CIRA international find odditiy; why Quran speaks of one Gospel?

In answer to the video "Defending the Bible, Part 5 - Using the Quran: Between the time of Christ & before Muhammad"

Injil, usually render Gospel, is what is called in Arabic Taarib. This is a phenomenon common to all languages, when a foreign word is converted and adopted, without necessarily retaining the original meaning. Injil is thus the Arabized form of the Syro-Aramaeic ewwangelion which is itself borrowed from the Greek evangelion/good news. Koin Greek was the lingua franca around Jesus' time and thus many words crossed from it, into local languages including Syriac, Aramaic, Hebrew. Although, like his contemporaries Jesus could certainly speak the Koine Greek, his language according to scholarship was one of the aforementioned 3.

The Quran only recognizes one among several -canonical or not- gospels as it speaks of "Injil" in the singular. It is described as a revelation stamped into Jesus's heart since his infancy 3:3,48,19:30 a source of guidance, admonition, light and wisdom 3:48,5:44,46 verifying the Torah that precedes it 3:50,5:46 while abolishing to the Jews the self imposed restrictions of their man-made soulless traditions, as well as giving glad tidings of a prophet to come after Jesus 61:6.

Jesus either put himself into writing or asked his followers to eventually write down what was revealed to him since infancy of wisdom, teachings, prophecies, warnings and admonitions 7:157. This writing process was most probably done in his lifetime. As stated earlier, Koine Greek was the language of education. The Septuagint Greek translation of the Torah was more popular among Jews than the Hebrew text. It would have taken someone highly literate in Greek to write down Jesus' teachings. Jesus himself preached his revelation in Aramaic and/or Hebrew. These teachings were translated into Greek and written, as confirmed in standard scholarship. This original compilation was named ewangelion/Injil. The process was done under Jesus' watch as the Quran says he was given and taught this singular Injil. Greek however wasn't Jesus' language so it was necessary to ensure he would not overlook a mistake in the translation process. Hence Allah's repeated statements that He will teach Jesus the Injil. Interestingly, when Jesus speaks as an infant about the revelation he was inspired with, he called it scripture 19:30. This is because the Greek Injil was still not compiled. Jesus therefore was taught the scripture and its wisdom, which he preached in the language of his people, as well as taught the Torah, and the Injil compiled in Greek 

3:48"And He will teach him the Book, and [the] wisdom, and the Taurat, and the Injeel".

The previous Israelite prophets followed the same pattern of committing the revelation to writing, including Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel or Habakkuk, Iddo and others 2Chr11:2,12:5,15,13:22. Solomon had his wise utterings, that were either put into writing in his lifetime or later, compiled from scattered supports under the reign of Hezekiah Prov25:1.

It thus certainly is an established trend within the line of the prophets of Israel, of which Jesus fully adhered to, to commit to writing, whether themselves or by others, in their lifetime or later, the revelation bestowed upon them. That reality hasnt escaped the rabbinical commentaries, see for example Rashi on Iddo.

While part of Jesus' scripture, or what his first followers remembered and compiled, made it in its uncorrupted form into the current Greek compilation of writings called in English the "New Testament", another part did not make it. This could have either been due to negligence, forgetfulness, or some was discarded and worse yet obscured and tampered with as it did not fit the message, ideas and bias of the unknown Greek writers and later compilers and editors

5:14-15"..those who say, We are Christians, We made a covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of..".  

That corruption occurred very early on following Jesus' departure, with a big part of his close disciples failing the test of remaining steadfast on the path prescribed by a prophet, similarly to what happened to Moses' 40 days absence. Part of that inner circle, together with the new converts of the pagan Roman world, retrospectively painted their own interpretations and biases into Jesus' original teachings which could have been available to them in written and/or oral form. Textual criticism has generally accepted the existence of texts predating the current gospels and which inspired the anonymous evangelists

"In the interval between the death of Jesus (c. 30 CE) and the composition of the first gospel (Mark, around 70 CE), the sayings of Jesus, like those of other holy men and philosophers, were remembered, rendered into Greek retold, revised and recast in such common forms as chreiai (also termed aphorism, pronouncement stories, and apophthegmata,), parables, logia (sayings), apokalypseis (revelations), prophecies, macarisms and woes and gnomai (maxims).  A similar process took place with narratives about Jesus, including stories of controversy with his contemporaries (now told in the light of the early church’s own contentious encounters with its neighbors) and accounts of miracle working." (Margaret M. Mitchell – Professor Birmingham).

The current NT is in great majority a compilation of writings about Jesus, not of Jesus, and while containing some elements of what was revealed to him, the Injil, is in great majority a combination of texts compiled during great political and religious turmoil, reflecting the bias of its writers. The victorious sect, among many other early conflicting christian sects, that thus became "orthodoxy" did not let any competing texts it could lay hands on to survive, either by physically destroying it or discrediting it and leaving it to disappear with time. During this gradual process, what was viewed as authoritative was separated from a much larger body of early Christian literature.

This period was most important in shaping and spreading official Christian thought, yet almost nothing is known as to how, when, and by whom this process was brought about. The result is that although early Christianity was composed of various sects in Paul's days, we have not a single text from them. Instead, the vast bulk of surviving material is solely what was approved by the victorious "orthodoxy" who did not win because of being more truthful or closer to Jesus' teachings, but their more effective convincing capacity especially among the gentile elite.

Thus in the earliest centuries after Jesus’ death it was possible for any Christian group to produce its own gospel, which it deemed represented a more accurate understanding of Jesus and his life.

That is why the Quran refers to the Book in the hands of its Christian addressees as Injil in the singular; it only recognizes whatever remains from Jesus' revelation among other multiple canonized scriptures in Christian hands, as true. And for Christians to know which part of this compilation of books in their hands is the pristine truth, they have to discard any aspect of it that disagrees with what the Quran teaches concerning Jesus.

The Quran similarly alludes to the suhuf/pages of Abraham and to some of the divine verities they contain and share with both the Quran and the Torah 53:36-38,87:18-19. It is also interesting to note that rabbinical tradition attributes the authorship of the book of Psalms to 9 different others besides David, including Adam (Although not a prophet in Judaism), Malchizedek and Abraham. For the guidance of all mankind, God sent down revelation to chosen individuals who put into writing -not necessarily in the form of a book- the teachings, wisdom and principles revealed to them. Some of these writings are explicitly mentioned in the Quran, like the aforementioned Suhuf/pages of Nuh and Ibrahim, or the Torah as well as the writings of Moses. The Torah is a revelation 5:44 but is not explicitly named in the Quran as given to Moses. This is because the Torah is in reality a compilation of writings and traditions, some revealed to Moses, some to other prophets. The writing given to Moses is distinctively referred to as a set of tablets, in which the necessary religious instructions were inscribed

 7:145"And We ordained for him in the tablets admonition of every kind and clear explanation of all things; so take hold of them with firmness and enjoin your people to take hold of what is best thereof".

This is well established in modern academia that Moses could not have authored the totality of the 5 books that currently constitute the Torah. The Quran describes the Torah as a scripture containing guidance and spiritual light, as well as laws for the prophets of Israel to judge by 5:43-44. Moses or someone after him, a prophet or pious individual, compiled both the revelation to Moses and the revelations that preceded him, as the Torah. There is indication that what the Quran refers to as Torah/Tawrat excludes the writings and traditions of the prophets that came after Moses. The Torah came after Abraham and Jacob 3:65,93 and the prophets of Israel were bound by it as stated earlier. The only scripture that the Quran mentions after these prophets, is the Injil given to Jesus 5:46.

The Quran further speaks of the Zabur (psalms, az‑Zabur from the root al‑mazbur means 'the written') of David, the aforementioned Injil of Jesus, and the Quran of Muhammad. Not all revealed books are listed in the Quran just as it makes it clear that there are many more prophets than those it chose to highlight. The Quran does explain that the writings of the Muslims and the people of the book are portions of the complete book that is with Allah.

CIRA international find Quran prophecy; destruction of Jesus' rejecters?

In answer to the video "Defending the Bible, Part 5 - Using the Quran: Between the time of Christ & before Muhammad"

Physical destruction and abasement came on Jesus' rejecters soon after his departure. In the years 69-73, the Temple of Jerusalem was razed to the ground as Jesus predicted in Matt23,24,Mk13,Lk23 (Quran 17:7,3:56), their priesthood was destroyed, the Israelites were slaughtered in large numbers women and children included, by the Romans.

Many more were enslaved and sold in the markets, as Jesus prophesied lk21:24, deported throughout the Roman empire and colonies for hard labor. Some were boarded on prison ships and sent to Corinth for the digging of an isthmus. Soonafter in the years 114-135 they suffered further destruction and enslavement by the tens of thousands, impovrishment and scattering throughout the earth.

The greatest abasement was that for the next 1900 years they would have no authority in this land that was divinely granted to them. Following Jesus, Judea would be wrecked and destroyed several times by pagan forces, in accordance with Jesus' prophecy that not a stone would be left standing on another, for the Israelites' rejection of him Luke21.

The predictions as reported in the NT however seem to be retrospectively written. The Temple was destroyed in 70CE. The Gospels were written after that time. If the Prophecy of the Temple's destruction was made by Jesus in the 30s as is suggested in the Gospels, then one needs to explain why earlier NT books seem uninformed of it. We're not talking about the tearing down of a place of worship in some remote location, but of Jerusalem's Temple, known throughout the empire and beyond, a place of particular significance to the authors' own religion. Yet the book of Hebrews, written in the 60s describes it as a reality which is in competition with the nascent Jesus sect because it epitomises rabbinic Judaism.

Previous prophecies, in their own books warned them that should they turn away from the commands of God, as was the case with their rejection of Jesus, God Himself will uproot them from the land they were settled in. They were not settled in it to enjoy it as an unrestricted holiday resort but to assert therein true faith and righteousness.

Failure to do so would instead turn their sacred shrine into an object of ridicule among the nations 2Chronicles7:19-22. Eusebius the early church father notes that

"stones from the Temple itself, and from its ancient sanctuary and holy place, were used for the building of idol temples, and of theatres for the populace".

The Romans, led by Hadrian sought to build upon its ruins their new city "Aelia Capitolina". To achieve that vast project, the erasure of the previous city of the Jews had to be complete. In the process, their oppression was so intense, their expulsion so effective following their repeated rebellions and the 3 years of vicious warfare led by their messiah Simon bar Kochba, that by the 4th century the exact location of the temple edifice was beyond recall

"Rabbi Yermiah, son of Babylonia came to the Land of Israel and could not find the site of the Temple" (Tractate Shevuot 1 4b).

If 4th century Christian historian Eusebius is to be believed, the new city that Emperor Hadrian built upon the ruins of Jerusalem was colonized by a

"new race of Gentiles"

after

"a total destruction of its ancient inhabitants".

The whole province of Judea was even renamed Philisti as a further humiliation, after the ancient inhabitants of the land and bitterest enemies of the Israelites, the Philistines.

The new laws forbid Jews to live in the city or anywhere between Jerusalem and Hebron. Capital punishment faced any Jew who so much as stepped foot in the city. The harshness went so far as imposing penalties on any Jews caught laying eyes on the city on their "day of mourning". A day of mourning is one where they would remember the calamities that befell them. In Josephus' words

"Jerusalem ..was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited".

The scarcity of achaeological evidences for the biblical stories attests to this.

As 4th century churchman Jerome tells us, a statue of Hadrian, seated on horseback, was erected on the levelled platform of Jerusalem's Temple Mount after the crushing of the bar Kochba revolt in 135 AD. The Roman Emperor despised the Jews for their insularity and arrogant claims for a single concept of the divine. Just as Hadrian had erected a Temple to Zeus on the top of Mt Gerizim close to which the Samaritan Temple stood, it isnt inconceivable that he had erected a similar temple in Jerusalem, more precisely a temple dedicated to Jupiter, next to his imperial statue, as some scholars suggest.

It was not until the Christianization of the Roman empire late in the 4th century that these pagan "abominations" were eventually torn down. Stones from the ruined sanctuary were looted for use in later Christian structures. On the neglected esplanade the Byzantine emperor Justinian built a church to Mary Mother of God but little else.

When Jerusalem became Christianity's holy city, the Christian authorities would allow entry to some exiled Jews once a year to mourn the destruction of their Temple. One cannot but notice the cynicism of the Christians who viewed in the desecrated ruins, the triumph of their religion, the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy and thus satisfactorily left it as it is. In the Quran, besides them being subdued up to this day to the Christians, God warns them of further chastisement 17:8 whenever they return or persist in their wrong ways. Their known long and painful history in Christian lands bears testimony to this. The Quran further condemned them to have their security fully in the hands of others

3:112"Abasement is made to cleave to them wherever they are found, except under a covenant with Allah and a covenant with men".

It isnt God Himself who would repel their numerous enemies and Who would give them the upper hand on more powerful foes as he did in the times of Moses. Such security could either come from some Muslim states (of the past and today) in the name of Allah or from some non-Muslim states for other reasons. This is because

3:112"they have become deserving of wrath from Allah, and humiliation is made to cleave to them; this is because they disbelieved in the communications of Allah and slew the prophets unjustly; this is because they disobeyed and exceeded the limits".

Here the Quran plays on the concept of shade, the comfort provided by the pillars of clouds during their lengthy exodus, telling them they are now under the shadow of humiliation and oppression instead of the shadow of peace, comfort, protection, sustenance. 

In its usual pattern of drawing a line and not generalizing, the Noble Quran continues

3:113"They are not all alike; of the followers of the Book there is an upright party.."

Their own books speak of their cursed state, made to hang upon them, and destined to expire only at what they call "the end of days", which in their terminology refers to the Messianic era of bliss and utopia

Zech8:13"And it shall come to pass that [just] as you were a curse among the nations, O house of Judah and house of Israel, so will I save you-and you shall be a blessing. Fear not; may your hands be strengthened".

By the year 638, Muslim troops led by the Caliph Umar entered Jerusalem and as they cleared the garbage on the Temple mount and uncovered scattered jumble of architectural elements, they identified the ruins as those of Solomon's Temple, instead of Hadrian's, and decided to clear an area of around 35 acres. It was covered in garbage and debris of all sorts that were cynically left to be accumulated by the Christians as a reminder of Jesus' vindication, then a small prayer house was built on the site. The whole area of the mount that was cleared is what is known today as Masjid Al-Aqsa, sometimes also referred to as Haram Al-Sharif.

Umar also uncovered what is suspected to be the Foundation Stone; the Rock from where it is speculated the prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven on the Night Journey 17:1, and which is believed by the Jews to be the first part of the Earth to come into existence and from where Adam, Cain, Abel, and Noah offered sacrifices to God. Umar, contrary to the islamophobic rant, did not steal temple mount, he restored this area that was abandoned by both Jews and Christians, to its purpose, dignifying and honoring it.

It would be interesting to mention here the passage of Genesis 49. The writer promises that rulership over Israel will stay in the house of Judah and that the law will remain studied and kept. Historically neither were fulfilled. Then it mentions shiloh and how nations will gather around that figure, followed by metaphors of abundance. This isnt the concept of an end times figure that shall reestablish Jewish glory and law. As assumed earlier by the author, both are supposed to remain uninterrupted, up to the point of the arrival of "shiloh". Christians claim Jesus is this shiloh.

But assuming Jesus is traced to Judah, despite it being a violation of Jewish law due to him not having a biological father, how can he be the shiloh when it says the scepter shall not depart from Judah UNTIL shiloh comes? It implies that kingship rights will be removed from Judah at some future point and then given to shiloh (which etymologically means "the one to whom it belongs"). For Jesus to be shiloh in that sentence, he needs to be from other than Judah, which doesnt fit the Christian position. Further, neither shiloh nor Jesus appeared when Jewish self-government was over with the capture of the last king from the tribe of Judah, Zedekiah, in about 586 B.C.E. And even when Jesus did appear, he did not do so as a ruler over the Jews. To preserve the integrity of their text, the rabbis are now forced to reinterpret the promise and project it to the long haul, as Christians do with Jesus' second coming as ruler. To the rabbis, "the scepter not departing from Judah" became an allusion to right of governance instead of actual rulership and "the one to whom it belongs" (shiloh) a future ruler who shall establish it. Yet this still doesn't solve the problem of the removal of Judah when shiloh appears. The solution for them is elsewhere. Up to the arrival of the Ishmaelite prophet and the establishment of the Muslim nation as the new torch bearers of the truth to the world, the Jews could have potentially returned to their former glory, provided they repented and returned to the straight path; abiding by their covenant and accepting the last messenger sent to them, Jesus. When shiloh "the one to whom it belongs" appeared, that door was shut and will remain so until the day of resurrection 

Ps132:12"If your sons keep My covenant, and this, My testimony, which I shall teach them, also their sons will sit on your throne forever".

The current state of Israel is illegitimate, ethically, legally, let alone scripturally. That is why it is a deeply fractured, majoritarly secular society and that despite the apparent independence, is actually living under humiliating subjugation to other nations on whose support its survival depends, as the Quran even tells them (as referenced earlier).

The Jews, until now and as corroborated by their rabbis and their books, have still not been given the divine authority to rebuild their destroyed temple on its previous location, in order to re-dedicate it to their religious rituals. Per the Torah it is God that must give them the right to do so, when a Jewish king and prophet is among them, to indicate the now lost original dimensions, the location of the altar, let alone get the Jews out of several insurmountable ritualistic difficulties such as sacrificing a red heifer, complicated purity requirements, identifying the priests, the specificities of their clothings. Jews cannot just decide to go and build the temple arbitrarily.

So they're waiting, and will keep on waiting, for their promised messiah to come and do the job. In the meantime, another nation has been raised in their stead as the torch bearers of the truth among the nations, with its own divinely restored Temple and its altar.

Some 50 years later, the Caliph Abdul Malik ibn Marwan constructed within this area of masjid al aqsa, the Dome of the Rock (with the golden roof) or Masjid As-Sakhrah, covering the Foundation Stone much to the Jews' dismay who find it difficult to believe that non-Jews could effectively build a place of worship on the spot of the "Holy of Holies". So they attempt to find other possible locations to the historic foundation stone (Even haShetiya).

CIRA international find approval; Quran confirms Christian missionary power?

In answer to the video "Defending the Bible, Part 5 - Using the Quran: Between the time of Christ & before Muhammad"

After Jesus' salvation from his enemies, the Quran outlined the punishment to his rejectors, in line with the sunna of Allah on the destruction of the rejectors of His messengers sent with clear signs. A similar hypothetical scenario is given in 43:41 where the prophet is told that should he be taken away or even eventually martyred as happened to previous prophets 36:26-32 the divine law of retribution against a rejecting nation will still be applied, however Allah has desired otherwise with the prophet Muhammad

43:42"We will certainly show you that which We have promised them; for surely We are the possessors of full power over them".

Among the punishments the Israelites had to face in this very world 3:56, they were subdued to the followers of Jesus until the Day of Resurrection

61:14,3:55"and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection".

Allah is addressing Jesus and is speaking of the dominion of those who follow him over his enemies. It isnt speaking in terms of proselytising success, as is alluded to in Acts with Jesus posthumously telling his missionaries they will have the power to disseminate Christianity in all corners of the world. The early gentile converts from around the region had no enmity towards Jesus nor his followers. The verse is speaking in terms of dominion of one group above another, through subduing them, not assimilation

"So a party of the children of Israel believed and another party disbelieved; then We aided those who believed against their enemy, and they became uppermost".

This dominance is granted to all those who claim to be his followers, whether they are from those who call themselves Christians, or from those ascribing to the beliefs of the earlier sects that believed in Jesus. The common denominator between all of them being, believing in Jesus and in Allah. Besides prevailing in a worldly sense, the followers of Jesus have also been granted spiritual victory. His teachings, despite the very few original adherents to them, regardless of the amount of falsehood that later were grafted unto them, were successfully disseminated, against the will of Jesus' enemies, whether contemporaries to him or those that still hate him today.

This favor of God is an obvious reality of our times. The Israelites are condemned to the humiliating reality of being entirely dependant on Christian whims for their survival, reluctantly accepting "bribe" money and deceitful "love" from the followers of the one they bitterly rejected. All this for the sake of maintaining a state that is the shadow of what was once God's conditional favor upon them.

Today, the evangelical zionist movement that finds its inspiration in Paul deceptive missionary methods, masks its real intentions towards the Jewish people by corrupting their audience with money. Probably no nation needs this money more than Israel for its survival, exactly as God prophecised when He stated in the Quran that the Israelites, those who were Jesus' enemies, will be under the Christians' dominion until the Resurrection. This bribe money serves the purpose of gathering Jews from all over the world so that a massive slaughter begins.

Christian eschatology reveals the anti semitism of its gentile Greek writers to the fullest. Towards the end of days, 2/3 of Israel will be destroyed and damned for rejecting the man/god of the trinity. Their Armageddon theology is detailed in the book of Revelation -a Book not even considered God inspired until very late in Church history-.

Those damned Jews, the Jews of the "flesh", labelled as such because of lacking spirituality and rejecting Jesus Rom2:28-9, those sons of Satan Jn8:44, worshipping in their satanic synagogues Rev2:9 will be made to bow down at the feet of the true Jews, meaning the Christians Rev3:9. This way Jesus’ beloved church is vindicated. After that humiliation they will be sent for eternal damnation.

It is these kinds of satanic association that helped produce a portrait for faithful Christians throughout the centuries of the “evil” Jew representing satan on earth. By persecuting those satanic Jews, the church and its faithful followers were in a way hastening the day when Jesus would fulfill his promise to

“make them [the synagogue of Satan] come and bow down at your feet”.

What is ironic is that the contrary is depicted in the HB, with the non-Jews, including Christians, coming at the Jews' feet. Although the messianic prophecies in the HB agree that there will be mass slaughter of those that do not believe in the Jewish God, this war shall occur prior to the messiah's arrival and universal recognition Isa59:19-20. None will be required to "believe" in the Jewish messiah because his universal rule will be an undeniable fact.

An utopic era will be ushered, where only one truth reigns supreme, that of the Hebrew Bible. Every other belief system will be abolished and erased, its people destroyed, by natural calamity or others means like God's jealous and furious fire of destruction. God is often likened in the HB as a smith selecting through fire the trash from the precious metal, concretely resulting in "purifying" the people's hearts and lips. Once purified, all those surviving non-Jews will prostrate to the One true God

Zeph3:8-9,Zech14:9-17"And the Lord shall become King over all the earth; on that day shall the Lord be one, and His name one". 

Some modern apologists have attempted to negate that idea of universal forceful conversion using Micah4:5. It is ironic that this same verse is used in rabbinic commentaries to prove the opposite. The context itself speaks of the streaming of nations into Jerusalem to learn Judaism, God's judgement of nations afar, in a time where

"all peoples shall go, each one in the name of his god, but we will go in the name of the Lord, our God, forever and ever".

The non-Jews "going" to their false gods implies "going for destruction" in contrast to the Jews who will go on "forever". This will usher a time not only of religious monopoly but of forcible, physical subjugation of all non-Jewish peoples, made to crawl like abject creatures to the Jews' feet, in fear of

Micah7:17"our God",

transferring in addition all their riches to their new masters

Isa66:12"like a flooding stream",

or be destroyed

Zech14,Isa45:22"Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth, for I am God, and there is no other"  

Isa49:23"And kings shall be your nursing fathers and their princesses your wet nurses; they shall prostrate themselves to you with their face on the ground, and they shall lick the dust of your feet, and you shall know that I am the Lord, for those who wait for Me shall not be ashamed"  

Isa60:"..And foreigners shall build your walls, and their kings shall serve you..For the nation and the kingdom that shall not serve you shall perish, and the nations shall be destroyed...And the children of your oppressors shall go to you bent over, and those who despised you shall prostrate themselves at the soles of your feet..".

The end of the book of Isaiah is replete with such references of "glad-tidings" to the Jews towards the end of times, the messianic era, a time where

Isa66:23"all flesh shall come to prostrate themselves before Me"

and where the remaining lucky survivors will see all around them

"the corpses of the people who rebelled against Me, for their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring for all flesh".

This represents, according to Zech13:8-9 roughly 2/3 of the world population, exterminated, with 1/3 remaining for having converted to Judaism. Following their subjugation and destruction, the wicked will be sentenced to gehinnom (see Rashi on Ps6:11).

But God's favoring of the current Christians above the disbelieving Jews does not mean they are absolved of their deviations in faith. It is for this reason that the very next verse addresses those same favored Christians, telling them

3:57"And as to those who believe and do good deeds, He will pay them fully their rewards; and Allah does not love the unjust".

It firstly clarifies that correct belief, joined with good deeds, are the only means for salvation in the hereafter. It separates between

"those who follow you"

and

"those who believe and do good deeds",

emphasizing that among Jesus' followers from his contemporaries to present-day christians, Allah will pay fully their reward only to those of them who hold the correct belief and do good deeds. The unusual ending of this type of verse with

"Allah does not love the unjust"

is clearly directed at those followers of Jesus who strayed from the correct belief of their ancestors

5:77"O followers of the Book, be not unduly immoderate in your religion, and do not follow the low desires of people who went astray before and led many astray and went astray from the right path".

Verses with promises of mercy and paradise usually end with Divine Names of mercy and forgiveness, or on praises of those addressed in the verse but in this case it ends with a stern warning to the followers of Jesus who have deviated, they are being unjust to their own souls.

Acts17apologetics feel pity; Paul persecuted and martyred?

In answer to the video "Paul Died as a Martyr; Muhammad Died as a False Prophet (PvM 21)"

His preaching in synagogues was met with fierce resistance due to his bad mouthing the Law, and not even in a clever way. For instance contrary to repeated descriptions made of the law in the HB as "life giving" in places like Ezekiel20:11,33:14-15 or Nehemiah9:26-29 as well as spiritually preserving, a purifying delight to observe Ps119, a sentiment clearly reflected in James' writings, Paul sees the law as "stirring" into sin and death. Without it, one

Rom7"would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."

As if non religious people cannot discern basic moral principles such as these? Paul's inspired "reasoning" leads him to the conclusion that without law there is no transgression Rom4:14. It is better to leave man without moral restrictions, so that he is only justified and judged according to faith in Jesus, something Jesus himself never taught.

But what this hateful perception of the Law shows, is that divine revelation has diametrically opposed effects on individuals depending on their own inner spiritual disposition. It is certainly repulsing to the depraved to have to abide by moral restrictions, while the God-conscious delights in serving the Creator according to His own terms, as amply stated in the HB. Paul saw himself as part of the first group, as he describes himself relentlessly tortured by a messenger from Satan 2Cor12:7.

Paul was disparaging the Law yet the agreement between him and the apostles was that he should seek non-Jews, while they went to the Jews Gal2:9.

He consequently escapes murderous Jews in most of his stops along his missionary journeys Acts14:19. In Jerusalem, the Roman commander saves him from the Sanhedrin's grip and the Jews apparently were so eager in their murderous intents that they werent deterred from planning an assault on his Roman prison. A cohort of 500 Roman soldiers and imperial guards had to leave Jerusalem to be dispatched to this helpless fellow. They protected and escorted him by night for a "proper" trial in Caesarea Acts21-24.

Amazingly, Luke who is alleged to have authored Acts, reproduces the letter written by the Roman commander to his superior in Caesarea Acts23:26-30. The letter doesnt mention Paul and makes a chronological mistake. It says the commander rescued him because he knew Paul was a Roman citizen. He obviously had to, the probability of a Roman commander turning out to rescue a Jew from his brethren is very slim. Yet we read in Acts22:23-29 that the commander rescued Paul from the Jews before he had learnt this information, after which he was given to the Sanhedrin for questionning. Besides that slip, did Luke have access to Roman archives to reproduce the letter? But then Luke also knows what was said in Antipas' apartments when he questioned Jesus Lk23:7-11, as well as what Festus and Agrippa said to each other in private concerning Paul Acts25:13-22. Probably all "God-breathed" details as noted by 2Tim3:16.

And why didnt James, the elders, or the "thousands" of Jesus converts, say a word in Paul's defense? Instead we have Roman troops rushing to his rescue to avoid hateful Jewish mobs murdering him. In Caesarea, he is presented before the Roman governor Felix. He served from the year 52 until the year 60. The head of the Sanhedrin was the Jewish high priest Ananias the son of Nebedeus. Historical records show instead that before Felix's appointment as governor, the high priest Ananias had been arrested and sent to Rome to plead his case, in the year 52. Josephus names the high priests during Felix's governorship, and says nothing about Ananias son of Nebedeus.
Anyhow, Felix, one of the richest and most powerful man in the province, will keep Paul jailed for 2 years, hoping for a "bribe". As if none of the murderous Jewish leaders could have bribed him if the detention was simply about money. Strangely no angry Jew even as much as pleaded that he be handled to them, until Felix's replacement with Festus. Festus eventually dismissed their request but nevertheless wants to "please" them by suggesting a trial in Jerusalem Acts25.

Compare this to the apostles' delivrance from jail through divine intervention Acts5:17-20 and yet no miraculous appearance to save Paul to whom Jesus himself appeared.

But persecuted Paul had his own type of luck.

The charges against him were relegated to mere religious matters Acts23:29,25:19,25:26-27 and consequently dismissed by both Festus and the Jewish king Herod Agrippa who just so happenned to be in town Acts26:32. All this happened before even the hearing of his case in Jerusalem.

Follows a bizarre twist, with persecuted Paul given another escort, this time to Rome and to present his case to none other than Caesar himself. This wasnt event needed, persecuted Paul himself made the request despite all local authorities clearing him from any charges. There was never such an instance in the Roman judicial system of overruling local authorities' decisions simply by "appeal to Caesar" Acts26:32. And we're not even talking of an unfavorable ruling but one that had just aqcuited him!

The high priest Jonathan was put to death by the procurator Felix just a few years earlier, surely he could have made the same appeal as Paul did? Whoever was writing the plot of Acts surely did a lousy job until now at defending Paul's case of unjust persecution. At approximately the same time of Paul's appeal, another appeal was made to the Caesar Nero, by the Jewish High Priest Ismael. Nero agreed influenced by his own Jewish wife. However, Ismael was held imprisonned in Rome. The author of Acts had a clear political and theological motive in mind, supposedly endorsed by Jesus Acts23:11 through inspiration: to move his story on towards a necessary climax in Rome.
Upon his arrival to Rome, he was allowed to live in a house, summon Jews and other visitors to preach to them freely, protected by a soldier Acts28:16-31.

The so-called "prison letters" – Philippians, Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians are traditionally ascribed to Paul in his Roman captivity despite recent Biblical scholarship opinion to the contrary. Nothing evokes imprisonnement in these writings except for the vague and isolated references "prisoner in Jesus Christ" and "bonds" to endorse that claim. Pauline vocabulary is full of such words evoking servitude, suffering and "imprisonment", all of which to convey the idea of his metaphorical servitude to Jesus. "Rome" is nowhere mentioned in any of the prison letters. The whole claim rests on the single reference to "Caesar's household" of Phil4:22, and the use of "palace" in

Phil1:13"My bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places".

It is said he was finally acquitted of the charges against him and therefore started travelling around Europe and the Mediterranean coasts to spread his teachings to the gentiles.

It is hard therefore to imagine how he would be arrested again by the same Nero then executed, as tradition alledges. The Church needed the fabrication of that itinery in order to render authentic 1 and 2 Timothy, as well as Titus since in the latter, Paul anticipates his soon reunion with other Christians in Greece Titus3:12,13.

Acts17apologetics death wish; the prophet survives the poison and lives on?

In answer to the video "Paul Died as a Martyr; Muhammad Died as a False Prophet (PvM 21)"

The poison story, assuming it happenned, is actually just 1 of the many attempts at the life of God's prophet, keeping also in mind all the battles in which he himself took part against the rejecters, but never did God allow his messenger to die before the end of his mission, like Moses wasnt allowed to die through all his jihad battles until his mission was fulfilled.

The poison certainly did injure him and cause him sustained pain, but nowhere does it say or hint that it was the direct cause of death. The poison damage on his body was just one of many scars the prophet carried with him until his deathbed, whether due to the years of hardship, starvation and persecution or the years of battle. Despite all that, he still lived beyond the average life expectancy of his common folk and only once his mission was completed. He saw with his very eyes every single prophecy made in the earliest years of prophethood fulfilled, cleansed God's chosen and blessed land of Mecca and restaured it to its original Abrahamic purpose.

Neither Moses nor Aaron, according to the convoluted HB, even get to fulfill their life mission of entering the promised land, despite the battles they led. They are suddenly dispatched from the narrative for the most ridiculous reasons. Moses was condemned by God for some misdeed and put to death while his

"eyes were not weak nor his strength gone".

His heartfelt prayer was denied

Deut3"Let me, I pray, cross over and see the good land on the other side of the Jordan..But YHWH was furious with me on your behalf and would not listen to me. YHWH said to me, “Enough! Never speak to Me of this matter again!"

If anything, the argument of sudden death as a sign of divine disapproval, a charge misapplied to the prophet Muhammad in relation to the poison story, fits instead the biblical Moses, put to death at the highlight of his prophetic career and while he was in full health.

Even if, in the worst case, Muhammad's death is directly correlated to the Quranic warning in 69:45-47 not to falsely attribute a statement to God, then it still means the prophecy came true, that Muhammad was physically prevented from altering it and that the Quran is the authentic, preserved and protected word of the Creator. The verse says his hand will be seized the moment he tries doing so, then killed. The words imply even a minuscule uttering in God's name. It would be impossible for him to walk around making lengthy speeches up. That is why the verse comes in a passage where Allah stresses the divine origin of the Quran, and then states the hypothetical scenario, following by a reiteration of its veracity. But assuming for argument's sake Muhammad at some point lied and was killed by God, this must then mean that all he previously spoke in God's name, was true revelation uttered by a true prophet.

Just for arguments' sake, even if the prophet Muhammad had died from the delayed effects of the poison, this is certainly not an argument against his prophethood, not according to Zaynab bint al harith's own HB criteria for the identification of prophets as outlined in Deut18, nor in light of the Bible's own reports of the constant assaults, some succesful and others not, against true prophets' lives.

As a final note it is ironic that those trying to cast doubts on the truthfulness of Muhammad's prophethood by misrepresenting this story are mainly if not only Christians, who firmly believe in the Greek Testament and its depiction of Jesus' ignoble, humiliating and accursed end which probably no true prophet, even those murdered by the sinful Israelites, ever were inflicted with. What does that do to Jesus' credibility as a man sent by God, judging by those critics' own standards?

Acts17apologetics venomous attack; Prophet discredited by the poison story?

In answer to the video "Paul Died as a Martyr; Muhammad Died as a False Prophet (PvM 21)"

Assuming the poison story to be true, why didnt God's prophet die on the spot with those who ate the poisonned meal.

Our opponents will keep on scratching their heads about this. Instead he lived on for years, fasted every year in the scorching desert heat, fulfilled all his duties of statesman, army commander, husband, counselor and friend, and conquered Mecca. He destroyed the idols with his own hands and fulfilled every prophecy made at the beginning of his call.

What the opponents need to realize is that the reason he did not die then, is because God didnt allow the prophet to die until his mission was accomplished.

5:67"O Apostle, deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people"

Muhammad died a natural death and he didnt even need to appeal to Christ in order to neutralize any type of injested poison as embarrassingly proposed by the Greek writers of the Gospels Mk16:18. After all Christians do believe in their potential in performing even greater miracles (Greek "erga") than Jesus Jn14:12.

God was definitely supporting His prophet after he ate the poisoned meal, just as He supported him before despite the difficulties and attempts at his life. He was not immidiately put to death or disallowed to continue his mission and transmitting his message after injesting the poison. The opposite would have been the case had he been a false prophet or had done something at that point heavily disapproved of by God, as forcefully warned in the Quran would instantly, not progressively, happen to him 69:45-47. This defeated the "test" that the Jewess desired to make the prophet go through, as it says in one version of the report that she wanted to kill him with the poison

"Thereupon he said: Allah will never give you the power to do it".

The effect of poison as intended by the one using it is immidiate or very short term death of the victim, as happenned to one companion that ate the meal at that occasion with the prophet. The objective however of immidiate death or harm was defeated in regards the prophet.

It isnt uncommon in Jewish history to attempt poisoning a prophet sent to them. That is what they did to the prophet Jeremiah's food. In Jer11:19 it lit. says

"Let us destroy his food with wood"

ie Let us put poison into his food. This Jewish woman that poisoned the prophet's meal and his companion wanted to see

"if you were a Prophet, then Allaah would tell you about it, and if you were not a Prophet the people would be rid of you".

This as a side note bellies the unfounded allegation in anti-Islamic circles that the woman offered the poisonned meal in revenge for the killing of her family. She was testing his prophethood. So the prophet took a bite and sensed the poison, and immidiately said to all those taking part in the meal to withdraw their hands from it, although most had already eaten from it at that point. It was unfortunately too late for one of his companions who died from it. Miraculously, that companion was the only casualty of the incident, and this allowed the unveiling of an intricate outcome and lesson from the event. The prophet then confronted the culprit.

This woman thought that a prophet claimant dying in such circumstances would expose him as a liar but the opposite happenned: his companion died and Muhammad lived on until

"This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion".

The JEwess Zaynab bint al harith was later forgiven by the prophet. Other versions state that when Bishr ibn al-Bara’ ibn Ma’roor died as a result of the effects of this food, then the prophet executed her as a qisaas punishment, while others yet like ibn Kathir maintain that she even converted to Islam, seeing that the prophet passed her "falsification" test and was thus left alone. She initially approached the prophet with the meal after the treaty negotiations with the Jewish leadership of Khaybar had ended.

In such circumstances it would have been against decorum and basic sensitivity to refuse it based on suspicion. In ancient times, especially in rural cultures till this day, refusal to share a meal when the host clearly displays his peaceful intentions is a sign of treachery and mistrust. The Quran relates how Abraham was fearful of his guests that refused the food he offered them despite his clear hospitality 11:69-70. There were no means to the prophet Muhammad by which to chemically test the meal and verify his suspicion. His detractors wouldnt have missed this opportunity to charge him with accusing an innocent woman without proof. Neither did he behave like the kings and leaders of times past by having someone taste the food before he ate nor would it have ever been in his thought and character to have forced the woman to eat it herself or forced any of the Jews to eat it to prove that it was not poisoned.

In accordance with his lofty character and prophetic status, he wanted to show that he was willing to trust the Jews, hoping that, perhaps, they will be guided. He did not yield to suspicion, even with the enemy. Yet, by eating, he did not show any lack of wisdom because showing suspicions without proof is not the way to build a relationship. And the prophet, in accordance with the Quran's commands was never one to be inconsiderate of others or sceptical of their inner condition.  Especially in the context of warfare, the good treatment of captives, as the prophet was here exemplifying, is expected to soften their hearts towards Islam. But if they act treacherously despite the Muslims' honourability, they will be overpowered just as they had been 8:70-71.

What is interesting with Bishr is that he was the only one, together with the prophet, that sensed the poison during the meal. Although the prophet spat out the morsel in his mouth after briefly chewing on it, Bishr, seeing him beginning to eat, trusted his judgement and swallowed his bite prior to the prophet's reaction. The remaining Muslims did not sense the poison and started eating, just like Bishr, trusting the prophet's judgement, until everyone was told to stop. This is where something strange occurs. Bishr, according to most reports dies instantly, as well as a dog that ate a morsel of the poisonned meal. The prophet lives on but suffers occasionally from the effects of the poison while it had no consequence on the remaining Muslims. Bishr's martyrdom revealed the deadly nature of the poison. The prophet's sickness proved the entire meal was toxic, not just Bishr's portion. The remaining Muslims' immunity was miraculous, given that the whole meal was poisoned. Had only Bishr or only the prophet been afflicted, one could have argued that a specific part of the meal was poisoned or that a specific individual was particularly sensitive to the poison. If the prophet was safeguarded and that someone else, together with Bishr were afflicted, someone could have said the prophet was simply lucky. The Prophet's sickness was necessary to prove that no human being will be allowed to put an end to his life, despite being clearly poisoned, until his mission is accomplished. The manner in which these events unfolded show that God was in full control.

Apostate prophet defends corruption; Jewish scribes changing the text?

In answer to the video "Walking Away From Islam"

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. Aaron yielded to the people's demand for an idol to be built, so many were put to death. Sometimes in 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...".

These corruptions were first transmitted oraly, as would any lie be repeated and exagerated, until the matter was obscured beyond recognition as the generations passed and tried surviving in the harshest situations of their successive periods of enslavement and destruction. Although they succeeded in establishing a blatant falsehood, they could certainly not blot out all related signs that attest to their carelessness in the transmission of religious knowledge, if not, and most probably, their deliberate distortions fueled by their prejudices and own sense of shame.

These disfigured versions were eventually put in writing when the Torah was composed 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, space, culture (Persian and Hellenistic) and social conditions than the time of Moses, let alone the events that are being narrated. 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. 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 and rampant prejudices, as well as obviously their historical context.

Apostate prophet reading skills; unstructured Quran hard to understand?

In answer to the video "Walking Away From Islam"

The idea of the Quran being a dull, boring or incomprehensible repetitive book is a discredited proposition, not only by the scholars of Islam all throughout their exegetical works spanning centuries, but also more recently by non-Muslims who have been doing, and keep on doing, a remarkable job at unveiling the intricate connections of the text, from verse to another, paragraph to paragraph and sura to sura. See Norman Brown's work on sura 18 for instance.

That weak assertion is only still circulating among uneducated critics of Islam, and missionaries. For most of modern Islamicists, the Quran has to be approached as a text on its own, with its own internal coherence to be properly understood. So long as explanations to its passages are sought from the perspective of its alleged, ellusive and countless proposed sources, the Quran will remain an obscure book for those approaching it. There is a vast field nowadays of Quranic studies, with many sub-branches, studied by both Muslims and non-Muslim scholars; the interconnection between suras, passages, verses, words and even letters and how the whole thing remarkably fits together.

In the Quran when it comes to reminding of past narratives and anectodes, the objective isnt dry storytelling and genealogies as in most of the Bible where one can easily and quickly lose track of names, places and other details. These little details, if omitted wouldn't make humanity miss out on anything in terms of guidance, and in fact confuse the reader and distract his attention to trivial matters.

The Quran is not a historical record or dry, impartial document: it is argumentative and impactful to get people to believe and actively reform themselves and their environement. Its powerful statements are in an intellectual, spiritual and emotional language that every culture accross time and space can appreciate. The Quran's objective isnt story telling, but "message telling" and maximizing its audience's attention to the precept(s) of the story. Muslims will not be asked on the Day of Judgment the details of the people of the cave or how Noah's flood occured, how many generations passed between a person and another, the names in a genealogy or whether they memorized the names of people in the Quran. They will be questioned as to how they responded to the lessons from the different incidents and stories related in the Quran.

Thus to focus on the message, the Quran injects the passage of a well-known story, whenever the larger context a sura requires it. And when it does so, it only puts the details of that story that are relevant to that specific context. That is why one sees variations in repetitions, but never contradictions. The only exception to that style of narrative is the story of the prophet Joseph/Yusuf which takes the form of a beginning to end narrative in one place, and a highly eloquent, intricate one at that.

Apostate prophet the lost poet; Rhyming in the Quran?

In answer to the video "Walking Away From Islam"

What was being recited by Muhammad, the illiterate man living among them for 40 years without them ever noticing any poetry skills, did not use confounding words or phrases neither did it employ strange Arabic dialects. Its choice of words produced the maximum impact in the hearts and intellects of those that heard it.

Its content was far from the decadent depictions of various common themes of Preislamic poetry.

Arab poetry varied from vivid lustful language, to history, soothsaying, propaganda, incitements against other tribes, to epic tales of honor, mentions of Abraham and the sacrifice, praise of the holy sanctuary etc. Yet when the Quran addressed each of those themes, it did so with refinement and a meaningful choice of words and structure that gave a multifaceted, intricate moral and spiritual dimension to the issue.

The masters of eloquence of the time could not classify it in any genre due to many factors, including contents and form. The many intricate types and subtypes of the Jahiliyya poetry are well known, and it is the Quran's particular structure, not belonging to any of the established pattern, that made them unable to counter it. This baffled its audience, compelling the opponents to find nothing better to say than to call it magic, inspired by demons and so forth.

Thomas Bauer "There is yet another reason why scholars of the Quran are deterred from looking more closely at contemporary literature  even the briefest of examinations of the two bodies of texts reveals that they share little in common  so different are the Quran and contemporary poetic literature that one can hardly come up with a better example of difference if one tried  From their different ways of using language to their notable differences in content, hardly any similarities are to be found  This distinction is so marked that it might well seem virtually pointless to claim that Arabic poetry can make any serious contribution to an understanding of the Quran".

Ibn Ishaq recorded al-Walid bin Mugira's reaction to the Quran:

"They said, "He is a kahin." He said, "By God, he is not that, for we have seen the kahins, and his (speech) is not unintelligible murmuring (zamzama) and rhymed prose (sajc) of a kahin." "Then he is possessed (majnun)," they said. "No, he is not that," he said. "We have seen and known the possessed state, and here is no choking, spasmodic movements, and whispering." "Then he is a poet," they said. "He is not that," he replied. "We have known poetry in all its forms and meters, and this is not poetry." "Then he is a sorcerer," they said. "No, he is not that," he said, "for we have seen sorcerers and their sorcery, and here is no spitting and no knots."

Rhymes do appear in the Quran, but the establishment of a rhyming scheme is absolutely not the objective nor one of the purposes of Quran syntax. There are reports even of the prophet warning against the attitude of being concerned in trying to make one's prayers and supplications fit a certain rhythmic or rhyming pattern.

As a quick side note, some critics have asserted that the Quran in places, in order to preserve a rhyming pattern, has sometimes spelled the same word differently. For example the prophet Elias that becomes Ilyasin 6:86,37:130 or Mt Sinai/sayna that becomes sinin 23:20,95:2, or the Arabicized names Harun and Qarun (Aaron/Korah). A simple observation however will demonstrate that this isnt necessarily the case for in the Quran itself people and places have been given different names regardless of the rhyming pattern. The prophet Yunus is also called dhunnun and even Mt sinai is sometimes just referred as Tur or Tur sayna.

It isnt uncommon in any language or culture for people or places to be known by several names. Ilyasin has in addition been said to be the name given to the followers of the prophet Ilyas. A peculiarity of Elijah in the HB is that he had a following of prophets 2Kings2. 

There is no sensible reason for a text to introduce a new, unknown name and confuse the audience for the sake of prose, while it would be easier to make an already well established name rhyme with a convenient word instead. Also if one looks at the verses in question, they are surrounded by verses unconcerned with establishing a rhyming scheme, even when ending with a prophet's name.

The poets of Quraysh thus agreed on calling him a magician whose craft was eloquence that by means of eloquent words he was capable of dividing the man against his father, his brother, his spouse and his own tribe 46:7,21:3,34:43,54:2,74:24,10:76,11:7,37:15. The fact is that truth always causes a seperation ultimately as seen in the nations and families of the prophets of old, from Nuh who had to abandon his own disbelieving son to be taken by the deluge, to Ibrahim who left his disbelieveing father, Lut who left his wife behind him as the town was about to be destroyed etc, and the same is related in the scriptures of old, from the HB to the NT

Micah7:6,Matt30:21-36"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved..Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law a man's enemies will be the members of his own household".

Just as the moral reforms brought by Jesus and Muhammad were met with the staunchet opposition, so was the Book given to Musa

11:110-112"And certainly We gave the book to Musa, but it was gone against; and had not a word gone forth from your Lord, the matter would surely have been decided between them; and surely they are in a disquieting doubt about it. And your Lord will most surely pay back to all their deeds in full; surely He is aware of what they do. Continue then in the right way as you are commanded.."

Reciting and listening to the Quran became forbiden but nonetheless, many Quraysh would listen to it in secret, captured by the vivid imagery, metaphores, parables and appeal to the emotions which rendered the realm of the Unseen such as the Hereafter or the Resurrection recognizable to the senses, something which had a profound impact on their psyche and some converted. This growing popularity would add to the deeply rooted sentiment of jealousy so common among the desert Arabs of the time.

Apostate prophet war ethics; Why Fight in Allah's name?

In answer to the video "Walking Away From Islam"

Because God commands to fight for justice. Any other reason to fight is oppression and fighting

"in the way of the devil" 4:76.

The Quran would therefore stir up the believers for battle based on the reality of their physical and spiritual opression, whether men, women, old and young alike 2:217,4:75,8:26,22:39-40,28:57,60:1,85:8-10,96:9-10. This was an undeniable reality and necessity. They had to overcome any fear and trust that Allah's help will come at the battlfield. He will weaken the struggle of the oppressors no mater the forces they can muster 4:84.

Even when this was established, the prophet still did not expect the Muslims to shed their blood for a decision from which they were excluded. Consensual agreement always preceded the final decision to go to war, as here stated in the context of the battle of Uhud

3:159"and seek their advise in all matters of public policy".

Once the decision is attained by common agreement, the plan must be launched with an absolute trust in God

3:159"then when you have decided upon a course of action, trust in Allah; for surely Allah loves those who place their trust in Him".

Even the prophet after that point may not revoke the covenant and act according to his whims 3:161-4. It is to be noted that in that particular context of Uhud, the prophet was the minority opinion. He advised confronting the Meccan alliance within Medina, instead of meeting them at Uhud. Yet he never protested the decision once it was mutually agreed upon, nor did he blame the majority once the battle was over and the Muslims were defeated. No matter how supreme the wisdom of the Muslim community's ruler is, in this case a prophet of God, the right of the remaining members of society to be consulted can never be waved off. We see here that in this defeat of the Muslims at Uhud, an important lesson was implemented as to the conduct of a Muslim leader.

Once everybody is set to leave with a full trust in their decision and the will of God, then their physical, mental, financial capacities as compared to their enemies only become secondary issues. Only if these conditions would result in overburdening and harming the person and the people depending on him, even before engaging in fighting, then such person is justified in holding back from fighting 9:91,48:17. The others rely on Allah, who knows their material and physical limits, and will assist them 8:66. They are fully justified in fighting back, and will be helped in the process

22:38"Surely Allah will defend those who believe; surely Allah does not love any one who is unfaithful, ungrateful".

Part of the 613 Jewish commandments is to similarily be fearless in battle and fully trust in God Deut3:22,7:21,20:3. It was their failure to trust in God's capacity to defeat, through a weak army, a much stronger adversary that caused their 40 years desert wandering prior to entering the land promised to Abraham. God calls mankind to fight in His way first to solve the wordly obstacles to which a particular people is confronted, but these worldly obstacles are connected to the spiritual aspect of man's existence.

This means that fighting in God's way liberates man from both physical and spiritual obstacles. That is why those who fear wordly losses in the process, are told that this world is ultimately ephemeral whether in case of victory or loss. They would thus have certainly reason to fear should their battle be solely aimed at achieving wordly objectives.

But since fighting in God's way includes spiritual objectives, then one has no reason to fear because the Hereafter in which the benefits of that struggle will be certainly found, is everlasting 4:74. Choosing to serve God in this way, putting one's own life on the line to defend the oppressed and advance the cause of truth is the most selfless material and spiritual sacrifice one can do. Every culture and civilization in history has owed its survival in the face of oppression to these types of honored individuals.

But even then, as in any army, there are degrees among soldiers, hence the prophet saying that military participation is ranked 3rd in terms of divine appreciation. Those among the volontaries going to such extent in their selfless sacrifice that they are martyred, the prophetic sayings describe them as meriting the highest reward. Wordly gains follow as a collateral result of wars, and although are certainly the just compensation of those sacrificing their wealth and resources on the way, the Quran stresses that these wordly gains must never be the motive.  In a hadith the prophet even answered about someone fighting in God's cause but also seeking material reward, that in the herafter "He would receive no reward" (sunan Abu Dawud).

Accepting to fight in Allah's way results in reward in this world as well as the next 48:18-21, but turning one's back to the enemy and refusing to shoulder that duty makes a person

48:16,8:16"deserving of Allah's wrath"

in this world as well as the next. Here are the prophet Jeremiah's words

Jer48:10"A curse on anyone who is lax in doing the Lord’s work! A curse on anyone who keeps their sword from bloodshed".

As already pointed, history bares testimony to this fact with the example of the Israelites who had refused to put their trust in the prophet Musa to go forth and fight in Allah's way. Their wordly reward was consequently taken away and they were forbidden entry into the blessed land and sent to wander 40 years in the desert until the last one of those who had shown cowardice was dead. A new generation was then raised instead, one that would willingly take up arms, fight and conquer as divinely ordained. See the Quran in 2:243,5:21-26 as well as the Hebrew Bible in Numbers13:28-33,14:1-35,21:14-35,26:64-65 and Deut2:7,14-19,Josh5:6.

The Muslims are warned that the very same fate awaits those who turn their backs to the prophet when they are called to struggle in Allah's way

9:38-39"If you do not go forth, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you, and you will do Him no harm; and Allah has power over all things".

True Believers rejoice at any opportunity of serving God's cause, like Joshua and Caleb who rent their clothes telling the remaining cowards among the Israelites to stand up for battle. In the end, what God wishes to accomplish is independant of the direct addressees of a prophet. As demonstrated with Musa and the Israelites, He could easily uproot them in case of disobedience and rise another people instead. However, those who followed the prophet Muhammad in times of peace and war are the opposite example.

Contrary to the majority of Israelites in Moses' time who refused to march forth despite witnessing all kinds of divine miracles, the majority of Muhammad's followers fought when ordered to. This is corroborative of their desperate situation, leaving them no choice but to fight for their survival, the survival of their families and their rights to worship Allah. Because of all their sacrifices and because they went forth when they were commanded to, they were made successors in the land 6:133-134 and they earned Allah's rewards in this world as well as, God wills, in the next.

In addition, the Muslims are commanded not to neglect the obligatory prayers, even when facing the enemy at the battlefield 4:101-3. This shows the true objective of these warriors fighting to free themselves and their people from religious bondage; fighting was not their primary occupation for when the time of holding the timed and ordained communion with their Lord arrived, they performed their spiritual obligations despite the imminent danger.

For all the above mentionned noble reasons, the oppressed believers are urged and compelled, despite the natural fear of having to confront a superior enemy, to stand for war 2:216,8:65 if they are fit physically, mentally and financially 9:91,48:17 while relying on Allah; He knows their material and physical weakness and will assist them 8:66.

Jihad, in all of its aspects, whether for the establishment of God's will in a specific land, as was the case in Mecca with Muhammad or Moses in Canaan, whether for the punishment of rejecters in the prophetic era, as was the case with the Ishmaelites and the Israelites, or the timeless right to self defence, is always limited to the principle of

"and do not exceed the limit. Verily, Allah loves not those who exceed the limit". 

Among these limits not to trespass, the Muslims, even though oppressed should not seek blind revenge at all costs, rather they should try engaging in peaceful negotiations before 8:39-40. In a dominant position, Muslims must remain concious of their past weakness before Allah strenghtened them and not refuse the hand of peace from non-muslims 4:94. In all cases retaliation must be

22:60"with the like of that with which he has been afflicted and he has been oppressed".  

2:194"Thus, if anyone commits aggression against you, attack him just as he has attacked you - but remain conscious of God".

This means that even while seeking just and equal retribution, one must remain conscious of God's limits. The Quran's supreme realism reflects even in such situations, telling those whose spirituality is of a high degree, that if they are able to be patient and forgive for Allah's sake, instead of exercising their legitimate right to retaliation when they have taken the upper hand then Allah will compensate them for their magnanimity

42:39-43,16:126-8"but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient..Surely Allah is with those who guard (against evil) and those who do good (to others)". 

The sensitivity of the issue is pictured in God's address to David, the prophet-king 34:10-11. As he was given mastery over a crucial component in warfare -iron-, he and all those after him are told that in their use of that martial technology, God is ever seeing of what they do, indicating that they should use this means in the path of righteous deed, not in the way of oppression, cruelty, and sin.

Apostate prophet attacks the early caliphs; wars of conquest?

In answer to the video "Walking Away From Islam"

The early caliphate was actually a war of liberation of the oppressed people of the Roman, Persian and Egyptian nations from centuries of tyranny.

There is a reason why the early Islamic state expanded with such speed, the local people did not resist and instead embraced the Muslim liberators that brought positive change in all aspects of their lives, whether they decided to convert or keep their own belief system.

For example the Judeo-Christian population of Syria preferred Muslim rule to that of the Christian Byzantine empire. Seeing this phenomenon occuring all throughout the Muslims territories is what made some medieval jurists argue that the Islamic System is a much better one than any man-made law as it opposed oppression. The purpose of waging Islamic war, became in their eyes to spread the sharia, which includes laws accomodating non-Muslim communities.

This supremacist view of the Islamic system is what made Ibn Khaldun argue that Islam had to ultimately spread globally, even by coercion. Throughout time, dominant powers viewed and still do, their societal order as superior, seeking to spread it by all means so as to safeguard their geopolitical interests. It is to be noted that Ibn khaldun maintained that warfare is intrinsic to human history, since immemorial times. He did not argue that cessation of warfare was something unthinkable to Islam. Prior to ibn Khaldun, other Muslim scholars the likes of  al-Turtushi described wars as “social anomalies”. Al-Hasan ibn ‛Abd Allah compared wars “to diseases of society”. The vast majority of Muslim scholars past and present, view war as a necessary remedy against aggression. Going back to ibn Rushd/Averoes, he reported the controversies of his time as to whether an enemy should be killed because of his hostility or solely for his religious difference and refusal to accept Islam.

As one goes through the various legal opinions of the Muslim scholars throughout time and up until the modern era, what transpires is that their understanding of what is required of the Quran and the prophet in terms of warfare reflects the political and ideological environements in which they formulated their ideas.

But the historical facts are clear; none of the wars in the times of the prophet and the early caliphs were done against a people solely because of their religious differences. The massive, but progressive conversions, as will be shown later, could by no means be due to the fear of being enslaved by the Arab Muslims during the early Islamic conquests. Otherwise, we should expect many people to have renounced Islam following the military and political decline of Muslim power in the world.

The fulgurant expansion of the Muslim empire and Islam itself as a religion, a mere century following the prophet's death, from modern-day Spain in the west to India in the east, the vast numbers of conquered people that eventually converted to Islam in the process has confounded observers for centuries, more particularily European Christendom. Islam, to these people was an inferior religion. The myth of forced conversions meant avoiding the difficult idea that Islam was the true religion and that God was on the side of the Muslims. The earliest Christian polemics against Islam cleverly twisted the idea. The Muslim invaders were indeed divinely sent, but not for their own righteousness, rather as a rod of punishment against sinful Christians and their leaders. John bar Penkaye writes in the 680s

"We should not think of their advent (of the sons of Hagar) as something ordinary, but as due to divine working:" When these people came, at God's command, and took over as it were both kingdoms ... , God put victory into their hands in such a way that the words written concerning them might be fulfilled, namely: "One man chased a thousand and two men routed ten thousand" (Deut32). How otherwise could naked men riding without armour or shield have been able to win, apart from divine aid, God having called them from the ends of the earth so as to destroy by them "a sinful kingdom" (Amos9) and to bring low through them the proud spirit of the Persians?"

Similarily to other 7th century texts, the Chronicler of Khuzistan says that

"the victory of the sons of Ishmael who subdued and enslaved these two strong empires was from God".

Ironically in the Chronicle of Fredegar, the Muslims are "the sword of God".

One overarching theme in 7th-8th century polemics against Islam is Christian crisis of faith and fear of apostasy. Christians of all spheres of life were rejecting their religion and converting Islam. We read in an apocalypse of the early 8th century

"many people who were members of the church will deny the true faith of the Christians, along with the holy cross and the awesome Mysteries, without being subjected to any compulsion, lashing or blows".

The same is bitterly confirmed by a monk in Mesopotamia, in the Zuqnin Chronicle

"For without blows or torture they slid down in great eagerness toward denial. Forming groups of twenty, thirty and a hundred men, two and three hundred, without any kind of compulsion to this, they went down to Harran to the governors and became Muslims (mhaggnn) So acted numerous people from the regions of Edessa, Harran, Telia, Resh'aina, Dara, Nisibis, Shengar and Callinicum, and from these places both error and the devil gained immeasurable strength among them".

Until now, western scholars and historians are making blunt observations such as "the success of the conquests is virtually beyond plausible historical explanation" (Webb) or "the dynamism of Islam’s expansion defies explanation in ordinary human terms" (Donner) or that we should “dissuade historians from striving vainly to explain the almost inexplicable in normal historical terms” (James Howard-Johnston). Christians also projected onto this phenomenon their own experience of ruthless conquests, looting, destructions and forced conversion and so Islam became a religion “spread by the sword”.

This medieval myth, picked up in the late 19th- early 20th centuries by Orientalist like William Muir, many actually being colonial officials and/or active Christian missionaries that benefited from the vilification of Islam to non-Muslim audiences, is a myth that finds echo in today's Islamophobia industry. Muslim behavior is presented as the latest episode of Islam being spread “by the sword".

Seeing a big part of the Muslim conquests assimilating Christian territories and peoples, this spiritual, political, social, economic defeat resonated hard in the heart of the Christian elites, and still does today. As they tried throughout the centuries to roll back that humiliation through military and spiritual warfare, they only gained success in the former. Christianity, to Muslims, from the scholar to the layman, boiled down to worshiping a human being and God dying, both non appealing alternatives to the instinctive, natural, reasonable message of Islam. As time passed, Christian missionary strategy changed, from comforting the emotionally unstable in the name of the loving God of the Bible, to giving up mentioning Christianity alltogether; Islam is the religion of the devil and its prophet an anti-christ. If Christians cant have Muslims entering their fold, having them at the very least rejecting Islam is a satisfactory alternative. The reality of the matter however is that even if that strategy is far more successful in making Muslims abandon their religion instead of preaching Christianity directly, the desired results remain poor. The demographics remain from the short to long term heavily in favor of Islam, due firstly to Christianity dying out in the hearts, minds, practices of their societies, but also because the little number of apostates impressed by that demonizing effort, is offset by a radicalising effect; when insulted to his core, ancestral beliefs, the natural reaction of even the least traditional will be spiritual and intellectual "self-defence", seeking deeper knowledge and strengthening of his religious identity. That missionary tactic is also very unpopular among the Christian public, repulsed by the highly antagonizing rhetoric and painted as the aggressing party. Such Christians very often begin investigating Islam and end up finding it appealing. These factors, and others, pile up. The return on investment for those types of missionaries is negative if one weights the time, money, but especially emotional and spiritual degradation for having to dwell in dark pursuits. The best course of actions to the missionaries of that trend is to work on the betterment of their own souls first and foremost, then to strengthen their own communities' loss of faith in their ancestral beliefs.

As to Muslim interaction with the conquered peoples, there have been of course certain instances in history of Muslims disregarding Islamic teachings and behaving cruelly toward non-Muslims, including cases of forced conversion. Allthough the state and church sanctioned evil throughout Christian history, ie the background of the very people levelling these claims so as to demonize Islam, make these cases pale in comparison. This method of cherry picking incidents and leaping to the broad-sweeping, reductionist conclusion that Islam was “spread by the sword” is intellectually dishonest and doesnt stand the test of scrutiny. Practically, such a phenomenal endeavor would have been impossible to achieve for the Muslim conquerers.

During the early Muslim conquests, Muslims were a small minority in newly-conquered areas, around 10% in Egypt or 20% in Iraq. That is why for at least two centuries the majority of the inhabitants of the Islamic empire were non-Muslims. The regions conquered up to a century after the prophet didnt become majoritarily Muslims until 850-1050. For example although Iran was entirely under Muslim dominion in 705, its Muslim population hadnt reached 50% prior to the mid 9th century, then 75% a century later. One of the reasons for that miserable failure of Islam's "spreading by the sword" was that Muslim rulers actually preferred collecting Jizya which they could use at their discretion, than zakat which, although higher, had to be redistributed locally in the provinces and could only be used in certain ways.

To corroborate, the Umayyad general al Hakami was removed from his post because of having prevented the local population of Khurasan from converting to Islam so that he could keep on collecting jizya. There were other such cases such as the Abasside general ibn Kawus who forbade Muslim proselytizing in his jurisdiction.

As stated above there were certainly cases of forced conversions, but these were far more nuanced than the willfully misleading “spread-by-the-sword” narrative makes it seem. The first case mostly picked up by the misleaders is that of south Asia. The notion of millions of Indians forcefully converted is bellied on several levels. Firstly, Islam counted much more adherents in the Indian areas where the Islamic state had less power, than in the heartland of India where Muslim control and dominion was strongest (70-90% in Punjab and Bengal vs 10-15% in the Gangetic Plain). Those who level that charge of forced Indian conversions mostly base their accusations on ambiguous reports from historical sources the likes of “They submitted to Islam” for example. This could refer to Islam the religion, the Muslim state, or the “army of Islam” and a contextual reading usually supports one of the latter two interpretations.

The devshirme system in the Ottoman empire, which consisted in systematically taking young Christian boys, raising them as Muslims then training them to serve in the empire’s bureaucracy or in the sultan’s personal military force, cannot be considered a valid argument for the spread by the sword theory. The system, although obviously condemnable and without any basis in the Quran nor the practices of the prophet, actually many times benefited the religious minorities of the empire from whence these boys were taken, giving them access to high government positions. An example is that of Sokullu Mehmet Pasha, a Slav from Bosnia who rose through the bureaucracy to become the empire’s grand vizier, a position from which he was able to support Bosnia’s Christian community, though he himself remained Muslim.

Another case of forced conversion in Islamic history is that of Yemen's Orphans’ Decree issued by Imam Yahya al-Mutawakkil in the early 20th century. Again, a fringe phenomenon, without any basis in Islam but rather a Zaydi law requiring the forcible conversion of orphaned Jewish children to Islam. However what transpires from history is that, al-Mutawakkil, who was more interested in asserting his authority by adopting his subjects' customs, applied the rule selectively. In many cases he helped Jewish children escape Yemen to avoid conversions. Seeing this, the guardians of many Jewish children actually fled to Imam Yahya’s jurisdiction rather than from it.

In short this islamophobic boogeyman of "spread by the sword" theory has no legs to stand on and the reality of the matter is that theologically, Islam either explained away by the strength of its arguments, or absorbed the other religions and competing theologies about God, consolidating all into one coherent monotheistic worldview. This was the power of Islam which gave it great intellectual appeal: its ability to satisfy all the existential questions about God and creation, a message of profound substance that remained flexible enough that it would remain forever relevant, and never become obsolete.

As rightly stated by the British historian Hugh Kennedy 

"Islam did not spread by the sword but without the sword it would not have spread". 

This distinction between the spread of the Muslim empire and the Muslim religion highlights the fact that, as with many new things, whether abstract or concrete, Islam as a religion spread as it engaged with the conquered people. This interraction played out differently  throughout the empire, and beyond the empire, including one of, or a combination of factors such as trade, intermarriages, the general appearance of success and prestige of the Muslim conquerors, the appeal of the Islamic social system, local charismatic converts, migrations.