In answer to the video "The Crucifixion 03 - The Crucifixion is Historical"
In a dream Allah
2:124"tried Ibrahim with certain words".
Ibrahim had formerly shown great spiritual resolve by steadfastly opposing the religious practices of his people and relatives, even when they attempted murdering him. He turned away from his nation and migrated. He made the painful step of leaving, by Allah's command, his wife and infant son in an area of dry land, where no food and water or any inhabitants could be found. He was now being tested a step further as an upholder of God's way and will. The aim was this time, through his attachement to that progeny he had so long desired and prayed for, to make him reach the climax of prophethood by becoming the universal leader (Imam) of monotheism 2:124.
This was another step in Ibrahim's journey, freeing himself from desires of prestige, wealth, women and children and turning with total surrender and progressing with complete devotion to the Lord
37:99"Surely I fly to my lord; He will guide me".
Ibrahim was put through this difficult trial when he was already a great Prophet and Messenger of Allah. When he sacrificed his connection to his homeland and idolatrous father, God re-established these broken connections. Ibrahim, the prototype of the religious outcast, was saved from his polytheistic environment, resettled in a better place and granted a righteous offspring. No sooner was all this achieved that once more, all is compromised through a new test of obedience. Would Abraham fall into complacency or be prepared to repeat his former sacrifice of social belonging for the sake of God?
Abraham demonstrated again his unshakeable obedience to God, giving it precedence over human loyalties under all circumstances, just as the subsequent prophets would teach their followers, including Jesus and Muhammad.
Neither he nor his son failed the test of their trust in God; they both willingly set the stage for the sacrifice. Ismail, aware of the hardship ahead humbled himself to God, does not give himself any credit in the matter, instead asked to be increased in patience 37:102. Contrast this attitude of Ismail with the Biblical account where the son of the sacrifice is a passive participant. Up to the last moment when Abraham was about to slit his throat, he is unaware of the divine command and of his father's intentions towards him Gen22.
Ibrahim then placed his only beloved son, raised his hand with the knife but was stopped from going further
37:105"you have made the vision true..Most surely this is a manifest trial".
This shows that the reality of Ibrahim's vision was that he was GOING to sacrifice his son and not that he had sacrificed him. The act of slaughtering was therefore not part of the divine vision since it was not needed for its fulfilment, rather the preparedness to do it amounted to its fulfilment. God did not want him to sacrifice his son, but wanted to detach his heart fully, test his trust for a higher objective that included the dedication of Ismail (and his descendants through him) to the worship of Allah.This is Islam's essence, God wants nothing from His servants other than that they submit themselves to Him totally, with nothing too precious to be given up, including life itself. When both Ibrahim and Ismail demonstrated their Islam, what was left was flesh and blood, which the Quran says is secondary compared to submission 22:37 and which was thus substituted by another type of flesh and blood.
Again, the Quran never says that Allah ordered Ibrahim to sacrifice his son, but speaks of Ibrahim being tried with "certain words" like Adam received 2:37"some words" that taught him how to perform repentance. The dream was symbolic and its fulfilment consisted in the preparedness in sacrificing his son, just like the fulfilment of the prophet Joseph/Yusuf's symbolic dream of celestial bodies bowing before him consisted in having his close family members prostrating to him
12:4,100"When Yusuf said to his father: O my father! Indeed, I saw eleven planets and the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating to me...And he raised his parents upon the throne and they fell down in prostration before him, and he said: O my father! this is the significance of my vision of old; my Lord has indeed made it to be true".
Ishmael was ransomed with a great sacrifice 37:107. The text does not say what that sacrifice was and what is it that made it great but as we continue reading, we see a clear correlation with the great institution of yearly sacrifice at the hajj and this heavenly ransom. It is the prime symbol by which Abraham is commemorated, as stated in the next verse
37:108"and we left for him a good name among the succeeding generations".
Until now and throughout the Muslim world, the courage and trust of Ibrahim in his Lord, his complete detachment from all worldly benefits, including the most precious gifts for God's sake, are remembered through the day of sacrifice ('id al adha). The theological significance of both the near sacrifice and the settlement of Ishmael away from Canaan had the clear purpose of making Abraham the leader(imam) of mankind and the establishment of a monotheistic sanctuary that would eventually guide mankind to the Abrahamic path.
So the whole thing had nothing to do with sin atonement, as retrospectively claimed by the NT writers that applied the incident to Jesus' death. This selective application, considering that Abraham's son was never sacrificed but rather saved by God, also ignores the unequivocal mosaic prohibition of human sacrifices of any kind Deut12:30-31,18:9-12,Jer19:4-6. It is an act of abomination and among the explicit examples given is that of the sacrifice of a son by his father, which eerly resembles the trinitarian idea. God's anger towards this action is because He never commanded such a thing, not because they were made to another deity. God did not command Abraham to sacrifice his son in Genesis, just as He did not command the sacrifice of Ishmael in the Quran. In Genesis it says, to "take him up", using ambiguous words as a means by which Abraham's trust in God is tested. The purpose was for Abraham to understand God's will based on His former promises.
Neither did the sacrifice have for purpose to establishment a covenant. This had occurred prior, and included Ishmael. Isaac's particularity from a covenantal perspective is the land grant to his descendants, of which Ishmael wasnt part of. This, even the Quran agrees with; the Israelites, because of Abraham's obedience, were promised to be settled in the holy land, as a matter of test, whether they would remain on the straight spiritual path or not. Further, following the near-sacrifice, Abraham is told
Gen22:16-18"I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me".
None of those divine blessings apply to the Israelites, while all can easily reflect the trajectory of the Ishmaelites, and the climax being the revival of the Abrahamic way with the rise of the last Ishmaelite prophet.
To further elaborate on the incompetence of the transmitters of biblical tradition prior to it having been put unto writing, in Gen17:1-19 after announcing Isaac's futur birth, God promises to establish through his line
"an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him".
How could God then demand Isaac's sacrifice while Abraham knew Isaac would live and have many descendants? Why would God change his name from Avram/exalted father to Avraham/father of nations, in connection to that promise and then almost immediately after request him to sacrifice his "only son"? It would render the whole goal of the sacrifice as a test of his loyalty to God meaningless. Because of this absurdity, the Talmud presents different opinions with some suggesting that it was actually Abraham that was testing God and not the other way around, since Abraham was already aware that God had made a promise to him through Isaac. This is because a valid test is when one isnt sure of the outcome.
That difficulty in the text reflects down to the NT in Hebrews 11 which attempts to explain a contradiction. If God himself promises Abraham a covenant through Isaac, there is no reason for him to think God is a liar. Abraham will simply go on with the command all the while knowing the outcome (Isaac will live and fulfill the covenant). That is in fact exactly what Hebrews11 suggests, postulating that Abraham even thought beforehand that God would raise Isaac back from the dead after the sacrifice in order that the covenant be fulfilled through his line, just as He had promised prior to the test.
It may be argued that this objection applies to Ismail too as he was also promised many children but the difference is that Isaac's promise of many descendants was made BEFORE his birth, whereas Ismail was already born and THEN the promise was made, meaning it happened AFTER the event of the sacrifice.
In answer to the video "The Crucifixion 03 - The Crucifixion is Historical"
The claim that Ishmael and Hagar were cast into Paran as a result of some wife jealousy is patently false, and as the Quran states, Ishmael was re-located by the command of God for a particular purpose, by Abraham, and neither were there conflicts between the wives or the brothers who are even depicted as attending their father's funeral together in the HB itself Gen25:9.
This means, and just as the Quran states, there were frequent trips throughout the years between the 2 locations, where both Abraham and Ishmael resided, involving at least Abraham as per the Quran, and implicitly Ishmael as per the HB since he was aware of his father's condition.
Abraham in addition, would never commit an act so be-smearing of any sensitive person. People dont just send their other wife and child into the midst of the wilderness to end the bickering of their wives. If this was the case, Abraham would have simply let Hagar and Ishmael reside in some tent in a nice place and not the desert wilderness, where they were to suffer from extreme thirst to the point the infant child, in addition ill on account of Sarah's evil eye, was on the verge of death.
But the scribes needed to depict Abraham as giving the "final order" as it would be tantamount to declaring Ishmael not a legitimate heir. Abraham was this way openly dissatisfied with Ishmael's actions and behavior, and all this with God in the background giving the directive
Gen21:12"in all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall seed be called to thee".
As a side note, although some progressive religious feminist Jews like presenting this verse as if women should sometimes be listened to and highly regarded, it isnt so in their own Talmudic writings, where there "sages" depict them as secondary to men and should be especially disregarded in spiritual matters (Bava Metzia 59a). One can only wonder why would God depose Ishmael from his birthright due to some mistreatment of his younger brother but on the other hand maintain the favors bestowed upon Isaac and subsequent Israelite prophets despite their reported treacheries and evil deeds.
Anyway, now that it has been established that Ishmael isnt part of any inheritence, cast away geographically and stripped from his birthrights by his own father, the scribes, obviously writing long after the events could not but mention his being made into a seperate nation Gen21:13.
And Abraham is not a typical human being, in the Quran's words
11:75"forbearing, tender-hearted, oft-returning to Allah".
He is a prophet, known for his empathy, piety and obedience to God, as well as notorious in the Bible for his arguing with YHWH himself to spare the lives of innocent strangers Gen18 and yet here he is suddenly incapable of pleading with a wife for his own beloved, and sick son. To claim he would place his wife and child in the desert for the sake of the petty jealousy of Sarah is a smearing campaign. It isnt normal behavior, let alone behavior for a Prophet of God. The scribes knew this so although they speak of Abraham's reluctancy Gen21:9-11, he nevertheless submits to his wife's alleged request and casts his beloved firstborn -heavily ill on top of that if one is to believe the Jewish tradition quoted earlier- into the wilderness. And as is often the case in the Hebrew Bible, God Himself is taking sides in those tribal conflicts
"Be not displeased concerning the lad and concerning your handmaid; whatever Sarah tells you, hearken to her voice, for in Isaac will be called your seed".
The Quran and the traditions state that it was for a clearer plan of which we see evidence today in the manifestation of the altar in Mecca known as the Kaaba. It is the prime symbol of the oneness of God throughout the whole world and will forever be, until the Day of Judgement.
Abraham's divine blessings indiscriminately extending to the righteous among his offspring, Ishmael's vital role in making this possible through his willing submission during the test of the sacrifice, all this clearly was against the scribes' tribal prejudice and notion of exclusive, unconditional choseness.
In answer to the video "The Crucifixion 03 - The Crucifixion is Historical"
Abraham asking God that
"Ishmael might live before thee"
has a specific meaning, besides the affectionate connotation. Being "before the Lord" or "in His presence" applies in Hebrew bible terminology to anything OFFERED to God or anyone DEDICATED to His service Gen17:1,Deut10:8,Exod28:35,29:11,42,23,26,1Sam2:30,2Chron7:17 and throughout Leviticus.
Accordingly, the firstborn and "only son" Ismail was prepared for sacrifice then settled and resided beside the altar of Mecca, dedicated to the One God's service. Every Jewish translation and rabbinic comentary agrees with the fact that in Gen17:19 God accepted Abraham's request that Ishmael be dedicated to serve the Lord.
The way this promise manifested itself obviously is a mystery to Jewish scriptures but not to the Quran 2:123-9,14:35-41 and Muslim tradition. The promise came true with the establishement of the Kaaba by both Ibrahim and Ismail, and the latter's settlement at the temple.
Per the Torah, it is Sarah who in the first place got Abraham to marry Hagar in order for him to bear a child Gen16. Upon her pregnancy, it is reported that Hagar started despising Sarah, so she complained to Abraham who replied
Gen16:6"Your servant is in your hands, Do with her whatever you think best".
So she was sent away in the wilderness but came back shortly after, when God told her to
Gen16:9"Go back to your mistress and submit to her".
After Isaac's birth, the situation became unbearable between the two sons because of Ishmael's misbehavior towards his brother. At that point the Talmudic smearing campaign against Ishmael becomes humorous, he is then not only a "young" idolater but also an adulterer (Rashi on Prov19:26). Seeing this situation, Sarah asked Abraham to
Gen21:10"Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac".
Abraham accepted her request and sent Hagar with his firstborn Ishmael, food and water all on her shoulders
"and he took bread and a leather pouch of water, and he gave [them] to Hagar, he placed [them] on her shoulder, and the child, and he sent her away; and she went and wandered in the desert of Beer sheba".
As is clear in the wording of the verse and as understood in traditional Jewish interpretation, all elements mentionned are placed upon Hagar. This includes Ishmael who is now around 15years old!
The Jewish traditions state that Hagar's carrying of her child along with her food and water reserves was due to Ishmael being incapacitated by Sarah's evil eye cast upon him Gen. Rabbah 53:13. Just as with the invented dialogue between Abraham and God regarding which "only son" was meant, this obviously is an attempt at explaining away the absurdity of having a woman wandering in the dry desert heat, carrying her 15year old grown up boy and her meager provisions. When the meager means of subsistence tarried, and because of the debilitating sickness, Hagar
"cast the child under one of the bushes".
She couldnt bare to
"see the death of the child".
There is obviously no reason to assume that a healthy supposedly 16 year old teenager's life would be threatened by lethal dehydration that fast, faster than his mother. Unable to weave out from the inconsistencies of their corrupt story, the rabbinic commentators painted themselves into a corner, forced to cast even Sarah whom they revere as superior to Abraham in terms of revelational experience (exod. rabb. 1:1 tan. shem. 1) into a bad light. Sarah is the one who invoked some evil occult science that caused Ishmael to become severely ill and unable to walk.
Eventually
"God heard the voice of the lad" and told Hagar to "Rise, pick up the lad and grasp your hand upon him".
All these are obviously not the description of a 15-16 year old teenager but of an INFANT, as attested by the numerous Islamic traditions,
"Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: The Prophet said, “May Allah bestow His Mercy on the mother of Ishmael! Had she not hastened (to fill her water-skin with water from the Zam-zam well), Zam-zam would have been a stream flowing on the surface of the earth.” Ibn ‘Abbas further added, “(The Prophet) Abraham brought Ishmael and his mother (to Mecca) and she was suckling Ishmael and she had a water-skin with her.’".
The Hebrew hay-ye-led used to describe young Ishmael in that passage Gen21:14-19 is the same as the one used for Isaac when he was 2 years old as well as Moses when he was placed upon the river as an infant Ex2:3.
Another interesting observation is that Jewish tradition, firmly based on calculation from the HB, state that Rebecca was married to Isaac when she was 3 and he was 40. Isaac was 37 at the event of the near-sacrifice. Rebecca was born straight after that. Isaac was married to Rebecca when he was 40 Gen25:20 meaning 3 or 4 years after her birth.
And yet these calculations, despite their accuracy do not agree with the descriptions that are made of her prior to her marriage, which clearly denotes physical and mental maturity Gen24. This is the kind of internal inconsistency that happens when tradition is neglected, partially forgotten, inappropriately handled and transmitted, let alone purposefully tampered with.
The whole story is that of Hagar desperately fearing that her infant baby would die. Isaac wouldn't even have been born at the time for the incident that is alleged to have happened in verse 12.
If the incident was related to Isaac being born, Ishmael would NOT have been an infant at the time he was cast out.
It should also be noted that Beersheba was a place well known to Hagar, Ibrahim having lived there with her for long. Waterwells were dug all throughout the region and even by Ibrahim. All these could not have been unknown to Hagar. She could therefore have obtained further water, after a little search, from any of the many wells in the area, some of them she was very familiar with. And yet she is depicted as desperately wandering in search of water to no avail, to the point she cast the child under one of the shrubs until
"God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water".
It is worthwhile noting here yet another attempt at character assassination by the scribes, in their comentaries and oral tradition as quoted by Rashi, in order to minimize to the utmost any positive reference to Ishmael. In relation to that divine inspiration to Hagar, they quote the angels themselves protesting God's revealing of the well's location to Hagar Gen.rabbah
53:14"O Lord of the universe, for one who is destined to kill your children with thirst, You are binding up a well?! And He answered them "What is he now, righteous or wicked?" They replied "Righteous" He said according to his present deeds i judge him".
This other ridiculous "divine dialogue" also bellies the notion in their own traditions, cited earlier, that Ishmael at the time was an idolatrous adulterer.
Further, the essence of the order to banish Ishmael, per the Torah was to have only Isaac as Abraham's heir, while Ismail and his descendants should settle in and populate another land. How then could they have been settled in Beersheba which was then within the sphere of Ibrahim’s and Sarah’s activities? Hagar and Ismail could only have been, and were indeed consigned to an unknown, far-away and unsettled land. The Paran mentioned in the Genesis as the place where they finally settled could not simply have been any Paran in and around Beerseba and Sinai.
In answer to the video "The Crucifixion 03 - The Crucifixion is Historical"
The first, most "in your face" oddity is God asking Abraham to sacrifice his Gen22:2,12"only son" Isaac. This would mean he had no son other than the one to be sacrificed. Yet this same book states Ismail, Abraham's firstborn son was 14 years older than Isaac, the supposed "only son" Gen17:17,24,25,18:10.
In the presence of his older brother Ishmael, the literal, firstborn and legitimate "only son" could never, at any point, have been Isaac.
Another inconsistency resulting from the identification of Isaac with the son of the sacrifice is that the HB states Abraham had to journey from Beerseba where he dwelt with Isaac before and after the event of the sacrifice Gen21:31-34,22:19 to mourn Sarah's death in Canaan Gen23:2. Was Sarah living away from both husband and son all this time or just after the sacrifice and why? Jewish tradition suggests she dwelt in Canaan before Isaac's near sacrifice since it is this news that saddened her to the point it caused her demise Gen.Rabbah58:5. The only way she could have known of the incident while in Canaan was if Abraham and Isaac had left for the location of sacrifice (ie Moriah) from Canaan itself. However we are told Abraham and his "only son" left for the sacrifice from Beerseba, not from Canaan. And by the way, it would have never taken Abraham 3 days to reach Moriah in Jerusalem, from his location near Hebron, which is less than a day's walk.
The only way for all these conflicting elements to come together is to say that Abraham had left alone from Beerseba to the location where he had settled his "only son", and from there to the location of the sacrifice.
The Quran and the traditions say he left to Mecca where he had settled his firstborn Ismail, and from there to Marwah nearby, for the sacrifice. Interestingly, this Marwah which the HB calls "Moriah" is located in 2Chron3 in Jerusalem and yet when David purchases the site later on from a Jebusite, neither the writer, David, the owner, the angels, nor God or any prophet make a connection between that site, and one of the most significant locations to Judaism, the place where the event of the near sacrifice occurred. Instead it is simply labelled the "threshing floor" of the future Temple.
Some Judeo-Christian apologists have tried brushing away the literal and exclusive meaning of "only son" by invoking an unwarranted, textually unsupported metaphorical interpretation. Isaac was the "only son" left with Abraham since Ishmael was allegedly "cast away" along with Hagar. Others say Isaac was the "only son", not of Abraham as per the words in Genesis, but "of the covenant" (although Ishmael was also previously included in a covenant as will be shown below).
All these suggestions, besides contradicting the meaning of the phrase as used in other places in the HB (see Zech12:10 for example), contradict even the Jewish oral traditions which, actually shows that the rabbis understood the problem of associating Isaac with the phrase.
But like recent apologists they must resort to the most absurd contortions of the text to make the phrase "only son" fit to Isaac. They firstly present Abraham as perfectly understanding the meaning of the expression in a concrete, not figurative way, since he asks whether it is Hagar or Sarah's only son that God means. Notice the clever diversion, making it sound as if the command to take "your son, your only son" was issued to Sarah or Hagar, while it was issued to Abraham. Why would Abraham need to know whether it is Sarah or Hagar's only son when the command was directed at him alone, meaning it was HIS only son that is intended?
Secondly, knowing themselves that it is the concrete meaning that is intended, create a surrealistic dialogue where Abraham confuses God's command to him specifically into an order that includes his wives. The dialogue supposedly cuts the flow of Gen22:2 and comes right after "take your son" in order to prepare the ground for the application of the phrase to Isaac:
(Sanh. 89b, Gen. Rabbah 39:9, 55:7)"He [Abraham] said to Him,“ I have two sons.” He [God] said to him,“ Your only one.” He said to Him,“ This one is the only son of his mother, and that one is the only son of his mother.” He said to him,“ Whom you love.” He said to Him,“ I love them both.” He said to him,“ Isaac.”
One doesn't need to be told how forced on the story this 'explanation' is. But this oral tradition stresses the important point that the phrase was understood in that particular context in a literal, concrete way; it wasnt the figurative "only son" left with Abraham when Ishmael was sent away, it wasnt the figurative "only son" of the covenant. Abraham needed to know if God meant the literal only son of Hagar or the literal only son of Sarah. What this Talmudic tradition also shows is that Ibrahim loved both his sons equally and saw both Ismail and Isaac as equals and legitimate sons of his. This is in accordance with the mosaic law in Deut21:15-17.
Some modern Jewish translations though, to escape the difficulty of the phrase "only son", attach a specificity to it "the only one you love" ie (Ishmael was not loved). Neither the Midrash, nor the Talmud, nor even ancient Rabbinical authorities understand the verse in that way. This is not only incorrect grammatically, but also textually since many passages reflect Abraham's love of his firstborn. In fact in the whole pre-binding narrative the only love one can see is the one Abraham had for Ishmael, obviously the son he so dearly desired and that came in answer to his prayers, while he seems distant from his second son Isaac.
When God granted Abraham's wish of a son, he named him Ishmael meaning "God hears" in hebrew, because Ishmael was the answer of God to Abraham's prayer for a righteous son as reflected in both the HB Gen15:2 and the Quran 37:100-1. In Gen22:2 the child to be sacrificed is the one "whom you love", this love for the firstborn Ishmael is reflected in Gen17:17-18 where Abraham's reaction to God announcing a second miraculous birth, that of Isaac is
"O that Ishmael might live before thee".
It is expected for a firstborn to hold a special place in parents' hearts especially in the case of Abraham's old age who begged God for a righteous son. This adds to the relevancy of the test in relation to Ishmael, as well as the statement "whom you love". Further, from a legalistic perspective the sanctity of the firstborn (human or else) is a recurrent them in the bible Gen4:4,Numb8:17-18,Ex13:1-2.
We interestingly find in the book of Jubilees (second temple retelling of Genesis and Exodus that was considered cannonical by Ethiopian Jews and Christians), that the Lord praises Abraham for “not refus[ing] me your first-born son whom you love"
What is even more revealing is how Jewish oral tradition explains the defeated rebellious Moabite king Mesha's offering of his firstborn in sacrifice 2Kings3:27 it was to emulate Abraham's offering of his only son, his firstborn:
In the Pesikta of the section of Shekalim it is expounded that he asked his servants ([in] Pesikta [and] Yalkut: his astrologers), “What is the character of this nation, that miracles such as these were performed for them?” They replied, “Their forefather, Abraham, had an only son. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him, Sacrifice him before Me, and he wanted to sacrifice him to the Holy One, Blessed be He.” He said to them, “I too have a first born son. I will go and sacrifice him to the gods.”
Further, throughout their history of straying into the ways of the neighboring polytheistic nations, among the practices which they readily assimilated was children sacrifice which they adapted into their own tradition by offering the firstborn to the idol. See Rashi on Ezek20:31,39. Another interesting observation is that among the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is a fragment 4Q225 with an alternate version of the story, where Ishmael never appears on the scene prior to the binding of Isaac, making Isaac the true and literal "only son". The writer was aware of the inconsistency and obviously desired to fix it by changing the original text.
As to Isaac qualifying as an "only son" due to Ishmael being supposedly of illegitimate birth. Nothing in the mosaic law states that the child of a concubine is illegitimate or of a "lesser birth" than one born of a normal marriage. Had it been the case, it would defeat the whole purpose of the union, initiated and endorsed by Sarah herself. The purpose was to ensure a male heir to the childless couple.
Ismail was thus born of a legitimate union with Hagar whom he took as a wife Gen16:3. Hagar was the princess daughter of an Egyptian King according to even some Rabbinical traditions. As a side note, Solomon became allied to the Egyptian king through marrying his princess daughter 1Kings3:1 and loved her more than his other numerous wives 1Kings11. There are other such recorded unions, between Israelites and daughters of Egyptian nobility 1Chr4:18. David's great grandmother, Ruth, was a Moabite princess that preferred converting to Judaism and live as an ordinary member of the comunity. Her piety and good manners were well known, a book of the biblical cannon is named after her.
Abraham's marrying the daughter of a foreign nation's nobility is therefore certainly not something illegitimate or odd for the ancient people, including the Israelites. But blinded by their tribal hatred, they still argue that Ishmael was illegitimate due to a supposedly low birth to a foreign servant. Yet Ishmael is referred as Abraham's seed, taken to be circumsized, then distinguished as his son next to the purchased male slaves Gen17:23-27. Also, according to Deut21:15-17 the traditional rights and privileges of the first born son are not to be affected by the social status of his mother.
The Hebrew text's successive promises of blessing to Ibrahim's offspring and multiplying Ismail's progeny into a great nation Gen12,17 was something the Israelites writing the stories of the patriarchs much later than the events, could not ignore Gen21:21,25:9-18.
By the time the scribes were busy compiling the Torah, Ismail had already multiplied and his progeny had already established princes and nations throughout the region. But just as they had to admit their racial affinity with the Bedouins of the Great Peninsula, at the same time they needed to degrade them by tracing their origin to a slave-concubine of their common ancestor, Abraham.
In answer to the video "The Crucifixion 03 - The Crucifixion is Historical"
The event, as reported in the Bible is one of the the most glaring displays of tribal prejudice by the Bani Israel, who are known for their tribalism, towards their own Israelite brethren and more blatantly against their brethren of Bani Ishmael.
The Quran addresses this unjust behavior of theirs after giving a detailed account of the achievements of Ibrahim and Ismail, including their construction of the first Temple of monotheism, the Kaaba
2:140"And who is more unjust than he who conceals a testimony that he has from Allah? And lah is not at all heedless of what you do".
Similarly after mentioning the Safa and the Marwa as a sign and a place of pilgrimage in remembrance of the exact location where Hagar and Ismail were settled and guided to the Zamzam source, the Quran turns again to those of the Jews who conceal the truth 2:159.
The settlement of a place dedicated to propagate the Abrahamic legacy away from the sacred Jewish land, and established by their non-Israelite brethren, undermines the racist ideology prevalent throughout their scripture. This racism, besides having fueled all kinds of intertribal hatred among their own Israelite brethren, did not even spare the pure monotheism which they claimed to uphold, by turning the God of all mankind into an ethnical monolatrous deity.
Before detailing how the Abrahamic connection to Mecca and the Kaaba was distorted, the first thing to address is a recurrent question by Judeo-Christian apologists; how and when did the corrupt version of the patriarchs make it to the written Biblical text? The simple logical answer is that these corruptions were first transmitted orally, as would any lie be repeated and exaggerated, until the matter was obscured beyond recognition as the generations passed through successive periods of destruction, enslavement, tumult and exile.
The introduction of just one of many blatant falsehoods in their scriptures, is revealed by scrutinizing all related signs they could not blot out. These signs most often attest to carelessness in the transmission of religious knowledge, but also many times deliberate distortions fueled by their racial hatred. That disfigured version was eventually put in writing when Genesis was first composed, around the same time different parts of the Torah were written by priests and scribes in the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah during the First Temple period and the Babylonian Exile. This occured very far removed in time and space, let alone the Persian and Hellenistic cultural environment, and social conditions than the time of Moses, let alone Abraham. Scholars place that first redaction anywhere from the 9th to 6th centuries BCE, most probably the 7th which happens to coincide with the discovery of a scroll which nobody knew what it was until it was ascertained that it was the forgotten Torah 2kings22,23.
How uncanny that this unknown document suddenly reappears around the same time the Torah is believed to have been written and compiled. Most of these parts were stitched together by Ezra the Scribe to create a single historic narrative and legal code for the returning exiles. These authors were not writing from historical sources but were reflecting their own ideas, ideologies, cultural background, and rampant prejudices, as well as obviously their historical context.
The Quran however sheds light on the approximate period where the prejudice against Ismail began to grow among the Israelites
2:133-4"were you witnesses when death visited Yaqoub, when he said to his sons: What will you serve after me? They said: We will serve your god and the god of your fathers, Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq, one Allah only, and to Him do we submit. This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did".
In the HB, this particular section of Jacob's story, his last moments among his family, is known among biblical scholars as one of the most convoluted and problematic accounts of the Torah, betraying the conflation of multiple traditions which the scribes tried harmonizing.
As the Quranic version makes it clear, up to the time of Jacob and the first few generations that followed, Ismail's rightful place in prophetic history was recognized. What is also interesting here is how the Quran absolves a prophet of God, Jacob, from any type of prejudice, let alone tribal, and shows that his utmost priority in regards to his sons is that they worship the one true, universal God as opposed to the tribal monolatrous Jewish religion later grafted into the religion of Ibrahim, Isaac and Jacob.
What is remarkable is the manner in which the Quran, in its usual pattern of employing words with surgical precision, subtly maintains the idea of a universal religion proclaimed by the Israelites' ancestors. When it quotes the prophet Yusuf/Joseph citing his physical relatives Ibrahim, Isaac and Jacob he leaves no ambiguity as regards the universality of the religion of these noble figures. He states that the same uprightness God favored him and his ancestors with, was equally bestowed on all of mankind
12:38"And I follow the religion of my fathers, Ibrahim and Ishaq and Yaqoub; it beseems us not that we should associate aught with Allah; this is by Allah's grace upon us AND ON MANKIND, but most people do not give thanks".
In answer to the video "The Crucifixion 03 - The Crucifixion is Historical"
The sequence in 37:99-113 shows Abraham asking God for a son. Ishmael, whose name itself means "God-hears", was the only one from his progeny that Ibrahim prayed God for. And this hapenned early on in Ibrahim's life, as he set himself to leave his land and people, disconnecting himself from his nation. He then naturally begged God to provide him with a righteous child so as to restore this broken connection. God directly answers the prayer, appeasing the heart of his devout servant. But later on, when Allah was about to raise Ibrahim to the status of guide/imam of mankind, father and son are put through a test. It occured once the boy reached his working age (which corresponds with Ismail's age of 13-14 right before the birth of isaac). When they both willingly fulfilled the command, God blessed Abraham with another son, Isaac as a reward. This concluding announcement of Isaac's birth would have been a redundancy had it been mentionned a few verses earlier. Also, the good news of Isaac came at a much later time in Ibrahim's life 11:72.
The network of Quranic evidence together, all point to Ismail as the son of the sacrifice, while none, within the Book, support the Isaac view. The strongest argument in support of that later opinion is that the unnamed son is a "good news" to Ibrahim, while Isaac is also twice described as "good news" 37:112,51:28. This only works assuming Ishmael was no "good news", which he certainly was, as explained earlier.
Further, the unnamed son is described in the same passage as forbearing and steadfast, like Ismail is 21:85. This fits the character of one going through a difficult test. Isaac is never qualified as such. Similarily, Ismail is one messenger prophet who was
19:54"truthful to his promise".
The stress laid on that quality is due to him fulfilling a word which would lead to what he thought meant to give up his own life in obedience to the divine will
37:102-3"O my son! I have seen in a vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills, one of the steadfast!" So when they had both submitted..."
The reports stating that the sacrificed is Isaac are part of the Israeliyyat transmitted by those who converted among them like Kaab al-Ahbar and it was only transmitted as sign of trust. None of those reports go back to the prophet or his companions. Reuven Firestone, who is the leading scholar quoted by misinformed critics, admits that those opinions endorsing Isaac which he deems are earliest, were developped in a biblical milieu when
"Early Muslims naturally turned to Biblicists for information regarding legends found both in the Quran and the Bible".
All later opinions endorsing the Isaac theory eventually go back to such discarded reports that fooled them. With the conversion of many believers of former scriptures to Islam, the early Muslim authorities went to great lengths trying to curb the influence of Israeliyyat on Quranic exegisis and traditions. Although they could not completely stop the phenomenon, one notable example is that of the 4th Caliph Ali who threatened to flog those that interpreted David's encounter with the litigants in the Quran in light of the Biblical tradition.
That however did not stop some of the classical commentators from doing so. Every book of exegesis (Yusuf Ali's commentary is often misrepresented and misquoted, he does not endorse the Isaac theory) or biography or even history would mention the argument that took place on the topic. However, some would follow the argument by outlining the truth and others wouldn't add any commentary.
Many, most of those quoted by Islam critics are even found sometimes on both sides of the argument and this is because they were reporting both opinions. The most classic examples are those often quoted from Tabari, such as reports from Abu Kurayb, Ya’qub, Ibn Humayd or Ibn Bashshar who all relate both sides of the argument.
Reuven Firestone himself admits that
"Most of al-Tabari’s traditions, however, place the location of the Sacrifice in the area of Mecca" and that "The battle between the two kinds of exegesis was probably won by the Mecca-Ishmael school even before the time of al-Tabari".
As he notes, even those faulty reports endorsing Isaac place the sacrifice in and around Mecca, which shows the baselesness of their opinions. The strongest reports going back to pillars of Islamic scholarship all endorse the position that the sacrificed was Ishmael, the likes of Ali, Ibn Umar, Abu Hurayrah, Abu Tufayl, Saad Ibn Jubayr, Mujâhid, al-Sha'by, Al-Hasan al-Basri, Muhammad Ibn Kaab al-Qardhy, Saad Ibn al-Musayyab, Abu Jaafar Muhammad al-Bâqir, Abû Sâlih, al-Rabî' Ibn Anas, Abû Amr Ibn al-Alâ', Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and others.
The unanimous position of the scholars of hadith is that the Sacrificed is Ishmael. This is supported by Quran, sahih reports from the Companions and Followers and reports rated Marfu' (tacit approval) of the Prophet.
This opinion was famous among the Arabs before the advent of Islam and it was transmitted from generation to generation in tawatur and it was also mentioned in the pre islamic poetry of Umayyah Ibn Abi al-Salt.
The Muslim scholars have solved this case a long time ago and, very early in the history of Islam, the popular Islamic tradition has integrated the fact that Ishmael was the sacrificed.
In answer to the video "The Crucifixion 03 - The Crucifixion is Historical"
This youtuber is attempting a poor parallel with the scapegoat ritual. It is the closest parallel one can make between Jesus' sin sacrifice and the HB is the scapegoat sacrifice Lev16. It happens on a day called The Day of Atonement/Yom kippur done each year. Levitical, Aaronic priests must preside Ex29:9, not pagans as what happened to Jesus. Neither was Jesus an Aaronic priest, since he was from Judah. The apologetic counter argument that Jesus had the Melchizedek priesthood and thereby could offer up himself as a sacrifice is useless in this case.
A non-Aaronic order of priesthood, regardless of its tribal origin has no relevancy to the requirements. Melchi-tzedek by the way is a description, not a name. It means "righteous king". Although individual offerings were brought for the expiation of specific, unintentional sins on Yom kippur, the offer brought on Yom Kippur that cleansed all sins (as in what Jesus is supposed to have accomplished) is the offer where the scapegoat was sent ALIVE into the wilderness, symbolicaly carrying away the sins.
Even in that case, somewhat close to Jesus' sacrifice, the shedding of blood is not even an obligation for sin atonement. And even then, this applies only if one repents. If one does not repent, the goat atones only for the light sins.
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Message Self-Destructs; Paul's Doesn't (PvM 23)"
Kalimatullah in these contexts is simply the word of God in the sense of His promise as amply used in the Quran 6:34,115,10:64,18:27 etc. Such divine word is a command that can never be reversed or altered once issued 13:41, it can be the promise of victory and assistance to the messengers and their followers 37:171-2 or the promise of chastisement to the rejecters 58:21 or again the promises of miracles or blessings whether in this life or the next. This is because, as repeatedly said in the Book, Allah's statement is truthful and He never breaks His promise
10:55,33:4,38:34"The truth then is and the truth do I speak" 39:20"Allah will not fail in (His promise)".
God placed the responsibility on humans to preserve the integrity of His revelations over time 5:44. But the people themselves, after revelation and knowledge came to them, began to confuse the truth 42:14. At that point God could have judged between the people immidiately when corruption started apearing 41:45 but He has decreed that mankind shall bear the responsibility for straying away from the truth once it has reached them in its unaltered form 2:253, that there will be no compulsion in religion 2:256,18:29 that true believers in their revelations and seeking guidance will find the way to the straight path 2:213. This can be achieved first and foremost by the people of the book upholding the truth of their own scriptures.
The corruption of past scriptures is a historical fact independant of what the Quran says, but their corruption is not absolute and neither does the Quran say so. This is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin/Guardian of past scriptures. It guards what is still true in them, reveals what has been hidden or misintrepreted, exposes their most important falsehoods that are essential for the establishment of the true Faith, while disregarding many other such things
5:15"O followers of the Book! indeed Our Messenger has come to you making clear to you much of what you concealed of the Book and passing over much; indeed, there has come to you light and a clear Book from Allah. With it Allah guides him who will follow His pleasure into the ways of safety and brings them out of utter darkness into light by His will and guides them to the right path".
The position of the Quran is that at the time of the prophet, what was available of previous scriptures and traditions was an amalgam of truth and falsehood. This principle is derived from a holistic understanding of the Quran. It says previous scriptures and traditions contain guidance and light. It also says they were physically and orally tampered with. And when it makes these 2 statements the Quran doesnt speak in absolute terms, that they are totally guiding or totally corrupt. This leaves the possibility for both statements to be true at the same time.
The reason for the protection of a revelation is linked to the discontinuation of the institution of prophethood after Muhammad. While the line of Prophethood was active, there was no need to protect the Scriptures as they were secondary compared to the current prophet's word of mouth. The current prophet's word was the primary source of God's religion, not the past scripture
35:24"and there is not a people but a warner has gone among them".
Each Prophet was always as reliable and as powerful an authority of God's laws as the previous. As no further prophet was to be sent to Mankind, it became crucial for the guidance of man, that the final Message be guarded intact by God Himself until the Final Day. Through the Quran referred to as the Reminder, Guardian, Criterion or Balance, all other scriptures are safely restored to their pristine originality and preserved through a divine pledge.
600 years had passed between Jesus and Muhammad, but that does not mean the people were left without any tools to discern the truth, which, as already said, was not completely blotted out from the past scriptures and traditions. God always grants respite to the people and allows them to choose their own path after receiving guidance. This is an ongoing process since the line of prophethood was initiated. Everytime corruption of a divine system appeared, prophets would eventually rise to reform the people. According to the judeo-christian belief for example, Malachi was the last of the minor prophets and 400 years later Jesus was sent to the Israelites in order to clear the falsehood of the Israelite elite
5:19"O followers of the Book! indeed Our Messenger has come to you explaining to you after a cessation of the (mission of the) messengers, lest you say: There came not to us a giver of good news or a warner, so indeed there has come to you a giver of good news and a warner; and Allah has power over all things".
Also, many prophets were sent to Israel to warn them of their disobedience but many were rejected, persecuted or killed as Jesus amply says in the NT and as corroborated in their own books. God surely was doing his job by sending Prophets until Muhammad to correct their lies and expose them. It just so happened that Israel was so degraded that the corrupt, even while prophets were busy preaching in their midst, always came back into power to manipulate the truth once again
2Kings17:13-14"And the Lord warned Israel and Judah through all prophets of all visions, saying, "Repent of your evil ways, and keep My commandments, My statutes, according to the entire Law that I commanded your forefathers, and that I sent to you through My servants, the prophets. But they did not heed, and they hardened their nape like the nape of their forefathers who did not believe in the Lord their God".
again in Zech1:3-4 or
Jer7:25-6"Since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt until this day, I sent you all My servants the prophets, sending them day [after day] with every fresh morn. Yet they hearkened not to Me nor did they incline their ear, but stiffened their necks; they did worse than their fathers".
The prophets specifically targeted in the most harshful ways the elite, the ones supposed to be the upholders of the Torah, transmitters of true knowledge and guardians of piety, for their corruption to the core Jer8:8,Hosea4:6,Micah3:9,Zeph3:4etc, down to Jesus who perhaps used the most condemning words of reprove towards the religious leaders Matt23. In the time of Muhammad the transgressions of their leadership were equally pointed
5:62-63"And you will see many of them striving with one another to hasten in sin and exceeding the limits, and their eating of what is unlawfully acquired; certainly evil is that which they do. Why do not the learned men and the doctors of law prohibit them from their speaking of what is sinful and their eating of what is unlawfully acquired? Certainly evil is that which they work"
2:87"And most certainly We gave Musa the Book and We sent messengers after him one after another; and We gave Isa, the son of Marium, clear arguments and strengthened him with the holy spirit, What! whenever then a messenger came to you with that which your souls did not desire, you were insolent so you called some liars and some you slew".
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Message Self-Destructs; Paul's Doesn't (PvM 23)"
That opposition to God's envoys, in reality is due to a dislike of the message they bring 38:8. This is exemplified in the opposition the prophet Muhammad had to face. His opponents tried to make him compromise the message in exchange of their alliegance, which he of course never did.
Belief in all prophets equally is an article of faith 3:84. To reject one is to reject all, considering that, besides all of them coming with the same tenets of faith and refering to the same One God, all of them, except for the first prophet sent to mankind, claimed spiritual descendancy from a line of prophets
26:105,25:37"And the people of Nuh, when they rejected the messengers (plural), We drowned them, and made them a sign for men, and We have prepared a painful punishment for the unjust".
Any distinction or rejection of any of them is a denial of all of them and the rejection of the very One who sent them 2:136-7 an act of rebellion severly condemned 4:150-2. This is rooted in the principle that all revelations are one in essence
46:9,21:7-10,29:47,4:163"Surely We have revealed to you as We revealed to Nuh, and the prophets after him, and We revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and Isa and Ayub and Yunus and Haroun and Sulaiman and We gave to Dawood Psalms".
It isn't simply believing in Muhammad that entails faith and one cannot be a Muslim, claiming that it is sufficient to believe in him. All Prophets represent the will of the Lord and must be equally believed.
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Message Self-Destructs; Paul's Doesn't (PvM 23)"
The corruption of the HB and NT is a historical fact. This corruption is not dictated upon what the Quran says, i.e. it is an objective reality. The Quran simply confirms this objective reality.
Even if, for argument's sake we assume that the Quran endorses the Bible's authenticity, despite it speaking of the corrupt writings of the Jewish scribes and the singular Injil of Jesus, which has nothing to do with the mutliple Gospels and other Greek writings assembled into the NT, then there is still the inescapable notion of the Quran superseding and abrogating previous revealed, authentic laws and scriptures.
The corruption of the Bible is nothing but the natural outcome of the moral degeneration of the Bani Israel, their heedlessness and carelessness in matters of religion, confirming Moses' predictions Deut31:25-29, Jeremiah's and other prophets' accusations, their lamentations Isa48:8.
When the Quran states scriptures of the past were corrupted and tampered with, it never asserts corruption in an absolute sense. This is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin (Guardian/Arbitrer), when talking about what is contemporary to it in terms of revealed truths, whether available in oral or writen tradition, such as the Torah and Injil. 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 and can be found throughout these textual and oral traditons.
It is in this same sense that Jesus confirmed parts of the Torah available to him. He confirmed the truth, by exposing the falsehood, both in the scriptures and traditions of the Bani Israil. Those among them that rejected Jesus were in reality rejecting their Torah which he confirmed.
Now that the Quran came, if the people of the book do not stand firm by it, then they will be violating even their own scriptures which it confirms and fulfills. In 46:10 the Quran refers to a witness from among the Israelites that believed in the like of his scriptures, meaning the Quran. According to tradition, the verse is speaking of the learned rabbi Abdullah ibn Salam's conversion to Islam. Given his religious knowledge, he knew the Quran abrogates and supersedes, exposes and denies, confirms in places while contradicting in many other places his own scripture, the Torah. But yet it literally says, this rabbi believed in the like of his scriptures. That "likeness" between the Torah and the Quran therefore can only be the statements that fully agree with one another.
This is exactly what is meant by Quran confirming the past revelations. It confirms the truth in them in several ways, including exposing what is from God and what is man-made, hence its function as the Muhaymin/guardian,arbitrer as well as fulfilling its prophecies, which the Quran repeatedly echoes and which of course the learned rabbi knew applied to Muhammad
2:146"those to whom We have given the scripture recognize him as they recognize their own sons"..
That is also why the minority comentators that rejected the application of the verse to ibn Salam, rather see in it a reference to Moses himself. He was the Israelite witness that testified to one like himself/mithlihi, as clearly stated in the prophecy of
Deut18:18"I will set up a prophet for them, from among their brothers like you and I will put my words into his mouth and he will speak to them all that I command him".
But as attested in history, not all of them remained obdurate
3:199"And most surely of the followers of the Book there are those who believe in Allah and (in) that which has been revealed to you and (in) that which has been revealed to them, being lowly before Allah; they do not take a small price for the communications of Allah; these it is that have their reward with their Lord; surely Allah is quick in reckoning".
These are the righteous among the followers of previous scriptures and who remained truthful to their Books. This sincerity inevitably led them to believe in the Quran
4:162,5:83"But the firm in knowledge among them..believe in what has been revealed to you and what has been revealed before you...and when they hear what has been revealed to the apostle, you will see their eye overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize. They say; our Lord, we believe so write us down with the witnesses".
A subtle aspect worth noting in 2:121 is that since the righteous among them are mentioned, the expression used is "We have given them the Book" not "They were given the Book" conveying the idea that it is God who gave it to them and guided them on account of their righteousness, contrary to those who were given the book without identification of the giver or instructor. This pattern is present throughout the Quran and is actually one of the many examples of its linguistic precision. This is why the people of the book are never told to reject their scriptures in 5:68,69 but rather to stand by not only the Torah and the Gospel, but the Quran, to which the previous scriptures naturally lead to. This has been pointed to in the words
"and that which is revealed to you from your Lord".
Because it is the "Muhaymin" of their revelations, the guardian of the truth which God himself has pledged to preserve unlike any holy book, the reminder of the pure way of Ibrahim. As to those who would claim, and still do, that they only believe that which has been revealed to them then the Quran answers them that even Prophets that came from among their own people, preaching adherence to their own books were killed by these men, as Jesus put it Mk12:1-12,Matt23:31-37. This charge was levelled against them in the earliest Meccan revelations such as 37:37 before the interraction with them in Medina.
In summary, the passage 5:43-68, states the following;
1. God reveals the Torah.
2. God then reveals the Gospel, and the Bani israel are required to judge by it. They cannot ignore it, despite the fact that they have the Torah. Further, this rejection would be even more grievous considering the fact that the Gospel confirms the Torah as a Book of God.
3. Now God has revealed the Quran, and the people must judge by it, irrespective of the fact that the Gospel and Torah are present, even though in their corrupted forms. The Quran states that the new revelation confirms the Torah and Gospel and guards them.
That is why the whole passage ends in 5:69 with a statement that success in the Hereafter is independant of any appellation, so long as one is obedient to God's revelations throughout time.
Rejecting the last Revelation does not only result in rejecting their own scriptures. It also entails rejection of Gabriel who has revealed it to the Prophet's heart by Allah's Command, not by his own wish. So they were ultimately disbelieving in God
6:33,2:98"Whoever is the enemy of Gabriel for surely he revealed it to your heart by Allah's Command, verifying that which is before it, and guidance and good news for the believers. Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His apostles and Gabriel and Michael - so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers".
To reject any messenger, as is here stated concerning Moses against whom the Israelites rebelled 44:19 is equal to rejecting the One that sent him. Similarily, Gabriel is one of Allah's honored servants, just like Michael and others; they have no authority except to follow and obey the Divine Commands. That is why the Quran speaks of the belief in the carriers and transmitters of revelation -angels or human messengers- as an article of faith 2:177,285.
The verse 2:98 exposes another side of the Israelites' rejection. Their hatred and grudge against Muhammad's prophethood took them to the extent of inventing the tale that Gabriel was an enemy of theirs because he was the Angel of destruction. This in their eyes was among the justified reasons for rejecting Islam. Had the angelic messenger been Michael, who brings prosperity, they would have believed. Whether Islam was true or false, this argument was ludicrous. Angelic messengers, as corroborated in their own books, have no free will and act only according to God's directives. They do not willingly take sides, much less among humans.
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Message Self-Destructs; Paul's Doesn't (PvM 23)"
The Quran condemns only the people that write the scriptures and manipulate it with their own hands. This is one of the miraculous qualities of the Quran, where it never assaults the Torah or Injeel in the context of corruption, but it lays blame always on the scribes. The Torah and Injeel are revealed by God, and considering the Torah and Injeel are from the same source as the one who revealed the Quran, it is only natural that the Quran never attacks the text per say.
The Quran is therefore the official preserver of the Book and this means that if something is claimed to be in the Book but the Quran says otherwise, then it is not from the Book. If the Quran is silent then it may or may not be of the Book and if the Quran approves it then it certainly is part of the Book. A long time ago, the prophet Muhammad explained how to approach the previous scriptures and traditions
“Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them. Say: We have faith in Allah, in what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes of Israel, in what was given to Moses and Jesus, and in what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims surrendering to Him (2:136)”.
This hadith encapsulates the notion of muhaymin/arbitrer. Muslims do not believe nor reject the current scriptures and traditions of the people of the book. This is because by rejecting them, they could inadvertently reject an authentic remnant of the teachings of the prophets. By believing in them on the other hand would carry the risk of accepting things that were never sent by God, nor approved by the prophets. The perfect way for Muslims to maintain the middle ground and not commit any faulty judgement would therefore be to hold fast by the Muhaymin/the arbitrer that has preserved the truth of the previous revelations. This reflects even in the attitude of the classical exegetes. They exhibited no interest in the Jews and Christians of whom they must have had some contemporary knowledge. With very few exceptions such as Ibn Kathir and Zamakshari, we find no reference to the varieties of Jewish and Christian belief and practices.
After declaring its status as the Guardian and Watcher, the Quran states that those legitimate differences between the scriptures that are not the subject of human corruption, were because the laws were subject to their respective time frames
"for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way".
Allah could have prescribed one and the same Law for all, making all of humanity into a single nation but He did not do so for many good reasons. One of these reasons is to test people whether they obey or not what is given to them. Those people, who understand the real nature and spirit of the Divine Way and the position of the regulations in it and are not prejudiced, will recognize and accept the Truth in whatever form it comes. Such people will never hesitate to submit to the new regulations sent by Allah to replace the former ones.
To demonstrate the unbiased nature of the Quranic message, it even tells its prophet in a hypothetical scenario that should a revelation be sent from God superseding both the Quran and the Torah, then Muhammad should be the first to follow it and nothing else 28:48-9. This verse isnt arguing from the angle of authenticity, that the new scripture supersedes the previous due to them being flawed.
Neither does it give an indication as to whether one of the 2 is partially flawed while the other is pristine. The verse is arguing from the viewpoint of unconditional obedience to God, regardless of the level of authenticity of the current scriptures. Those, who do not understand the true spirit of the Way, but consider the regulations and their details alone to be the Way and who have become static and prejudiced because of their own additions to it, will reject every new thing that comes from Allah to replace what they already possess
5:48"and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed"
22:67"therefore they should not dispute with you about the matter".
But the unbiased, who understand that God's guidance is indiscriminate, not only accept the new revelation but also
13:36"rejoice in that which has been revealed to you".
They read the book
2:121"as it ought to be read".
Consequently they cannot but recognize it as the truth 4:162,5:83.
Just like when the Bani Israil were ordered to follow the Injeel when it was revealed, the same proclamation is made regarding the Quran, now that it has been revealed. It guides them out of the labyrinths of assumptions and conjectures
27:76"Surely this Quran declares to the children of Israel most of what they differ in".
It brings them back to the path they deviated from, when they failed upholding both the Torah and the Injeel 5:66. The only way they can rightly say that they are following their own scriptures is by believing in the Quran as well because these revelations are interconnected:
5:68"Say: O followers of the Book! you follow no good till you keep up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; grieve not therefore for the unbelieving people".
5:69"If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: But many of them follow a course that is evil."
2:89-93"..but when there came to them (Prophet) that which they did recognize, they disbelieved in him; so Allah's curse is on the unbelievers. Evil is that for which they have 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..And when it is said to them, Believe in what Allah has revealed, they say: We believe in that which was revealed to us; and they deny what is besides that, while it is the truth verifying that which they have. Say: Why then did you kill Allah's Prophets before if you were indeed believers? And most certainly Musa came to you with clear arguments, then you took the calf (for a god) in his absence and you were unjust. And when We made a covenant with you and raised the mountain over you: Take hold of what We have given you with firmness and be obedient. They said: We hear and disobey. And they were made to imbibe (the love of) the calf into their hearts on account of their unbelief Say: Evil is that which your belief bids you if you are believers"
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Message Self-Destructs; Paul's Doesn't (PvM 23)"
The discontinuation of the line of prophethood is among the reasons that necessitated the protection of the final revelation to mankind, a revelation containing all previous books 98:2-3 as here reflected in the declaration of faith
2:177"believe in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets".
3:23,5:44,4:44,51"Have you not considered those to whom a portion of the Book has been given? They buy error and desire that you should go astray from the way".
This indicates that the Torah and Injil were not the final words of God, but portions of one Book 6:156. The Quran in fact uses that established pattern of continuous revelation, to comfort the prophet, telling him that should his adressees disbelieve in that same pattern that is now bestowed upon him, then let him now, people preceded him that wholeheartedly believed in it. Further, their rejection does not compromise the honor and credibility of that lofty institution of prophethood. Instead of grieving, or even doubting, the prophet should follow the guidance of his predecessors who held fast by the revelation that came to them 6:84-90. All previous revelations are part of one Book called the Mother of the Book/umm al kitab which the Quran is also part of
43:4,13:39,2:236"and remember Allah's favour to you, and that which He has revealed to you of the Book".
The previous revelations forecasted the final revelation in the form of the Quran 4:47. This draws attention to an important truth: all the revealed scriptures contain the same spiritual and moral principles. They cannot contradict eachother and their only differences reside in that they were made to conform to the language of the addressees
26:192-6"And most surely this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. The Faithful Spirit has descended with it, Upon your heart that you may be of the warners, In plain Arabic language. And most surely the same is in the scriptures of the ancients".
The Quran then verifies the truth of these divine portions of the one Book and offers a clear global explanation of it
10:37,20:133"Has not there come to them a clear evidence of what is in the previous books?".
This is why it is said to be the Guardian and Arbitrer/Muhaymin and a clear explanation of THE Book (singular) of which past scriptures including the Quran are part of 5:48-9,10:37. This single scripture containing all past revelations as well as the Quran is said to be highly secure, purified and preserved, exalted and honored, inaccessible to evil interference and only between the hands of the most honourable custodians 26:193,56:77-80,80:13-16,81:19-21,88:22. It has been engraved in the lawh mahfuz/the preserved tablet 85:21-2, hence it being referred to in the opening verses of sura baqara as it is dhaalika al kitab/that book or writing, denoting distance through the pronoun, because its katb/writing is done in a far heavenly place.
In contrast the Quran speaks of this/hadha al Quran denoting closeness because its recitation is being done in this world. Another instance of the Quran's surgical use of words. The Quran, being from the same God and containing the same basic wisdom and truths of ancient scriptures 6:91,26:196,29:46 speaks highly about the Torah and Injeel. They are referred to as sources of mercy, wisdom, guidance and light 5:43,44,46,7:154,11:17,28:43,46:12 as well as criterions of truth and falsehood (furqan) clarifying all things 2:53,21:48,28:43,37:117. It even cites them sometimes as sources of guidance hand in hand with the Quran 28:48-9. Because again, they are never said to be totally corrupted. Read with the knowledge of the Quran, whose function is to be the muhaymin/protector and arbitrer, one can discern the guiding parts of previous oral and written traditions from the portion that were corrupted, either purposefully or through neglect.
In 46:12 it says the Torah came prior to the Quran, as a guide and mercy. It is this guiding and merciful aspect of the Torah that the statement musaddiqan/declaring true, refers to, not simply the Torah. It doesnt say declaring "it" true. This is seen by the rest of the verse, paralelling the guidance and mercy of the Torah with the Quran being a warner and giver of glad tidings.
Again we see, the Quran only confirms the truthful aspects of past oral and written traditions, which the Quran never claims were entirely blotted out.
This restricted aspect of the Quran's confirmation of the Torah is made clear in 6:154-7. The passage starts again with a praise of the Torah as being a book of mercy and guidance, followed by a parallel statement about the Quran, echoing stricly the merciful and guiding aspect of the Torah
"And this is a Book We have revealed, blessed; therefore follow it and be God-conscious that mercy may be shown to you".
The Torah contains many things that are neither guiding, nor sources of mercy, and other things that erroneous or even outright blasphemous about God and His prophets. The Quran does not confirm these things, and sometimes openly rejects them.
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Message Self-Destructs; Paul's Doesn't (PvM 23)"
The reoccurring phrase musaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi/declaring true what is before it, is always preceded by a word refering to the Quran either directly as in
10:37"this Quran"
or indirectly as in
12:111"this narrative"
or
3:3,5:48"this book".
It is the Quran in itself that declares the truth of what is before it. Not by pointing to a specific book or tradition and declaring it true, which it never does, but by selecting elements from what came before it, then stating the truthful version. What agrees with it, from whatever source that came before it, is then declared as truly from God and what disagrees with it is truly not from God. Then through its function as a protector of what came before it, the Quran brings back to light what was entirely forgotten or purposefully obscured in the chaotic transmission process of these oral and written traditions.
The phrase bayna yadayhi, lit. between his hands, is an old Arabic metaphor implying presence, availability of several things at the same time. It does not imply concrete, physical presence of the things in question, rather their knowledge or information. It is often translated as "what is before it" in the context of the Judeo-Christian traditions because they were present, whether orally or written in the time of the prophet, and they preceded him in existence. Many have taken this metaphor as refering specifically to the Torah or the Injil, although it never states so. It speaks of "what is between his hands" in a general sense, all that was available.
Whether that information was canonized or not is irrelevant. So there is a truth, present in the time of the Quran and before, scattered in oral and written tradition, which the Quran declares to be true. It is the common thread that the Quran shares with all these contemporary and previous sources. To further corroborate, in 5:48-9 above, it is the only place where it explicitly says what it is refering to with the general statement "between his hands".
In this context where it speaks of, and names the scriptures of the Jews and Christians, it would have been the perfect occasion for it to point to the Torah and Injil by name, had the expression been a reference to them both specifically, anytime it is used. Instead of that it points to PART OF/MIN THE Book in the singular
"musaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi MINAL kitab/declaring true what is before it OF the Book".
It doesnt even say part of the books in the plural, in reference to both Torah and Injil present at the time. The passage opposes 2 Books -Torah and Injil- to one Book which the Quran confirms and guards. It is different to every other context where the Quran says Jews and Christians follow one book. This is because they both read one Bible from their perspective, not many, and the Quran does not name their different books in these passages, contrary to the singular Book which is contrasted to the Torah and Injil in 5:48-9.
This singular book is thus the very one repeatedly alluded to, of which past scriptures and traditions, including the Quran, the Torah and Injil, are part of. A section of this global Book was revealed prior to the Quran, and was present in the time of the Quran, scattered in both written and oral tradition. It is this section previously revealed, of this global Book that the Quran guards, protects, confirms.
The Quran is that against which anything oral or written, claiming spiritual truth can be measured. It is al-Mizan -the Balance- and al-Furqan -the Criterion/distinguisher 25:1,42:17. It gives weight to the Truth and seperates between it and falsehood. The Quran is therefore the official preserver of the Book and this means that if something is claimed to be in the Book but the Quran says otherwise, then it is not from the Book. If the Quran is silent then it may or may not be of the Book and if the Quran approves it then it certainly is part of the Book. Furthermore, an important Quranic axiom is that every fragment of revelation is fully revelation. A single word or verse of the Quran is called kitab and Quran. So is the case with Torah and Injil. A single genuine passage of any of these 2 revelations can be termed kitab and Torah or Injil. That is why when it urges the Jews to stand by the Torah and the Christians to stand by the Injil, it does not necessitate the totality of these books is endorsed by the Quran.
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Message Self-Destructs; Paul's Doesn't (PvM 23)"
3:78"There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it"
6:91"the Book which Musa brought, a light and a guidance to men, which you make into scattered writings which you show while you conceal much".
The rabbinical world is divided up to this day on whether their sacred texts should be shared with non-Jews. There is consensus that non-Jews may study the Torah as far as the noachide laws are concerned. These laws are considered binding on all of humanity. The mosaic laws on the other hand concern strictly the Jewish people, hence the oddity of Pauline doctrine and its obsession with freeing mankind from a cursed law that isnt binding on anyone but Jews. Rabbinic opinion suggest that besides the noachide laws, only general and vague answers may be provided to a non-Jew inquiring about the Torah. The prohibition is discussed in the Talmud, which is considered God-given to Moses. The Talmud itself is on a higher level of restriction with even Jewish women forbidden from attempting to learn it due to the household activities they are expected to fulfill
2:75"but when they find themselves alone with one another, they say. "Do you inform them of what God has disclosed to you, so that they might use it in argument against you, quoting the words of your Sustainer?"
3:187"And when Allah made a covenant with those who were given the Book: You shall certainly make it known to men and you shall not hide it; but they cast it behind their backs and took a small price for it; so evil is that which they buy".
2:75-79 "..and a party from among them indeed used to hear the Word of Allah, then altered it after they had understood it, and they know (this)..And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but only lies, and they do but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!--Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby".
The Quran in those verses points to several types of misusing the scriptures;
-those who conceal the greater part of the book, reluctantly sharing as little as they can 6:91
-those who throw it completely behind their backs, ignoring it so as to not compromise some worldly profit. In the process, they are also guilty of failing to make it known to the world, as per their function of being the torch bearers of the truth to mankind 3:187.
-those who misinterpret the book after having fully understood it 2:75. Whether that information was canonized or not is irrelevant. This misinterpretation thus concerns both oral and written material. In Medina, members of the Jewish community were sent to the prophet Muhammad, by their religious authorities, with a hidden agenda. They were trying to settle grave disputes in matters heavily punishable in the light of the Torah. This was just another of their ploys to avoid its harsh laws, which they perfectly understood, hoping that the prophet might have a different ruling
"they alter the words from their places, saying: If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious".
This compromising, complacent attitude is a deeply ingrained transgression they have been committing ever since the law was bestowed upon them and throughout their history, despite the scolding of the prophets and the few righteous remnants among them whom the Quran mentions and praises
7:169-170"Then there came after them an evil posterity who inherited the Book, taking only the frail good of this low life and saying: It will be forgiven us. And if the like good came to them, they would take it (too). Was not a promise taken from them in the Book that they would not speak anything about Allah but the truth, and they have read what is in it; and the abode of the hereafter is better for those who guard (against evil). Do you not then understand? And as for those who hold fast by the Book and keep up prayer, surely We do not waste the reward of the righteous"
Virtually all prophets that came to them decried the corruption of their elite, their neglect towards their own justice system.
"A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess".
According to another version, when the Torah was brought to the prophet who was now seeking to expose the innovations of the rabbis in the specific matter of punishment for adultery, he first respectfully put it on a cushion then said
"I believed in you and in Him Who revealed you".
A holistic understand of both the hadith corpus and the Quran demonstrates that this statement of the prophet is not to be taken in the absolute sense. When in Medina he noticed that Jews would come and read the Torah and explain it to the Muslims, he advised them to adopt a neutral stance, neither believing nor disbelieving in it
"Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' "
This is because the scriptures of the Jews are an amalgam of truth and falsehood, the truthful parts being covered by the statement "whatever is revealed to you". Ibn Abbas would reprimand the Muslims who would seek information from the people of the book in religious matters, on the basis that
"Allah has told you that the people of the scripture changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything?"
The Quran, the prophet, the companions therefore all advise caution when approaching the previous scriptures, as they contain both truth, which the prophet confirmed and revered in the aforementioned statements, and falsehood.
The prophet then proceeded with exposing the learned ones by making them read by themselves the truthful part of the Torah which they had been hiding
"Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning".
This hadith depicting the prophet's reverence for the Torah should this be understood in light of other ahadith, as well as the many Quran passages stating that the Torah isnt absolutely corrupt, that despite the manipulations it still contains remnants of truth, hence the Quran being its guardian/muhaymin. The prophet declared his belief not in the entire Torah, but in the specific ruling on the punishment for adultery, and which Ibn Salam, the Jewish convert to Islam instantly recognized as the "divine verse".
It is this corruption in the absolute sense, which some scholars might have been referring to when they said, while commenting on the above report
"if the Torah was corrupted he would not have placed it on the pillow and he would not have said: I believe in you and in the one who revealed you".
This is speaking of complete corruption, which is not what the Muslims believe happened to previous scriptures and traditions.
In legal issues, Jews and Christians living in the Muslim state are not bound by the Islamic law when resolving their own internal affairs. That is how matters were conducted in many parts of the Muslim empire. Dhimmis could deliberate, individually deny, or reform their religious laws to their liking and to fit their desires without any concern about the laws of the state, so long as no conflict occurred between the 2. The historical, and clear Quranic context of these verses 5:41-50 is that of legal retribution. As stated earlier, it begins by telling the prophet that he was not under any obligation to judge their matters when they came to him insincerely, meaning to seek different and more lenient verdicts than what is found in their traditions. It is to be noted that in matters of equal retribution the Quran says that the oppressed or the victim may show magnanimity and forgiveness in order to grow spiritually, an issue the Torah, which also mentions the law of retaliation, does not contain in its proper context. The passage continues telling the prophet that he may turn them away if he wishes, leaving them to resolve their own disputes. But he is nevertheless to judge between them with equity should he decide so, notwithstanding their severe enmity towards him and the fact they were always plotting with the enemies of Islam with the hope of uprooting and exterminating it. What the prophet did at that point was to masterfully expose them for their corrupt mindframe. Had they came to him in truth, he would have judged them in accordance to the Quran, the last revelation superseding all previous ones. But due to their hypocritical stand towards both the Quran, which they didnt believe in, and their own scriptures, whose clear rulings they denied, he referred them back to the law of their Torah, thereby exposing this double game. One might come back with the question that, if the Torah and Injil are corrupt, as the Quran, traditions and history itself attest, why tell Jews and Christians to judge their own internal affairs in light of those scriptures? The answer is firstly because they are not obligated to believe in anything other than what they want to believe. If it suits them to remain in their faith, despite the Quran coming and exposing their falsehood, then they are free to do so. Second, that corruption is not absolute, the passage itself tells them the Torah and Injil contain guidance and light. How then are they to distinguish the right from the wrong?
5:48"And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it".
The Quran is the criterion, confirming certain parts OF/MIN those scriptures, ie those parts containing guidance and light. The last revelation came down showing them the truth and falsehood of their books, the abrogated and the valid. This isnt circular reasoning as the things which the Quran confirms from the Bible are for the most part empirically testable, prophecies, past events and stories whose Quranic version make more sense in light of data both external (archaeology, manuscripts etc) and internal (contradictions) to the biblical text that expose the distortions of the transmitters of the Bible.
Once again:
1. the Quran clearly says that the corruption of previous scriptures and traditions, canonized or not, is not absolute
2. reference to previous traditions doesnt entail full endorsement or that they are wholly true, just as is the case with the Bible's known use of apocryphal material
3. there is no circularity in determining truth from corruption in light of the Quran, as the parallel passages and references can be for the most part independently attested. When for example a common story or principle is internally and externally contradictory in its biblical version but is internally coherent, consistent philosophically, theologically, ethically, with many times even scientific and archaeological backing in its Quranic version, then the probability is that the Quran is in the right.
4. the Quran doesnt need to go around fact checking everything stated in past written and oral traditions so as to determine truth from corruption. When certain broad principles and stories common to both the Quran and previous traditions are established as more sensical in their Quranic version, then big swaths of these previous traditions become highly questionable too.
5. then there is the personality of the message bearer, his high degree of credibility among his nation, the miracles he performed, the miraculous aspect of the Quran, still testable today (contrary to prophetic miracles, including those of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad that are lost in time), all major reasons for its contemporaries to pay very close attention to its statements and give it the benefit of the doubt.
That is why the Quran then continues saying that, although the option of judging their matters in light of their scriptures if they reject the Quran's authority is their full right, they will be held accountable for it
5:49"And judge, [O Muhammad], between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations and beware of them, lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you. And if they turn away - then know that Allah only intends to afflict them with some of their [own] sins. And indeed, many among the people are defiantly disobedient".
As the prophet told Umar
"I have come to you with that which is pure and clear proof. And if Musa was alive, and then you were to follow him and abandon following me, you would certainly have strayed".
If the last revelation supersedes the previous one even if the previous one is still in its pristine state, delivered by its prophet, then how much more should the Quran be authoritative over the previous revelations in their corrupt state?
-those who misinterpret the book after having fully understood it 2:75
-the uneducated/ummiyun, who have no access to the text and therefore only know the distorted lies of the learned ones 2:78
-those who alter the book physically, passing off their modifications as coming from God 2:79. These alterations may be additions and/or subtractions. Al-kitab, the writing/book alludes to a specific text, as the definite article implies, which is subjected to physical corruption. Al kitab is used for the Bible in the same sura. The Quran accuses the Jews of misinterpreting Al kitab while claiming it is from God 3:78 in reference to the HB, just as it exposes the physical corruption of Al kitab 2:79 in reference to the HB. This accusation the Quran makes is the climax of scriptural abuse, fitting into its overall polemic against Jews and Christians. Interestingly, we find similar statements as regards the integrity of the biblical text among early Christians themselves. Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew made that exact accusation against the Jewish elite whose responsibility was to preserve the Hebrew Bible.
Ibn Abbas, in comment to the verse said
"O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah's Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, 'This is from Allah, so as to have a minor gain for it".
However there is another statement attributed to ibn abbas saying
“No one can corrupt the text by removing any of Allah’s words from his Books, but they corrupted it by misinterpreting it”.
This is a known defective narration, without any chain of reporters, as noted by the scholars of hadith, including Al Asqalani. What can at most be construed from that statement, assuming it is authentic for argument's sake, is that the incorruptibility is in reference to the heavenly tablet. It can obviously not be speaking of the worldly text which anyone can change. The Quran says all the revealed scriptures are inscribed in umm al kitab/the mother book, inscribed on the heavenly tablet. None can change the words therein but only twist their meaning. Ibn Kathir understood that nuance between the 2 ahadith of ibn Abbas very well. He quotes the weak hadith in his tafsir of 3:78 which speaks of oral misinterpretation. But he also refers to ibn Abbas' authentic comment on 2:79 that speaks of textual corruption by the people of the book. Ibn Kathir quotes other companion views on 2:79, including that of Uthman saying that
"they (the Jews) distorted the Torah. They added to it what they liked and erased from it what they hated and they erased the name of Muhammad peace be upon him from the Torah and for that Allah became angry".
Ibn Kathir and the earliest Muslim belief regarding the oral and textual corruption of the Bible is therefore clearly established, based on the Quran itself. That Muslim position is even reflected in the polemical writings of John of Damascus, some 100 years after the prophet's death
"But some of them say that it is by misinterpretation that we have represented the Prophets as saying such things, while others say that the Hebrews hated us and deceived us by writing in the name of the Prophets so that we might be lost".
As already noted, anyone can remove and alter words from any worldly text at any point in time. And if that is done when not enough human and textual witnesses can independently detect that corruption, then it can easily be disseminated and passed off as true. That is what happened during the successive destructions of the Israelite nation, followed by the attempts of their scribes to re-write what was lost. Al-Razi rightly noted
"It is impossible to have a conspiracy to change or alter the word of God in all of these copies without missing any copy. Such a conspiracy will not be logical or possible".
Al-Razi here is talking of a time when previous scriptures, although in their corrupt state (see his commentary on 5:41), were already widely disseminated and could be independently attested by countless witnesses. Nobody could remove Allah's word nor any other man-made word from it then, without being detected. Corruption of the Torah at that point became only possible through misinterpretation.
Similarly, some stated that the Torah cannot be corrupted, based on the verse saying God's words cannot be changed 6:115. Again, any worldly copy of the Torah can be altered. But so long as there exists the possibility for the original to be reproduced, God's words remain unaffected, only the copy of these words.
The Quran is the speech of Allah, and that speech is with Allah, uncreated, eternal, unchanged like any other attribute of His. The analogy of God's speech to the Quran we touch with our hands or recite from our minds, is as God's mercy which manifests in tangible and abstract things. Both types of manifestations are created means through which God's uncreated attributes of speech and mercy are made known to humans. These attributes arent limited to those particular manifestations
31:27"and If all the trees on the earth were pens, and the sea replenished with seven more seas [were ink], the words of Allah would not be spent".
God's speech is therefore unexhaustive. It can potentially bring into existence a limitless number of words of revelation, among them the Hebrew Torah of Moses or the Arabic Quran of Muhammad
14:4"And We did not send any messenger but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly".
Allah further states about the revelation to Muhammad, that He
43:3"made it an Arabic Quran".
The eternal speech of Allah takes on in this world the form that is relevant to the divine purpose. The Arabic Quran was thus not continuously spoken since eternity. It is the manifestation in time of God's eternal attribute of speech. Just like we may say a healthy newborn is the manifestation in time of God's eternal attribute of mercy.
Assuming for argument's sake that all things in the heavens and the earth are destroyed, including all Torahs and Qurans, the mother of the book that contains all revelations, and even the preserved tablet/lawh mahfuz. So long as the potential to generate a true Quran and Torah exists, then Allah's words that were revealed to Moses and Muhammad remain unaffected. As stated earlier, the physical and abstract things in which God's attributes manifest in this world do not exhaust the attributes themselves, neither do these manifestations share the uncreated essence of the attributes they are representing. This is the problem of Trinitarians. Jesus, a created being, is not merely a manifestation of God's word, rather he incarnates it fully, becoming this divine "person" with contradictory attributes Trinitarian thinkers have been struggling to explain for over 2000 years. Christians are quick to try and parallel the notion of uncreatedness of God's speech as manifested in the Quran, with their idea derived from the Gospel of John where God's uncreated word manifested in Jesus. The two concepts, arent comparable. Further, why would trinitarians even need the Quran to explain the logical and philosophical problems of their theology.
Not a single group within Islam says the Quran was a separate entity floating around next to God since eternity past. This is how some Christians, with their trinitarian worldview, misrepresent the statement that the word of Allah is uncreated. In Christianity, the word is not an attribute but a divine person among others like the father and holy spirit, each with distinct attributes. One man with multiple attributes isnt many men just as One God with multiple attributes isnt many gods. This is tawhid. Yet Trinity says each person is divine but with different attributes, resulting in 3 different gods. The analogy Christians attempt between tawhid and trinity stops at the word of God being eternal. Christians made that word a person with attributes among other distinct persons, while Muslims kept the word as an attribute among others within the essence of the One God. As an aside, since the word or speech of God is not an attribute within the divine essence but a separate divine entity along with 2 others, does it mean that only this divine entity called "word or speech" has the ability to speak and that the other 2 divine entities are mute?
If God's word is a separate divine entity that became flesh in Jesus, what about the words uttered by Jesus who is now divine? Are his words separate divine entities? Further, if the Torah is God's word, as Jews and Christians believe, does that make it divine as Jesus is? These are the kinds of problems Trinitarians are entangled with due to their conjectures on ambiguous matters, instead of relying on firm statements on God's oneness and unity. Muslims on the other hand, despite the early disputes as to whether the Quran was created or not, never went out of the way to declare the attributes of God, like His word, separate divine entities. No Muslim ever believed God's speech to be a separate conscious part. The reason why this issue is often brought up by Trinitarians is that the Quran is the only book that claims to be Allah's direct speech. The Bible doesnt make that claim. The closest one finds is an anonymous claim made about Jesus being God's word. Muslims on the other hand stick to clear and firm statements of scriptures to define their cardinal beliefs, including that "nothing is like a likeness of Him".
2:79 is a timeless warning, addressed to any corrupt scribes among the Jews who would in addition reap profit from such an evil deed. It is not specific to the Jews of the time of the prophet. This means, although that type of corruption did occur, it may have happened before or during the prophet's time as well as both. No contemporary 7th century Jewish writing has survived so as to compare with older manuscripts to know whether this was done during the time of the prophet. And even if such 7th century writing is found, agreeing with older manuscripts, then it still does not negate that the corruption might have occured much longer before the prophet's time. Another thing to note is that this verse doesnt target the writings of the Christians. The books that these groups follow are not the singular Gospel of Jesus of which the Quran speaks. As the Quran repeatedly says, they follow but mere conjecture. This conjecture has taken the shape of the Greek writings compiled as the New Testament. They are writings that interpret and re-interpret Jesus' words and singular Gospel, giving them a completely different intent. Sometimes this conjecture doesnt take for basis Jesus' Gospel at all, such as with the notion of human depravity and sin atonement. The Quran thus appropriately tells the Christians to abide by the singular Gospel of Jesus to find the right path that will lead them to the truth of the Quran.
When they did so, in contrast to the corrupt aforementioned groups, when they remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability, then their sincerity, unprejudiced reading and understanding of their books led them to inevitably believe in the revelation bestowed on the prophet Muhammad 2:121,83,3:113-115,199,4:162,5:13,66,69,83,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4. This is what occurred in the times of the prophet, even among their most learned figures, just as it occurred throughout time and in our days. The Quran thus expects the Jews and Christians to recognize the truth based on what is in their hands first and foremost. The prophethood of Muhammad and the truth revealed to him make ample theological sense within their own written and oral traditions.
When they behaved with insincerity, hypocrisy towards their books 2:85, then despite having sources of light and guidance in their hands, it availed them nothing "The Torah and the Gospel are with the Jews and the Christians but what do they avail of them?" (Tirmidhi 2653). They become followers of deliberate corruption and lies, or mislead by conjecture.
The term Muhayminan, derived from H-M-N means witness and arbiter where the arbiter would be the one to let know which is right and wrong. Besides witnessing and arbitrating it carries at the same time the notion of protecting. So, when the book that came to Muhammad is declared as muhayminan upon the book it means it is the ultimate arbiter in case of dispute or potential misunderstanding in regards to whatever came before it. It declares what truly came from God vs what truly is not from God
45:16-8"And We did certainly give the Children of Israel the Scripture and judgement and prophethood, and We provided them with good things and preferred them over the worlds. And We gave them clear proofs of the matter [of religion]. And they did not differ except after knowledge had come to them - out of jealous animosity between themselves. Indeed, your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which they used to differ. Then We put you, [O Muhammad], on an ordained way concerning the matter [of religion]; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who do not know".
We see the same pattern of Allah revealing a system, those supposed to uphold it end up turning away from it, in addition causing its corruption. Hence the need for the religion to be restored through the revelation of a new system.
