponding to his name in the Quran (al-Jallad). A more fundamental question to ask is why would the Quran re-invent the name of a known figure out of thin air? The Quran is identifying Jesus by the name his audience was familiar with, before, during, and after Islam. The Arabic Isa is a known phenomenon in linguistics called phonosemantic matching. When 2 languages refer to the same thing with a word that is very close phonetically. Isa is a preislamic name which in addition connotes redemption. These 2 factors are what facilitated the identification of the Syriac Isho with the preislamic Isa by Arab Christians. Once more, the character presented in the Quran as Isa cannot be anyone else than the historical, biblical, traditional Jesus. Why would the Quran go out of its way and refer to the main figure of Christianity, while addressing Christians, with a name they never heard of? Pre Islamic Arab Christians adopted Isa because of its etymology as well as close match with the Aramaic Isho. The Quran is addressing these Christians of the Hijaz, not some Christian of the Greco roman world.

The pattern of morphing a name for theological reasons is seen in other cases. For example Jesus' brother is called James. One of the 27 books of the NT was supposedly authored by him. It was opposed by many Christians, including Martin Luther due to its different Christology than Paul's writings, emphasizing the necessity of deeds for salvation. James was part of the small nucleus of Jewish followers of Jesus, centered around Jerusalem, who were in conflict with Paul and who advocated full Torah observance even after Jesus' crucifixion. James' name is in fact, in the original Greek, Jacob. In an effort to eradicate the Jewishness of that movement, the church, in all non-Greek translations of the name have changed Jacob to James.

Similarly Musa's original name isnt Moshe, a word hebrewcised in a way so as to fit a convenient etymology (to pullout/deliver) which is relevant to the context of the story (Musa's deliverance/pulling out from the water). Musa was named in Egypt, by his Egyptian adoptive family according to the HB itself Ex2:10, who would certainly not use the language of their Hebrew slaves for naming one of their own, especially so when the child was to be part of Egyptian nobility. Rabbinic commentaries speculate between several opinions surrounding the event of Musa's appellation, among them that his original name was Munius, later Hebrewcised into Moshe in the HB. It is highly unlikely that Avraham (father of nations) and Moshe (pull out) iterate into the respective originals, since they clearly follow Hebrew etymologies.

At other times, the Hebrew etymology is derived from a foreign name. Adam's whose language could not have been Hebrew, fits the Hebrew word adamah for earth/ground/dust from which he was created

Gen2:7"min ha’adamah". When Adam is preceded by ha/the it means "the man" in a generic sense but always with the earthly origin implicitly intended but if it isnt preceded by the preposition then it refers to a proper name with a meaning directly related to the history of the person in question, as is many times the case in the HB (contrast Gen2:7 with 3:21). The HB also uses ish, enosh, and gever for the human species besides "ha adam".

Although in the HB, Abraham is called Avram/exalted father until his 90s before his name change to Avraham, the Quran calls him since his youth "Ibrahim" 21:60 the Arabic equivalent of "Avraham", and all throughout his life, including after the trial of the sacrifice and consequent blessings, without ever speaking of a name change. "Ibrahim" and "Avraham/father of nations" are both respectively the Arabicised and Hebrewcised forms of the name he had in the language of his native area of Iraq, which was neither Arabic nor Hebrew. The same goes for the Phillistine warrior Goliath/Jalut. What the Jewish scribes did in Abraham's case, was to retrospectively Hebrewcise the native name in a manner that would fit the event of God's promise to his descendants. They simply embellished the story. 

Further, it is a known Biblical style to have one and the same character with several names whose convenient etymologies are relevant to the context, or the intent of the writer. A quiet blatant example is that of Sha'ul/Saul which carries a negative connotation, but whom the Quran names Talut, implying height. The Arabic Talut is derived from t-w-l implying a high stature. This name was known since pre-islamic times as mentioned in a poem by al-samaw'al. It could have been one of the names by which that king was known to the Jews. But the name the Biblical scribes gave him was Sha'ul, implying "to ask". This retrospective appellation was aimed at negatively comparing Sha'ul/Saul to both David and Samuel. Samuel was asked of God 1Sam1 while Saul was asked of the people. Then God answers David while Saul is answered with silence 1Sam14:37,28:6. There is a clear play on the questioning motif by the Biblical writers, who, like their predecessors, frowned upon the election of a Benjamite as their king.

Sam Shamoun "Muhammad: The Best Example of Morality and Virtue?"

Sam Shamoun "Muhammad: The Best Example of Morality and Virtue?"

Islam arrived on the scene when slavery was already a deeply rooted social habit. Islam addresses this issue by first and foremost never placing the acquisition of slaves as a demand of religion. This means that when the institution of slavery is absent altogether from Muslim society, the divine law remains complete. Secondly, it limits the acquisition of slaves by confining it to the war prisoners, specifically those that could not be ransomed, thus forbidding the enslavement of a free person. This is how God gives mastery to those who fight in His ways, over those that seek to extinguish the light of truth. 

As ordained by Islam and as will be seen in details later on, it is but the most logical and humane manner of dealing with the enemy in war; they could obviously not free them at once and re-ignite the war, nor execute them all, nor set up a camp for them in which they would overburden state treasury and demand inefficient logistical organization with poor spiritual and psychosocial impact, but instead were sent among the Muslims themselves who were to treat them as quasi-members of the household

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

These former enemies could see and experience first hand the values and morals of Islam, after which they could eventually be freed. From all the ways that provided an avenue for slave acquisition, the Quran kept only one, as already said because of it being a logistical necessity, and more importantly, helped protect the captives’ lives as well as offer them a possibility of reform. Possession of slaves in Islam is therefore unrelated to financial wealth. When slaves were bought, it was for the purpose of emancipating them immediately as a righteous benevolent action or to atone for a sin. They only could be acquired as collateral war prisoners, together with their belongings brought at the battlefield such as horses, camels, useful weapons. If they weren't ransomed in exchange of Muslim war prisoners at the hands of the enemy, they were then distributed in Muslim households in which the Islamic label of a "slave" would make the best western modern system of social care pale in comparison 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muslims are warned however that even in a context of legitimate war, they can never be motivated by the perspective of capturing prisoners or acquiring any type of material gains over the main objective, the complete and entire defeat of their enemies and oppressors 8:67-71. The Quran relates in 8:5-8 how Allah tested the believers' motives in battle in order to purge them from their greed; if they would run after the booty or stand firm with the prophet to defend Islam. When the acquisition of slaves became restricted to battles after which they had to be freed either voluntarily or as a ransom, God warned the Muslims that during battle the motive must be the attainment of the military objectives before any consideration for war gains, and once the objective is fully accomplished, only then the taking of war prisoners and seizing of other spoils is allowed 47:4. In a later verse following the battle of Badr, God admonished those among the Muslims who had shown weakness in their general outlook on life, who had succumbed to their greed and begun capturing war spoils while the battle was still raging and the enemy threat hadnt been entirely contained

 8:67"you desire the frail goods of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter; and Allah is Mighty, Wise". 

But because God had already permitted the ransoming of war prisoners 47:4 that wealth gathered, although not in accordance with the spirit of the law, was considered lawful 

8:68-9"Were it not for an ordinance from Allah that had already gone forth, surely there would have befallen you a great chastisement for what you had taken to. Eat then of the lawful and good (things) which you have acquired in war, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful". 

The believers are warned not to repeat this behavior and submit to their greed. They must keep in mind the higher objectives for going to war. They must first entirely subdue the enemy until the threat of war is over, and only then begin taking the enemy's spoils.

So the type of slavery allowed in the Quran, up to this day if the conditions are met, isnt the one where free innocent human beings are captured and sold like a merchandise. In fact the Quran emphatically condemns this type of human trafficking through the story of prophet Yusuf, as will be shown below.

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

When a female captive gives birth to her owner's child, her status and conditions change 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "Muhammad: The Best Example of Morality and Virtue?"

1- CIRA International seek specific examples; the prisonners of Badr?

2- CIRA International are sinking: So what is Islamic slavery? 

3- CIRA International uncover Islamic social system; caring for slaves? 

4- CIRA International keep sinking; why Allah allows social inequalities?

5- CIRA International inadvertendly reveal Islamic higher viewpoint; human opposites or complementarity? 

6- Sam Shamoun "Muhammad and the Ten Commandments" (2) (mutah)

7- Sam Shamoun "Quranic Permissibility of Women having Sex with their Slaves"

8- Sam Shamoun about the prophet Muhammad "A WHITE RACIST OWNER OF BLACK SLAVES"

9- dontconvert2islam tries talking Quran, Muslims best of creatures? 

10- dontconvert2islam understands now; conditional honoring of the Muslim nation? 

11- dontconvert2islam is given valuable wisdom; golden rule of the Islamic ummah? 

12- dontconvert2islam is in shock; who are the worst creatures?

Sam Shamoun "The Prophets and their bodies: More proof that Muhammad was a false prophet"

Sam Shamoun "The Prophets and their bodies: More proof that Muhammad was a false prophet"

The hadith speaks of underground decomposition. Joseph was embalmed then later buried.

Regarding the prophet Muhammad's burial, Ali suggested: 

"Allah, be He exalted, received the soul of His Prophet in the purest of spots; let him, therefore, be buried there." 

They accepted his advice and buried the Prophet in the room where he died. Aws ibn Khawli was the one who lifted the Prophet's body and brought it down in the grave. 

Ali went down into the grave and uncovered the Prophet's face and placed his cheek on the ground, facing the qiblah, and laid him on his right side. He laid grave slabs and covered the tomb with earth. We also learn from the prophetic hadith that the most honorable way for a prophet's body to be disposed of after death, is underground 

"Allah, the Exalted, has prohibited the earth from consuming the bodies of Prophets".

There is nothing far fetched in that statement. Humans themselves since thousands of years and up to our present days, have been able to remarkably well delay the decaying of dead bodies. There are even natural cases where complete decomposition is prevented, depending on the type of soil or temperature.

Surely the followers would be glad knowing that the body of their revered figure is honoured and kept in the best of states underground by Allah. This prevents even the most devout of them from idolizing a dead corpse or its remaining relics, like kings and saints whose bodies were kept above ground, embalmed and continuously maintained so as to prevent the "dishonour" of them rotting and eaten by animals. Instead of having to manipulate the corpse, which in itself reduces from his prestige even in the eyes of the most devout followers, they are encouraged to place the body away from sight. Their focus is thus kept on the message brought by these personalities, instead of the person. This sunna was in line with the prophet Muhammad's refusal to be over exalted in his lifetime. The religion never was about Muhammad, Moses or Jesus as individuals, but in their quality as messengers of Allah first and foremost.  

3:144"And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels?" 

Sam Shamoun "ALLAT: ALLAH’S FEMININE SIDE"

Sam Shamoun "ALLAT: ALLAH’S FEMININE SIDE"

The word ALLAH was used since pre-islamic times, by the Hanif, the Arab polytheists, and both Arab Jews and Christians. The verse 22:40 states that all people in whose temples Allah's name is mentioned, were encouraged to stand up and defend their sites and rights to worship in them, including churches and synagogues. Elsewhere we read how the pagans recognized Allah as the supreme Creator despite having associated interceding deities to Him 29:60-65,46:28,39:3.

The difference between each group however lies in the attributes they give Him and the manner they describe His interaction with the universe. That is why the Quran in sura kafirun does not negate who/man the disbelievers worship, rather what/ma 

109:2"You do not serve what I serve". 

The characteristics of the "Allah" of each group are different. What Muslims worship is not the deity of a chosen race, does not rest or slumber after creation, nor enters it. He does not have sons and daughters, nor a consort, and He did not detach Himself from creation after giving it the initial push. More descriptive points can be enumerated showing the monotheistic deficiency of every thought system claiming to worship One Creator with a common name, in contrast to Islam's supreme tawhid. The word "Allah" in itself however, "Who" is meant by it, is not exclusive to Islam. 

Up to this day, Arab Jews refer to God as "Allah". The Torah prohibits Jews from pronouncing another god's name

Ex23:13"and the name of the gods of others you shall not mention; it shall not be heard through your mouth". 

If Allah was a name unknown to them and the name of another God that the unpronounceable Tetragammaton, they would have never repeated it, much less in prayer. A Jew can even go as far as praying inside a mosque but is forbidden of entering a church under any circumstances. The Arabic "Allah" could thus simply be the contraction of al ilah/the God. The word was so persistently and exclusively used to describe the supreme God that stood above the hundreds of interceding deities that it gradually became equivalent to His proper name among the Arabs, whether the pagans, the hanif, the Jews or Christians.

Even when the masculine pronoun HE/HUWA is used in reference to Allah, it does not denote gender. In literature this masculine can either be the grammatical or biological masculine. Also, singular neutrality in Arabic is expressed with the masculine (not biological) pronoun. There is no IT in Arabic hence the use of the grammatical masculine HUWA to denote neutrality of gender (for a singular entity, while the feminine is used for a couple like the eyes). The origin of the name of the goddess Allat, the pre-Islamic deity worshipped by various populations from Syria down to Yemen, is not conclusively established. According to ibn Abbas 

"al- Lat was originally a man who used to mix Sawiq for the pilgrim".

Another theory is that the pagans found inspiration in the name of Allah, from which they derived the name of the feminine goddess Allat. The Quran alludes to those who manipulate/yulhidun the names of Allah, promising them severe retribution 7:180. In the tafsir of ibn Kathir  

“They derived Al-Lat (an idol’s name) from Allah, and Al-`Uzza (another idol) from Al-`Aziz (the All-Mighty).” 

Their distortions, the personal twists they put on these names, does not make Allat the feminine form of Allah, not anymore than "al Uzza" is the feminine of "al Aziz". The feminine would instead be "al Azizat".

 In the HB/NT, the title of "Father" has gender as well as sexual connotations. That notion of fatherhood associated with God may easily lead to polytheism, or at the least to false, exclusivist, monolatrous notions as one finds throughout the Hebrew writings. Christians however took that misleading appellation to a more crooked level. God became the father, firstly in relation to the son/Jesus whom he has "begotten not made" and of whom he is the head in the trinity. The 2 concepts, although stemming from the same books, have nothing to do with oneanother. Jews loath that misappropriation of the term by trinitarian Christians. Even the extension of God as a paternal figure to regular Christians has nothing to do with the notion as described in relation to the Jewish nation.

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "ALLAT: ALLAH’S FEMININE SIDE"

- Acts17apologetics feel orphaned; YHWH a father to Christians?

- The Name of God

Sam Shamoun "A QURANIC VARIANT THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE"

Sam Shamoun "A QURANIC VARIANT THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE"

Al Tabari quotes and authenticates two readings of 37:12 by the people of Kufa, ajibta/you marvel, while others said ajibtu/I marvel. He accepts both readings, although in his opinion they both differ in meaning. Al Tabari does mention that Shurayh (d. 80/699) objected to the reading ajibtu on the grounds that it is inappropriate to attribute this to God. However, whether from Zamakhshari or Al Alusi, Shurayh's opinion was rejected based on the authenticity of the reading. Ibrahim al Nakhai did the same, stating that Abd Allah Ibn Masud read "ajibtu". Al Qurtubi reports Ali Ibn Sulayman as having said that both readings apply to the prophet, and quotes Abu Jafar al Nahhas as approving that opinion. 

He says that "bal ajibtu"/I marvel may be compared to an expression of amazement the Arabs would say in reference to a heinous action in their eyes. Al Bayhaqi supported that opinion by referencing the expression "ajiba rabbuka"/"your Lord is amazed!" which can be used by someone in shock. Al Naqqash interpreted "bal ajibtu" along the same lines, saying it is equivalent to "bal ankartu"/"I reject it!". Al hasan Ibn al Fadl agreed stating that ajab/marvel, when it refers to God, means inkar and taazim (a forceful rejection), and that this is an old Arab usage.

The Quran in countless instances explains, explicitly and implicitly, that Allah is self-sufficient, beyond the need of anything outside of Himself. It thus makes no sense for any of His actions to be affected or caused by emotions.

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "A QURANIC VARIANT THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE"

- Sam Shamoun "Allah’s Mutability and Imperfection Revisited" (2)

Sam Shamoun "The Reason Muhammad Prohibited Intoxicants"

Sam Shamoun "The Reason Muhammad Prohibited Intoxicants"

In 2:219 God says that there is great ithm/sin in alcohol. Anything qualified as ithm is haram; in 7:33 Allah harrama/prohibited the ithm/sin. Gambling and drinking in pre-Islamic times were a means through which the rich showed their generosity and helped the needy. In winters, they would gather and drink until inebriated, then slaughter any camels they could get hold of after which they paid the owner any price he demanded. They would then gamble on the meat of the slaughtered camels. Whatever parts of meat a person won in this gambling, he would generously distribute them among the poor who would gather around on such occasions. 

In pre-Islamic Arabia, this was a matter of great honour and people who took part in this activity were considered very philanthropic and generous. The poets would narrate the accounts of their benevolence in their odes. It was this very benefit of drinking and gambling which prompted people to make an inquiry when they were regarded as prohibited items.

However as explained, the sin of alcohol surpasses the moral benefit it might bring, and in addition the same benefits can be acquired through other means with higher standards of morality and honor. In the same way, the supposed health benefits of a "moderate" alcohol consumption can be obtained through other, safer means. Everyone has a different notion of moderation and a drink is most often followed by another. 

Ethanol, the main component of alcoholic beverages affects a large number of organs including the brain. It disrupts folic acid, a vital cancer fighting vitamin, especially in women with breast cancer risks. It has also recently been established that as little as 1 glass of alcohol (wine or beer, with a 10gr alcohol content) raised the chance of breast cancer in women. More and more recent researches point that when it comes to any kind of alcoholic drink, less is better and none is best. The protective effect of alcohol is offset by the risks. The beneficial antioxidant polyphenols in red wine can for instance be obtained from blueberries, tea or dark chocolate. Besides, it has been recently shown that even a moderate consumption of alcohol is harmful on many organs including the heart, contrary to what was previously thought, and not only that, it was also shown that the more moderate drinkers cut back on their alcohol intake, the more their organs benefited. When a mother drinks alcohol during pregnancy, even a small dose, she can increase the chances that the next three generations may develop alcoholism as revealed in recent studies. As a side note, a new analysis took a deeper look at all previous studies, 87 in all, on the alleged positive effects of moderate drinking. And it found that many were flawed, with designs suggesting benefits where there were likely none. The fundamental flaw being, who are these moderate drinkers being compared against? When comparative biases were modified, moderate drinkers no longer showed a longevity advantage. Further, only 13 of the 87 studies avoided biasing the abstainer comparison group--and these showed no health benefits.
 
As to the moral harm, it is due, amongst other things, to it causing dissention among the people, pulling them away from God-consciousness, remembrance of the divine and prayer 5:90-1 or as stated in the HB in 

Prov20:1"Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise". 

The "profits" found in games of chance and alcohol, therefore point in no way to their allowance, especially when the same verse 2:219 calls them sins - even great sins- and that their sin, ie their moral harm far surpasses their potential profit. There are benefits in alcohol like there are all kinds of profits from harmful things and deeds. The Quran is here stating a fact about alcohol without hinting to its permissability. 16:67 similarly speaks of 2 things mankind derives from alcohol, profit and intoxication. 

This verse, where mankind manipulates a raw material to willfully make something good or evil, is in contrast to the previous one where God only makes something good from another raw material, resulting in milk. This subtle opposition of intent, what God does only results in good and what humans do can have opposite effects in the material world, finds a parallel in spiritual matters. It corroborates the oft repeated Quranic condemnation of those that misuse their spiritual potential to commit evil, or that misuse and corrupt the revelation from God. 

Further, 2:219 does not only refer to the state of drunkenness being a great sin, but to any type of thing one ingests and which causes that state. The word used is khamr, stemming from KH-M-R meaning a covering, hence its use for wine which deludes the ability of distinction, "covering" the wisdom. But it isnt strictly restricted to wine. It can be extended to all other intoxicants. God did not prohibit one alcoholic drink and allowed others obtained through different means. God forbade all drinks that cause the state of mental confusion.

This means the consumption of intoxicating drinks even moderately, without resulting in a state of drunkenness, is a great sin. This reflects in the prophet's care on the issue.

 Nabidh is a beverage made of grapes or dates, and does not indicate whether it is fermented or not. The prophet drank unfermented nabidh. When signs of fermentation began appearing he discarded it. That is why he 

"forbade (the preparation of Nabidh) in a green pitcher (besmeared with pitch), in varnished jar, and in gourd, and he said: Prepare Nabidh in small waterskins". 

This keeps the contents cooler for longer. Elsewhere, he said 

"I had forbidden you from the preparation of Nabidh except in a waterskin. But now you may drink in all vessels, but do not drink what is intoxicant". 

It is also reported that once Abu Huraira, who knew 

"the Apostle of Allah used to keep fast, waited for the day when he did not fast to present him the drink (Nabith) which I made in a pumpkin. I then brought it to him while it fermented. He said: Throw it to this wall, for this is a drink of the one who does not believe in Allah and the Last Day.” 

When 4:43 states that one should not pray when intoxicated, it is simply speaking of a situation where one has already transgressed and is intoxicated through alcohol or other means, so he should not pray in such state. Also if one looks closely at 5:90-91, it ends with a strong admonition in the form of a rhetorical question

 "Will you then desist?" 

This points to the fact that the people had still not desisted even after the Quran told them that alcohol is a great sin, and that sins are prohibited. This rhetorical question is a reminder of an earlier prohibition. It isnt unanimous among scholars that alcohol was progressively banned. This is because, as stated in introduction, 7:33, which is Meccan, prohibits all sins and 2:219 which is Medinan says alcohol is a great sin. 

Some narrations show that the intoxicants, like idolatry and fornication were among the major prohibitions known about the prophet since before the hijra. Ibn Hisham quotes a narration where Asha ibn Qays was warned against converting to Islam because of these 3 prohibitions. But drinking was so hardwired into the people's habits that Umar is depicted as repeatedly praying God to reveal another command that would dissuade the people. Everytime a verse would be revealed and that the people kept on drinking despite the prohibition, Umar would keep praying God to further reveal verses banning the practice, intensifying the prohibition. The hadith in question do not show Umar making his prayers known to the prophet or reporting the issue to him. The ban on alcohol is one of the major Quranic commands and had Umar anything to do from close or far with it being revealed then he would have surely given himself credit for it, as he is depicted doing concerning other important revelations such as the change of qibla, and even matters that pertained to the prophet's household contained in the Quran, such as the veiling of his wives or the admonition towards those of them that would cause him trouble.

From a linguistic perspective, gambling and intoxicating drinks are qualified with the word rijs, meaning harm and dirtiness, in addition stressed as coming from the devil. Very few sins are qualified with such words, because not all sins are equal. Also in 5:90, intoxicating drinks are placed among the sins to be avoided. The word for "avoid" is ijtanibu, which conveys the idea of active avoidance, doing all necessary preparedness so as to avoid coming in contact with it, from close or far.

So the reasons essentially given in both the Quran and hadith pertain to the spiritual damage caused by alcohol, which is why the only circumstances forbidden to an inhebriated person or even one who drinks a small amount, are when performing rituals and prayers. 

The Quran does not prescribe a punishment for drinking alcohol. The prophet told his followers to beat the one that does, but did not specify the manner. It was not a systematic command and neither was it often applied despite alcohol being deeply embedded in the society of the time. Abu Bakr to whom a drinker was brought, had to search for witnesses to establish a precedent through the prophet's practice in a similar case. That this closest companion had to make such an inquiry shows how rarely the prophet applied physical punishment to drinkers. If beating was so seldomly applied then it means the case of the drinker brought to the prophet and whom he ordered be beaten, and which Abubakr inquired about, had to be significant enough to deserve such a decision. The caliphs that followed Abubakr equally conjectured in their own way as to the details of the punishment for drinking 

"I saw the Messenger of Allah on the morning of the conquest of Mecca when I was a young boy. He was walking among the people, seeking the camp of Khalid ibn al-Walid. A man who had drunk wine was brought (before him) and he ordered them (to beat him). So they beat him with what they had in their hands. Some struck him with whips, some with sticks and some with sandals. The Messenger of Allah threw some dust on his face. When a man who had drunk wine was brought before AbuBakr, he asked them (i.e. the people) about the number of beatings which they gave him. They numbered it forty. So AbuBakr gave him forty lashes. When Umar came to power, Khalid ibn al-Walid wrote to him: The people have become addicted to drinking wine and they look down upon the prescribed punishment and its penalty. He said: They are with you, ask them. The immigrants who embraced Islam in the beginning were with him. He asked them and they agreed on the fact that (a drunkard) should be given eighty lashes. Ali said: When a man drinks wine, he tells lies. I, therefore, think that he should be prescribed punishment that is prescribed for telling lies.."

The Hebrew Bible also speaks strongly against the effects of alcohol and its damage to spirituality Isa28:7,Prov20:1,23:31,32. The priestly clan of the Levites are strictly forbidden under the death penalty and as an everlasting ordinance from any intoxicating drink in any amount, whether wine or other stronger beverages, when performing sacred rituals or entering holy places Lev10:8-11,Ezek44:21. God in the Bible obviously dislikes spirituality being associated with alcohol in any amounts. That passage of Leviticus admonishes Aaron directly concerning alcohol, showing the seriousness of the warning. Nowadays, that prohibition of having even a single glass of wine is maintained, and only broken when priests are about to bless the congregation.

This prohibition is also extended to the Nazirites Numbers6:3-4, a group of people selected to be separated from the ways of the people of the land and were engaged in the Torah. The prophet Amos would later condemn the use of alcohol as a device aimed at corrupting these secluded teachers of the Torah Amos2:11-12. Besides calling for the community's spiritual leaders to distance themselves from alcoholic drinks, the HB warns the rulers of nations, telling them 

Prov31:4"it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink. Lest he drink and forget what was made law, and change the judgment of all the impoverished". 

This isnt speaking of excessive drinking, as later corrupt minds have argued in an effort to open the door to this evil to society at large. It is speaking of the consumption of intoxicating drinks in any quantity as unfitting for people with responsibilities.

In the NT itself we see the abstinence from alcoholic beverages described as a distinguishing factor of spiritual uprightness Lk1:11-16. 

Alcohol is a great evil, present in all nations and only Islam has achieved the social and spiritual revolution required to rid humanity from its grip. Secular societies tried outright banning it, only to give rise to underground channels of production and distribution by gangs and corrupt officials. The adherents to the great religions neither could not abandon this obviously unrighteous habit. And this despite passages negatively portraying drinking and the state of drunkenness. These passages either being remnants of prohibitions reinterpreted with time to allow a choice in the matter, or non-forcefull statements meant at paving the way for the total prohibition of alcohol with the last revelation to mankind.

As far as the Quran and Islamic history are concerned, nothing is ever said of the purpose being to discipline some warriors among the believers for an alleged habit of getting drunk before going to battle as a few corrupt minds and insidious critics claim, nor is there any instance of a report stating that the soldiers were intoxicated as they left for the battlefield, which prompted the prohibition. Those who claim otherwise like quoting a hadith saying that some people had drunk alcohol and died at the battle of Uhud later, and associate the ban to this occasion. Not only isnt there anything said about some of them dying in a stated of intoxication or that they had drunk to the point of being inhebriated before leaving to the battlefield, just as there isnt anything said about the ban having been revealed on this occasion or shortly after, but also if one looks closer at the narration and other ones where it is reported in full, it is in a context where, after the prohibition was revealed, some people inquired of their martyred friends' spiritual situation in the Hereafter, since they had died at the battlefield of Uhud while their was still alcohol left in their system due to having drank a short while before the start of the battle. The narration states that it was in such background that the verse 5:93 was revealed 

"On those who believe and do deeds of righteousness there is no blame for what they ate (in the past), when they guard themselves from evil, and believe, and do deeds of righteousness.." see Bukhari V6,B60,N144.

One might legitimately ask why wasnt alcohol banned as soon as the Quran began to be revealed if it is considered a great sin? The fact is, whenever God established a new nation under a new set of laws, a period of spiritual reform, social preparedness and discipline preceded the promulgation of these laws. The closest example is that of the Israelites. The Quran isnt a dry set of laws, but a book of reform, which is carried through by intricate educational means.

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "The Reason Muhammad Prohibited Intoxicants"

1-Sam Shamoun "The Quranic Teaching on Wine and Strong Drink"

2-Apostate prophet sees a parallel universe; completeness in Heaven? 

3-Apostate prophet find spiritual bliss; the best reward of heaven?