In answer to the video "Quran, Alexander and Studies in Surah 18"
Some have claimed that the Quran in 18:60-82 is inspired by Joshua ben Levi's encounter with Elijah. The event is mentioned under the title Hibbur Yafeh me-ha-Yeshua. This actually is an Arabic work by the 10th century Tunisian rabbi Jacob ben Nissim ibn Shahin. The original Arabic is called Al-Faraj Ba'd al-Shiddah. A literal translation would be, "the opening following difficulty". This was a Muslim genre, which dealt with relief after distressful times. Ibn Shahin wrote in the same genre, in an Islamic environement, inspired by both the Quran and its commentaries. He simply replaced the Muslim themes with Jewish and biblical characters. This story of Elijah and Joshua ben Levi, which isnt attested in any Jewish source prior to that time, is one of those reshaped stories.
In fact seven other stories in that book have no rabbinic precedent, with three among them having Islamic parallels including in style. In some places, Ibn Shahin quotes passages with close parallels to verses from the Quran (Wheeler). It is in ignorance of these facts that subsequent critics have continued drawing parallels between the unnamed wise companion of Moses in the Quran, with depictions of Elijah in rabbinic texts predating the Quran. These muddled attempts are taken a step higher when parallelisms are drawn between these rabbinic traditions, and the later commentaries of the Quran, passed off as part of the Quran itself and having no basis in the prophetic traditions.
Another alleged source of the story is the Alexander Romances. This is due firstly to the identification of the fish with a certain fish story that comes back to life in "the sermon on Alexander" allegedly written by Jacob of Serugh. Scholarship suggests it is an edited work that probably initiated towards the mid 7th century, casting doubt even on its attribution to Jacob de Serugh.
More damning to this weak attempt at undermining the authenticity of the Quran, is the fact that the opponents very often confuse the Quran itself, with its later commentaries. For example it is in the the Quranic commentaries that the servant of God whom Moses encounters is named "al-Khidr". And it is based on these very commentaries that "al-Khidr" was used instead of "Alexander" in the Arabic, Ethiopic, and Persian versions of the Alexander stories, that were all redacted after the advent of Islam. As to the the Syriac version of the Alexander stories, scholars have disputed its dating, from between the 6th and the 10th centuries. But what is more important is that the fish episode, which is the key point in the argument that Quran 18:60-65 was derived from the Alexander stories, does not occur in the Syriac version.
Since that youtuber is amused by seamonsters, let him open the passages of his Bible that parallel with unsophisticated legends floating in the region and predating it. The oldest and original account of creation in the Bible isnt found in Genesis but in Isaiah, Job or the Psalms. God in these crude stories divides the seas and fights off aquatic monsters. The same is found in the Ugaritic tablets and in a language very similar to Hebrew, with the myth that creation began when the storm god Baal vanquishing the god of the sea Yam and his sea monster-serpent-dragon helpers. Isa27:1 has a very close wording to what a Canaanite says about Baal
"When you killed Litan, the fleeing serpent, annihilated the twisty serpent, the potentate with seven heads".
In answer to the video "Quran, Alexander and Studies in Surah 18"
Now we get to the issue of Dhul Qarnayn. His story is that of a mighty, pious, divinely chosen and inspired King. He was known for his high morality even among his enemies, remaining just and fair towards a newly conquered people even when they are at his entire mercy 18:84-8.
He was a monotheist selected and spiritually guided by God as well as facilitated in his worldly endeavors, battles, adventures and extensive journeys, as described both in the HB and the Quran, sometimes with strikingly similar wording and imageries. He was so revered by one among many of those nations that looked up to him, ie the Jews, that he is referred to as God's messiah Isa45.
Despite his monumental achievements and conquests, he remained humble and attributed his "being established in the land" to God's mercy, just like the prophet King Solomon and other righteous and great humans attributed their wisdom, spiritual uprightness, powers and other worldly advantages to God. In fact Dhul Qarnayn's name itself, in the classical Arabic, encapsulates all these aforementioned lofty attributes. Dhul also means "full of" while Qarnayn stands for wisdom and power.
Historically, it is the Jews living on the outskirts of Mecca that instigated the Arab pagans to question the prophet on Dhul Qarnayn. It was a question meant at ensnaring the prophet, just as they had the habit of doing with previous prophets including Jesus as reported in the NT. He had to know the hidden symbolisms of Daniel 8's prophecy of the 2 horned ram and how they relate to the book of Isaiah that speaks of Cyrus.
In the prophecy, the 2 horns stand for the kingdoms of Persia and Media while the ram itself stands for the Medo-Persian kingdom effectively founded and united by Cyrus the Great. The Persian kingdom, younger and eventually greater, is symbolized by the higher horn that sprouted last, while Media, older and eventually lesser, is symbolized by the smaller and older horn. The kingdom of Media was the more ancient and prominent while Persia was of little account until Cyrus gave it its glory, conquering Media and maintaining the ascendant over it.
It is only natural then that Cyrus would be symbolically connected to the 2 horned ram. He founded and embodied the Medo-Persian kingdom greatness until the fall of his empire under his successor Darius III. The Jews wanted to verify Muhammad's claim to prophethood in light of his knowledge of scriptures, they werent asking for random information about non-religious matters, or about an issue known to everyone and which could easily be replied to. More than merely repeating the apparent scriptural information about Cyrus as related in the books of Isaiah or Ezra, they needed confirmation that his knowledge was "advanced", covering subtle knowledge unknown to the common folk.
The cryptic symbolism of the 2 horned ram, in reference to Cyrus, was to them the perfect test. In addition, Cyrus is never explicitly given the "two horned" epithet in scriptures which is all the more relevant in raising the difficulty level of their question to the prophet.
This incident is similar to the challenge by the rabbi ibn Salam to Muhammad, prior to his conversion to Islam. He asked him several questions as a falsification test of prophethood; among them, what would be the first meal in heaven, the first sign of the end of times and the reason a child resembles one of the parents. Ibn Salam was a leading scholar of the Jewish community and teacher. He knew what was accessible of scriptural and traditional knowledge to the layman and what was restricted. He therefore asked Muhammad questions which no layman could know, let alone an Arab unschooled in scriptural knowledge, except through revelation. Nor is there indication of any of the information requested circulating orally in the region and among the common folk. Nor were the source scriptures alluding to the themes in those answers translated into Arabic. As to the meal, the prophet replied it would be the caudate lobe of the liver of a sea creature, followed by the meat of a bull that grazed from the vegetation of heaven. As to the notion of parental resemblance, it is similar to a passage in the Babylonian Talmud, Nidda 31a. The prophet's answers were comparable in their essence, not in their details, to what is found in Jewish tradition. From an Islamic perspective, the essential parallelisms between Islam and previous scriptures and traditions, are the truthfull parts which a third party independently revealed across time. As the prophet stated when he finished answering these and other questions
"He asked me about such and such things of which I have had no knowledge till Allah gave me that".
To further illustrate, a Jew once shared information with the Muslims while the prophet was present, and the latter recited from a Meccan sura (prior to Muslim-Jewish interaction) to demonstrate his defective knowledge
"A (Jewish) Rabbi came to Allah's Messenger and he said, "O Muhammad! We learn that Allah will put all the heavens on one finger, and the earths on one finger, and the trees on one finger, and the water and the dust on one finger, and all the other created beings on one finger. Then He will say, 'I am the King.' Thereupon the Prophet smiled so that his pre-molar teeth became visible, and that was the confirmation of the Rabbi. Then Allah's Messenger recited: 'They made not a just estimate of Allah such as is due to Him. And on the Day of Resurrection the whole of the earth will be grasped by His Hand and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand. Glorified is He, and High is He above all that they associate as partners with Him.' (39.67)".
The Quran plainly states, it will continuously provide the relevant information whenever an objection, similitude or question is put forward to the prophet
25:33"And they do not come to you with a mathal/similitude except that We bring you the truth and the best explanation".
Returning to the hadith where the prophet was questioned, there are three possibilities to view the report;
- the incident really occured. The knowledgeable rabbi approached the prophet with inquiries he could not have known, as mentioned earlier.
- the information was in circulation to the extent that even non-Jews were familiar with it. Why didnt any of the numerous enemies of Islam, whether Jews, pagans or hypocrites expose this fact? Could the rabbi really be that oblivious of how common this knowledge he inquiried about was, to the point that the prophet's answers made him convert to Islam?
- the whole incident did not happen, making the background of Abdullah ibn Salam's conversion a mystery.
Cyrus was a messianic hero and extraordinary figure to them. In addition, these scattered and exiled Jews were in constant anticipation for a savior to come and bring them back to their position of honor among the nations, as almost achieved under Cyrus. Their chosen topic was certainly not random and was relevant to their psychological and scriptural context. The Quranic reply begins with
"i will recount upon you a remembrance of him".
The prophet was then inspired with an answer that was relevant to the questioners on 2 levels; - it confirmed the apparent and hidden knowledge on Cyrus/Dhul Qarnayn in their scriptures - it provided an affectionate reminder of some of that beloved figure's forgotten greatness, through worldly achievements connected to his spiritual worthiness
As a side note it was a common motif among kings and rulers in ancient times to be portrayed with 2 horns which symbolized power and rulership. It is the case with Cyrus who, besides the symbolism in Daniel's prophecy, is physically depicted as such in engravings. As noted by Biblical scholars it was usual for persian kings to wear a decorated ram's head. Other ancient rulers were sometimes depicted with horns to symbolize their power, including Alexander the great who himself adopted the horns from the god Zeus-Ammon. He can be seen on a few marginal coin issues, among the vast variety of Alexander coins, from profile, with free flowing hair, with a small horn curling around his ear and his proper name stamped on.
This can hardly be used as evidence for the unproven assertion that the Arabs nicknamed Alexander "two horned" prior to the revelation of sura kahf. Throughout time, the exegetes and story tellers have proposed a vast range of potential candidates among the historical figures known to them, as possible references to the Quranic Dhul Qarnayn. Some have even suggested he was an angel.
Despite the lack of surviving information on Cyrus' life, in light of what is known of him from the Hebrew bible and the historical records, there exists no other conquerer of the ancient world whose details given in the Quran are as applicable as they are to him. Cyrus led several military campaigns, starting West then heading East as described in the Quran, instead of Alexander who never went West but only East and took back another route on his way back. He led his campaigns against the most powerful kingdoms of the time, including Media, Lydia, and Babylonia ultimately defeating them all and founding the Achaemenian empire, centred on Persia and comprising the Near East from the Aegean Sea eastward to the Indus River. He encountered many nomadic tribes all throughout his expeditions. Those of Central Asia were the most rebellious. Cyrus built fortified towns with the object of defending the farthest frontier of his kingdom against their assaults. He is in fact said to have been finally killed by one of those nomadic Central Asian tribes among whom he was trying to expand his influence.
Although the lack of inscriptions left behind do not indicate precisely what were Cyrus' beliefs, because among other reasons Persia was comprised of many nomadic cultures and languages and record-keeping was not a priority, it can be inferred that he was Zoroastrian or at least a theist, as seen from his monotheistic proclamation in the book of Ezra and the way he is spoken of by God in Isaiah, that had a leaning for Zoroastrianism. Several people in his closest family and entourage, including among his children had names of Zoroastrian characters. Although he never forced his beliefs upon conquered people, he is said to have sent emissaries peacefully preaching his religion around his empire or territories he was about to conquer. Influence of Zoroastrian teachings can be seen in writings related to him, including in the Bible in certain Isaiah passages, that are thought to have been penned during the Jewish Babylonian captivity. The Medes vastly supported him in his battle against their own king who wasnt Zoroastrian. Cyrus was buried according to Zoroastrian rituals.
His heroic, magnanimous, humanitarian qualities, religious tolerance, as a ruler greatly influenced his portrayal by the Greek writers who were easily tempted to embellish his biography, and the Romans too who transmitted the traditions about him to Europe. Alexander the great was known, from an early age among his contemporaries as having been in literal "loving" infatuation for Cyrus as presented in Greek works, restoring and visiting his tomb several times later on.
It is only natural then that many aspects from Alexander, as portrayed by contemporaries and others, sometimes accurately and at other times with additions, will parallel with Cyrus. Alexander's life, his expeditions, battles, nations he encountered, all happened pretty much within the same territorial area as Cyrus' former Achaemenian empire about 200 years earlier. This is the common thread of truth that is found between the Quran and the various Alexander traditions. To a Muslim, the whole borrowing charge could be dismissed right here. But i will keep delving into the issue to burry it deeper that what it already is. These Cyrus/Alexander similarities are the reasons why some among the earlier Quran commentators, without any basis in the prophetic traditions, have confusedly identified Dhul Qarnayn with Alexander. They were misinformed due to a weak and unreliable narration by Tabari in his tafsir, and by Muhammad bin Rabee’ Jaizi in his “Book of the companions” where Dhul-Qarnayn has been mentioned as Roman and founder of Alexandria. Other Commentators like ibn Kathir and ibn Taymiyya did not subscribe to that view. Orientalists and recent critics of course jumped on the Alexander bandwagon, grasping upon superficial similarities, between some versions of the Alexander legends (there are different versions) and the Quran.
In answer to the video "Quran, Alexander and Studies in Surah 18"
The Alexander Romances, although often believed by critics of Islam as being the source of the Quranic Dhul Qarnayn, has an unclear date of composition, spanning between the 4th and 16th centuries. That is why it is legitimate to speculate that the borrowing charge against the Quran has less ground to stand on than the reverse, with the various authors of the romances actually inspiring themselves throughout time by the Quran and its comentaries.
The Alexander Romances is thought to be based on the lost Greek writing called Pseudo Callisthenes whose closest copy is a 5th century Armenian translation. What is of concern to Islam critics are the shallow and far fetched similarities between the Quran and the Syriac translation, of which no manuscript exists prior to the 18th century, and in which by the way Alexander is never given the title "two horned".
Although originally believed to have been finalized towards the mid 7th century CE, this Syriac legend of Alexander ends with a passage about the gates built by Alexander and stresses parallels between him and Heraclius, the Byzantine Emperor. More importantly this same passage retrospectively "prophecizes" the invasion of the Huns in 515 CE and the coming of Heraclius in 629 CE, leading scholars to assume the passage is a later addition, written as a Byzantine propaganda shortly before the Muslim conquest of Syria around 634CE. It additionally speaks of an independent and major Arab Kingdom which can only be equated with the early Caliphate.
In that conquest the Persians are contrasted with the Sassanids, and the Greeks with the Romans. This pushes the finalization of the passage to post date the revelation of sura Kahf pre-620CE. Similarily and towards the late 7th century, a Syriac Christian adaption of the Alexander romance, called the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, was written as a response to the Muslim invasions equating Gog and Magog with the Muslims.
Other factors have led scholars to push the final composition of the passage further to between the 8th and 15th century, as it was clearly reshaped as a means by which the author sought to console, through parallelisms, the Christians who had lost Constantinople to the Ottomans.
In short besides the Armenian translation which was itself reedited in the 13th century, all other versions have their earliest manuscripts post dating the Quran by centuries.
This means that all these texts were written in an Islamic environment, including the Armenian translation, which could have affected the later development of the Alexander Romances. Now although late manuscripts themselves arent problematic, they become so when one attempts establishing a borrowing claim from text to text. And the opponents have no means by which to prove what did the oral traditions that inspired some parts of the Alexander romances, looked like anywhere near the prophet's time. Besides the proven additions, it is impossible to determine what the Syriac text looked like towards its earliest potential time of inception, in 629CE. Even if one takes this earliest estimate, it still leaves the Syriac author with long enough time to be exposed to the Quranic Dhul Qarnayn, again revealed pre-620, orally or textually, integrating the Quranic elements so as to fit and embelish the Christian agenda as was done a few decades later in Pseudo-Methodius.
Even Josephus and Jerome's respective works with short passages alluding to a wall built by Alexander are known evolving texts and their earliest manuscripts post date the Quran by hundreds of years, and were both finalized when Pseudo-Methodius had gained sweeping influence accross europe.
Finally, there exists zero proof that the similarities between the romances and Dhul Qarnayn were in oral circulation all over the middle East and Europe prior to the revelation of sura kahf circa 620CE while plenty evidence exists pointing to the finalization of all available versions of the romances, more particularily the passages with Quranic similarities, after the revelation of the sura and the spread of Islam.
And once more, similarities doesnt entail borrowing. One first has to establish that the supposed (illiterate) author of the Quran had access to the similarities. One then has to explain how he cherry picked among a long list of books and traditions, besides other philosophies and thought systems, to form a well knit, flawlessly intricate narrative in its literary form that left the masters of eloquence of the time dumbfounded, as well as depth of contents that has not finished unravelling its subtleties.
Why wasnt the source ever exposed nor came out to denounce him, leaving him reap the fruits of their labor. How wasnt this source detected given the largely exposed lifestyle of the time, the open circumstances in which the prophet lived and received revelation, as well as many other factors, not the least being that the Quran never claims to be relating something unknown in that particular narrative, repeatedly says it is a revelation in a long tradition of revelations.
This means the superficial similarities might be remnants of revealed truths that eventually found their way into these apocrypha. In those writings from which the Quran supposedly draws, one can many times see how the superficial similarities are poorly weaved into the fabric of the story. The apocryphal writer, or his source, was aware of certain elements of the story but poorly integrated them in the whole account.
This is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin (Guardian), when talking about the textual and oral traditions contemporaries to it. It points out major mistakes in them, filters the Truth from falsehood
21:24"this is the reminder of those with me and the reminder of those before me".
The Quran confirming the past scriptures, as well as any tradition, oral or written, in which divine truths still remain 2:41, means that the principles taught by Muhammad come from a common source, which Muslims believe is the Source of creation, and can be found throughout these textual and oral traditions. This is pointed to in the common phrase "musaddiqan lima bayna yadahi". With the passage of time these traditions were burdenned with additions, suffered from corruption and/or neglectful transmission. The Quran then acts as a criterion that distinguishes truth from falsehood.
Therefore, and for argument's sake, to Muslims, it is irrelevant whether a story bearing similarities with a Quranic passage was even in circulation during and before Islam. It is even less relevant to Muslims whether the similarities were cannonized in the Bible or not. By what standard is the current Bible canon more reliable than the apocrypha? And what proof is there that the unknown Bible compilers rejected these traditions based on these points common to the Quran? Does the current Bible canon even claim to relate every single aspect of the life of its Biblical characters? Is it quiet possible that during the tumultuous process of transmission of the Bible, more particularily the HB which was lost at least twice as recorded in the Bible itself, some parts of the overall transmitted traditions were retained by the editors charged with reconstituting the lost text, and who reflected their own socio-cultural background in the process? Could they have been Selecting what was appropriate for their storytelling purposes and what was not? Of course from a secular viewpoint, the Quran, as a later text, is irrelevant in determining the authenticity, original versions or actual beliefs of those who originated or penned the previous oral and written traditions, canonized or not. But then so is the NT irrelevant in determining those matters from the HB, just as within the HB itself parts are far removed in time and space from other parts, making certain books insignificant when exploring these matters from earlier or later books. However, as soon as one introduces the divine into the equation, then all groups Jews-Christians-Muslims are equal in their claims as regards the authority of one scripture over another. The only factor from a non-secular view point enhancing one claim over another, would be the group with the most authentic, contradiction-free scripture.
In today's mainstream academia, no Islamicist asserts the Quran was influenced by the textual and oral traditions of its milieu, let alone copies from them. Simply because there is no possibility to know whether the human mind who supposedly authored the text had access to those traditions or understood them. What academics do at most, is present what they see as similarities, without disregarding or minimizing the vast differences. On the other side of the spectrum are Judeo-Christian religious zealots and apologists whose methodology and ideas are vastly inherited from their medieval peers' polemical writings. In order to enforce their untenable, unproven claims of borrowing, they retrospectively cherry pick convenient snippets from within larger stories that have very little to do with the corresponding Quranic passages. Then, not only do they disregard the significant differences loaded with theological meanings, but go on magnifying the tiniest similarities to the maximum so as to serve their paradigm. In the process, they inadvertently attribute to Muhammad an encyclopediac knowledge of texts and traditions, as well as an army of unseen informants from a variety of backgrounds and cultures following him around. This weak methodology can be applied to any thought system so as to build up a case for plagiarism.
The Judeo-christian scriptures themselves relate, through the successive prophets and inspired personalities, different stories that were known to the addressees. This doesnt mean their statements were inspired by these traditions floating around. Rather, the common truths found between these traditions, and the statements of the prophets come from God. There is a myriad of similarities between the HB and stories, texts, inscriptions, including the Ugaritic mention of Adam and Eve, the Mesopotamian myth of Gilgamesh where he is cheated of immortality by a snake who eats a plant (had Gilgamesh eaten it, it would have made him immortal. The elements are the same but play out differently). There are other such myths circulating in Babylon where the Israelites spent a long time in exile, of a hero tricked out of immortality through the device of a plant/food. One could extend the parallelism with the laws of Hammurabi, or the global flood, among many examples, all predating Moses' supposed writing of the Torah. Some of these similarities might be due, as in the Quran, to being remnants of ancient truths partially preserved by these different cultures. But other biblical parallels with predating writings and traditions obviously are copies of unsophisticated legends floating in the region. The oldest and original account of creation in the Bible isnt found in Genesis but in Isaiah, Job or the Psalms. God in these crude stories divides the seas and fights off aquatic monsters. The same is found in the Ugaritic tablets and in a language very similar to Hebrew, with the myth that creation began when the storm god Baal vanquishing the god of the sea Yam and his sea monster-serpent-dragon helpers. Isa27:1 has a very close wording to what a Canaanite says about Baal
"When you killed Litan, the fleeing serpent, annihilated the twisty serpent, the potentate with seven heads".
One shouldnt forget that the canonization of the Bible was a long and controversial process, influenced by men with doctrinal bias, and that the current Biblical text is far from being a valid criterion of what truly constitutes divine knowledge from purely human invention.
In answer to the video "Mountains Hold Down the Earth Like Tent Pegs? - Scientific Miracles of the Quran Ep. 3"
It has already been established in previous videos how the Quran draws a parallel between the hospitability of our world for life, and a comfortable and well secured tent.
Then the Quran talks about the mountains as pegs 78:6-7,79:32. Pegs provide stability to the sheltering tent as implied in the imagery. Without these pegs it would fall or be blown away by storm. The Quran calls the mountains pegs, in the context of drawing a picture of creation. These huge, stabilizing, sheltering objects are part of the system that allows mankind to develop and thrive physically. Just as by their massive presence, they allow human life to physically thrive, they do have their equivalent, on an even more massive scale in the metaphysical realm to allow humans to thrive, this time, spiritually. The revelation, should it descend in our material world, it would instantly shatter the most massive of those mountains by virtue of its spiritual weight
13:31,59:21"Had We sent down this Quran on a mountain, you would certainly have seen it falling down, splitting asunder because of the fear of Allah, and We set forth these parables to men that they may reflect".
In the darkest times of his prophetic mission, towards the beginning, the prophet Muhammad would often retreat in fear and would thus be pulled out from reclusion by revelation. He would be told to rise and through acts of devotion, to prepare himself spiritualy to be able to bear what is about to come down on him from on high
73:5"Surely We will make to light upon you a weighty Word".
The Quran often uses the image of vastness, greatness found in nature and more particularly the mountains when it wants to express the massive importance of a thing, more specifically of this Revelation 14:46,10:22-23,42:33. This kind of imagery is pictured in many places, and is meant at contrasting those whose hearts are more inert and harder to penetrate by divine guidance, than a massive mountain would be.
This literary style also serves the purpose of picturing the importance of Revelation as already pointed earlier; it takes a special kind of creature with a special kind of internal disposition to be able to bear it, in addition to bearing the consequences of having to communicate it. The Israelites begged Moses to be their intermediary with God instead of receiving revelation themselves. The experience at Horeb was so violent and traumatic that they did not want God to speak directly to them anymore, fearing they would die. The word used in sura sharh to describe what kind of burden Muhammad was relieved from through God's expansion of his chest is wizr, used for something nearly unbearable
94:1-3"Have We not expanded for you your breast, And taken off from you your burden, Which pressed heavily upon your back".
What is rendered "pressed heavily" is anqada which actually is used when something is about to break. The prophet Moses at the beginning of his call and prior to his confrontation with Pharao requested from God the same spiritual relief and strengthening 20:25. We see here how the Quran consistently keeps its notions, although scattered all throughout the divine writings, connecting them together.
Back to the mountains as a physical object and the way they affect nature around them.
The Arabs were familiar with mountains, considering the landscape around Mecca and Medina. The mountain was a refuge when the earth shook as it absorbs a great deal of the shock. A person would naturally seek refuge by or behind huge, stable and immovable objects, such as mountains, when the earth shook
16:15,81"And Allah has made for you of what He has created shelters, and He has given you in the mountains places of retreat".
As a basic law of physics, even the tiniest piece of rock would dissipate the force somewhat of an earthquake, but it is so minuscule, it would make absolutely no difference to a major earthquake. Shallow earthquakes however do not travel for long distances because the waves are absorbed by loose earth materials. Mountains are the most significant natural earthquake shock absorbers both because of their size and the bedrock underneath. And when those mountains over a significant period of time, become ranges, earthquake force is dissipated even more. The mechanism of mountain formation itself is a stabilizing factor. When 2 earth surfaces collide and the earth's crust bends upward to form a mountain, the energy from the collision is diffused. If the mountains were not formed then the tension would be much higher, continuous, and devastating with no mechanism by which to diffuse the energy from plate collisions. Interestingly, a hadith seems to refer to that situation
"When Allah created the earth, it started shaking/oscillating. So He created the mountains, and said to them: ‘Upon it’ so it began to settle. The angels were amazed at the strength of the mountains.."
The Quran in the context of creation alludes to that mechanism too
21:31,50:7,31:10"He set in/FEE the earth anchors/RAWASI".
FEE primarily means IN or inside. RAWASI linguistically means Anchors. The main word for mountain is jabal, not rawasi (the Quran also uses tur or tawd 26:63 for a very large mountain as seen from its use in preislamic poetry). So although rawasi can sometimes be used for mountains, it does not mean it means mountains in every context. These rawasi fee al ard/anchors in the earth, could be anything including the forces that create the mountains and prevent disasters when two earth plates collide. RAWASI then fits perfectly because the anchors themselves created the mountains and anchored the land plate and the mountain as well. As stated in
41:10"He made in it RAWASI from above it".
The Arabic is difficult to translate and clearly implies an entity from within the earth towering above it.
To corroborate further,
88:19"and the mountains, how they are fixed/erected".
The word nusibat carries both the meanings of raised up and fixed, which correctly describes mountains. 78:7 similarly says
"WALJIBAL ARSAHA/and the mountains, He anchored them".
The Quran in places describes the earth as made to receive these rawasi in it 16:15. Alqa/to receive fits the concept of rawasi fee al ard, as it is a phenomenon which God made to exist within the earth.
In the Arabian peninsula, the mountains are among the most ancient and their surfaces are dense and solid, immune to land-sliding in general. In places like the Himalayas, damage is done primarily because of lightly-packed soil which results in land-slides.
The Quran is simply saying, the mountains provide a stabilizing factor in preventing the land from shaking, so as to take men with them. It doesnt say the mountains stabilize the earth as a whole and completely prevent earthquakes.
Such an assertion predicates that the Arabs, or whomever this youtuber supposes wrote the Quran, believed there was no such thing as earthquakes, or that they never experienced them because the mountains allegedly prevent such phenomena. This of course is absurd considering because Arabs did experience earthquakes. The Hijaz is part of the Great Rift Valley. What the Arabs believed, and what the law of physics are clear on, is that mountains act as a stabilizing force against the shocks of earthquakes, absorbing a great deal of its energy.
So the protection is not absolute. Similarly the sky as a canopy, as per the imagery of the hospitable tent, does not always provide protection when calamities fall from above or bad weather comes, some inhospitable areas of the earth do not conform to the imagery of a carpet spread for honoring guests inside the comfortable tent.
These various imageries point out the general benefits man gets from these phenomena, without giving an absolute description of their functions. There are many such usages in the Quran, for example garments are said to have the purpose of protection from heat 16:81 and this is because the verse's primary addressees were desert dwellers, who also experienced the harsh cold of the night and used these garments for warmth.
As always the Quran, being a book of guidance, whenever it points to a natural phenomenon it isnt solely on account of its material function. It is always trying to make the reader and listener ponder upon these entities and find a link between them and the spiritual realm. Besides their protective and sheltering nature, mountains also serve as a guidance to the traveller, just like Allah sent His prophets to guide mankind towards the ultimate destination, protecting them from the calamities of a mighty Day
21:31"And We have made great mountains in the earth lest it might be convulsed with them, and We have made in it wide ways that they may follow a right direction".
When the Quran refers to the power unleashed on the Day of Judgement, it states these mountains, which are in human psyche the last natural objects one would think could be uprooted, the ultimate shelter one can find, yet it says that through a single blow they will all be thrown from their roots 69:14,20:105, tossed in the sky 52:10, floating like clouds 27:88, ripped appart like carded wool 70:9,101:5 shattered and scattered 73:14,77:10,56:5. As an interesting linguistic observation here, testimony once more to the Quran's surgical use of words and the way in which its interconnects its statements at different places with great consistency, in these places describing the state of the mountains during the cataclysm of the last day, when it compares them to soft wool beaten and tossed around in the air, it isnt any kind of wool that is meant. It is the type of wool as said in 70:9 above, that is dyed in different colors and this is because elsewhere, in a completely different context, when attracting the reader's attention to the variety in God's creation, it speaks of mountains existing in many different types and colors 35:27. One must keep in mind that the Quran is composed of revelations instantly recited then put to writing and memorized, with several witnesses present everytime, making it impossible for the prophet to retract a statement, go back on it and re-edit any of its contents. And yet, despite it being revealed in public in so many different contexts and situations, over a long period of 23 years, it still manages to connect even the most apparently insignificant details throughout its passages.
In parallel to the obliteration of the mountains, the earth's surface will be smoothed and levelled 18:8,47,20:105-7 therefore striping men from any place of concealment and shelter from the judgement. This day, as is here described through the stripping away of all places of refuge, even the most massive, is a day that will catch men no matter where they hide in the heavens or earth to bring them to account 29:22, and leave men standing in ranks 18:48"as We created you at first" with only their deeds to shield them from the punishement of that Day.
In answer to the video "A Grammatical Error in the Quran (Surah 26, Verse 16)"
There are sometimes people who have no grasp of the Quranic language and much less the grammar of later classical Arabic which itself relies on the Quran, but these people nevertheless dare speaking of grammatical errors in the Quran.
Firstly, there is no contemporaneous written text to the Quran that we know of from which the Quran could possibly deviate. The Quran in fact is the first ever Arabic book, the first writing that marked the transition of the Arabs from an oral to written culture. Therefore, from the onset, to assert grammatical errors in the Quran is untenable. The Quran simply spoke in the dialect of the Quraish tribe with all their peculiarities and standards of language
"And We did not send any messenger but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly" "Indeed, we have revealed this as an Arabic Quran so that you may understand".
The only real standard of comparison would be another writing, form of literature, grammar rules from the Quraish tribe contemporaneous with the Quran. Again, of this, we have none, except for the orally transmitted pre islamic poetry. It was put to writing at approximately the same time as the earliest grammarians of Kufa and Basra, non-natives of the Hijaz and the Arabic of the Quraysh, were debating the rules of the language. They sometimes quoted this poetry in support of their position, meaning the written form might purposefully or unintentionally reflect the views of a certain grammar school. In short, we simply have nothing directly from the Quraishi tribe to compare it against to source mistakes in the Quranic language.
Therefore, the best and primary source to understand the Quran's usage of its language is the Quran itself. This is the approach any great Muffasir has taken to understand the Quran. Other sources of analysis including studies through detailed lexicons remain a secondary source of analysis.
It would be equally erroneous to claim that the Quran contained linguistic flaws when the ancient text of a particular dialect of people is compared against modern standard Arabic or any regional Arabic dialects today. The Quran simply has no comparison to be compared against.
Many languages today provide exceptions to their standard grammatical usages. Today's classical grammar 'rules' can be at variance with the Quran on which it has heavily relied on as a source, but to suggest the Quran is at variance with the grammar known to us today is illogical and unwarranted.
With that being said we may proceed to the supposed error of 26:16, which actually is a highly eloquent liguistic device, meant at creating a hybrid meaning, as is done elsewhere. This device is used in 26:16 adressing Musa, where God tells him to introduce himself and his brother with the following
"Then go to Pharao and say to him: we are rasul of the Sustainer of the worlds".
The singular rasul/messenger is used while its pronoun is in the dual form we/inna. Firstly, exceptions to general grammar rules exist in every language. One can only try arguing for an inconsistency if the exception never repeats in a similar grammatical context. It isnt the case here. All throughout the Quran, there are similar appeals to exceptional grammatical rules in order to eloquently convey an idea, including in a case almost identical to 26:16. In 38:21-3 the singular khasmi/litigant is used for 2 litigants. One of the reasons is that, in this deeply intricate story, the litigants were both one in principle and objective, even physically synchronized. Jesus and Mary are qualified as a singular sign from God 23:50,21:91. The prophet Ibrahim is described to be by himself an ummat/nation 16:120 because of embodying the qualities that could make an entire nation to succeed, being the leader/imam of mankind 2:124. In fact in the same sura at verse 26:77 the Quran uses the singular "enemy" with the pronoun "they". Just as in 26:16, the purpose is to lump up a group to indicate unity of principle and essence. That pattern is found throughout the sura with the description of the unified mission of the messengers across time and space. An interesting observation is the Quran's use of baraa'un in 43:26 to describe Ibrahim's dissociation from his nation's polytheism. Baraa'un is the intensive form of baraa', and it is used for single, dual or plural subjects. Because Ibrahim is elsewhere described as an ummah by himself, the Quran here applies the flexible form of the word instead of bareeun as is used in many places for singular subjects like the prophet, the believers or Allah 6:78,9:3etc. This is another evidence of the Quran's consistency in language.
The reader familiar with the intricacies of Arabic, as well as attentive to context and a holistic approach of the Quran will not be confounded by these linguistic devices. We arent talking here of added meanings to words like "person" so as to try and make sense of the trinitarian mystery that the father, the son, the spirit are one being but 3 different persons.
In 22:19 ikhtasamu/they dispute, is in the 3rd person plural instead of the dual form like its subject. This is because, starting from verse 8, God exposes the different parties composing the Non-Muslim side. The combination of the dual and plural in one sentence demarcates between Muslims and Non-Muslims as well as implies that there are subgroups among the non-Muslims.
The same device is used in 49:9, but this time in regards the believers. Another similar switch in pronouns occurs in 29:10 where a plural verb is related to a singular pronoun. It speaks of hypocrites and among their known traits was to be counted among the sincere believers who always uttered their adhesion to the cause with a single voice, as is sometimes quoted in the Quran, hence the singular pronoun.
To appreciate the meaningfulness of that choice of word from the point of view of Quranic eloquence, it is necessary to put the verse 26:16 in its context.
Moses, who had fled Egypt because he was wanted for manslaughter, is anxious at the prospect of delivering the divine message to the ruthless Pharao. Thinking he had no credibility left in the eyes of the Egyptians because of the accusation of murder, he had lost all self-confidence in his ability to properly deliver the message and convince his audience 26:10-13. At that first meeting with God at the sacred valley of Tuwa to where he had been attracted by a burning bush, Moses prays to God to facilitate that task by increasing his eloquence and providing him with Harun as a helper and associate in the matter 19:52-3,20:9-36,28:33-5. God accepts, commanding him that when they both come face to face with Pharao, to introduce themselves as a single messenger of God. This is the ultimate reassurance Musa needed prior to his confrontation with Pharao, to share the burden of prophecy with Harun to the point that he and his brother are one, the epitome of association as per his prayer.
At that first encounter with the Egyptian royals, Moses requests that Pharao sends the Israelites with them, in an attempt to end their exploitation as slaves. That initial contact had the form of a mild mannered dialogue, with Pharao reminding Moses of the time spent in the same household, to make Moses feel indebted. Moses replied that he owed Pharao nothing considering his hypocritical behavior; accepting on one hand an Israelite in his household while enslaving other Israelites. Furthermore, that Moses was raised inside Pharao's household, testified more to the mercy and omniscience of God who allowed a chain of causality with far-reaching consequences to occur, than Pharao's supposed goodness. The true question Pharao should be asking himself is why Moses wasnt brought up in his real home with his father and mother caring for him? It was because of Pharao's great oppression, forcing Moses’ mother to put her son in a wooden box upon the river until it reached, with God's will near Pharao's palace.
Instead of addressing the issue of the Israelite slaves, the ruler, in a typical attitude of an arrogant person utterly defeated in an argument, resorts to character assassination, trying to discredit Moses who was claiming to be sent by the divine, then proceeds by disrespectfully questioning Moses' beliefs, finally threatening him with imprisonment 26:18-29. Now Moses tries reasoning with Pharao one last time, telling him he is a messenger, delivering the truth 7:104-5. But seeing that Pharao would not listen, and that his life and that of his brother were now at risk, pulled out his final card and said that he has brought undeniable proof for his prophethood claims, so Pharao should not delay further the sending of the Israelites with him. It is interesting to note how Moses is still trying to delay the performance of those miracles, because miracles if denied, precipitate the destruction of a people. But upon Pharao's insistence Moses performed the miracles with which he was sent 26:32-3. He would display the same compassionate attitude when challenged to perform the miracles a second time 20:61-2. These miracles displayed by Moses, the rod into serpent followed by the shining hand, were appropriate metaphors of the prophet's message that preceded; a message of awe and hope in the Lord of all things.
Seeing these impressive miracles threw a cold on the whole audience, with Pharao and his notables not wanting to remain defeated in their confrontation with Moses. They decided to give him and his brother a time of respite while emissaries were sent to gather the kingdom's best magicians who would be able to defeat Moses publicly 26:34-37,7:111-114,10:75-9. They did not want to slay them immediately following their spectacular display and silencing of the Egyptian elite, or else they would turn them into heroic martyrs. Their killing would be more appropriate after the revenge of Pharao and his notables, when they defeat Moses' miracles publicly at a second encounter.
For this second encounter 20:42-48 God directly orders Moses to go with his brother Aaron to Pharao. Moses doesnt express, neither prior nor after the command, the same anxiety as when he was told to go to Pharao the first time, and neither is there a request to be assisted by his brother. This is because it has already happened before and Aaron is now a prophet, sharing the burden of prophethood with Moses.
This time the only fear expressed is one that both of them felt, and both communicated it to God. They feared they might be killed if they go to Pharao. God then speaks to them both, comforting them, telling them to introduce themselves to him with
"Surely we are TWO messengers/rasulaa of your Lord.."
this time, since there was no question of appeasing Moses' fears personally and as much as was the case before, the dual rasulaa is used. This is how consistent and surgicaly precise the Quran is in its choice of words, and these youtubers thinking they found the holy grail with their grammatical error actually exposed another of its countless eloquent devices.
In answer to the video "Quran, Alexander and Studies in Surah 18"
The issue of stories of the ancients, and the prophet being all "ears" is a topic that flies far above that youtuber's head. I will demonstrate right now why this is so.
By the time of the prophet Muhammad, the assimilation of the Abrahamic legacy into the regional polytheistic systems was such that only a distant echo had remained in the minds of the Arabs as to their spiritual connection to Abraham. Just as happenned to the Temple of Jerusalem that slowly became transformed into a pagan shrine and idols were introduced in it 2kings21 the prime symbol of monotheism in Mecca became thus radically transformed through pagan influence.
As the Ishmaelites, like the Israelites throughout their history, drifted from the original path of monotheism, the Hajj pilgrimage became a celebratory occasion, and the Kaaba was stocked with idols and false deities supposed to bring the worshipers closer to the One God, Allah, whom they believed in. Men and women would run naked throughout the holy precinct. Merchants from all over would travel to the Kaaba and set up shop during the pilgrimage. People and tribes from all over Arabia would make the journey to Mecca to take part in the festivities. But this annual pilgrimage was in greater parts disconnected from the Abrahamic practice 22:26-7. It was simply a time to make money instead of being charitable, drink alcohol, and commit immoral acts.
The importance of the annual event perdured despite the corruption. It was maintained by those that settled in Mecca, and the Arabs of the entire peninsula that got attracted to it with time. These are the points brought to attention in 2:196-7. And then until v203 great stress is laid on the spiritual dimension, forgotten and neglected, of that occasion. No other nation can be compared to the Ishmaelites' handling of their spiritual legacy and sacred shrine, than their own Israelite brothers. They could not maintain the way of their forefathers despite the constant sending of prophets to them to bring them back to the right path. When the Arabs were admonished and urged to reform, they qualified the warnings as
16:24,27:68"stories of the ancients".
These Ishmaelites vaguely recalled the Abrahamic ways, but found no other constructive argument in their opposition but by denigrating it as old and useless stories, based on its ancienty and supposed obsolescence, inaplicability to the current circumstances. They never qualify these stories as "false". It was in fact one of the Quran's oft repeated functions, to "remind" the people of the truth they were still somewhat aware of but that had been supressed by falsehood. The Quran openly states that
26:196"most surely the same is in the scriptures of the ancients".
It repeats, time and again, its role as the guardian and preserver of the truth present in the past scriptures. Along with Abrahamic and monotheistic practices known in pre-islamic days, going back to previous prophets, was the Zakat which the people knew they had to give away to the poor but rarely practiced or misused 19:30-31,54-55,70:24,Deut14:28-29,26:12-14, fasting 2:51,183-187,7:142,Deut9:9,Ex24:18,34:28,Matt4:2,Lk5:33-6 prayer that continued after Ibrahim established it in the settlement of the Kaaba 14:37,19:55,Dan6:10,Ps55:18,1Chr23:30 until it was disfigured 8:35, animal sacrifice, circumcision. Other concepts propounded by previous prophets and which the Quran was reminding its addressees of, include the Resurrection, day of Judgement and accountability Matt13:24-43,1Kings17:17-24,2Kings4:17-37,13:20-1,1Sam2:6,Isa2:17,26:19,66:14,Ezek37:1-28,Ps71:20,Prov6:22,Prov31(see Rashi),Dan12:1-2,Quran29:36,54:36-9.
There are pre-islamic poems with clear eschatological connotation, some of them speaking of the resurrection of the soul, and Allah being the judge of mankind. One such poems is that of Zuhayr who wrote in his muallaqat
"Do not conceal from Allah what is in your souls, trying to hide it. Whatever is concealed from Allah, He knows. It is delayed and entered in a register and stored up for the day of reckoning, or it is brought forward and avenged".
Labid wrote
"every human will one day come to know his striving when it will be disclosed before the God what has been extracted".
See also the lines of al-A'sha evoking fear of the final accounting
"when the resurrected souls will shake of the dust".
The Quran and the traditions speak of the hanif remnants that tried preserving the monotheism of Ibrahim, and these lines of poetry might echo these marginal beliefs. The majority of the pre-islamic Arabs however rejected bodily resurrection and otherworldy accountability, the Quran repeatedly condemns this attitude. This phenomenon is clearly seen with the "talbiya", the invocations the pilgrims coming from all over Arabia made during their rituals. Some of these have come down to us, referring to Allah as
"al wahid al qahhar rabb assamad",
while others clearly referred to the idols as subservient to him
"laa nabudul asnama hatta tajtahida li rabbiha wa tutabad"
or
"rabb al thalitha ukhra/Lord of the third goddess",
and others spoke of the One Lord of the last hour
"rabba assa'a".
All of this shows the multifaceted shades of idolatry among the pilgrims, some of them praising Allah alone, others associating with Him while maintaining Him above the intercessors, and others still referring to the day of judgement.
This confirms the Quranic statement that the original religion established at the sanctuary was Abrahamic monotheism. It got disfigured with time, polluted with foreign concepts, although it maintained a recognizable foundation of truth, which the last prophet came to revive.
Sura 87, after summing up the pillars of divine truth, such as monotheism, intelligent design, resurrection, God's all-encompassing, intricate knowledge and sway over His creatures' affairs, spiritual purification through prayer and constant remembrence of God as being the ways to success in the Hereafter, it says that these are all concepts known, written and transmitted by the prophets, from Ibrahim to Moses. All of these things were known to the people whom Muhammad was addressing over 4000 years later but have been neglected for so long that only a dim remembrance of them remained
23:83"Certainly we are promised this, and (so were) our fathers aforetime; this is naught but stories of those of old".
Muhammad revived the corrupted, obscured and forgotten way of Ibrahim
6:161"Say: Surely, (as for) me, my Lord has guided me to the right path; (to) a most right religion, the faith of Ibrahim the upright one, and he was not of the polytheists".
The climax of that revival occured when he entered Mecca triumphantly, cleansed the Kaaba of its idols and rededicated it to its monotheistic purpose.
The prophet used to answer the call of freeman, slave, maid servant and destitute alike, shortening his prayer anytime someone would visit his open house so much so that his opponents spread it as a form of weakness and credulity while the prophet knew very well who to trust 9:61. The verse absolutely doesnt come in the context of charges of plagiarism. They would literally reproach him of being "an ear" because of his empathy and readiness to patiently listen to what anyone had to say. But although at first glance that seemingly gave the impression of being credulous it in fact reveals a great leadership quality of keeping cohesion within a group. He knows very well the liars or people with ill intentions but does not immidiately expose them to the rest of the community so as to leave them the chance to reform themselves, as is commanded within the Quran itself.
This passive attitude should however not leave any ambiguity as regards the prophet's intellectual and spiritual stance, as denoted in the rest of the verse. Sometimes as reflected in 33:53, his leniency, kindess and forbearance to his folks would often lead to abuse. People would enter his house at anytime, preventing him and his wives from their spiritual duties and basic privacy requirements. This injunction taught them certain rules of behaviour bearing on the life of such particular society, based on a true feeling of brotherhood, mutual consideration, and respect for the sanctity of each other's personality and privacy. This is the timeless lesson, applicable for all times, and which is now enshrined in the Quran through incidents that concerned the prophet. A report suggests that this verse was first revealed in the context of the prophet's marriage ceremony with Zaynab. Some of the guests stayed long after the event was over, in the prophet's home. The verse, according to the report from Anas came down some time after the incident, thus thwarting any attempt by modern critics to try and use the story as evidence of "convenient revelations". Besides, the ahadith speak of other occasion of revelation than this particular incident. This is due to the traditions and Quran commentaries, typically retrospectively applying events in the life of the prophet and the community as asbab alnuzul/occasions of revelation.
The Quran is full of such moral lessons, although illustrated through temporal situations, some of them related and others unrelated to the prophet.
Here are a few other examples
24:62-63"surely they who ask your permission are they who believe in Allah and His Apostle".
In the prophet's time, the sincerity of a person's belief in God and the one representing His will on earth, was measured by their obedience to the prophet. None could dare claim to submit to Allah while rejecting the means by which He was actively comunicating with the people. They could obviously not communicate with God directly and had thus to seek the messenger's guidance to know the divine will. This guidance from the messenger is still found both in the Quran and the sunna he left behind. The timeless application of the verse is thus in consulting both sources of guidance. See also 4:64.
In answer to the video "Quran and the Queen of Sheba"
When the Quran denounces the pagans for their attribution of angel daughters to God while keeping the "preferred" gender to themselves, it isnt diminishing the status of females, referred with males as gifts from God 42:49-50, and females in particular as a glad-tiding 16:58. The idea of keeping the preferred male gender is a sarcastic comment, pointing to the absurdity of the pagans' reasoning who would attribute to the God they believed in and worshipped as their Creator, what they hated for themselves.
Daughters were considered to be no more than objects of adornments and the Quran exposes their inner thoughts whenever a female was born to them; contending whether to keep them in disgrace or burry them alive 16:57-62,17:40,43:15-19.
In 17:31 the Quran refers to the killing of infant children/awlad out of fear of poverty. The practice was overwhelmingly done to females, and rarely males. These same awlad/children are referred to in many places as valuable things 3:10,116,9:69etc.
The blessed Mary is described as more valuable than any male her mother could have wished for. When in her pregnancy, Imran's pious wife vowed to offer what was in her womb to the devotion of God 3:35 as denoted with "muharraran", she meant that the child is free of any other obligation or attachment. She desired a male whom she wanted to follow in the footsteps of the priestly family, living in devotion to God and serving Him in the Temple.
This religious function was prescribed exclusively for the male descendants of the Levites branch. But when she brought forth a female whom she thought wouldnt be able to live up to her spiritual expectations and duties in the Temple, she was explained that her excellence would go far beyond any hopes and desires she had entertained
3:36"God had been fully aware of what she would give birth to, and [fully aware] that no male child [she might have hoped for] could ever have been like this female".
She named her Maryam and invoked Allah's protection on her and her offspring 3:36. In the ahadith we read that in answer to her mother's prayers, the divine protection and supervision of Mary, extended to her son Jesus to the point that Allah prevented a seemingly harmless event of the unseen, that every human being is made to experience at birth
"No child is born but that, Satan touches it when it is born whereupon it starts crying loudly because of being touched by Satan, except Mary and her son".
In fact Mary is described as a model for both men and women. Mary the mother of Jesus is mentionned alongside Pharao's wife as the example to follow. The word describing her spiritual submissiveness is in the masculin plural/qanitin 66:12. This necessarily includes the male gender as well as females, otherwise it would have said qanitat. This eloquent, linguistic precision makes her not only a role model to Muslim women in her chastity and submission, ie submission to the divine will, but also to Muslim men.
When it points out male offspring as a particular asset 16:72 it is in the context of continuity of lineage, children's children. The banee of 80:36 doesnt exclude female children. The word is amply used for both genders, as in banee aadam or banee israil.
When it refutes the attribution of daughters to God among the angels, the verse isnt solely offended by the double standard of the pagans, but also by the very fact of attributing offspring to God, giving a share of the divine essence to other entities. The Quran tells them, they could be turned into angels themselves all the while remaining the same created beings devoid of any divinity, succeeding eachother on this finite earth that will eventually come to an end with everything in it 43:60.
The Quran equally denounces those who attribute male children to God whether in a literal or metaphorical sense which shows that the issue pointed out isnt gender related but rather the unreasonableness of their concept and degrading of God.
The negation of male children to God is stated in 6:100-101, where the Quran also explains the impossibility, from the point of view of His majestic status, unique essence, for God to physically/carnally beget both sons and daughters as the polytheists claimed throughout time, ascribing to Him even a lineage among the jinn 37:158.
The desire for children is based upon the desire to continue one's own legacy, i.e. it is based upon an inherent weakness within man and this rejects the majesty of Allah, His transcendence, and status as beyond causality and contingency. Why would He need entities besides Himself, sharing His essence? Is He lacking in power, knowledge to rule creation by Himself, or is He limited in lifespan?
The Quran rejects this concept of progeny and sonship to God, as well as all the implications undermining His supremacy, by for instance pointing to the facts that nothing precedes or outlasts Him 57:3, that nothing is even within the realm of the remotest of comparisons, that He neither begets nor is He begotten 42:11,112:1-4.
WALAD is the term translated as "son" in 6:101 but the word really means a "product of birth". This covers that Allah does not give birth, nor does he have a consort to give birth for Him. It is important to note, the verse does not tie the impossibility for God to beget to the absence of consort exclusively. It says Wa/And He has no consort. So, the absence of the consort is one of many reasons why Allah does not have a son. Along with the absence of consort, the other reasons for God not having any son are "innovator of the heavens and Earth", "Creator of everything" and so on.
It does not befit the One holding sway over all creation to have the need for a son, which entails an inherent weakness. Why would He need to, when His grasp over creation is so all-embracing, that His will, whatever it may be, is instantly executed
19:35"It is not for Allah to take a child; glory to be Him. When He decrees a command, He only says to it: Be; and it is".
The Quran treats this assertion as so far removed from reality, that it tells its messenger, had it been true he would have been the first to be instructed to worship such an entity 43:81.
Finally the word ANNA translated as How, is an exclamatory expression through several angles, as in "How" and "why" together, to mean "why should He?!"
The primary Quranic argument against God procreating is thus not linked at all the presence or absence of consort, but to the contradiction that notion creates with His uniqueness, supremacy, perfection, self-subsitence and so on. But had the Quran not refuted the idea of God physically procreating by mentionning the absence of a consort, its argument would have remained incomplete. That is because the very notion of God needing to procreate demotes Him in His self-sustained status, restricts His power and will. This inevitably entails the need for partners in His rule, including a consort to procreate.
In such a demoted status, the notion of God doing whatever He wills through His creative word "BE" becomes an impossible proposition. The Quran is here showing the necessary implications of the polytheists' belief, exposing their flaws and refuting them from every possible angle. The perfect example to illustrate is that of Mary 19:20. Being a human, she was limited in her power and will just as God would have been, had He needed a progeny. Mary was unable by her own will to conceive, just as Allah would have been due to His demoted status. They would have both needed a counterpart to procreate. But the reality is different. God, the Majestic, is free from any need, including that of having children, which necessarily implies Him being limitess in His power and will
19:35"It is not for Allah to take a child; glory to be Him. When He decrees a command, He only says to it: Be; and it is".
The verse makes it clear, the total absence of any need to have a child is linked to His supreme dominion over all things, as encapsulated with the creative word "BE". On the other hand, the need for a child would immidiately negate that absolute power. But Allah is limitless and that is why He was able to impose His creative will upon Mary, making her conceive even in the absence of a male counterpart.
As to the children of paradise, they will most probably be those who died before reaching maturity and moral accountability. This includes the righteous' own children with whom the Quran promises one will be reunited, or any other under-aged children of those who did not make it into paradise 52:21. They will be going round about the dwellers of heaven and are described with words evoking both physical and spiritual beauty and purity
56:17,76:19,52:24"as if they were protected pearls".
The Quran describes the servants as Ghulamun, denoting young vigorous males. However elsewhere they may include both genders since it uses the genitive plural wildan, as in 4:127.
In answer to the video "Quran and the Queen of Sheba"
The story of the Muslim Queen in the times of Solomon proves that the Quran doesnt condemn or prevent women leadership of the highest degree. This Queen's case is that of a monarchy, meaning most probably not elected by her people but made to inherit the throne. It does not represent a pervasive mindset of a nation that normalizes the placing of women as heads of state, as per the report of the prophet, who, upon hearing that the Persians had appointed Chosroe’s daughter as ruler said
"No people who appoint a woman as their leader will ever prosper".
Recent scholars argue that this speaks of a specific time and nation, the Persian contemporaries of the prophet. Abu Bakra narrated the report during the Battle of the Camel, where Aisha was in command of the army which included illustrious companions of the Prophet. None of them objected to her being in command. As in the Queen of Sheba's case, Aisha's case did not represent a normalized trend in the society of nominating women as leaders. Even the narrator Abu Bakra did not desert her which should have been the case had he and other companions noticed that she contradicted a prophetic instruction. The Sassanide empire collapsed soon after that narration was reported, and the Muslims conquered it, leading scholars to treat this as a prophecy.
In the prophet's time, a successful nation was one that had a steady population growth and enough resources to maintain it. This is the unavoidable reality of our wordly system even nowadays. Only a healthy family base with enough children to safeguard demographic renewal, coupled with a secure and sustainable income allows a nation to thrive in the long run. No matter which way one turns it, this is only possible with a woman fully dedicated to her household and a man fully committed to sustaining it. Both functions are equally important. If any of these 2 pillars is compromised, then the system stagnates and deteriorates.
This, again, is an observable reality today accross the "developed" world, where these once rich nations are essentially dying out in the long term. Men are seeking wealth following destructive economic models and women have disengaged from the family and childbearing function. Society becomes incapable of assigning fully committed gender adapted roles so as to safeguard its own long term prosperity.
As already noted, this phenomenon has to spread on a large scale for it to compromise the functioning of a healthy society. It isnt speaking of marginal cases whose imbalanced family model can be absorbed by the larger body of the society. Rather it points to a deeply ingrained, general mindset hence the words
"No PEOPLE WHO APPOINT a woman as their leader will ever prosper".
That is why we find in the history of Islam and since the earliest days, Muslim leaders, not the general population, appointing women to leadership positions like judges or police, even military. In brief and as demonstrated, Islam certainly allows female leadership but it cannot be a general, normalized phenomenon or else it would mean that the society has accepted to compromise the gender specific functions that allow it to prosper in the long term.
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Failed End Time Prophecy"
7:187"They ask you about the hour, when will be its taking place? Say: The knowledge of it is only with my Lord; none but He shall manifest it at its time; it will be momentous/thaqulat in the heavens and the earth; it will not come on you but of a sudden. They ask you as if you were solicitous about it. Say: Its knowledge is only with Allah, but most people do not know".
By the words thaqulat/burdened, the verse employs the metaphor of pregnancy in its last stages. Just as the sight of such a woman leaves no doubt as to the fact that she must eventually deliver, the signs of the Resurrection and judgement are so numerous and obvious in the heavens and the earth that one is left with no doubt as to the fact it will and must occur. Its unfolding is a certainty but, just as for the pregnant woman, its time is unknown. The Quran's warnings about the end of times are prophetic, not apocalyptic as we find in the Gospels and Paul's writings. In the Christian tradition, it is behind the corner and imminent (but failed happening as predicted), in the Quran it is merely inevitable.
The object of every prophet wasnt to determine its timing but to ascertain its inevitability in the mind of their addressees
79:42-5"They ask you about the hour: When will be its arrival? You are not (in position) to know it. To your Lord is its end. You are only a warner for one who fears it".
The final hour is the culminating part of a universal system based on truth and justice. Without it, the universe would be purposeless and the idea of moral accountability flawed and incomplete. When that is established then the details surrounding the event should be secondary in importance, the true focus should be on doing good prior to its ushering. Given that both the Quran and ahadith attest to the prophet's ignorance of the precise timing of the end of days, he is expected to shift the focus away from the timing whenever asked about it. And effectively, when asked, he would begin by encouraging righteousness, repentance and gratefulness. He would then proceed with statements that are often ambiguous and open to interpretation. This in itself is an appeal to focus on the present rather than speculating on what is beyond our grasp and which isnt even a requirement of faith
"While the Prophet and I were coming out of the mosque, a man met us outside the gate. The man said, "O Allah's Messenger! When will be the Hour?" The Prophet asked him, "What have you prepared for it?" The man became afraid and ashamed and then said, "O Allah's Messenger! I haven't prepared for it much of fasts, prayers or charitable gifts but I love Allah and His Apostle." The Prophet said, "You will be with the one whom you love".
On another occasion he answered
"If this boy lives he would not grow very old that he would find your Last Hour coming to you he would see you dying".
The noble prophet is telling the questioners to worry about their own last hour, meaning preparing themselves for it, prior to worrying about the last hour of all humanity. This is common theme in the Quran, warning people to prepare themselves as if their time is very near. Death is a reality bound to occur at any moment. Understanding this reality should awake the person and make him ponder on the higher meaning of life
7:185"Have they not contemplated the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and whatever things Allah created, and that maybe their time has already draw near?"
In accordance with what he was inspired to convey in relation to the day of resurrection, the prophet thus never pin pointed the time of its occurrence. As Jaafar al sadiq said
"Allah the Exalted has decreed for us some things and demands from us some things. What he has decreed for us has been kept hidden from us, and what he wants from us has been made plain to us. What is the matter with us that we busy ourselves with what is decreed for us at the expense of what is demanded from us?".
When the angel Gabriel appeared to him, asking
"When will the Hour be established?' The prophet replied 'The answerer has no better knowledge than the questioner' ending his reply with "the Hour is one of five things which nobody knows except Allah.'
He then recited
31:34'Verily, with Allah (Alone) is the knowledge of the Hour".
Even when he did put a timing, he implied its closeness in relation to the overall life of this world
"The time of my advent and the Hour are like these two fingers". He said elsewhere "The sun is about to set, and what remains of this world, compared to what has passed (ie since the beginning of time), is like what remains of this day compared to what has passed".
The Quran itself alludes to the idea that time in this world is relative, when seen from a higher perspective
75:34"Nearer to you (is destruction) and nearer, Again (consider how) nearer to you and nearer" 70:6-7"Surely they think it to be far off, And We see it nigh" 16:77"And Allah's is the unseen of the heavens and the earth; and the matter of the hour is but as the twinkling of an eye or it is higher still; surely Allah has power over all things".
In other places, it quotes incidents long passed before even the rising of the prophet Muhammad, where God states that
20:16"Surely the Hour is coming. I am about to make it manifest so that every soul may be rewarded as it strives".
This again shows that the divine intent when speaking of the closeness of the end of times, is in relation to the overall time of the world from its inception to its final destination. And this understanding is reflected in the prophetic statements about the timing of the hour. When the prophet paralleled the conquest of Constantinople with the ushering of the end of times, he described the presence of the mahdi and the descent of Jesus. After fierce combat, and at the point when the Mahdi is encircled, Jesus will descend to lead the Muslim armies, and slay the Dajjal. Soon after this, the Muslims will take Constantinople by peaceful means
"They will conquer Constantinople with Tasbih and Takbir and will acquire such spoils of war as has never been seen before".
I'll leave this closet Christian with a saying from his god-man to ponder upon;
Matt24:36,Mk13:32"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father"
Here the text contrasts the lack of knowledge of all intelligent beings, including Jesus, with the complete knowledge of God. This verse perplexed many leading Trinitarians throughout history who were faced with the problem of Jesus' ignorance of a particular matter. Many manuscripts dont even have the passage, leading scholars to argue it was at some point edited out to avoid controversy with anti-Trinitarians. Some have tried solving this by appealing to the mysterious concept of hypostatic union of 2 contradictory entities; the imperfect creation and the perfect Creator. Others have appealed to the Greek text, arguing that what is translated as "know" can also be rendered "make known". Jesus therefore knows the hour but the only one that can make it known/proclaim it is God the Father. One may then legitimately ask, when and where did the Father make that matter known? Will the Father proclaim it at some time in the future and how? That explanation also ignores the fact that the verse contrasts all sentient beings, including Jesus on one side, with the Father on the other side. If the Greek does not negate knowledge but only refers to proclamation, then it follows that all entities grouped with Jesus in contrast to the Father, do possess that knowledge of the hour but will not proclaim it.
