Apostate prophet issues warning; no opposite gender interraction in Islam?

In answer to the video "Walking Away From Islam"

Let us start with the issue of women covering up, although not explicitly referred in that youtuber's video. This issue is present in both the Quran and Christian scriptures

1Cor11:6"For if a woman will not veil herself then she should cut off her hair, but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil...for man was not created from woman but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man".

The HB states in addition, an indiscrete woman, regardless of her physical beauty and attire is as disfigured as a swine with a golden ring around its snout Prov11:22.

The code of interaction between opposite genders in the Quran isnt meant at discouraging or prohibiting it at all. The prophet's own wives interacted with visitors on a daily basis seeking their religious counsel. What the Quran does, as with every aspect of human life, is to infuse it with God-consciousness so as to elevate the human being above the mere animalistic, material aspect of his existence. The Quran injects intergender interaction with modesty, chastity pragmatic caution that is beneficial both for the person itself and society at large.

 For example it is disallowed to greet the opposite gender through physical contact (handshake or kiss) instead of reciprocal smiles, good words and courteous gestures. This is clear through the wording

24:30-31"yaghuddun min absarihim/to cast down of/from their look".

Its not saying to avoid looking altogether but to avoid staring, men and women alike. Looking at oneanother for a legitimate need like communication or identification does not constitute unhealthy staring with lustful motives. Neither is physical contact forbidden in the absolute sense, as the prophet would not take his hand away from a slave girl seeking his help and comfort 

"Any of the female slaves of Medina could take hold of the hand of Allah's Messenger and take him wherever she wished".

As can be seen, the Quran in intergender relationships focuses on self-restraint. This is not an unrealistic demand that suppresses or prevents social development. On the contrary it gives it a healthy turn, reducing the chance for misplaced thoughts and misunderstandings, as is so common in any culture when opposite genders interact.

The verse sets a standard for Muslim men and women, starting from the first contact which is visual, telling them both to approach the opposite gender with the correct mindframe, regardless of the person's suggestive or explicit behavior towards them. This not only helps the person itself to keep his morality in check, but also sends the right signal to the other person who is in turn morally stimulated in case of misbehavior.

The Islamic dresscode has the same twofold purpose, it conditions the person wearing modest clothing to adopt a healthy attitude when about to go in public, as well as sends a healthy signal to other people who are in turn influenced to modify their own behavior when interacting with the opposite gender. Women in addition, because they tend to wear ornaments, are told to put an additional level of caution

“They should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments”24:31.

The dangers to the general atmosphere of chastity in any society, in any culture, are very real and observable nowadays as it was case throughout times past, whenever these elementary rules of opposite gender interaction are neglected. The prophet even refered to as devils those women who arouse sexual attraction through their misbehavior

"Allah’s Messenger – may peace be upon him – saw a woman, then he came to his wife, Zainab, who was tanning leather, and fulfilled his desire, then he went out to his Companions and said: “A woman comes in the form of a devil and goes in the form of a devil. If one of you sees a woman, let him go to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart".

In Arabic the word for devil can be used for any entity that causes evil. As noted by the scholars of hadith, this narration is speaking of women dressed inappropriately in the public space. During the advent of Islam, more specifically in Medina where the hadith is supposed to have been spoken, sexual promiscuity and prostitution were known features of that society.

It is ironic that Christians "haters of the flesh" and anything sexual, often raise this issue to undermine the prophet's credibility. As if the embodiment of piety, as reflected by their priests who cannot marry, is the one who denies himself the pleasures of the flesh, regardless of it being legitimate or not. They forget what is stated in their own books as regards the 50 year old prophet David who murders a brave soldier to satisfy his uncontrollable lust towards the married Batsheba (younger than 10 in Jewish tradition). The incident did not reduce an iota of his truthfulness as a prophet of YHWH. Far from behaving in such a shameful manner as described by the lying pens of Israel, the prophet Muhammad provides the most rational and upright manner to satisfy one's natural urges. Not through murders, rape or adultery but by coming together with one's own wife.

Notice also the contrast between David's incident and the one in the hadith; Batsheba did not purposefully provoke David's lust but was simply making her toilet in her private area while the hadith talks of unchaste women in public provoking men. The dress code isnt only meant for women, but both both men and women whenever opposite sexes outside the familiar circle interact 24:30-31. The Quran uses Khumur and Julbab, a kind of head covering, for the woman's clothing 33:59. Far from being a form of subjugation rather it is the degradation of women judged on their looks and overexposed physically, in the Western media which is a form of subordination to the lust of men, and insulting to women. As said earlier, the hijab conditions both men and women to adopt a proper inter gender attitude, leading even those that tend to be abusive among the men, those who do not, as per the passage's instruction, lower FROM their gaze, to regard women in a dignified manner and value them for their character, intelligence, moral qualities

“That they should be known as such and not molested”33:59.

For the woman, and the men too whom the Quran commands to dress with modesty, the adoption of such a dress code leads to more positive body image, less reliance on media messages about beauty ideals, and appearance than those who do not. Again, to emphasize the fact women, regardless of their suggestive or explicit behavior, their respect or not of the Islamic dress code, are not to be looked at in a lustful manner, men are to

24:30"cast down from their looks"

as well as

"guard their modesty".

This injunction comes before addressing even the issue of wearing the hijab. This puts first the responsibility on men and how they must behave towards women

 "The Prophet said, 'Beware! Avoid sitting on the roads." They (the people) said, "O Allah s Apostle! We can't help sitting (on the roads) as these are (our places) here we have talks." The Prophet said, ' l f you refuse but to sit, then pay the road its right ' They said, "What is the right of the road, O Allah's Apostle?" He said, 'Lowering your gaze, refraining from harming others, returning greeting, and enjoining what is good, and forbidding what is evil".

Notice once more the realism of the  Quran; it emphasizes lowering the gaze when addressing men, regardless of what the woman is wearing, because naturally, a woman's attractiveness is primarily in her physical features. But of course, not all men abide by this ordinance and thus to further protect women in the public sphere, it tells them to observe a modest and covered dresscode. Men too should dress modestly, but men do not need to go to the extent of wearing a head cover so as to avoid lecherous staring. Contrary to women, male attractiveness is not primarily in his physical features, but in his status, wealth, ambition, capacity to provide protection etc. 

There is a reason why even modern secular societies, which do not impose modesty and censorship in interaction between the genders and who in consequence experience tension, including harassments, as well as clashes between sexes are resorting more and more to physical separations between the 2 in the public sphere.  These rules of modesty apply across the social spectrum, to both free people and slaves who adopt Islam as their religion, and who, through their code of living signal to the outside world that they are not open to indecency. Nothing in the Quran's wording indicates an exemption of the rules of modesty for any member of the Muslim community, men or women. In the prophet's time, war prisoners, including women were non-Muslims in the vast majority of cases and so were not required to wear and follow the Islamic code against their will. There were also Muslim servants of course who, of convenience were exempt from covering their head as they went about doing their work in and out of the house, which obviously entailed being frequently seen by men. This however left them vulnerable to molestation by the hypocrites and the non-Muslims of Medina who didnt abide by the rules of lowering their gaze and avoiding unnecessary gender interaction. Regular Muslim women were obligated to observe the dresscode, screening their appearance. This constitutes an advantage in such mischievous atmosphere, as it dissuades lechery but at the end, regardless of a woman's attire, if a man is bent on acting inappropriately towards women and disregard the prescribed code of conduct, he will still abuse any type of woman he comes across. When commentators spoke of the female dresscode as a means by which free and slave women were separated, they were stating a fact related to how such society worked as described earlier. None of them said that Muslim slave women were generally forbidden or exempt from the same dresscode as regular Muslim women. Commenting on 33:59 ibn Hazm writes 

"The nakedness of a woman is her entire body excluding the face and palms only. The free man and male servant, the free woman and maidservant are equal in this respect; there is no difference… As for differentiating between the free woman and maidservant, then the religion of Allah Almighty is one, creation and nature are one. All of that in respect to free women and maidservants is the same, unless there is an explicit text to distinguish between them in any way such that it can be applied". 

This view is the default one in accordance with the wording of the Quran. Later jurists, to accommodate their leaders and environments used precedents from the time of the prophet and the companions to allow more flexibility in regards the dresscode of the servants. The accommodation most in line with the prophet's time was to allow women servants to unveil their hair and other minor body parts during their household activities. Just as mistresses are allowed, in the Quran itself 24:31 and for convenient reasons to unveil in front of their male servants 

"The Prophet brought Fatimah a slave which he donated to her. Fatimah wore a garment which, when she covered her head, did not reach her feet, and when she covered her feet by it, that garment did not reach her head. When the Prophet saw her struggle, he said: There is no harm to you: Here is only your father and slave".

No prophetic precedent exists however for the practice of letting slaves show their naked breasts, chests, or backs in public. And this, despite the prophet having several of those servant girls helping around his wives, just as many Muslim households had. Had there been a clear precedent, or that the Quran allowed it, Imam Malik ibn Anas wouldnt have publicly revolted against the practice in Medina to the point he asked the caliph to prevent it. As other schools of law had already allowed it, the caliph did not go against it. The jurists that came after the time of the companions, pushed these rulings of convenience to unhealthy extents, as seen with imam Malik's disapproval. But it seems the jurists themselves felt the need to introduce a caveat, as noted by ibn Taymiyya 

"Slave women during the Prophet’s time didn't use to cover themselves like free women, while their chances of spreading Fitna were less, and their ruling was like of the old women who didn’t need to take Hijab as Quran said in verse 60 of Surah Noor. But as far as the beautiful Turkish slave women of today are concerned, then they could not be compared with the slave women of the time of prophet Muhammad. These beautiful Turkish slave women should thus cover whole of their bodies and to safeguard themselves from the eyes of men".

Ibn Umar's "inspection" of slave girls at the market, as he put his hand in between their breasts and the area of their lower hips, was done above their clothes. Although this practice, which never occurred in the prophet's time or that of the companions is certainly questionable, it was obviously not done with sexual motive; it was done over the clothes and not directly on the breasts themselves. Slaves were seen as a commodity which had to be physically inspected by the buyer. As stated by ibn Taymiyyah 

"The default position is that the nakedness of a maidservant is like a free woman, just as the nakedness of a male servant is like a free man. When she takes on an occupation and duties, her prohibitions are reduced in comparison to a free woman, as a concession to her in showing only what needs to be shown… As for the back and chest, it remains in the default position". 

The misunderstood notion that slave girls were totally exempt from wearing the veil, and even forbidden from doing so is unfounded in the Quran, in the practice of the prophet and his companions. What one may find at most is a disputed statement showing Umar, during his caliphate, forbidding a slave girl from covering her head. This could have been to differentiate her as a servant inside the household, in which the incident occurred and where guests were received. Due to a servant's function of attending the guests and household chores, the ample Julbab would have been inconvenient, and hence the exemption from wearing it. This means the servants were now wearing clothes more revealing of their body features, not because these features were openly exposed but because their clothes were closer to the body to allow better movements 

"Anas bin Malik said: “The servants of Umar, may God be pleased with him, served us, revealing their hair, and their breasts were moving". 

A point to note is that Umar only requested his servant woman's head be uncovered and no other body part, neither did he make a general statement about slave women. Also, having female servants dressed for their work does not entail the Muslim guests are allowed to transgress the command of lowering their gaze, ie looking beyond what is necessary, which applies to all situations beyond their wives and own servants. Ibn Taymiyyah continues elsewhere 

"As for attractive Turkish maidservants, this cannot possibly be as it was in the time of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. It is an obligation for them to cover their whole bodies from being looked at".

Anything in the traditions or history books describing a different practice is either unreliable, or coming from a foreign culture which was included in the Islamic empire. 

Apostate prophet rejects abrogation; the Torah supersedes previous revelations?

In answer to the video "Walking Away From Islam"

It would be appropriate here to further elaborate on 3:93, which addresses the issue of negation of abrogation by the Jews.

The Torah is in fact an example of abrogation in and of itself, forbidding certain foods that were allowed before, placing restrictions in situations where there were none. The verse states that among the Israelite prophets that preceded Moses and the Torah, only Jacob/Israel had forbidden to himself certain foods. Tradition tells us it was the choicest of meats for an Egyptian, that of camels, as a testimony of his gratitude to God for having healed his sickness. It could also be referring to other kinds of food for health or personal taste reasons. Although it wasnt requested from them, the Israelites, who wanted to emulate the prophet Jacob kept on forbidding themselves these foods. But every other food was allowed to them, including the very ones Jacob had disallowed for himself, before the revelation of the Torah.

When Revelation later came to Moses, God abrogated this principle. Certain foods were forbidden, either as a burden placed on them specifically because of their sins as already stated above, or as an everlasting ordinance, as in the case of pork meat for instance 6:146.

This reality strikes at the heart of a matter which the followers of previous scriptures, more specifically the Jews during the advent of Islam and even up to this day, could not admit; the issue of abrogation of a previous divine system by the very One who first decreed it. That is why they are then told to bring the scriptural proof for their claim that the dietary requirements of the Mosaic law preceded the Torah, and since they obviously couldnt, then it means God did in fact, through the Torah, abolish a previous system He had validated for them and their forefather Abraham whose way was now being restored in front of their eyes

3:93-5"All food was lawful to the children of Israel except that which Israel had forbidden to himself, before the Taurat was revealed. Say: Bring then the Taurat and read it, if you are truthful. Then whoever fabricates a lie against Allah after this, these it is that are the unjust. Say: Allah has spoken the truth, therefore follow the religion of Ibrahim, the upright one; and he was not one of the polytheists".

This is part of a wider passage similarly admonishing the Jews for their blind dogmatism and stubborn denial of various aspects of the truth, despite the clear arguments and signs presented to them.

In 2:106 the Quran adresses the followers of previous scriptures, summing up this principle of superseding divine revelations, making it clear to them that

13:38"For every term there is a book"

and

5:48"for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way"  

22:67"therefore they should not dispute with you about the matter and call to your Lord; most surely you are on a right way"

and that

13:39"Allah makes to pass away and establishes what He pleases"

and all is done according to established heavenly and unchanging principles present with God

"and with Him is the basis of the Book"

Who did not create the universe but

46:3"with truth and (for) an appointed term". 

2:106 comes in a context where they are being admonished for their history of carelesness towards their revealed Books and their refusal to accept a new revelation. Their refusal being primarily rooted in it being bestowed on someone outside of their fold. It tells them the Quran has now superseded the previous revelations by abrogating them in part through the modification of previous laws that were either meant as a punishement for their transgressions, or were more applicable for the age. In the words of the Quran "better", and as for those that were just as applicable for the age, but forgotten by the People of the Book, God introduced something similar, or in the words of the Quran, "or the like thereof".

The act of forgetfulness is attributed to God in the same way is the "sealing of the hearts". God has allowed it to happen as a result of the carelessness of the People of the Book who besides their going astray into the ways of polytheism as attested in their scriptures, had grown so indifferent to the Torah that we read various incidents in their history and recorded in their books that attest to them having lost knowledge not only of the contents of their books, but also of their whereabouts. This is not to speak even of the complete erasure of their memory of the location of the mountain where they had collectively witnessed the most extraordinary miracles and were collectively made to live the prophetic experience.

What this means is that one is not losing anything from following the new revelation of God, contrary to the mindless ranting of the People of the Book. In fact, God has granted something better and revived what has been forgotten through the Quran.

Apostate prophet uncovers reality of sharia; a soulful purification?

In answer to the video "Walking Away From Islam"

Allah has not ordained a soulless sharia concerned only with the body of deeds.

The Quran constantly parallels internal with external purity, discussing issues of social laws side by side with laws of worship. Muslims are warned not to fall into the error of those before them, who neglected the spirit of the Sharia for soulless external rituals and subjective legal hair-splittings.
Allah has restored the Sharia to its original simplicity in order to lighten our burdens 2:286,4:27-8 because

"man is created weak".

This means man's weakness is due to the fact that he cannot by himself find the true path, he is in need of Allah's guidance. That is why the preceding verses speak of Allah's will to guide mankind, turn to us mercifully and lighten our burdens. 2:286 also implies that Allah could burden mankind with a difficult Sharia as a form of punishment as was done with the Israelites and as plainly stated in the book of Ezekiel quoted above. When we create an innovation and complicate the Sharia on ourselves, then we will charge ourselves with greater burdens than God asked of us. God allows this to happen as a form of punishment.

What Allah demands from us is not unreachable and He does not impose what is beyond our power and understanding. This is why Allah expects us to answer the call of religion with

2:285"We hear and obey".

It is an unconditional declaration of faith and obedience to a system which is not meant, as already said, at narrowing down man's feel of life through ethical discipline and other teachings of the Quran but on the contrary, to enhance it by deepening his consciousness of right and wrong 20:2.

It is important to note here that the core tenets of religion have always remained unchanged and shall remain so; however, as far as the rituals and customs are concerned, God has prescribed them separately and differently in the course of human history. They are trials to determine who turns away from the truth by showing bias and prejudice to these rituals and customs and who becomes the real seeker of the truth and accepts them in every form that they come to them from God and His prophets. This is precisely why the Quran often states that the people, regardless of their chosen spiritual ways will be judged according to their faithfulness in abiding by these core tenets

22:17,5:48"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".

That 16:101 is speaking of the previous scriptures can also be inferred from 16:103 where the person pointed to as the probable secret teacher of the prophet was suspected of teaching him the stories of the Bible as reported in the traditions.

Apostate prophet to Muslim cooks; strict Islamic dietary laws?

In answer to the video "Walking Away From Islam"

Islamic dietary laws are actually simple and wrapped in the principle that an upright, God-conscious being, is aware of the higher realities in all situations, even when feeding himself, contrary to

47:12"those who disbelieve enjoy themselves and eat as the beasts eat".

Allah did not burden mankind with an unrealistic system destined at obstructing human spiritual development rather at elevating humans above their mere materiality. Whenever the divine law became complicated, it was on account of the people's own disobedience. For instance most of the mosaic laws is either due to self imposed restrictions because of the Jews' well known hairsplitting of the law, or punishments for their disobedience. Islam is the path of Ibrahim, who was neither a Jew, a Christian, nor a polytheist, but one who submitted unto Allah. The Quran never tells the prophet and the Muslims to follow the ways of Moses, Solomon, or Jesus, as they were bound by a law meant for a different people.  The whole passage speaking of replacement of an aya with another stresses that the prophethood of Muhammad supersedes the previous systems, including dietary and ritualistic with the example of the sabbath 16:124 and returns the divine system to its original simplicity as was taught to Abraham. The Quran confirming the Torah doesnt entail being bound by its law. Rather it confirms all its truthful statements, including what is found in the Torah itself about the Mosaic law being meant for the Jewish people only, as part of a conditional covenant. This covenant was eventually revoked.

The verse 16:101 reports the people's opposition to changes made by the prophet. The people who are objecting in 16:101 must have precise reference points to know that a newly revealed verse changed a previous one. The type of objection quoted in the verse, open and public negation of prophethood, cannot be referring to Muslims, who would never think their prophet was the Quran's author, nor to the pagans who, despite being convinced he authored it, either through sorcery, jinn possession or with the help of informants, only had a generic knowledge of the Quran's contents. They could not have precise reference points so as to detect a change. This leaves those among the people of the book who both rejected Muhammad's prophethood openly, and had precise reference points so as to detect the changes brought about by new verses. Their reference point was not the Quran which they didnt give much attention to besides for the gist of the prophet's message. The reference was their own scripture. They knew that verses from the Quran, when they heard them, replaced some of those in their hands. This was the main contention they had towards the prophet, the superseding of their scriptures with the Quran, as they still object to this day, in light of the warning in their books that they should Deut13"keep the commandments" if they are told to do otherwise.

A few verses down after mentioning the very basic dietary laws, the Quran refers to the more complex dietary laws of the people of the Book.

This anticipates the objection about God's revealing different sets of dietary laws at different times 16:114-124. So the Quran specifies that these prohibitions, whether the dietary ones or others pertaining to different aspects of their lives, were either the result of divine chastisement for their rebellion, or because of self-imposed restrictions 3:93,4:160-1,6:146,16:118.

The words THULM and BAGHI used in 4:160,6:146 convey the sense of foolish actions, as in transgressions, while thulm has the wider meaning of "misplacing right and wrong". This may happen through direct rebellion or by making things forbidden on oneself by neglecting some teachings and stressing other, hairsplitting conjecture or irrational requests for clarifications to broad and simple directives.

The Quran relates an occasion where, due to their arrogance the religion became a burden on them. Their lack of obedience and will to bend to God's will, or "stiff-necked" as Moses and other prophets labelled them collectively in their scriptures, is demonstrated in 2:67-73. During the incident, they were offensive towards their prophet, accusing him of ridiculing them when he simply conveyed God's command. They had to sacrifice any cow in a ritual that would clarify the confusing circumstances of a murder. They went on asking Moses that he might ask "his lord" as though He was not their Lord, for more and more particulars regarding cow to be sacrificed. After ridiculing their prophet, discrediting God's answers to their demands as unclear because

"to us the cows are all alike",

they finally reluctantly agreed to perform the ritual.

This attitude of obscuring a simple religious directive is not restricted to this particular ordinance. They have done the same in other circumstances and for different reasons, and so God gave them free rein in forging their own laws. This resulted in them following their base desires and idolatrous tendencies

Ezek20:25-26: “Moreover, I gave them laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live. When they passed every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very gifts — that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am the Lord”.

God therefore shackled the rebellious souls of this "stiffed necked" nation with a law, the Torah, that would illuminate their way and lead them to the straight path. Their rebellious nature however took the upper hand, as it did even while Moses was among them performing miracles for all to see. Instead of humbling their selves, gratefully abiding by these directives meant for their own good, as David understood and did Ps19, they progressively took control of the laws, making their application only secondary to the man made practices that "validate them". Their ritualistic obsessions and hairsplitting conjectures basically turned the Divine law into a man made one. And this is another form of idolatry and God let them follow that path as a punishment, as He is described doing in Ezekiel, even letting them enshrine some of those laws in the written Torah. Divine law should instead be agreeable to the human soul, and if its recipients are mature and obedient, which was overwhelmingly not the case of the Israelites in their history, then it should make room for the evolving circumstances of the world. This adaptability however can never compromise the original spiritual principle and intent. This nature and purpose of the Mosaic law was rightly observed since the earliest days of Judeo-christian internal debates. In his dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr cites every aspect of the law, including the institution of sacrifice and observance of Sabbath, as burdens forced upon the Jews to contain their tendency to disobedience

"Wherefore, God, adapting His laws to that weak people, ordered you to offer sacrifices to His name, in order to save you from idolatry, but you did not obey even then, for you did not hesitate to sacrifice your children to the demons. Moreover, the observance of the sabbaths was imposed upon you by God so that you would be forced to remember Him, as He Himself said, ‘That you may know that I am God your Savior’ [Ezk 20.20]".

The Mosaic law in most part did not originate at Sinai but progressively came on the Israelites to contain their repeated disobedience and punish their endless conjectures on clear instructions. Many were then retrospectively painted as revealed to Moses since the beginning, and for different reasons. The Sabbath became a day of rest that mimics God's resting from creation Gen2,Ex20,31. Another passage gives a profoundly different reason for Sabbath. It is a remembrance of Egyptian bondage Deut5. This shows the confused manner in which tradition was transmitted prior to being written down.

The conjectures of their law books, obtained through subjective methods of deduction and then put forward as God's ordinances, reached such proportions that in the words of Rashi the famous rabbi and Torah exegete, in reference to the rabbinic disagreements during the era of Hillel and Shammai

“Since the students of Hillel and Shammai fought, there have been many disagreements about Torah to the point that it has become as two separate teachings for all the burdens of subjugation to the Heavens and edicts which they placed upon the Torah” (Bava Metzia 33b).

Put briefly, the creators of the Oral Torah (the sages of the Mishnah and the Talmud) completely ignored the laws of the (Written) Torah, only using them as a convenient framework within which to legislate laws adapted to their own time. These ideas are expressed in the Talmud/Oral Torah, considered as God-given and revealed as the written Torah of Moses is. Their known soulless interpretations and conjectures caused them to create insurmountable legal criteria.

For example some purity rituals must be fulfilled before or just at the start of the Messianic era, but the preconditions are impossible to achieve due to the supposed impurity of the entire community. There is also the sacrifice of a "red heifer" whom none has been able to breed and raise yet, despite the continuous attempts up to this day. It is said that even Solomon, the wisest of all men, tried throughout his life to understand the matter of the red heifer and did not succeed. Despite God punishing them in this manner, letting them complicate the law further upon themselves, so as to wake them up to their degenerate condition, they instead remained stiff necked and disobedient. They are still nowadays elaborating further upon these legal conjectures of their forefathers. Consequently, the Quran alludes to the spiritual barrenness of their hearts through the simile of dry rocks and even harder because

2:74"there are some rocks from which streams burst forth".

Their hard heartedness is a recurrent theme and accusation in their own Books Ezek3:7,Jer5:3etc.

Because these restrictions came either in direct consequence of their sins, so they could not have been intended for a righteous community, or were self-imposed meaning against the original intent, then it was one of the prophet's mission with the Quran to promulgate laws adapted to a new, upright nation that would be a torch bearer of the truth to the world. This is the Quran, making

7:157"lawful to them the good things and makes unlawful to them impure things, and removes from them their burden and the shackles which were upon them".

Now that God's Law has achieved its final and universal character, it has been restored to its original simplicity, as close as it had ever been to the way of Abraham who was neither Jew nor Christian nor a polytheist. God does not burden an obedient people with difficulties they cannot bear

2:286,23:62"And we do not lay on any soul a burden except to the extent of its ability, and with Us is a book which speaks the Truth, and they shall not be dealt with unjustly".

This covers that the divine law cannot be burdensome in and of itself, but also that it may not make the particular circumstances of an individual even harsher and unbearable than they already are. For example forcing a sick person to fast for a month. The religion of Allah is not a burden, and neither is the set of ethical discipline it imposes upon man meant at narrowing down his feel of life 20:2, it rather is meant at enhancing it by deepening his consciousness of right and wrong. It is a blessing meant at purifying mankind or as the Quran says when speaking of the objective of religion being for spiritual tazkiya/purging. Allah calls it His favor and grace

4:113,5:3,2:231"and remember the favor of Allah upon you, and that which He has revealed to you of the Book and the Wisdom".

Here, this favor is described as being in the Book and the Wisdom referring to the body and soul of the Sharia respectively, to its commandments and their philosophy. This phrase is often used to connote the fact that God's guidance is perfectly balanced between both these aspects.

Apostate prophet ponders; is all Music haram?

In answer to the video "Walking Away From Islam"

There is plenty of Music in Islam, more than in any other religion. Adhan is music, just as the melodious recitation of the Quran, regardless of anyone's personal tastes. That is why there are many different kinds of reciting methods and tones of voices.

Of course, Islam doesnt tolerate music that degrades the human soul and incites dark desires and debauchery. It is interesting to note how in the HB, a contrast is made between music destined to praise God, as in David's case, and the kind of music that is condemned, when devoid of any true spirituality

Amos6:5"Who sing according to the tone of the lute. They thought that their musical instruments were like [those of] David".

Not all music is therefore designated as evil. Similarily, Islam doesnt condemn all poetry.

In 26:224-226 for example it singles out, a group among the poets. In pre-islamic times certain poems were instruments of evil and wickedness. Before and during the advent if Islam, poets posted their sexually explicit verses on the walls of the Kaaba. They were highly revered and believed to be under the power of jinns. This type of poetry darkened the people's emotions and intellects, instigated wars and hatred among different parties who otherwise would not have even fought eachother on the battlefield.

A hadith often gladly picked up by the non-educated Islam critics on that issue is the one saying the

"bell is the musical instrument of the Satan".

It isnt speaking of bells used at any occasion, but for musical purposes that invite devilish, inappropriate behavior. It is well established in classical Arabic, let alone Semitic languages in general as seen from Jesus' calling Peter "satan" in the NT Matt16:23, that when someone or something is associated with the devil, most of the time it is understood as a metaphor for its evil consequences. For example in Medina the Muslims suggested using bells at first to signal the arrival of the time of prayer, showing that bells arent always associated with evil.

Eventually someone was designated to vocally call the people to prayer.

Islam critiqued is lost in translation; following the law of God or Jesus?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

To reconcile Jesus' and his early followers' stance with Paul's and theirs as regards to Jewish laws, Christians today attempt word acrobatics to equate on one hand, "the Law of the Lord" with the so called "Ten Commandments", and on the other hand, the  "moral laws" or the "Law of Moses" with the now obsolete "ceremonial law" (ie the remaining 603 laws of the Torah). However what these Christians want to classify as "ceremonial law", the obsolete 603 mosaic laws according to Paul, is called "the Law of the Lord" many times Ex13:7-9,1Chron16:40,2Chron31:3-4 as well as in Nehemiah8:1,8,14 -in conjonction with Lev23:33-36-. Not only that but the "Law of Moses" and the "Law of the Lord" are used to refer to the same books.

Even Jesus in Matt12:5 refers to the ceremonial law as "the Law" because he considered the Mosaic Law to be one inseparable unit. He equated what Christians call Moses' "ceremonial law" with "the law of the Lord" numerous times Luke2:22-24,39. When he was asked which of the commandments was the greatest he quoted two commandments neither of which were from the so-called "Ten Commandments" Matt22:34-40 but from what Christians want to differentiate as Moses' "ceremonial law" Deut6:5,Lev19:18. It is obvious that the Bible never even once makes any distinction in terms of the Law between the moral (which Christians want to be so-called 10 commandements) and the ceremonial.

On the contrary the 613 laws are always viewed as one unit. For example Deut4:44-45 speaking of "the law", ie all 613 laws not just the so called 10 commandements. Same thing for Josh8:34-35,1Kings 2:3,Micah4:2,Lev18:5,24:22,Deut4:1,5,8,6:25,31:12-13,2Kings17:3,21:8, 23:25,1Chron16:40,Ezra7:6,Ps78:5,119:1,55,108,137,174,147:20,Prov31:4-5, Isa5:24,Jere18:18,Lam2:9,Ezek7:26,Hosea4:6,Amos2:4,Hab1:4, Zeph3:4,Zech7:12,Mal2:9,Mk15:31,Jn1:17,Acts13:39,Gal3:10,Eph2:14-15,1Tim1:7-8,Titus3:9,Heb10:28,James2:10.

Even the word "law" (Torah in Hebrew and Nomos in the Greek) when applied to the entire corpus of laws of the Torah is always singular even though it contains 613 separate commandments. Finally, Deut27 curses the one who does not live by the divine law. Yet we have Paul in places like Gal3:10 painting it as a curse which Jesus' death now retrospectively freed the world from. But the world in the first place isnt even concerned by this law, only the Jews were, and still are, concerned by it. This negative, completely misconstrued view of the mosaic law is of course in disregards of statements such as Deut30:10-14 where the entire Law is said to be at anyone's reach, of Ps119:1 stating that

"Praiseworthy are those whose way is perfect, who walk with the law of the Lord"

and Job37:23 which does not expect people to be perfectly righteous in Torah observance. In fact even the NT contains similar statements, as in Lk1:6 where John's parents are upright in God's sight, observing all commandements blamelessly.

This is the way of God and is reflected not only in the earlier revelations, but down to the Quran as well

2:220"And had God so willed, He would indeed have imposed on you hardships which you would not have been able to bear, but behold, God is almighty, wise".

The sharia/law of God is and has always been intended to be simple and straightforward, adapted to man's nature, extreme circumstances and exceptions, and above all it is the means by which one is spiritually purified 2:185,5:6,22:78. Whenever the religion became complicated, it was either because of man-made additions to it, or as a punishement.

Today's Christians pick and choose which laws are still aplicable to them while all of them, including the so-called 10 laws, were revealed at Sinai. But being non-Jews, they are not obliged to follow the Law in the first place, yet still declare that Jesus' sacrifice is the only thing that saved them from it (the law that God Himself obliged). Being that God is the source of the very laws they condemn, the "mercy" of Jesus "fulfilling" the law by "breaking" it, came after the generations upon generations of oppression by that very same God's demand that His law be upheld and fulfilled.

Through a concise statement, the Quran explains the mutual relationship between the Torah and the Gospel; they complete one another by centering the attention on the wisdom and spirit of every aspect of God's Laws so that they do not end up as something lifeless and burdensome for the people

3:48-50"And He will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Tawrat and the Injeel..And a verifier of that which is before me of the Taurat and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord therefore be careful of (your duty to) Allah and obey me".

By the beginning of the 1st century Judaism was a sterile, lifeless organism, waiting to be infused with a spirituality that only Jesus could provide.

Jesus repeatedly condemned those traditions in the NT, denounced the Jews and their leaders as "hypocrites" and told the people to beware of these "teachers of law" for their soulless traditions, and "children of the Devil" because of their claim of inherited righteousness through their affiliation to Abraham Jn8:37-44.

Not in one single instance within the whole NT is it reported that Jesus said that the law of Moses needs to be abandoned, contrary to Paul who besides stating it was a curse Gal3:13 given not by God but by angels Gal3:19-25,Heb2:2 declared it obsolete Rom3:20,7:4,10:4,Heb8:13,Gal2:21,3:23-25,4:21-31,5:1,Eph2:15 even describing his former Jewish beliefs as worthless, rejecting his former Jewishness by warning of Jewish dogs saying in the original Greek

Phil3:2-8"I consider them excrement".

He told people he was seeking to convert, that they were now under the vague 'law of Christ'. Jesus himself never alludes to such law, hence it being unknown to any of those who met and followed him and respected all Jewish laws to the letter as per his actual instructions. That law of christ, tailored so as to apeal to Paul's mainly pagan audience, has removed the old burden from mankind 1Corin9:21,Gal6:2. He sometimes paid lip service to the Law if the situation or audience required a show of obedience to the law Acts21:20-26 but immidiately denounced the likes of James and Peter for telling the Gentiles to follow the law Gal2, evidently because it attracted less converts.

As regards Matt26:28 and elsewhere where it is believed Jesus declared the ushering of a "new" covenant

"This is my blood of the new covenant",

some manuscripts have "new" others dont and even if we go with the former translations, there is still the problem of Jesus allegedly ushering in a new covenant yet he specifically told his followers to abide by the Law or what Paul refered to as the Old covenant, which Jesus called "the way" and upheld to the letter. Where did Jesus say the Law of Moses would become "old" and needed to be abandonned subsequently to his alleged sacrifice? In fact, we find in the Gospels Jesus invoking the Torah when arguing with the religious elite because Jesus' mission was exposing the Pharisees for their hypocritical and rigid application of the Torah, not to abolish it. He gives the example of David who worked on the Sabbath, driven by necessity to eat food Matt12:1-8,1Sam21:1-6. He was this way upholding the spirit of the Law because saving a life is lawful on the Sabbath per the Torah Mk3:4 hence his quoting from

Hosea6:6"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice".

The Rabbis knew and understood this, that is why they couldn't answer as there was no violation of the Law. Similarly when he was accused of breaking the Sabbath because he healed the sick, what he was actually doing once again is exposing their rigid and soulless outlook of the religion. He took advantage of that situation to infuse the law with its lost wisdom. He showed them the Torah itself allowed circumsising or caring for an animal on a sabbath, then what to say of helping a suffering human being Matt12:9-13,Jn7:23-4,Lk13:10-17,Mk3:1-6.

By breaking it he was doing what he "sees" the Father doing, sustaining His creation at all times. Jesus, the most knowledgeable person among his contemporaries in religious law further told his Jewish audience that he was in this way working together with God. As correctly understood by the faithfull blind man who was cured on Sabbath, this action did not make Jesus a sinner nor a blasphemer as his enemies among the Jews accused him, but rather a true prophet Jn11:11-33. Yet even to this day, the Talmudic "sages" whose legalistic deductions are viewed as God-given still hold that “one does not assist a gentile woman in childbirth on the Sabbath” (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 330:2).

The Quran accurately sums up Jesus' mission as such

3:50"And a verifier of that which is before me of the Torah and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you".

Jesus verified the truth remaining in the past scriptures, relieved the bani Israel of some of the things forbidden to them through the soulless and far fetched conjectures of their rabbis. That is what Jesus meant when he told his disciples that they must practice and teach these laws to the letter while surpassing the "righteousness" of the Pharisees, meaning they must practice the body and soul of the law not only the body as they did

"whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven".

Islam critiqued fails emulating his hero; The sunna of Jesus Christ?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

The sunna of Jesus, regardless of the baseless Christian conjectures, simply is; being Jewish. "The way" of Jesus Jn14:6 is outlined in Lk10:25-28 where he commands strict observance of Jewish laws. In that passage from Luke he is asked about the conditions of salvation and the questionner quotes from Lev19 which details certains laws like the observance of the sabbath and admonishes to

"Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the LORD".

The 2nd passage quoted by the questionner is Deut6 which speaks of loving the One God and obeying His commandements

"keep the commands of the LORD your God and the stipulations and decrees he has given you. Do what is right and good in the LORD's sight..obey all this law before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness". 

As one can clearly see, one is justified before God, not by faith alone but by deeds too. Consequently the Nazarenes, Jesus' early group of small band of followers, observed all Jewish customs outlined in the Torah but differed from Jews in that they recognized Jesus as the Messiah. These 120 small band of believers in Jesus, an inconsequential number considering the spectacular wonders that accompanied his life, death and resurrection, were the followers of "the way" Acts19:9,23,22:4,24:14,22 and known as already said, as the Nazarenes Acts24:11.

The Quran calls them nasara from nusra/help in reference to those few core elements that valliantly stood by him, when he started sensing disbelief among his followers 3:52,61:14.

This inner circle are not the cowards presented in the NT as fleeing Jesus when adversity came or unable to understand most if any, of his teachings which is why they abandoned his instructions to abide by the law soon after his death. In the Quran they pray Allah to make them witnesses of the truth, that their life becomes an embodiment, a testimony to Jesus' teachings. "Christian" is a later appellation Acts11:26. In fact the word Christian itself is in reference to the belief that those who hold that qualification are anointed with God's oil, according to the earliest Christians such as Theophilus.

Nasara is phonetically close to the historical Nazarene/Nazoraios (Greek) or Nasraya (Syriac) Acts24. In the region of the Levant from where the Christians of the Hijaz originated, Christians called themselves Kristyane. It is expected that the Quran would address them by that same name just as it addresses Jews and other groups by their own names. Instead it chose to bring back to the spotlight an appellation forgotten by Christians themselves, found in their books, in reference to the first followers of Jesus, so as to illustrate how far they have gone astray. The last revelation this way vindicates Jesus' true followers, the Nazarenes, by bringing them back to the forefront of history after they had been relegated to darkness by the Christian pauline movement.

Another similarly remarkable feature of the Quran, is in its emphatic description of Jesus' mission as exclusively meant for the Israelites. To the Jews of 7th century Arabia, as is the case today, the reason for Jesus' mission and to whom it was directed to, was of no importance. No Jew would have walked around teaching the notion that Jesus was sent to the Jewish tribes. Christians on the other hand, teach that Jesus' mission was meant for all of humanity. The NT itself makes the claim, contradicting itself. It is thus expected for a 7th century Arab who is neither a Jew nor Christian, and who awkwardly decides to reveal Jesus' target audience, to similarly state that Jesus was sent to all people. Or at the very least that he was sent to Christians just as Moses was sent to the Jews. The Nazarenes grew among the Israelites but persecutions forced them to go into hiding, with Paul playing a central role in their persecution prior to his conversion. After joining their ranks, he influenced the group leaders, namely Peter and James, to reach out to the Gentiles. With more non-Jews entering the fold, Jewish laws binding on the community were abandoned Acts15:1-29 and so was Jesus' "way". The Nazarenes who were centred in Jerusalem gradually became isolated. It is interesting noting that upon his arrest by the Jews and Romans, Paul was assumed to be Acts24"a ringleader of the Nazarene sect". Paul doesnt confirm the accusation, as it obviously did not conform to reality, and instead claims he follows the original path of Jesus. Paul's missionary activities progressively gained him a following among the gentile population which was more inclined looking up to Paul for leadership, instead of Jesus' brother James, a strict observer of Jewish Law, considered to be Jesus' successor in non-canonical Gospels.

With the establishment of Christianity as a state religion in Rome by Constantine in the 4th century, they definitely fled Jerusalem, in the surrounding deserts and managed to survive outside Palestine as they are mentioned by Jerome upto 380AD to have lived in the Syrian desert. Among them the Ebionites (who claimed to descend from the original Jewish disciples led by James) and Elchasites who rejected Paul as a charlatan and his teachings as falsehood, as well as the Zadokites, Essenes, Rechabites, Sabeans, Mandaeans etc.

They had their own writing which they considered scripture, composed of an oral tradition attributed to Jesus, and some HB books. Their writings are known, among others as Gospel of the Nazareans, Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Ebionites.

They would later write that Paul was a false apostle who taught heresy based on the fact he was a failed convert who was disappointed with Judaism and therefore motivated to teach against its laws, all the laws that constituted Jesus' "way". Unfortunately the group that opposed them and their practices gained more converts, obviously as it appealed much more to non-Jews, more particularly the hellenized Romans and Greeks.

The Nazarenes and similar groups were inevitably marginalised while the more and more dominant groups decided what the Church’s organizational structure would be, as well as its official creeds, or which books would be accepted as Scripture. The group that became "orthodox", further sealed its victory, by the pens of early writers like Iraeneus, Justin Martyr and Tertullian, claiming that their "way" had always been the majority opinion of Christianity, going back to Jesus and his apostles. 

Many of the laws of Moses are inapplicable today due to the absence of a Temple. What is damaging however from a Christological perspective is that the prophets of the HB did envision a time where such a thing would happen. None said a thing about believing in Jesus or any other messianic claimant, as an alternative way to be accepted by God. Instead, they were commanded by God Himself to turn to Him in prayer and repentance Hos3,14,1Kings8:46-50. This would have been the perfect occasion in scripture to integrate Jesus in the grand scheme of divine salvation. But it doesnt.

The Hebrew Bible says full Torah observance will be restored in the messianic era when the promised Jewish King/Messiah will build the Third Temple in Jerusalem Mal3:4,Deut30,Ezek11,36,37. This alone refutes the Christian interpretation, alien to Jesus' teachings, that Jesus actually abrogated 603 commandements and told his followers to only abide by 10 of them. More damning to Christian theology and its concept of once and for all blood sacrifice with Jesus is the fact that animal offerings will be brought to the Temple at that time, as a requirement of the reinstated commandements Isa56:6-8,Zech14:16,Jere33:15-18,Ezek43:18-46:24.

Jesus himself doesnt say that the institution of animal sacrifices is abolished, or that it will be, rather he emphasized righteousness and high morality as a prerequisite. That approach is basically what he tried infusing in every aspect of the Mosaic Law. In fact we even read that after Jesus' departure, his closest disciples in Jerusalem still practiced animal sacrifices. They requested of Paul to do the same so as to prove his allegiance to Moses' and Jesus' teachings Acts21,Numb6:14.

This negates the notion that Jesus' supposed death rendered the sacrificial system obsolete.

In fact there is not even such a thing as "the 10 commandements". The entire number of commandements in the Tanakh are 613 and each one of the 613 is considered equally important. In the Hebrew, there is no equivalent for what Christians refer to as the "Ten Commandments", in reference to Ex20. In the Torah, they are called Aseret ha-D'varim Ex34:28,Deut4:13,10:4 meaning word, speak or thing; thus, the phrase is accurately translated as the Ten Sayings, the Ten Statements, the Ten Declarations, the Ten Words or even the Ten Things, but not as the Ten Commandments except in Christian Bibles of course, because "Ten Commandements" would be in Hebrew Aseret ha-Mitzvot.

These ten sayings are not understood as individual mitzvot/commands; rather, they are categories or classifications of mitzvot/commands. Each of the 613 mitzvot can be subsumed under one of these ten categories, some in more obvious ways than others. In Talmudic times, the rabbis purposefully excluded these ten sayings from the liturgy because they thought excessive emphasis on them might lead people to mistakenly believe that these were the only mitzvot or the most important mitzvot, and neglect the full 613 (Talmud Berakhot 12a).

In NT times, the Church of God at Jerusalem didnt force new converts to immediately apply all of them so they were required initially to follow 4 Acts15:19-20 which summed up 65+ commandments but had to study and learn all of them as part of their spiritual development, it could be achieved by everyone according to Deut30:10-14. It was usually done each Sabbath Acts15:21. 

Jesus never transgressed and always abided by all the mitzvots, including  the near totality of the early Christian church that was composed of Jewish converts who upheld the Torah and believed that Jesus was the messiah. 

Islam critiqued seeks the clues; the corrupt scribes of Israel?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

One of the basic themes of the Bible is the Israelites trying to justify their sins by blaming others. They were chastised for sins they comitted because they were "misled" by their leaders. At one point for example they chose Jeroboam over Solomon's son thus causing God to reveal their eminent uprooting and scattering

1Kings13:15-16"..because of the sins of Jeroboam that he sinned and that he has caused Israel to sin".

In other cases they attacked the prophets, a few examples were given earlier.

It was because Aaron yielded to the people's demand for an idol to be built, that many were put to death.

Sometimes it is the prophets' own sins that caused the community to be chastised. In 2Sam24,1Chron21 God gives David 3 options to forgive a deed inexplicably considered as a sin; the census of his population. Yet a previous census had been conducted in Israelite history, as far back as Moses without any reproof Ex30. So the 3 options for that terrible sin of David was to punish the Israelites with famine, or with a plague or at the hands of their ennemies. David chose the plague which resulted in 70'000 deaths.

Tens of thousands of them were massacred by the Philistines under divine decree, because of Eli's 2 sons' unrighteousness and corruption of the priesthood. The sin of these 2 sons also brought about a divine curse upon Eli's lineage, with the death of all young men raised in his household for having failed to prevent the wickedness of his 2 sons despite the warnings 1Sam2-4.

Similarily in 2Sam21 God tells David that the Israelites' famine was because of what Saul and his household had done to the Gibeonites, so David turned over seven of Saul's progeny to the Gibeonites, who promptly executed them thus satisfying their desire for revenge. Later, king Jehoram is condemned for misguiding the Israelites into idol worship, a crime for which God would deliver them to be plundered and destroyed at the hand of their pagan neighbors 2Chr21:12-20.

As regards their sins and atrocities they commited as they invaded foreign lands, they are depicted as "divine decrees". The kingdom of Israel was torn appart and divided due to Solomon's sins of polytheism, in turn blamed on his numerous wives. Yet this punishment for Solomon's own sin, was inflicted later, in the reign of his son Rehoboam. Solomon was spared this sorrow in his lifetime because of his father David's righteousness.

Other major themes and causes for scriptural corruptions are the rampant tribal prejudices. Abraham's "only son" suddenly becomes the second born son Isaac, rather than firstborn Ishmael. God rewards Jacob's deception of Esau to be the covenant's upholder. God curses one line (Jeconiah) in favor of another (Solomon) for the Messiah's lineage. YHWH takes sides among their internal tribal conflicts as in Judges20,21 with the massacre of the Benjamites by the remaining Israelites or in 2Chron13 with YHWH's blessing of Abijah, king of Judah (southern kingdom) to wage war against Israel (northern kingdom) ruled by Jeroboam (not from the line of Solomon) that resulted in no less than 500.000 deaths among His "chosen people".

When the whole community in general, and the religious scholars and priests in particular, became involved in deviations and immoralities, their guilty consciences impelled them to invent excuses for justifying their own bad conduct. As they committed heinous sins like shirk, sorcery, adultery, treachery, falsehood and the like, they blemished the pure characters of their own Prophets by ascribing such sins to them as were most shameful even for an ordinary good man, not to speak of a prophet so that they could justify their own wicked deeds. They didnt even spare God Himself in the process Who openly takes sides with the sinful, issues cruel and unwarranted punishments, allows His chosen race to be abusive and ungodly in their wars.

As a final note, the hatemongerers among the Jews and Christians attribute to the last prophet, the prophet Muhammad, without any basis, all the slanders and calumnies which their scribes had imputed to their prophets and eminent leaders. Although, much to their dismay, the sins that they have assigned to the prophet Muhammad do not even come close in scale and scope of what their predecessors attributed to the previous prophets. What bellies the position of these misleading critics is that the prophet Muhammad could have repeated in this final revelation all the charges against the Biblical prophets so as to justify his own alleged slip into idolatry, his greed, lust and love for blood. He could have easily picked up countless examples of men who comitted sins far greater than what is being accused of and pointed that despite their sins, these men's claim to prophethood remained unshaken.

But the Quran consistently and repeatedly absolves the previous prophets of these malicious charges and places their standard of morality on such a high level that the prophet Muhammad would many times feel humbled by the description that the Quran makes of them. For example he once said he would not have had Yusuf's strength of character when he provided the interpretation of the king's dream while unjustly imprisoned

"I would not have done so until I put a condition on them that they let me out...May Allah have mercy on Yusuf.  May Allah bless him for his patience, and Allah will forgive him.  I could not have done that...".

Islam critiqued loves impartiality; YHWH condemns the sinful prophets?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

There are no sinful prophets, only sinful scribes. And we know how YHWH's condemnation of those prophets always plays out, from Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon etc. It is almost never or on an insignificant scale that these sinful men are punished. It always is the community that has to carry the burden of its leaders' sins.

Anyone familiar with these man-made scriptures shouldnt be surprised at seeing sins like idolatry, adultery, murder and the like being attributed to the Biblical prophets. It is a common theme in the Bible that the many divine chastisements that befell the Israelites were due to sins which they were mislead into commiting by their own prophets, leaders, kings.

This is besides the rampant tribal prejudice running allthrought their history, the puerile villification of characters and the internal conflicts. Here it should be quickly worthwile mentioning the tribal tension surrounding the Davidic line.

After Solomon's death, his kingdom was divided, allegedly as a divine punishement for his sins, including the sin of idolatry which eventually dragged the entire nation. We see here how the divine justice plays out, punishing others for someone else's crime. Most certainly, far from that noble prophet being the instigator of this greatest sin and the cause of its re-introduction into the Israelites' lives, this yet again confirms the nation's constant and stubborn ingratitude. Moses had foreseen their turning away from the straight path into the sin of idolatry. Virtually all prophets that followed him kept on condemning them for that constant fall out into the ways of the pagan nations.

This lack of faith resulted in them majoritarily defecting from the house of David and the divine covenant itself. The nation sceeded in 2; the kingdom of Israel to the north with Samaria for capital and the rebellious and polytheist Jeroboam as its king, and the tiny kingdom of Judah, comprised of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, who had remained faithful to David and Solomon's royal line, with Jerusalem as capital to the south and Solomon's son Rehoboam as king

Hos12:1"Ephraim has surrounded me with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit, but Judah still rules with God, and with the Holy One he is faithful". 

Both kingdoms remained at war with one another throughout their respective leaders' reigns.
It certainly isnt difficult to imagine how this inter tribal hatred can result in the kind of insiduous accusations as David, Solomon and other prophets were victims of. The Hebrew Bible is literaly filled with such examples.

Lot whom Judaism does not consider a prophet but was certainly among the most God-fearing in his nation, had incest with his daughters who begat his children Gen19:30. Yet this only righteous man among his decadent and sinful people was just extracted from a nation destroyed because of sex related crimes. What is more intriguing is that according to the Hebrew text, once his eldest daughter got him drunk and finished the sexual act with him, he realized what had happened but nevertheless got drunk again the same night and had incest with his second daughter.

 That is besides the issue of God not preventing the misdeed of those He had just saved. He could have simply told them that there were other men in the town of Zoar they had just reached. The reason given by the scribes that the daughters worried about the extinction of the human race, thinking no men were left upon the earth, is further discredited considering the simple fact that they certainly interracted with the people of Zoar to get the alcohol that got their father drunk with, or the nearby settlement of Abraham Gen19:28. 

Regardless, this surreal tale has the 2 daughters eventually begetting 2 boys, Moab, and Ben-ammi. Moab is the ancestor of the Moabites and Ben-ammi the father of the Ammonites who just so happen to be the competing kingdoms to the west of Judah. Thus is explained the origin and inferiority of non-Jewish neighbours. Thats another instance in the HB where the sins of others explain God's disapproval, cursing or punishing of others. Instead of being Abrahamic tribes and thus equally entitled to the land as the Israelites, the Moabites and Ammonites became foreign invaders with no rights to the land. That the whole tale is a retrospective account aimed at portraying negatively a certain people, is seen from the anachronism of having Moabites or Ammonites in the patriarchal period, while there were none.

As to David, the great prophet, he brings Batsheba to him and has sex with her after he saw her bathing from his roof top. But he had first to plot for her husband's murder 2Sam11. This is because once the woman got pregnant through this sin punishable by death Lev20:10, David could not get her brave husband, Uriah, to leave the battlefront and have him sleep with his wife to hide the sin.. The brave soldier refused the comfort of his home while his commander was at the battlefield. David tried getting him drunk and leave the warfront but he still refused. Time was running out and the sin was going to become apparent. David then arranged for Uriah to be put at the front line  where the fighting was fiercest, then have the army retreat and let him be killed. The plan succeeded and Batsheba became David's wife. In the Quran on the other hand, in sura Saad/38 David is given ghafr/covering/protection in authority and judgement. He is reminded of his eminent status in the world as well as the qualities expected from one who has been drawn near to God; wisdom in judgement between men, steadfastness in God's way and rejection of all falsehood, whether coming from inside or outside one's self.
The slanderous scribes of the Bible however still found a way to disparage him and his household despite his lofty character, blindly passing off his enemies' malicious talk as facts, probably even contributing to it. The death of Batsheba's husband and subsequent marriage to David was too much of a coincidence for their lowly mentality and thus accused David of adultery and murder. They constantly needed to shift the blame for their own sins and subsequent destructions, on their leaders' "misguidance". The true God does not let the names of his noble servants, the prophets and their households to be dishonored in this manner

24:23-5"Surely those who accuse chaste believing women, unaware (of the evil), are cursed in this world and the hereafter, and they shall have a grievous chastisement. On the day when their tongues and their hands and their feet shall bear witness against them as to what they did. On that day Allah will pay back to them in full their just reward, and they shall know that Allah is the evident Truth".

Despite reproaching him of his evil act through the prophet Nathan Ps51, the divine biblical justice played out, not by punishing David himself who had commited the sin but by promising bloodshed within his household, which almost resulted in civil war and even the destrucion of all his followers 2Sam19, the hatred and attempted overturn of his rule coming from among his own sons. Sure David the sinner was at one point forced to flee Jerusalem during the revolt of one of his sons Absalom and the social chaos his father's sin had created. But what is it compared to having his wives taken from him and lying with others in front of all of Israel like worhtless prostitutes 2Sam12?

Solomon broke God's covenant, and at the instigation of his hundreds of foreign polytheistic wives (700) and concubines (300)

1Kings11"went after Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. And Solomon did what was displeasing to the Lord, and he was not completely devoted to the Lord as was David his father. Then did Solomon build a high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab on the mountain that is before Jerusalem and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon".

His multiple marriages were also a transgression of the Torah Deut17:17,Neh13:26. Contrary to the lowly depiction that is made of him by the scribes of the Bible, instead of his posessions and power leading him to excess and sin, the Quran depicts him as increasing in gratitude and never faltering from God's remembrance despite these favors

38:30"And to David We gave, Solomon. Excellent was the servant; indeed, he was (always) returning (to Allah)".

Noah was a drunkard who laid naked in his intoxication Gen9:18-25 and the talmudic scholars assert that he was either castrated or sodomized (they're not really sure which of the two) by his 4th son Cham/Ham while unconscious (Rashi; Sanhedrin 70a). These are the descriptions they give of a man whom they traditionaly do not view as a prophet yet he not only received comunications from God, but was also one whom the Torah says was

Gen6:9"a righteous man he was perfect in his generations; Noah walked with God".

Their tradition also contradictorily speaks of him having had in possession the staff of Adam, that would later be owned by Moses, which only the righteous may manipulate.
Still in the Talmudic accounts, as a result of not being able to have more children, Noah cursed Cham's innocent 4th child (Canaan), turning him black and exiling him to Africa, thereafter condemning Cham and his descendants to be his brethren's slaves. This apparently seems to be the justification for black slavery. Still among the list of Talmudic "anecdotes", Ham's descendants would be led out of Egyptian captivity "with bare buttocks" as a retribution because of Ham who saw his father’s nakedness and did not cover it Isa20:4.

Islam critiqued runs to a eunuch's defense; prophet's wanton punishments?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

The Quran gives to all people the benefit of the doubt. Muslims are told to assume the best rather than the worst in people, unless there are solid reasons for suspicion, especially if they are from one's own comunity 24:12-18. One's privacy, including the privacy of public figures, cannot be compromised based on suspicion 49:4-5,24:27-29.

The code of law of many developped nations do not issue a search warrant unless there is solid evidence to back up an accusation.

One's privacy, including the privacy of public figures, cannot be compromised based on suspicion 49:4-5,24:27-29. This notion reaches such an extent in Islam that one of the early caliphs suspected that a particular individual was committing adultery, jumped over his wall and caught him in the act. The man protested that even the caliph had no right to spy on him in this manner, to which the caliph relented, continued his inspection of the city and mentioned nothing of the man's identity to anyone. 

As always, when trying to understand a Quranic passage and even more so a particular hadith, it is with the aforementioned relevant information that one should interpret all related topics. For example when the prophet told Ali to go kill a man rumoured of adultery with Maria the copt, without requiring first the high standard of testimony, then it should be understood, as it was by the scholars of hadith, including as early as Jaafar al Saadiq, that the prophet was teaching those who slandered Maria, that presuppositions can be totally baseless and harmful. It is to be kept in mind that the prophet told Ali that whatever mission he sends him to accomplish, he must first make a proper investigation prior to acting as per the prophet's orders 

"Ali said: I said: O Messenger of Allah, when you send me on a mission, should I go and do what you tell me to do (with no delay) or witness and find out what someone who is not there cannot find out? He said: 'Witness and find out what someone who is not there cannot find out".

Ali acted exactly as per the prophet's recommendations, and as it turned out, the man in question was an eunuch, who was consequently left unbothered. The whole incident strongly demonstrated the prophet's as well as the Quran's repeated warnings against false suspicions. This eunuch's name was Jaarih and was gifted to the prophet along with Maria by an Egyptian notable, to serve Maria within the prophet's household. Common sense dictates that the prophet was aware of Jaarih's condition and that the Egyptian ruler had told him about it.  There is a reason why the hadith compiler himself did not include that narration in his book of legal judgments and so he did not understand it as setting a legal precedent. Furthermore this was by no means the only rumor spread by the prophet's malicious opponents. There are other occasions where the prophet and his household, as reported both in the Quran and ahadith were the unjust targets of slander and never did the prophet adopt such unilateral, punitive measures against the accusers or the alleged culprits. On would expect to find a precedent, a pattern indicating the prophet's supposed inclination for impulsive, arbitrary judgements the likes his opponents claim in regards the incident with Jaarih.

Islam critiqued prefers anything to Muslims; Who were the Uraina/Ukl gangsters?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

Before getting to the story, it is important to stress that in conflicts, the Quran always leaves the door open to a peaceful resolution and magnanimity. It however never denies the basic human right of self-defense when unjustly opressed beyond the limits where peaceful diplomacy can still stop this harassement and eventually reform the opposite party, when such oppression goes as far as threatening one's life. If in such case, one opts for a more conrontational stance, as most would tend to do when wronged, the Quran explicitly forbids any retaliation above and beyond what a person has himself received 2:190-5,16:126-8,22:60,42:39-43.

The very foundations of the divine law, as taught by all Prophets, is the establishment of justice and to argue a person has no right to seek his rights, or no say in the matter once guilt has been established, is an absolute wrong. In various types of social felonies, the Quran gives the right of having recourse to the law of "equitable punishment or compensation"/qisas, which is approximately equivalent to what Judeo-Christian tradition refers to as lex talonis 2:178,5:45. It is not an "exact same thing" situation, since killing another's child because he killed mine would be against all common sense, and justice. "Life for life" does not entail "your child's life in exchange of my child's life". The point is that the offending party must compensate with a life, the murderer's own life. It is a "punishment fits the crime" scenario. The definition of the word "qisas" itself stresses the importance of fairness and justice in the application of that system.

 As stated in 17:33, the retribution must never exceed the harm suffered. This blocks the way to blind vengence and actually helps society to seek reparation for a moral or spiritual harm in conformity with justice.

 However it is stressed that in both cases (self-defense and social justice) the opressed 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. To its credit, the HB does speak in other places of self-restraint as a great virtue

Prov14:29,20:22,19:11"It is good sense for a man to be slow to anger, and it is his glory to pass over a transgression". 

This then means that the equitable physical injury is the maximum that the victim can ask for with preferrance for forgiveness and even better forgiveness. It says that such patient attitude is a great sign of spiritual might and courage, a blessing from Allah and the way He prefers for His creatures

3:134,16:126,41:34-36,42:43"And whoever is patient and forgiving, these most surely are actions due to courage".

This shows that the the spirit of vengeance is absent from the law, which is but aimed at reforming the society and deterring future vices. It is important noting the deep psychology behind the ordinance, issued by the creator of all things who knows humans inside and out; When it encourages, instead of imposing, this act of amnesty, it appeases the aggrieved party by giving it the position of superiority because the death penalty is a legitimate and authorized option.

Further, by knowing that execution might be an option, the instinctive reaction of seeking revenge killings is neutralized.

In case of murder, there are several aspects of wisdom in leaving the life of the killer directly at the mercy of the heirs of the murdered person. It firstly compensates to some extent the tremendous loss caused, because once the justice system has done its job of exposing the guilty, true justice consits in compensating emotionaly or materialy for those first and foremost concerned, ie the victims themselves.

The other wisdom in leaving the punishment of the killer in the heirs of the slain person's hands is that in case they adopt the preferred issue of being magnanimous, they do a big favour to the murderer and his family, resulting in many other benefits.

The prophet waived his right for equal retribution many times against his opponents once he had the power to execute justice

"Whoever suffers an injury done to him and forgives (the person responsible), Allah will raise his status to a higher degree and remove one of his sins” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi).

There are countless traditions about his life which clearly illustrate his forgiveness to others, but he had no right to force the believers to do the same, thereby negating their rights to resort to the law of retribution should they desire. As already said, although the Quran encourages magnanimity in these cases it can only be from the victim, on his or her own accord, without any pressure or influence from anyone, or without any interference from the authorities. This way, because it is an unexpected, benevolent act, it heals both the victim and the criminal.

When a group of armed men feinted conversion from the tribe of Ukl/Uraina/Urayna, taking advantage of the prophet's hospitality then captured his shepherd, tortured and murdered him before leaving with the camel herd, the prophet, as an embodiement of the state, could not force his penchant for leniency for a crime committed on someone else. Beyond being a crime against the shepherd, this was also a direct attack against the state and its citizen among whom these criminals had sought protection. Beyond being a crime against the shepherd, this was also a direct attack against the state and its citizen among whom these criminals had sought protection. The Islamic state was at that time subject to attacks from all sides, yet its leader and citizen had generously offerred shelter to foreigners who not only abused from their hospitality, in addition infiltrated the community, spreading violence and bloodshed. The prophet could neither impose magnanimity on the victim's family nor on a state which represents its citizen.

He therefore inflicted the law of equal retribution upon these cold blooded murderers in its full force; they were tortured the same way they did to the innocent hospitable shepherd who had given them food, drink and medicine when they were hungry, thirsty and ill, then they were left to die of thirst in the desert.

Although many later Quran commentators have linked this incident to the revelation of 5:33-4, there actually is no report that proves it. Ibn Umar even denies that this verse that limits the harshness of punishments upon criminals, is in anyway a divine disapproval of the prophet's severity. The law of equal retribution still stands and can be used in case one is subject to the same gruesome murder circumstances of the prophet's shepherd. 5:33-4 is unrelated to qisaas, the law of equal retribution, which concerns all members of a community. This passage rather it is a set of punishments for crimes which only the state has the final word for, committed against governement institutions, interests, laws, etc.