In answer to the video "Muhammad's Message Insults God; Paul's Doesn't (PvM 25)"
On the face of it, finality of Prophethood seems to be a tenuous claim. After all, potentially anyone can stand up and say that he is a Prophet of God - but so far all the instances in which this has happened has failed to even come close to the scale and scope of the Prophet Muhammad's mission.
Also, if we examine the entire career of these claimants - they have singularly and absolutely failed to match the life-chart of Prophet Muhammad and moreover their death poses even more questions than their life. What is even more interesting is that none of them claimed to be the final Prophet, much less Jesus who predicted the coming of a powerful figure after him, the Paraclete, that shall bring justice to the world. This will be shown in another article.
As to the case of Paul alluded to earlier, it says in Deut18 that
"a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say...must be put to death"
and paul admitted speaking occasionaly his own words but still in God's name 1Cor7:25,2Cor8:8. How can "all scripture" be
"God-breathed" 2Tim3:16
while at the same time including the words of one admitting to speak his own words, the same person who, as will be shown below, overtly encouraged deception as a legitimate missionary tactic? Contrast this with the forceful Quranic statement that
69:44-47"if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand, And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart: Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath)".
Also
Deut18:22"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously"
Paul fell flat on his face regarding his predictions on Jesus' second coming.
Even the NT's criteria compromise Paul's self-proclaimed divine authority. The false prophet is one that forbids marriage 1Tim4:1-3. Paul advised not to marry 1Cor7:1. The false prophet
"will bring the way of truth (ie the way of Jesus which his direct followers testified to) into disrepute"2Pet2:2
and Paul interpreted Jesus' teachings in ways which led to disputes between him and Jesus' early followers whom he sarcastically called "super apostles" and further considered himself superior to them, proudly declaring he "learned nothing" from them Gal2:6-9. This is the sheer arogance of one who never knew or met Jesus 2Cor11:4-5,22-24.
There is a reason why Paul's letters display their ignorance of, if not purposefully dismiss the writings attributed to Jesus' disciples. It is said that false prophets'
"greed..will exploit you with stories they have made up"2Pet2:3
and Paul who had several contradicting versions of his alleged encounter with a "light" admitted using deception in his modus operandi
"I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it...crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery"2Cor12:11,16.
He openly encouraged lying when preaching Jesus, becoming like a Jew to win the Jew, and becoming like a gentile (one not under the law) to win the gentile Phil1:15-18,1Cor9:19-21, because
"The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached" in order to "win as many as possible".
The interesting result was that Christians not only were very successful at converting pagans (much less so with the Jews) but pagans in turn transformed Christianity into a hodge podge of neo-judeo/greco-roman religion, born at the council of Nicea in 325CE, in Alexandria which was the center of Hellenistic philosophies. This is in sharp contrast to what the Quran says about the inadmissibility of using deceitful and disgraceful means for the propagation of Truth
16:92-95,125"Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner".
This strategy helped him gather funds -not for the poor and needy- for the establishement and reenforcement of the Churches throughout the Roman empire and beyond 1Cor15,16,2Cor8,9. This fits another description of a false prophet in Micah3:11 whose motivation is money.
It is from Paul's teachings and method of approaching the Jews that the Evangelical Zionists derive their missionary tactics. It consists in showing the Jews a strong support that they might be
"provoked into jealousy"
so that they might be convinced that God's help has come from the followers of the one they rejected (Jesus) because
Rom11"if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!".
Paul has a very peculiar feature, and that is one who consistently is found swearing that whatever he has is from God, contrary to what is preached in the New Testament, where Jesus is reported to have stated that such a thing was a quality of the Pharisees. Further, the very 'gospel' he was alleged to preach contradicted not just what was being taught in Galilee, but what was being taught in the Temple of Jerusalem itself. Paul was attacked in that Temple for what he was claiming.
By the end of his life, he had to seek refuge with the pagan Roman Authority, because people, which were obviously his enemies within the other factions, wanted to kill him.
Today, the evangelical zionist movement that finds its inspiration in Paul's above deceptive methods, masks its real intentions towards the Jewish people by corrupting their audience with money. Probably no nation needs this money more than Israel for its survival, exactly as God prophecised when He stated in the Quran that the Israelites, those who rejected Jesus, will be under the Christians' dominion until the Resurrection 61:14,3:55. This bribe money serves the purpose of gathering Jews from all over the world so a mythical end time is ushered.
At that time 2/3 of Israel will be destroyed and damned for rejecting the man/god of the trinity. Their Armageddon theology is detailed in the book of Revelation -a Book not even considered God inspired until very late in Church history-. Those damned Jews, the Jews of the "flesh" ie devoid of any spirituality because of their rejection of Jesus Rom2:28-9, those sons of Satan Jn8:44, worshipping in their satanic synagogues Rev2:9 will be made to bow down at the feet of the true Jews, ie the Christians Rev3:9 prior to their eternal damnation. Jews who do not accept Christianity are characterized as worshipers of Satan, hence, the expression “synagogue of Satan.”
The author of Revelation declares that Jews of the “flesh” who do not become “true” Jews (that is, Christians) worship Satan and are destined to someday be subdued and come to bow down at the feet of Jesus’ beloved church.
It is these kinds of satanic association that helped produce a portrait for faithful Christians throughout the centuries of the “evil” Jew whose deeds on behalf of Satan took on ominous proportions. No wonder that the church and its faithful followers sought to hasten the day when Jesus would fulfill his promise to
“make them [the synagogue of Satan] come and bow down at your feet”
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Message Insults God; Paul's Doesn't (PvM 25)"
In the HB a false prophet is one:
- whose prophecies do not come true Deut18:22
- who speaks in the name of other gods Deut13
- who proclaims any precept of the Torah to be abrogated or adds to it Deut13:4-5. It is to be noted that a case is mentioned where a prophet -Elijah- was commanded to conduct the famous challenge of the two bullocks on Mount Carmel, even though that temporarily violated the Torah prohibition against offering sacrifices outside the Temple or places designated fit for the ritual by God. And this is an "accepted" innovation. The book of Ezekiel for example is so full of cases where the prophet overturns, adds to Torah comandements and revises historical incidents that the famous Talmudic "sage" Hananiah ben Hezekiah needed 300 oil barrels to keep him busy overcoming the contradictions. His successors praised him for not having to hide the book of Ezekiel that simply exposes the fact that its writer either had no Torah in his time or had a different one because he obviously knew for example the First Temple, its order of service, the laws of the priesthood and of the land and yet treats those issues differently.
The HB in Deut13 warns the people to be very suspicious of anyone with the ability to perform what may seem as unexplainable supernatural deeds. The NT similarly says false prophets may be allowed the performance of miracles as a matter of test to the believers Matt24:4-5,23-25,2Thess2:9-10. John the Baptist was a true prophet but performed no supernatural miracles Jn10:41,Matt21:25-26. Besides, to base one's faith on the sight of "miracles" is very dangerous for one never really knows whether the "miracle" was in fact an illusion or other clever trick. The prophet Moses' opponents reflected that reality when they described his miracles as illusion without external reality
7:132"And they said; whatever sign you bring us to bewitch us, we are not going to believe you".
As the HB says, God may even purposefully allow a false prophet to perform miracles as a test to the people, whether their hearts and minds will be dazzled and swayed into ungodly ways or remain steadfast in their faith. In Ex7:11 Pharaoh commands his court magicians to imitate with their magic Moses' miracles, and some of these miracles were in fact successfully replicated, showing that seemingly supernatural occurrences do not necessarily come from God.
Miracles therefore, whether in the Quran or the HB, do not serve the function of attesting to an individual claim to prophethood, rather have the twofold purpose of comforting an already believing heart as well as demonstrate the tremendous responsibilities of those that witness it.
The Bible doesnt even give instructions on how to recognize demonic miracles because technically, they are no different than the divine ones. But it shows how to recognize if the author is a false messenger. The djinn, as described in the story of the prophet Solomon, are capable of what is deemed supernatural bending of the expected laws of nature. But what they have no access to, except as Allah deems fit, is knowledge of the unseen, information that could only be obtained through revelation. Knowledge of the unseen, and of information that could not have been accessible to the messenger, prophecies coming true, uprightness of character are all very strong indications of a person's claims of prophethood. That is why the Quran, although it never denies that its messenger could and did perform miracles, treats this aspect of prophethood as inconsequential in determining the veracity of the claim, dismissing the requests of the doubters and disbelievers and leaving the matter to the Creator. The sending of signs is at all times depending in His will and wisdom. The Quran therefore, in its arguments, brings repeated attention the aforementioned 4 aspects of prophethood, with an additional focus on knowledge; based on what authority, and knowledge do the disbelievers among the polytheists and people of the book persist in their denial and deviations
46:4"Say, [O Muhammad], "Have you considered that which you invoke besides Allah? Show me what they have created of the earth; or did they have partnership in [creation of] the heavens? Bring me a scripture [revealed] before this or a [remaining] trace of knowledge, if you should be truthful."
In conclusion, messengership does not necessitate that the forces of nature be bent at will and upon request. Miracles are entirely dependent on God's will and the prophets are nothing but mere mortals tasked with transmitting a message of warnings and glad tidings
17:90-3"And they say, we will by no means believe in you until you cause a fountain to gush forth..or you should cause the heavens to come down...or bring Allah and the angels face to face...or you should have a house of gold...Say; Glory be to God, am I aught but a mortal messenger?"
The belief that whatever is written in the Torah is binding eternally is rooted in the belief that the promised messiah will reinstate all of the mosaic law that is now in great parts abandoned due to the Temple's destruction. Besides rendering Jesus' alleged sacrifice as a liberation from the "curse" of the law a useless concept, but that is another issue, not a single commandment the Israelites were given in the prophecy of Deut18, says that whatever the prophet commands in the name of God has to be in the Torah.
What it states unequivocally is that when this time comes and that this Prophet arises, a prophet that was still awaited in the times of Jesus, whoever does not hearken to his words whatever He speaks in the name of God, they will be held accountable. Deuteronomy 18 then clarifies how one can distinguish this Prophet from others, for which the answer is NOT that he follows the Torah eternally, but that whatever he states comes to pass in the name of the Lord.
If one argues that every commandment is binding in the Torah for one to be considered a true Prophet, then this negates practically every single injunction given to the Israelites, i.e. the rites of sacrifice, which are included in Deuteronomy 12 and 17, among other. Why the Israelites arent going around driving idolaters from Israel, battling the descendants of certain specific nations whom they were commanded as an everlasting ordinance to exterminate off the earth's face, as well as not forsaking the Levites, because they have no inheritance? This surely has nothing to do with the rites of the temple and we know of countless Prophets in the Hebrew Bible that weren't driving out idolaters, between the time of Moses to this day even when the Temple was standing. Further, as even the Hebrew Bible admits, Prophets have come and with other laws that would replace laws that were given by Moses, amongst them Solomon in Kings telling Israelites how to behave, even when the Temple is destroyed. Is every one of these Prophets a liar, despite the Hebrew Bible calling them true prophets?
In the Quran, through the story of ancient nations and prophets, it establishes a pattern by which to determine the truthfulness of one claiming prophethood. As previously stated, these are; uprightness in character which includes an unflinching, uncompromising stance as regards his mission, to have been foretold by previous prophets, having access to special knowledge, and prophecies coming true. This includes warnings of punishment for fighting and opposing the messengers. The Quran places Muhammad inside that pattern of the prophets, at a time when none, not even the nascent Muslim community whose fear and reluctance to engage in military confrontation is related in the Quran, could have imagined for him and his small band of followers to become victorious and establish themselves 37:171-182.
Muhammad then effectively rises up and says to his tribe that they will meet a similar fate. He made the claim while in a state of weakness, and augmenting his rhetoric that should have antagonized his people against him instead of gaining him followers. As expected the people then oppose the message and prevent the people from it and get punished by the sword. End of the matter. None after him came with any of the following and was able to back his claims up:
1) comes from a common background of his addressees, meaning they know him very well, yet claims to be a Messenger, in fact the Final Messenger of God
2) warns his people of Divine chastisement
3) the chastisement comes home to roost and the partisans of the Prophet are established in the land
This is the exact process that occurred with the Bani Israil in the time of Moses, with the drowning of the host of Pharaoh and the deliverance of the Israelites, with the uprooting of the Canaanites and the establishment of the way of God. Not to mention, the Quranic invitation to the Arabs to see or recall for themselves the fate of the deniers of Nuh, Lut, Saleh, Shuayb, Hud... It is a Book of Warning that has already delivered its judgment in this world
53:36"This is a warner of the warners of old"
54:42-5"Are the unbelievers of yours better than these, or is there an exemption for you in the scriptures?...Soon shall the hosts be routed, and they shall turn (their) backs".
As said in Deuteronomy regarding the awaited prophet
"If any man will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name, I myself will make him answer for it".
God Almighty says that Prophethood has ended with the Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet bore witness to the unity of God, and his deniers were punished in this life. For those who claimed to be Prophets after him did they remain unvanquished as per the tradition of Allah, did they emerge as triumphant leaders or does their life and death fail to bear witness to their claims?
For example Musaylima emerged shortly after the Prophet's death and was killed under the orders of Abu Bakr. Before him and contemporaneous to the prophet was Saf Ibn Sayyad. He would eventually be completely discredited and in fact convert to Islam. I will speak of him in more details in another video.
Another one was Bahaullah - though later his followers branched off into the Bahai faith which is based on the nice concept of unity of religions- he died a prisoner of the Ottoman Empire. There is also Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from Qadian, Punjab - his death is widely cited to be from either one of these diseases - cholera, diarrhoea, plague, or dysentery. Besides numerous prophecies regarding the timing and manner of his death were left unfulfilled - though Ahmadis now interpret those in a metaphorical manner- but the manner of death is hardly inspiring for one claiming to be a Prophet.
There is then Rashad Khalifa who was a modern claimant based on his theory of the number 19's pattern in the Quran. Well, besides being accused of paedophilia, he was assassinated and his theories entirely discredited.
But above all, their theories did not prevail and either remained confined to a small number of followers or were simply lost and forgotten shortly after their death.
Another modern claimant was Joseph Smith in the US who started the Latter Day Saints movement and is the founder of Mormonism. He too was unfortunately assassinated.
As a side note even the Mormon story has more grounds to stand on from the point of view of authenticity, than the NT story, in that there are actually known then-living individuals who executed an affidavit saying that they had, themselves, seen something of the Mormon story whereas the NT is written by anonymous people with no first hand information decades after the alleged, unsubstantiated life of the NT Jesus.
Of all the new religions that have sprung up after Islam, one may perhaps say Sikhism is also there. But Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith, never claimed for himself Prophethood. Also, Sikhism emerged as a reform movement intertwined between Hinduism and Islam. The holy book Guru Granth contains quotes from Sufi saints as well.
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Message Insults God; Paul's Doesn't (PvM 25)"
Throughout Jesus' ministry Allah defeated his enemies' conspiracies to allow him the fullfilment of his mission. Whether from the moment his remarkable prophetic experience began while still an infant, until he attained the peak of his physical maturity toward the end of his ministry, he was in Allah's protection
3:46,5:110"and when I withheld the children of Israel from you when you came to them with clear arguments".
The term kahl refers to a middle aged man whose hair is beginning to turn gray. It is used for what is believed to be the ideal physical age of a man, defined as anywhere between 30 and 50 years. The scholars of Christianity since very early times have given all sorts of ages for Jesus' lifespan, from 33 years to 50 years. This is mainly due to the many difficult and inconsistent historical data present in the Gospels.
When his time finally came and the transmission of his message fulfilled, Allah saved him from the hands of his enemies by lifting him up. Jesus was not sent on a suicide mission and neither did he want to purposefully die as a human offering, something God explicitly abhors in both the HB, which he upheld to the letter as well as his early followers after him, and the Quran.
According to Islam, Jesus therefore succeeded 100% in conveying the message he was meant to convey. His mission was deep, intricate, far reaching and much more elaborate, pertinent, consistent and beautiful than what is attributed to him by the Greek authors. By relating the essential landmarks of his prophetic mission as well as the basis of the message he was commanded to faithfully transmit, saved his honor both physically and spiritually. It clears him of all slanders by his contemporaries and those that followed, as well as from the false teachings attributed to him that corrupted his message. It is ironic that Christians see Jesus in Islam as a failed prophet or fabricated figure, when it is they that depict him as such; from his humiliating ending at the hands of his opponents, to his teachings that were misappropriated and assimilated into the religion of a pagan entity, or the fabricated events in his life that dont stand to historical scrutiny, and the theological implications of his mission that are irreconcilable with the HB which is supposed to foreshadow Christianity.
This painstaking, sketchy endeavour is the result of Christians attempting to reconstruct Jesus as a heroic figure after his death, just as pagans in those times deified their dead emperors or called the living ruler "son of god", creating events that did not happen; Jesus' pre-existence, his co-creation of the universe with God, his miraculous birth, miracles, arrest, trial, crucifixion, resurrection, post-resurrection appearances, and reunion with God his Father were all the inventions of story tellers trying to restrospectively fit Jesus within both the Jewish messianic tradition and the writers' own greco-roman religious background. Islam, the religion of all prophets is a religion of success. Unlike the meaningless, devastating, disgraceful, helpless death of the invented central figure of Christianity, neither Muhammad nor Jesus were failures.
Whether Jesus' message survived now or not is irrelevant. The success of a prophet's mission of being the faithful conveyor of his God's message is independant of whether his addressees hearken his calls, mend their ways, preserve his message or attempt to kill him. All prophets attest to this reality. Prophets are not sent to cause forceful spiritual reform. Their duty is only to deliver the warnings and glad tidings, as here stated by the prophet Hud
11:57"But if you turn back, then indeed I have delivered to you the message with which I have been sent to you, and my Lord will bring another people in your place, and you cannot do Him any harm; surely my Lord is the Preserver of all things".
It is then up to the people themselves to hearken the calls and act accordingly. If they do it is for their own benefit, if not it is their own loss. Both outcomes have no bearing on the truthfulness of a prophet or the accomplishment of his mission.
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Message Insults God; Paul's Doesn't (PvM 25)"
In light of the aforementionned historical realities, and the fact that the end times messianic figure did not materialize in Jesus, that it appeared to many that he was murdered, those who nevertheless believed him to fit the messianic role could not but paint this aspect of his life in "purposeful" obscurity. In addition, his death/failure became his self-predicted success, purposefuly orchestrated, in fulfillment of ancient prophecies retrospectively applied to him, or rather misapplied to anyone familiar with the HB.
The whole NT is a poorly written apology of a new concept of the end times king messiah, as here candidly stated
Jn20:31"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name".
Matt12:15-21 attempts to show that Jesus' appeal to secrecy was in fulfilment of Isa42:1-4, a passage that only relates to what Matthew infers by the most farfetched analogy. He implies that by the vast majority of Israel's being puporsefully denied access to the truth, the Gentiles instead will be saved. But for these gentiles to have access to this truth after JEsus' death, there had to be a select few who would understand the secret scheme. The plot was supposedly achieved through obscured parables only his disciples would understand Mk4:11-12,Matt13:13-15 yet we many times read thoughout the NT how his closest followers who supposedly were among those select few at least struggled in comprehending him if not completely misunderstood him. In fact towards the end of Jesus' mission people in general and his closest entourage had no clue about his messianship, to the point that when Simon identifies him as the messiah, Jesus tells him that he could only have received that information in a supernatural way Matt16. The simple reason is that the historical Jesus did not go around claiming to fulfil the messianic predictions of the HB. The claim was later made for him. If he did, people would have laughed their lungs off, including the Romans. The Gospel writers, writing at least 50 years after the events knew that what Jesus accomplished had nothing to do with the highly anticipated establishment of the kingdom of God. They were thus left with no option other than painting the whole matter as they did.
The Jewish people were thus divinely blinded for that purpose, at least temporarly as stated in
Rom11:11"I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous".
As if God could not provide salvation for both Jew and Gentile without deliberately withholding knowledge so that only some Jews are saved.
When Jesus was apprehended and judged by the Romans, with the complicity of the Jewish leaders who wanted to get rid of him for his denouncing their sins as past prophets did, he did not claim to be the king messiah, neither to the Jews who were seeking a pretext to make him arrested, pressing the question to have him confess Matt26:63-64,Mk14:62,Lk22:70 nor in front of the authorities, who eventually sent him to be crucified. By doing so, and acceding to the request of the Jews, the romans validated the Jewish charge against him of messianic kingship which is punishable by death under state laws. Now that Jesus and his band became official outlaws wanted by the state, his close apostles are reported to have fled with Peter even denying he knew Jesus 3 times. The Romans, lobbied by their Jewish stooges, deemed the allegation against him enough for him to be crucified.
This punishment was most often reserved to those who threatened the political status quo, regardless of their background motives (religious or else). Jesus was a typical person the Romans would go after in those days, a charismatic leader who proclaimed a kingdom "with God" not "with Caesar" at its head was seen as an immediate threat. The person didnt even have to present a violent danger to be inflicted with such punishment, nor tangible evidence, especially a non-Roman citizen or a slave.
Simple suspicion, in this case instigated by their Jewish minions, or even non-violent anti-government talk such as the promised rule of God's kingdom, was enough to trigger the authorities.
As to Pontius Pilate washing his hands of the decision to execute a political agitator, a man known for his brutality against his subjects, is obviously a scribal corruption with an agenda. The Greeks were writing the Gospels after the Roman legions had returned to crush the Jewish rebellion of 66CE and did not want to antagonize Roman power and attract their hostility at that point in time. What is insteresting to add is that, contrary to similar cases where accomplices would be tracked down and killed to crush a potential rebellion, the Romans left Jesus' disciples to freely preach their gospel.
This shows that, as said above, Jesus was seen as inconsequential in terms of posing a violent threat, that the savage Roman police would easily be triggered on simple basis of suspicion and that they would readily accomodate their local puppets to safeguard their own dominion in the distant regions of the empire.
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Message Insults God; Paul's Doesn't (PvM 25)"
The NT shows in Matt26,Jn18 that the disciples did not witness anything but Jesus' arrest by the Romans, and among the disciples only Peter saw Jesus' questionning by the high priest at the courtyard. None of the disciples saw or were present at Jesus' alleged public beating, humiliation and crucifixion. While there is mention in Jn19:25-27 of a "disciple" being near Jesus at the cross, there is no proof that this unnamed disciple mentionned by John's Gospel's writer (mentionned in the 3rd person by the way, why would John mention himself in the 3rd person?) is John the son of Zebedee.
That traditional interpretation is still a matter of dispute among scholars. Also, the other gospels dont mention a "disciple whom Jesus loved". So that "beloved disciple" who witnessed the crucifixion is the John who authored the gospel that holds his name, yet that "beloved disciple" fails to mention the spectacular transfiguration of Jesus, and the talking cloud, of which he was only 1 of 3 eyewitnesses Matt17:1-13,Mk9:2-13?
That is not to mention that "beloved disciple"'s silence of other events of which he was the privileged eyewitness, leaving instead others who werent present to those events to testify in his place. Incidents such as the raising of Jairus' daughter Mk5:37-42 or Jesus' ascencion Lk24:33-51.
There are various theories on the identity of that unknown and unnamed male disciple "whom Jesus loved" that allegedly stood near Jesus on the cross. According to the NT, he was one of the unknown eyewitnesses who recounted the event to the several unknown writers of the Gospel of John, as attested by the text
Jn21:24"This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true".
Who are "we" and who is the one whose testimony is believed to be true?
The NT sometimes speaks of "disciples" without them being necessarly those among his inner circle of 12. For example Paul says the resurrected Jesus firstly appeared to Peter then to the twelve 1Cor15:15 at a time when Judas was already dead Matt27:5, and his successor had not yet been chosen Acts1:26. The other Gospels also say nothing about any disciple or any women being near the cross, or talking with Jesus while he was on the cross. They only mention a group of women watching the scene from a distant place.
Accepting this for argument's sake, unlike his male followers, these women would probably have been allowed to watch without being arrested, provided that they didnt try to interfere. Execution sites were guarded by Romans who would certainly not allow access to the followers and accomplices of one who was supposedly executed for being a political agitator that could threaten the state Matt27:37,Mk15:26,Lk23:38,Jn19:19-22. It isnt even known how Jesus - or any other victim of this brutal Roman execution method - was affixed to the cross. The earliest artistic depictions of Jesus’ death were made centuries after the fact, long after the Roman Empire had turned Christian and outlawed this punishment.
Also, there are very few archaeological remains of crucifixion as a practice in general. In fact the only known solid piece of physical evidence is a 1st century C.E. heel-bone pierced by a nail, found in 1968 in a Jewish tomb in Jerusalem. The piercing doesnt even follow the image of crucifixion made famous in Christian iconography.
During the years when Jesus was growing up, many people believed that the End Times necessary for the appearance of the warrior king Messiah per the HB had already arrived, and that this liberator would soon organize a revolt against the hated Romans and drive them out of the country. There were many claimants to the role before, and after Jesus. The Romans were fully aware of this and were constantly on the look out for rebel leaders and their accomplices in a time where uprisings against the state were more frequent in Palestine than any other part of the Empire.
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Message Insults God; Paul's Doesn't (PvM 25)"
4:157-158 then states that those who differ on what is stated in the verse about Jesus not having being killed are in shakkin/suspicion about that very statement. It then goes on to say why Christians entertain shakkin/suspicion about the Quranic statement that Jesus was not killed: they have formed a wrong conclusion about events that they themselves had no knowledge about and are following nothing but a conjecture, started by those Bani Israel contemporaries and enemies of Jesus.
Some claimed to have killed him and others that they crucified him yet they had no body to prove their lies, no trace of Jesus was ever found.
This devastating defeat was retrospectively written as a divinely planned victory since before the universe's creation. IT was then put in writing by several unknown authors whom nobody knows, who attributed their works to Jesus' close disciples yet these disciples are reported to have fled the scene at Jesus' arrest. Add to this the fact that not even a single historian exists, attesting to the wonderful and cataclysmic events surrounding the crucifixion that were allegedly witnessed by an entire city.
The NT itself testifies to the fact that his close circle, let alone the rest of his followers never approached the dead body and could not therefore burry it. The passage of Acts13:27-29, which is attributed to Paul, shows that the disciples included among those guilty for the execution anyone who took part in the recovery of Jesus' body. Thus, Paul emphasizes that Jesus was buried not by his followers but by his enemies yet Jn19:38, which was written after Acts, speaks of 2 elements among those who buried Jesus -Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus- as being secret followers of his. This obvious manipulation with the burial party being turned from hostile to favorable and positive is an effort to first of all circumvent the difficulty of having Jesus' body dumped in an unmarked pit as would have been done by his executioners, and second find reliable witnesses to the event. These invented characters would have then "faithfully" transmitted their testimony to their brothers in faith and Gospel writers, without being noticed. How strange is it that Joseph of "Arimathaea" (a mysterious and unknown "city of the Jews" Lk23:51) was a Jesus disciple Matt27 yet he is unheard of until the very end. He is a convenient hybrid to the whole plot; close enough to the Jewish elite to avoid suspicion so that he may approach the body, but yet a closet Christian. HE is a
"honourable member of the Jewish council, also waiting for the kingdom of God".
Regardless, this Joseph was needed to rescue Jesus' body. Thats not to speak of another similar character only found in John3, called Nicodemus, a "ruler of the Jews" who was allegedly attracted to Jesus because of his miracles yet besides the "water to wine" one, Jesus' hadnt yet performed any miracle, did not begin his ministry, even though Jn2:24 states many miracles were performed only to later claim that a healing he performed in Capernaum was only his second miracle Jn4:54.
Contradictions and sidestepping aside, this Jewish ruler was supposedly convinced from seeing water turned to wine that
"no man can do these miracles..except God be with him".
One can only wonder what would have his reaction been had he seen what Pharao's magicians were able to do when urged to replicate Moses' miracles.
Modern (biblical) scholarship highly questions the authorship of Mark, John, Luke, Matthew. Further, and as already noted, the NT itself states in Matt26:56,Jn18:15-27 that the apostles who are reporting the events of Jesus' crucifixion and public humiliation, never witnessed those particular events. So what added benefit is there in bringing in the testimony of someone outside the circle of those to whom the texts are ascribed, and who claims to derive knowledge from them? The allusion here is to Ignatius, who himself states that the birth and death of Jesus were obscured by God who revealed them to the world by some shining star, not eyewitnesses, as there were of course none
"Mary's virginity was hidden from the prince of this world, so was her child-bearing, and so was the death of the Lord. All these three trumpet-tongued secrets were brought to pass in the deep silence of God. How then were they made known to the world? Up in heavens a star gleamed out, more brilliant than all the rest; no words could describe its lustre, and the strangeness of it left men bewildered".
Before getting into the passage, this "early" disciple of the apostles named Ignatius is unheard of in secular history and almost nothing in early Christian writings testifies to his having been bishop of Antioch, the centre of Christianity in Roman Syria, nor of him readily dying a martyr at 2 conflicting dates according to "tradition" by Trajan's direct order. We're talking of the same Trajan known as a tolerant ruler who requested stringent procedures before laying any accusations on Christians. Yet he executed this Ignatius simply for having witnessed the apostles' sacrificing their lives in preaching Jesus whom they had seen resurrected. In his supposed prison letters, Ignatius confronts Christians that argued against basic tenets of current Christian orthodoxy, including the death, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. These groups were arguing against these notions based on the fact that they are absent from "the original documents"
"When I heard some people saying, If i do not find it in the original documents, I do not believe it".
Instead of pointing to the verses depicting the death, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, Ignatius vaguely says that they exist in those originals, adding that Jesus himself is sufficient as proof. This group was basically accusing Ignatius of following and believing in a tampered, and falsified gospel.
It is therefore no surprise that the Quran charges Christians for believing with "no knowledge" what it calls a "conjecture"
4:157"they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture"
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Message Insults God; Paul's Doesn't (PvM 25)"
Firstly, It does not say that it was made to appear that Jesus died on the cross, in a purposeful divine plan to confuse his contemporaries. It answers in 4:157-8 the Jews' mockeries about having succeeded in killing a supposed prophet of God. It refutes their arrogance and reiterates Allah's unchanging way concerning the prevailing of His messengers/rusul.
According to this divine pattern, certain messengers sent with clear proofs for their arguments and warnings of destruction leads God to implement these threats upon the rejecters once the deadline is reached 58:20-21,48:22-23,36:26-32,40:51,77,43:42. The Messenger, along with those that are with the Messenger are saved, and those that are not perish or are forcefully subjugated. Among these messengers are Nuh, Hud, Ibrahim, Salih, Shuayb, Musa, Jesus and Muhammad.
The verses 4:157-8 declare that contrary to those Jews' boastful claims, Jesus was not crucified NOR KILLED. This rebellious attitude towards Jesus and assumed hatred of him to the point that they even sarcastically call him a prophet in their mocking self-conviction can easily be understood if one considers the depiction that is made of them in the NT. In their vehement rejection of him, they lobbied the Romans to crucify him without evidence. So sure were they of being justified in having Jesus killed that they willingly took upon themselves and their children the responsibility of his harsh penalty, all the while mockingly and sarcastically referring to his kingship to the Jews Matt27. There are several passages where the Quran reflects this cynicism, such as their sarcastic declaration of being hard-hearted to divine guidance 2:88,4:155.
Some have attempted saying that the Quran merely denies that the Jews killed Jesus, not that the crucifixion didnt happen at all, and that the purpose is to show that his death occurred by God's will. However, the verse would not deny both killing and crucifixion had the purpose been to show who was "really" behind Jesus' death. Neither does it at any point present Allah as the real "culprit". The wording denies the idea of Jesus dying in anyway shape or form, whoever makes the claim. If the verse wants to give "credit" to God instead of the Jews, then it still doesnt deny the physical reality of the matter, had Jesus truly been crucified; it doesn't present his execution as a reality at any point. The rabbis, as described in the NT instigated the Romans to have him crucified. Meaning the Jews quoted in the Quran are correct outwardly in their sarcastic self-conviction. The Quran would have been incorrect had it been shifting the blame from them, unto God. Besides, the Jews, being monotheists understand the deeper reality of God being the ultimate cause of all things. While making the statement, they understood that God is in control of causality at all moments and allowed them doing what they think they achieved in regards to Jesus.
The verses in the Quran however clearly dismiss whatever way the disbelievers attempted at Jesus' life, including their desire to crucify him as was common in those days, and they did attempt many ways 5:110 including stoning him. The object of the verses therefore isnt to deny the crucifixion specifically, nor to delve into the Christian, unbiblical dogmas surrounding it, such as it being the necessary atonement for mankind's supposed sins and inherited depravity from Adam.
These strange concepts are indirectly addressed and refuted in verses establishing the principles of non-transmission of sins and individual accountability. The object of these verses is rather to negate the idea that Jesus' opponents succeeded in murdering him by any means, just like they were now attempting with the Ishmaelite prophet. Should they have succeeded it would have defeated God's word and promise concerning the truthfulness of His prophets and their warnings.
Jesus, the messenger sent with an undeniable manifestation of the Truth as well as clear warnings of destruction to befall his rejecters, was protected by Allah like others before him.
God would console his messenger, just as was done with his predecessors, those sent with an undeniable manifestation of the Truth, that they will be protected. Just as Jesus and Ibrahim were preserved from any harm and humiliation when seized by their opponents 5:110,21:68-71,29:24,37:97-8, Muhammad was rescued from the harm and the constant plotting of his enemies 5:67,8:30,33:37 like Salih before him 27:47-53. Allah promised Moses and his brother Aaron, reassuring them prior to their encounter with the greatest tyrant of the earth
40:45,28:35"We will strengthen your arm through your brother and grant you both supremacy so they will not reach you. [It will be] through Our signs; you and those who follow you will be the predominant".
All of them were raised and honoured, and their opponents brought low when the promised divine chastisement came to fruition. See similar passages in the HB Isa49:2,Jer11:18-23,15:20-21,20:11. An important thing to note is that truth ultimately prevails and the will of God established. Believers are eventually made to prevail over the oppressors and disbelievers. This might happen in their lifetime or in the hereafter, in or outside the time of a prophet. The Quran has enshrined this principle in sura Buruj, as it begins by relating the story of those martyred for their faith in God in a pit of fire, and then follows with the destroyed nations to whom prophets were sent. Allah assures us that He does what He intends, and that what matters is the grand scheme of things in which His will reigns supreme
85:1-16"Indeed, the vengeance of your Lord is severe".
Something worthy to note at this point is that the prophet Muhammad, had he been the Quran's author, had nothing to gain and everything to lose in terms of credibility and hope of acceptance among the Christians by making such a claim. Every Christian around him and beyond believed he was crucified, and every Jew, as is depicted from their self-convicting sarcasm, were more than ready to take upon themselves the guilt of his execution. It was to them a kind of cynical slap in the face of their Christian age-long oppressors. The Quran here, in a matter of paramount significance to its audience, as it does in other places, does not seek to accommodate any group of people at the expense of the Truth.
But the whole matter appeared as if they had succeeded in their evil, murdering plots because, among other reasons, Jesus was missing, or as the Quran says God "tawaffa" him, purified him and made him ascend to Heaven. This instead prevented the humiliation that wouldve happened if his enemies got to the body. If they presented it to the people in a humiliated state, leading to a psychological victory for the Israelites
4:158"Allah took him up to Himself".
They couldnt even kill him, nor could they damage his body and God states He would raise him up to himself, meaning that not only his body wouldnt be humiliated but it would be honored by God instead.
God thus lifted Jesus up and did not leave a trace of him with them yet even without proof for their claims, the Israelites that wanted him dead managed to start a rumor that quickly spread and was believed. The resulting confusion was similar to that of the rumor of the prophet Muhammad's death during the battle of Uhud 3:144. Roman crucifixions occured daily and by the hundreds, of any agitators to the point that they would sometimes run out of wood for the crosses. The accusing Jews could easily pass off their boastful claims as fact in those circumstances, regardless of whether they truly believed their own claim or not. This rumor spread among both friends and foes. It is entirely possible at this point that not only the Jews were unaware of Jesus' true whereabouts, but neither were his followers. The confusing absence of a prophet has been a means of testing the followers left behind, whether they would remain on the clear path outlined by the prophet when he was in their midst, maintain his directives, or start innovating in the religion and go back to their sinful ways. This occured with Moses, as he retreated away from his people to receive revelation, just as it did with Muhammad when many fell into despair during the battle of Uhud, and later when he died
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?"
The Nazarenes, like the calf-worshiping Jews thus failed the test of steadfastness in the absence of their prophet. As the rumours of Jesus' death started by his enemies became widespread, his disillusioned followers retrospectively painted the whole thing as a divine masterplan, with all the Christologies that ensued. Those among them that maintained Jewish law were sidelined by Paul's movement very early on, and within just 2 generations the little remnant of Judaism within the Jesus sect was erased. It was supplanted by a wave of converts from the greco-roman world who found in this transformed and readapted original Jewish sect, a favorable echo for their own beliefs, naming this new religion, Christianity.
It is thus meaningless to argue that because the corruptions the Quran denounces were introduced early on, then it follows that these were original teachings of Jesus. Had Moses and Aaron not quickly and violently corrected the corruptions to their teachings, executing the guilty by the thousands, nothing would have prevented the same kind of falsehood to be passed off as "genuine teachings" of Moses, as was done with Jesus
5:117"I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness".
Jesus did not have the occasion to do as Moses and Aaron did very early on so as to prevent the lies attributed to them from becoming "orthodoxy". However, if they escaped Jesus condemnation, it does not mean God was unaware of their evil doings.
Isnt it surprising that the Lord's prayer taught by Jesus himself (as opposed to every other prayer that others taught to say in Jesus’ name), never mentioned Jesus, nor vicarious atonement, nor him as messiah, nor him as intermediary, nor any trinity, among anything else Christological? This foundational prayer is more anti-christian than any passage one may find in the entire Bible.
We're not talking about the lack of Christological references in terms of labels, but in terms of concepts. The prayer is far removed from the ideas established by the Pauline movement, the creeds of the Church Fathers and later councils. Not only are those concepts absent but every sentence of the prayer clashes with mainstream Christian tenets. For example vicarious atonement, not only isnt it mentioned by name or implicitly as a concept, but in addition we have Jesus, who is supposed to be the embodiment of that notion, refuting it
"forgive us our sins, as we have forgiven those who have sinned against us".
No need for Jesus, forgiveness is attained through one's own efforts. The same is conveyed in the parable of the prodigal son Lk15. The unrighteous son is forgiven by his father simply for turning to God in sincere repentance. Not only is he forgiven but he is welcomed with a warm celebration. It is his state of contriteness that brought him back to life, not the blood on the cross "he was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found".
The idea of vicarious atonement stems from the notion of human depravity; none may claim righteousness on his own due to a sinful nature that pollutes every deed and thought. Yet Jesus undermines that notion too; temptation isnt the product of inherent human depravity and satanic influence. Rather it is God, who is perfectly righteous, whom the worshiper asks
"not to lead us into temptation".
Jesus teaches his followers to begin the prayer by calling upon "our" Father who is in heaven, not to the divine son who is on earth. Nothing distinguishes Jesus from a regular believer in terms of sonship to the Father. The same fatherhood that applies to him applies to the others. It is the Father's name only that is to be hallowed, His will is to be done, and He is the Sustainer of the devotees, including Jesus
"Give us today our daily bread".
These innovations might have initiated among Jesus' close circle, through re-interpretations of his teachings, or among the wave of new converts that supplanted them. To this new, outer circle, the claim that he was captured and killed resonated as closer to the truth and a more honest assessment of his disappearance.
His gruesome death became an attractive narrative of heroism and martyrdom not only for the sake of his followers but for the entire human race.
Jesus is portrayed as fearing death and wanting to avoid it Jn7:1,11:54,Luke 22:42. He begged God (himself) 3 times, putting his forehead to the ground, to take his soul before experiencing suffering and death in Matt26:38. He does not want to experience what he was about to go through but nevertheless submits his will to that of the father, whether he decides to make him bear the cup of suffering or not
"Yet not My will, but Yours be done".
Clearly, had he been given the choice, he would have refused "dying for the sins of mankind" despite having supposed foreknowledge of the divine plan of salvation since the beginning of creation, a plan which he himself sketched together with his divine partners. It also shows one of the co-equal partners submitting his will to another. Yet we never see the reverse, with the Father obediently submitting his will to the Son or the Holyspirit. That "hesitation" from Jesus cannot be attributed to his human nature as he himself states that it is his soul that feared and doubted Matt26:38. Then, when on the cross Jesus grieves for God's abandoning him. Even Revelations5 which is sometimes quoted to defend the notion of a predetermined divine masterplan of salvation through Jesus, is in fact speaking in eschatological terms, just as the whole book does. It speaks of the salvation of some people after events of great tribulation, ie the end of times. Then we have Heb5:7 throwing in the ambiguous statement that Jesus' prayers were heard and accepted by God, and this includes the desperate cry to "let this cup pass from" him. The realization of his prayer, his inability to take on the full brunt of the "sins of mankind" came in the form of Simon of Cyrene who relieved Jesus from his cross and carried it half way till Golgotha Matt27:31-33.
This embarrassing change to the divine master plan of salvation forced another author in Jn19:17-18 to have Jesus carrying his own cross, the symbol of mankind's sins, all the way until he reached Golgotha where he was crucified. The cross in fact was not a Christian symbol until the 6th century. Could the whole "Simon of Cyrene" tale be orthodoxy's early response to a story popularised by certain gnostics that it was not Jesus but Simon who had been nailed to the cross?
The predictions Jesus makes as regards his impending death on the other hand are portrayed as willful self-sacrifice. In these versions, we see other inconsistencies. When he tells his disciples, several times and explicitly how he would die, they are taken by complete surprise when the events unfold Matt16,17,20,Mk8,9,10,Lk9,18. Not once are they depicted, following his supposed death, as patiently waiting his predicted resurrection after just 3 days. Neither are they depicted recalling the secret miracle once it unfolds. Even when he appeals to prophecies at the third and last prediction of his death
Lk18:34"The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about".
Clearly, there was a general atmosphere of confusion as to Jesus' disappearance, a confusion which the writers could not deny as it corresponded to the reality they knew about and witnessed. But, because they were writing from the lens that he was crucified, they had to retrospectively paint this confusion as a misunderstanding by the disciples of Jesus' clear predictions. Between Jesus' desire to avoid death, his repeated predictions as to his willful execution, the misunderstandings of the disciples, the story line lacks consistency and seems muddled. We see the same pattern with other major themes retrospectively applied to Jesus, such as his messiahship, again painted as shrouded in obscurity due to the "misunderstanding" of his closest disciples. The simple reason is that the historical Jesus did not go around claiming to fulfil the messianic predictions of the HB. The claim was later made for him. If he did, people would have laughed their lungs off, including the Romans. The Gospel writers, writing at least 50 years after the events knew that what Jesus accomplished had nothing to do with the highly anticipated establishment of the kingdom of God. They were thus left with no option other than painting the whole matter as they did.
Prior to Jesus becoming God, the pagans scoffed at the notion of a human savior dying a cursed death then resurrecting. But the later introduction and spread of the deviant notion of Jesus' divinity made the Christian religion fit more easily into their paradigm.
As the Quran says in the context of Jesus' supposed divine sonship
9:30"they immitate the saying of those who disbelieved before".
Gentiles of the region believed in Mithraism, a religion already spread all throughout Europe and Asia minor centuries prior to the birth of Christianity. Among such beliefs is the death and resurrection of Osiris. Those ritually sharing in that death and resurrection through baptism had their sins remitted. The pagan Roman authorities thus welcomed the new religion seeing it was in congruence with centuries of tradition of dying and/or mutilated savior gods.
As the early church father Justin Martyr conceded
"when we say...Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified, died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus".
Paul, who was at most a hellenezied Jew, was explaining Jesus teachings in ways that were unheard of by Jesus' disciples. Paul's letters were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until 60-90 meaning Paul's theories were already established before the unknown writers of the gospels started their works and earlier Christian thought was quickly branded heretical. The church was so weak that within the same generation of the disciples, this Jewish sect of the Nazarenes, whose distinction from mainstream Judaism was only in the belief that Jesus was the messiah, turned upon its heels, abandoned Jewish law, adopted concepts unheard of anywhere in Judaism. There is a reason why the Gospel writers including Paul do not quote the Hebrew Bible but the Greek Septuagint which was hated by the rabbis as it represented the Hellenization of many Jews of the time. The early church thus became irrelevant very early on following Jesus' departure, due to Paul's efforts at supplanting it, dismissing Jewish law as obsolete, reinterpreting core Semitic concepts of God so as to appeal to his pagan audience.
After Jesus' death, Paul's main problem was to convince his Jewish audience that the messiah's death, without accomplishing any of the messianic criteria, instead of being a failure was actually a necessity. He did so by introducing the doctrine of total depravity, making all humans de facto sinners and therefore in need of an atoning sacrifice Rom7:14-25,Rom3:10-11,5:13,8:7-8,1Cor2:14,Eph2:1-3,Titus3:3. His addressees however already believed in the resurrection of the dead, in a just God who forgave the sins of a penitent heart. Nothing was missing in their system that Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection could fix. Paul's redeeming hero was a redundancy to them, so he was obviously met with fierce resistance wherever he preached his unscriptural ideas. This led him to eventually turn to the gentiles among whom he found a much more favourable audience. All this is evident from a cursory reading of the NT and the writings of Paul. That is how Christianity was shaped, using its target audience's sensitivities all the while toning down to the maximum its Jewish heritage.
The sect that "won" and became "orthodoxy" achieved victory by political rather than epistemic means. The dominant branch was but one among many early, conflicting Christian sects, as even reflected in Paul's letters and the desperate struggles he had with them to maintain control of his own congregations. The process was not a difficult one considering Mithraism's tendency to accommodate with other rival cults, throughout its vast geographical spread, before and after Christianity. Christianity of course wasnt that accommodating, doing everything to supplant it due to the disturbing similarities. Many Church Fathers (Justin, Origen, Tertullian) attempted rationalizing Mithraism's similarities with their religion; "satanic imitations" being the standard explanation. The fine details of those similarities are now lost due to the Christian destructions of all "mithraes" they could put their hands on as well as persecute its followers. The task of reconstructing which themes Mithraism absorbed from Christianity so as to embellish its own narrative, versus what actually pre-dated Christianity, becomes a speculative task. But the presence of such vehement defenses by church authorities reveals their major embarrassment, their discomfort at their opponents' accusations of plagiarism. Instead of engaging their critics in debate, these church fathers and other Christian "orthodox" writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries slandered their opponents with exaggerated or even false charges, shunned them or socially intimidated them. This pattern of engaging their critics is in itself revealing of their own insecurities.
In answer to the video "The Fate of the Jews of Medina (TGP 1)"
After the victory of Badr, the prophet's enemies, declared and hidden, were greatly troubled at the growing political power of the Muslims. They increased their plotting in the most michievious of ways. They would try causing dissensions among the former ennemies of Aws and Khazraj, now united under the banner of Islam, by arousing memories of the terrible war of Bu'ath when the Aws eventually came out victorious against Khazraj. But Muhammad continued to talk to them, emphasizing their Islamic unity and brotherhood until their tears ran down in emotion and they embraced one another. The Quran reminds of this tension in 2:87-89 and further stresses how it was Allah who facilitated the union of the various rival and waring tribes under the prophet's guidance
8:63"had you spent all that is in the earth, you could not have united their hearts, but Allah united them; surely He is Mighty, Wise".
Street fights would errupt between the 2 communities, Muslims and Jews. At one point a Muslim woman was publicly humiliated, her clothes brought down by a group of Jews from the Bani Qaynuqa. The physical altercation that ensued resulted in deaths on both sides, igniting a cycle of revenge killings. This malicious and provocative stance was at complete odds with that of the Muslims towards them.
The prophet went to such extents in respecting his side of the pledge in maintaining a peaceful coexistence, that he for instance rebuked a Muslim who in his argument with a Jew, boasted of Muhammad's superiority over Moses
“It is not your task to go about speaking of the superiority of God’s Messengers in comparison to one another.” Then, the Holy Prophet mentioned a partial superiority of Moses and consoled the Jew."
After that incident with the Muslim woman that led to people dying, the Prophet urged their notables to honor their agreement. Instead of expressing remorse or apologies, being their community's representatives, they responded with arrogance, retracting themselves officially from the accord, challenging the prophet to war and retreating behind their stronghold. In reference to Badr they said
"We are not weak like the Quraysh, we are a people that know fighting until death. You will have an experience of courage when you encounter us".
Islam and its message of universal brotherhood and indiscriminate justice, that knows no boundaries of races, affiliations, or social background, was threatening their political and economic grip, all of which depended on the traditional clan system of the Arabs, as well as the unjust economic system that crushed the weak. They needed to act fast before Islam's popularity would grow bigger. Until now the Muslims were told to pardon and turn away from the treacherous among them 5:13.
But when they retreated behind their fortress and started making preparations for war, the Muslims had to take action in defense
"Among the Jews of Madina, the Banu Qaynuqa were the first to break the treaty which had been settled between them and the holy prophet" (ibn Hisham, and many other independant sources confirm his views).
The Qaynuqa were besieged for 15 days without fighting until they came out, promising to accept the prophet's ruling. This led to the expulsion of the whole tribe from Medina. They were allowed to take all their movable possessions to Syria
8:56-58"Those with whom you make an agreement, then they break their agreement every time and they do not guard (against punishment). Therefore if you overtake them in fighting, then scatter by (making an example of) them those who are in their rear, that they may be mindful. And if you fear treachery on the part of a people, then throw back to them on terms of equality; surely Allah does not love the treacherous".
The prophet of God acts first and foremost according to the divine directives of the Revelation, as is explicitly stated in the verse; those who repeatedly break the agreements, after being overtaken in battle, must be exiled as an example, not killed. As to those from whom one fears imminent treachery, then one may pre-emptively break the agreement. The historical records speak of an ally of the Qaynuqa, Abdullah Ibn Ubayy, as pleading for their banishment instead of a harsher treatment. Even if we consider this report, containing the rejected Waqidi in its chain, then still, there is no indication the prophet thought otherwise than to banish them. At most, what can be said is that ibn Ubayy may have personally assumed that they would be treated more harshly, given their provocations, hence his intervention. The prophet even allowed them the unmerited favor of keeping some of their precious possessions in the process, something not made obligatory in the verse.
Prior to exiting their stronghold, they were also assured that their lives and families would be spared in exchange of their wealth (Muhammad b. Saad). The prophet however neither asked for their death, nor their lives when the matter was settled. These people of Banu Qaynuqa had clearly shown they were untrustworthy and in addition, could instigate worse conflicts by lobbying other tribes. Their expulsion and cutting of ties within the area of the Muslim community was meant at preventing such a possibility.
In answer to the video "The Fate of the Jews of Medina (TGP 1)"
Very soon after their agreement to the peace convention with the Muslims, the Medina Jews started manoeuvering so as to prevent Islam's popularity reaching greater proportions. Through their business relations going back far into pre-islamic days, they were able to instigate and support the Meccans, under the leadership of Karz ibn Jabir al Farhi, to begin harassing the Medina Muslims right up to the outskirts of the city, destroying fruit-bearing trees and carrying away flocks. These actions compelled the prophet to start sending missions to neighboring tribes in order to seek alliances.
Their bitterness would greatly increase with the conversion of a prominent rabbi, Abdullah ibn Salam, along with his household. This event was revealing of the underlying condition of the JEwish elite. Although they forcefully resisted the prophethood of Muhammad, still, in their deepest selves, they knew he had brought the evident truth
6:20,2:146"those to whom We have given the scripture recognize him as they recognize their own sons".
The Quran relates how many of the Israelites would still reject the Revelation sent to Muhammad altough many of their learned men recognized in it the truth foretold in their scriptures and accepted it 26:197. This lead to more and more antagonism between the 2 communities. Rabbis would feint conversion so as to try and ensnare the prophet with their inquiries
25:33"And they shall not bring to you any argument, but We have brought to you (one) with truth and best in significance".
The Quran answers all spiritual inquiries with truth. They would try causing dissensions among the former ennemies of Aws and Khazraj, now united under the banner of Islam, by arousing memories of the day of the Bu'ath war when al Aws vanquished al Khazraj. But Muhammad continued to talk to them, emphasizing their Islamic unity and brotherhood until their tears ran down in emotion and they embraced one another. The Quran reminds of this tension in 2:87-89 and further stresses how it was Allah who facilitated the union of the various rival and waring tribes under the prophet's guidance
8:63"had you spent all that is in the earth, you could not have united their hearts, but Allah united them; surely He is Mighty, Wise".
Although of course the prophet, being full of empathy towards his addressees to whom he wished spiritual salvation, regardless of their ethnical and religious background, he was certainly unhappy for the Jews' rejection of him, just as he wouldnt be pleased with anybody else rejecting his message. This saddness however had nothing to do with rejecting him per se, rather with them suffering spiritual loss
"I adjure you to tell me if you find in that revelation which Allah sent down to You, that you should believe in Muhammad. If you cannot find that in your scripture, no displeasure will fall on you. Guidance will be distinguishable from error, and I invite you to Allah and to His prophet".
This was the prophet's address to the Jews of Khaybar, he would never put any blame on them personally should they reject him. This means that the denial of his message would have no bearing on his personal relationship with them; whether they accept or reject him, their reward or punishment will be with their Lord only. As to the prophet, in both cases, he would live with them in peace, so long as they abide by the agreements. And that is exactly what he did. It is only when they began their war incitments and enemy alliances, that the prophet had to retaliate in defense of his own people. It is their misbehavior on that level that caused the battles that ensued between the 2 communities, not their rejection of him as a prophet.
In answer to the video "The Fate of the Jews of Medina (TGP 1)"
The Jews of Medina (former Yathrib) were waiting for their savior to come. The idea of a human salvific figure is absent from the Torah but becomes prominent in the subsequent books which were written and re-written during their times of oppression, destruction. As they always hoped whenever adversity engulfed them from all sides, they would pray for a promised messianic age to be ushered, ruled by a prophet-king, so as to give them and their religion, dominion over the whole world. In Arabia in particular, as they lost their political ascendant over the pagans, they were vulnerable to coalition attacks. The Quran reflects their cries
2:89"..and aforetime they used to pray for victory against those who disbelieved..".
The passage does not speak of a specific person coming to them as a result of their prayers. Had it done so, it would have confirmed their man-made concepts they created as they lived in humiliation and fear following the divine punishements imposed on them. The verse speaks of the revelation coming to them, confirming their own books. Obviously such revelation would come to them through the agency of a messenger, whom the Quran in 7:157 alludes as mentionned in their books. But in the context of divine help, as is here the case in 2:89, the victory of truth over falsehood and the prevailing of the believers over disbelievers, is a concept present throughout their scriptures as well as the Quran. God helps the believers in His commands and revelations, those oppressed for adhering to the truth and who wage battle in His ways. The Quran here is telling them they will be helped out of their situation should they support the call for truth that has reached them and which confirms their scriptures. Yet they denied it and thus remained abased.
The tribes of Aws and Khazraj, who were aforetime dominated by these very Jews but that had now gained the upper hand over them, knew about their anticipations. They logically thought the Jews were the likeliest people to help and support the prophet of God, given that they, as Arab pagans uneducated in divine scriptures, meaning the least likely to accept him, had wholeheartedly adhered to his message and mission.
These Arabs and former pagans thus expected the Jews would welcome and embrace the prophet with much more enthusiasm. Their hopes however quickly shattered and their expectations to see the Jews join the cause of monotheism versus idolatry turned to disappointment.
The Quran on the other hand, and the prophet didnt expect much from them in that regard. The Quran would relate their past history, especially as regards their own prophets, as well as their going astray after having witnessed outstanding miracles, to show that nothing better could be expected of them.
This was a cautious note to the Muslims of Medina, who were liable to be disheartened by this attitude, making them understand that the Jews would not readily accept Muhammad as the Prophet about whom prophecies has been made in their own Books. They are instead expected to resist him, considering their pattern of disbelief and rebellion. They have been chosen after all, above all nations and for all times to come, in terms of spiritual leadership, so why would they be in need of further guidance, especially coming from a non-selected nation
2:88-90""Our hearts are already full of knowledge..but when there came to them that which they did recognize, they disbelieved in it..Evil is that for which they sold their souls - that they should deny what Allah has revealed, out of envy that Allah should send down of His grace on whomsoever of His servants He pleases; so they returned with wrath upon wrath, and there is a disgraceful punishment for the unbelievers".
Despite their outright rejection of the revelation and its messenger, the whole Muslim community lived in peace with them, according to the terms of the Medina covenant. But the message of Islam was going against their interests, which added to their bitterness towards him. They were particularly hostile against the prophet's denouncation of the capitalist system and the Jewish money lenders behind it.
The more the Arabs stopped taking loans from them and paying interests, a major source of income for them began drying up. In addition to them having lost political power, their economic grip over the life of Medina was loosening.
Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim and Abu Na'aym (in his Dala'ilu 'n-nubuwwah) have narrated from Ibn `Abbas that he said:
"The Jews used to pray for victory against the Aws and the Khazraj by the right of the Messenger of Allah, before he was sent as prophet. However, when Allah raised him from the Arabs, the same Jews disbelieved in him and denied what they used to say about him. Mu'adh ibn Jabal, Bishr ibn Bara' ibn Ma'rur and Dawud ibn Salamah told them: `O Jews! Fear Allah and accept Islam; because it was you who used to pray for victory against us by the right of Muhammad, while we were polytheists, and you used to tell us that he would (soon) be sent, describing to us his attributes.' Salam ibn Mushkim, one of the tribe of Banu an Nadir, said to them: `He has not brought to us anything we know; and he is not the prophet we were telling you about.'
Contrary to the Jewish leaders and notables, the laymen felt attracted to the message of Islam, engaging in constructive exchanges with the Muslims. As they returned full of entusiasm and inquiries to their elders they were instead harshly reprimended for their openness. A community doesn't convert at once, so these elements would fear to be severely ostracized by the rest and thus would most often hide their true feelings
2:76,101"And when they meet those who believe they say: We believe, and when they are alone one with another they say: Do you talk to them of what Allah has disclosed to you that they may contend with you by this before your Lord? Do you not then understand?...And when there came to them an Apostle from Allah verifying that which they have, a party of those who were given the Book threw the Book of Allah behind their backs as if they knew nothing".
Their prophet Nehemiah aforetime reprimended this particular behavior with similar wording
Neh9:26"And they disobeyed and rebelled against You, and they cast Your Law behind their backs, and they slew Your prophets who warned them, to bring them back to You, and they committed great provocations".
As he started his long, truthful and violent admonition for their transgressions and continuous rebellion, Jesus first laid emphasis on the religious elite's prejudiced handling of scriptural knowledge. That attitude not only hindered the common people from the right path, but also blinded their own hearts
Matt23:13" “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to...".
Now that a new revelation came, condemning them not only for their past failures as amply done in their own books, but the present ones as well, drawing a parallel between their past and present attitudes, announcing the consequences of such behavior, the arrogant, blinded by prejudice and attachments to their worldly interests could not reform themselves. They not only rejected the message but also prevented others from it, whether their own people or not, through resorting to manipulations of minds as well as facts, evil incitement, conspiracies and war.
These methods are alluded to in the Quran as well as the history books. This was their attitude towards their own past prophets, so they had no second thoughts at doing the same to a prophet who was a foreigner to them.
In answer to the video "The Fate of the Jews of Medina (TGP 1)"
It is to be noted that in pre-islamic times when the Medinite Arabs of Aws and Khazraj were permanently in a state of war, the Jews of Bani Qaynuqa and Nadir were allied with Khazraj, while the Bani Qurayzah was allied with Al-Aws. Thus, in the course of their warfare, Jews would kill, expell or ransom Jews in alliance with pagans
2:84-85"And when We made a covenant with you: You shall not shed your blood and you shall not turn your people out of your cities; then you gave a promise while you witnessed. Yet you it is who slay your people and turn a party from among you out of their homes, backing each other up against them unlawfully and exceeding the limits; and if they should come to you, as captives you would ransom them-- while their very turning out was unlawful for you".
This attitude was a twofold crime from the viewpoint of Mosaic Law. This however wasnt a novelty in their history. During the revolt of the Maccabees and Jews had joined the pagan enemy ranks, fighting their own people. Even prior, when they were divided, a party joined the Phillistines and fought their fellow brethren, but changed sides when the situation turned to the other Jews' advantage 1Sam13:21. So lacking in faith had they become towards the end of Solomon's reign and after him, and neglectful of what was once their holiest site that under Jehoash the king of Israel, they invaded and plundered their own temple, taking even hostages among the rival kingdom of Judah, the king included 2Kings14:13-14. Again later on the king Pekah of Israel would ally himself to Rezin king of Syria to attack and subdue the Judeans of king Ahaz, killing tens of thousands, taking many more captives among their women and children, as well as loots and plunders. They eventually gave up these loots following a severe rebuke from a prophet among them. King Ahaz of Judah in turn allied with the Assyrians to fight back the Israel-Syrian alliance, which proved to be a double edged sword since he became completely subdued to the Assyrian king, paying him from the Temple's riches 2Kings15,2Chron29.
Even while Jeremiah's prophecy of destruction by the Babylonians was being inflicted, when the king of Judah called for the release of all Jewish slaves, including those held by their priests, they reluctantly abided by the command. Their reluctancy to free their own brethren was such that moments later they turned back upon their word and forcibly recaptured those freed Jewish slaves Jer34:7-11.
Even in such eye opening moments, they still remained obdurate in their disbelief. In the times of Moses, and just as they came out of their Egyptian bondage, they showed similar disdain in freeing their own enslaved brethren Jer34:13-14.
So corrupt and greedy the majority of the elite has always been that, just following the nation's release from the Babylonian captivity, the wealthy would force their poor brethren to sell their own sons and daughters to repay their loans, and would then resell them to the heathen, those pagans whom Moses was instructed to wipe out the face of the earth. The prophet Nehemiah heavily condemned their behavior and urged them to return the children to their families ans cancel the loans they had given to the poor Neh5.
This pattern reveals a deep defect in their outlook on life, summed up in the Quran as such
59:13"You are certainly greater in being feared in their hearts than Allah; that is because they are a people who do not understand".
The Medina Jews feared more the prophet's retaliation for their mischievous activities, instead of fearing God. A sensible person knows where ultimate authority comes from. He will avoid every such thing as may call for God's punishment, even if he has to confront enmity along the way. On the other hand, he will come out to accomplish any duty which Allah has enjoined on him, whether he is opposed and hindered by all the powers of the world.
But a senseless man, devoid of spirituality thinks strictly in wordly terms, without any higher perspective in mind. To him, divine power is an abstract concept while human power is all that matters. They would thus, shortly before the advent of Islam, ransom their mutual captives in obedience to that very same Law and it is this glaring inconsistency to which the Quran alludes next
"..and if they should come to you, as captives you would ransom them, while their very turning out was unlawful for you. Do you then believe in a part of the Book and disbelieve in the other?"
The historicity of the Jews of Yathrib can be divided into 2 main categories, those that arrived much before the common era into the lands of those whom they viewed as their cousins, and those that joined later following the 2nd destruction of the Temple. The community, although split into about 20 tribes with the most prominent being the Qurayza, Nadir and Qaynuqa, was very well established both politicaly and economicaly in the fertile areas of Yathrib. They had built fortresses there, in anticipation of possible invasion by neighboring Arab tribes.
This was before the Aws and Khazraj reached and settled in the centre of Yathrib. Through a game of alliances, the Jewish tribes tried their best to remain as the main source of power in Yathrib.
At one point, Aws and Khazraj asked the Jews for an agreement of peaceful business cooperation, which was accepted as it did not compromise their political and economical ascendant. They in addition benefited from the expertise of the Arabs in the areas of agriculture and business.
Soon later, however, a shift in power occurred in Yathrib, due to demographics, with the Arabs starting to seriously outnumber the Jews. They therefore broke their agreement a number of times and attacked some of Aws and Khazraj which prompted these latter 2 to unite, and in addition to ask for the help of Abu Jubayla the king of Qassan, in modern day Syria. With the help of his army they defeated the Jews of Yathrib and from that point on the tribes of Aws and Khazraj remained in power in Yathrib and the Jews continued to live with them in a powerless position. This is when the enmity between Aws and Khazraj started. According to some historians, aiming to reclaim their power, the Jews of Yathrib were the main cause of this enmity between the two tribes.
The Jews had not only become disunited, but through a game of alliance and incitements among the Aws and Khazraj, they were competing with one another to regain dominion over the city, which led to the previously mentionned wars among Jews. This enmity and the fights that were caused by it continued till when Aws and Khazraj decided to invite the Prophet of Islam to their city.
The migration of the Prophet changed the whole scenario in Yathrib which then was renamed Medina.
This self-contradiction, this favoring of idolatry over monotheism and the encouragement of pagan forces to rise against the monotheistic forces would reach its peak in the Month of Shawwal 5/626 when the Jewish leaders of Bani Nadir and Qaynuqa who were mercifully left to migrate with their wealth and families after their defeat in battle, and settle in Khaybar, covenanted with the leaders of Quraysh (promising them a whole year's crop from their Jewish settlement of Khaybar in case of victory), Kinanah and Ghatafan tribes among others to unite as one front against the Muslims. But that is another story.
