In answer to the video "Scholarly Ability: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 2)"
Although revealed in an environement where poetry and oratory speeches were loaded with explicitly lustful and indecent language and allusions, the Quran never departs from its pattern of using respectable language and concepts.
This is particularily made clear in sura Yusuf, the "best of stories", when detailing the mistress' attempted seduction of Yusuf. The Quran beautifully combines in that context, precision in expression with a dignified vocabulary, and despite the fact that it talks about lust, utilizes the principles of piety, morals and respect without being paralysed in the process.
When the Quran addresses the themes of sex or sexual organs, its eloquence necessitates that it does not directly speak of testicles, penis or vagina. This is an established Quranic pattern accross several topics.
Contrary to the Bible with its known rude language and unsophisticated imageries, as is amply found in modern pop culture, news, and magazines, the Quran seeks not to flood the imagination with crude details so as to not trivialize certain themes. There are ample examples, such as 2:222 where it refers to sexual intercourse by using the imagery of the farmer cultivating his tilth with tenderness and deep consideration aforehand, or as "touching" the mate 2:236,237,4:43,5:6,33:49etc. The word for 'touching' is laamastum from the root L-M-S that means skin feeling an object interactively. It is used to mean mainly sex, or at least some form of foreplay. Other terminologies used in the Quran to refer to sexual intercourse is "covering" the mate 7:189 or in the context of refraining from sex it says "guarding the private parts" 23:5,33:35. In some instances where the Quran refers to women's sexual organs it literaly speaks of 60:12"what lies between their legs and hands" among other apellations.
Now we come to the passage in question which is of interest to this youtuber. 86:5-7 speaks of the fluid "coming out". It doesnt speak of origin or formation, but exiting. All people know from where seminal fluid exits from. The determination of the location where the fluid is formed is irrelevant to the point of the verse. The verse speaks of man's humble and simple origins despite him growing into a highly complex creature, and how he will inevitably be humbled once again to simple elements then recreated and brought forth to render account. The rejecters of resurrection saw it as a far fetched thing, an impossibility for a human being to be grown back after its death, decay, and return to the earth.
So instead of telling these arrogant people, who see their current state as a highly complex entity impossible to re-create, that they were once a simple fluid that exited from their father's penises, it says they exited "from between the sulb and the taraaib".
Sulb stems from S-L-B, implying strength, hardness, firmness, uprightness. Words like the backbone or the saleeb/crucifix, because of standing firmly upright, are derived from it.
Taraaib stems from T-R-B, implying some sort of resemblence, uniformity, harmony, symetry. It is used for example for turab/soil or dust, because dust grains are resembling and corresponding.
Elsewhere it denotes how the mates of paradise match oneanother in many aspects 56:37,78:33 and it can similarily describe how certain body parts like the eyes, the hands, the legs, or the ribs etc. are matching. The statement "exiting from between the sulb/backbone and the taraaib/legs or ribs" refers to man's sexual organ just like "what lies between their legs and hands" subtely alludes to women's sexual parts.
Any other propostition would suggest the people back in 7th century Arabia, or whomever the sceptics allege wrote the Quran, were ignorant of the function of testicles. This of course is an untenable assertion. For example, they used to practice castration on animals, and knew of the existence of eunuchs. An equally valid interpretation as noted by the early tafasirs, including Makki ibn abi Talib, al Mahdawi or ibn Atiya, is that yakhruju/exiting may refer to the human being spoken of earlier. This is valid both linguistically and biologically, as the womb is located between the backbone and ribs of the woman. Between, as a side note, does not entail "middle".
In answer to the video "Scholarly Ability: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 2)"
No such thing as shooting stars in the Quran. And as usual before we get into this allow me a little introduction related to the topic.
This noble Book is not the result of some human whim. It was an inspiration to Muhammad 42:52, whose descent is independent of his will and desires 53:3. Allah says of him
69:44-47"if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand, And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart: Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath)".
The prophet wont be able to successfully pass off something false as divinely inspired because by the manner of his sudden death, those around him will understand that the prophecy of preservation came true and that what he was about to utter, or started uttering was false. Should he even misinterpret and lie over the true meaning of what is revealed to him, his heart would be sealed and he would become like the worst rejectors among his nation, blindly wandering on 42:24. Other verses issue similar warnings against tampering with the Quran to such an extent that it was imprinted in the psyche of the memorizers and all the believers.
This Book is part of a Divine Scheme meaning its implementation will be under the direct surveillance of the Almighty Himself. During the time of revelation of the Quran, the Almighty made arrangements so that the purity of the Revelation travels intact from its descent from Heaven to the heart of the prophet Muhammad to the point that evil ones were not allowed near it during the process
26:210-212"No evil ones have brought down this (Revelation), It would neither suit them nor would they be able (to produce it). Indeed they have been removed far from even (a chance of) hearing it".
Pre-Islamic Arabs believed that their soothsayers were inspired by the jinn who would bring them information from heaven, and thus sometimes accused this Quran whose eloquence and impact on the people they could not explain, to have been similarly inspired.
To refute this belief, the Quran told them that this sama' ("what is above" more commonly used for the sky), although beautified with constellations to the onlookers, has in addition been provided with protection in the times of revelation 15:16-17 through several systems.
First, the ones charged with :carrying down the exalted and purified Revelation were headed by Gabriel, around whom they are tightly knit and highly dutiful 16:2,2:97,97:1-4,80:13-16. Under his direction, these emissaries, carry the revelation, from heaven down to earth, all the way to the heart of the chosen messenger until it is pronounced to the people 72:27-8.
The carriers of revelation repelled the rebellious among the jinn from every side so they could not understand what the ones high in ranks were saying during their descent 37:8,97:4. The angels did not wait for them to be able to perceive what was being brought down to earth before driving them off from their positions. They were repelled as soon as they managed to steal the slightest hearing, the faintest sound emanating from the delegation
15:18,37:10"Except him who snatches off but once, then there follows him a brightly shining flame/shihab".
These burning objects are identified as shihab, plur. "shuhub". Only 1 type of cosmic body in our sky fits the description of a fast moving object giving its own light; meteors. They are orbiting the earth in outer space at high speeds then light up when they enter earth's atmosphere.
As already seen in 15:16-17 the Quran makes a distinction between the guarding system provided by these meteors and the shining objects adorning our sky "We have made constellations in the heaven and we have made it fair seeming to the beholders. AND we guard it against every accursed shaytan". Sama' addunya means the nearest heaven. The root D-N-W implies nearness. We talk of our world in Arabic as the dunya because it points to the world in which we are currently living in, as opposed to the akhira/hereafter which is far. Sama' addunya, the near or nearest heaven, is near in relation to the earth which includes the atmosphere that the Quran also calls sama' 16:79,30:48. The nearest heaven is thus outer space. This area, the Quran says, has been adorned with kawaakib/bright lights 37:6 AND/WA guarding/hifthan against the devils 37:7,41:12.
The Quran again, as is done in 15:16-17 separates the guarding system and the shining objects decorating the night sky (stars, planets, etc).
The verse 67:5 reiterates how the sama' has been adorned with shining objects
"We have adorned the near heaven with lamps and we have made it projectiles for the shaytan".
Although not very obvious once translated, the grammatical construction accepts in its range of meanings that both the sama' and the shining objects adorning it, as well as each on their own, have been made projectiles against the jinn. This is where the principle of not isolating verses from an established pattern come into play. The Quran as already shown, time after time, distinguishes between the objects adorning the sky on one hand, and the guarding system on another. The 2 are never confounded.
We then read 67:5 with that established pattern in mind, only keeping the sama' as having been made into projectiles against the jinn. This interpretation was noted by early commentators too, the sama' being a feminine word, thus agreeing grammatically with the feminine particle "ha" in
"jaAAalnaHA/we made it".
The "ha/it" therefore is in reference, not to a thing, but to a location, the sama'/sky which has been turned into a place of pelting for the shayatin/evil beings. Prior to the scientific era, in the tafsirs of al Suyuti or ibn Kathir, it was never stated that the stars themselves we turned into missiles, the most that they said was that a flame was ejected from the stars towards some of the jinn, while the stars themselves did not move.
Before Revelation started, the jinn sat anywhere they wanted in the sky
72:9"we used to sit in some of the sitting-places thereof to steal a hearing".
This gives us a glimpse into their nature, that they had the ability to fly and float in the skies, waiting to perceive any type of heavenly information. Whatever hearing they could steal, and if they were allowed reaching an individual with it, it became a means of trial to those people who believe in their own abilities to attain to any kind of knowledge of the unseen through the jinn, as well as a trial to the gullible who are deceived by such people
"A stealthy listener (jinn) hears a word which he will convey to that which is below him and the second will convey it to that which is below him till the last of them will convey it to the wizard or foreteller. Sometimes a flame (fire) may strike the devil before he can convey it, and sometimes he may convey it before the flame (fire) strikes him, whereupon the wizard adds to that word a hundred lies. The people will then say, 'Didn't he (i.e. magician) tell such-and-such a thing on such-and-such date?' So that magician is said to have told the truth because of the Statement which has been heard from the heavens".
The prophet here refutes the belief in the occult sciences of pre-Islamic times, and still present today, where entities of the unseen have the ability to extract information that is of any use to humans
"Some people asked Allah's Messenger about the fore-tellers. Allah's Messenger said to them, "They are nothing (i.e., liars)." The people said, 'O Allah's Messenger! Sometimes they tell something which comes out to be true." Allah's Messenger said, "That word which comes to be true is what a jinx snatches away by stealing and then pours it in the ear of his fore-teller with a sound similar to the cackle of a hen, and then they add to it one-hundred lies".
As the Quran states in the context of Solomon's death
34:14"the jinn came to know plainly that if they had known the unseen, they would not have tarried in abasing torment".
The passage refers to Solomon who passed away but whose dead body was held in place by a wooden staff for a while until it disintegrated, eaten by a woodworm. It is only when his inanimate body fell to the ground that the jinn, living under his servitude, realized he was dead. The passage not only shows them as subservient to one of Allah's servants, but they are unable to even fathom something superficially hidden from them, yet very close: how then can they gratify people’s appeals to learn the secrets of the unseen? When speaking of Iblis himself, the Quran says that his pledge to God that he would doubtlessly lead astray a portion of Adam's descendants, was in fact a conjecture and guess. The archetype of jinn has no access to special knowledge, not even of the future. It was just a coincidence that his conjecture and guess became true
34:20"And certainly Iblis found true his conjecture concerning them, so they followed him, except a party of the believers".
The aforementioned hadith describing the jinn's ability to corrupt a true matter of the unseen and then deceive the soothsayer with it, is not speaking of the revelation of the Quran. Rather, of the revelation of decrees to the angels, who then transmit it among themselves. During that process of transmission, the jinn, who were allowed sitting in various locations of the skies prior to the revelation of the Quran, extracted information. Upon that, burning objects of the sky, which are none other than meteors, chased and eventually destroyed them. The traditions therefore do not entail that meteors have the exclusive purpose of chasing the jinn. When the prophet on an occasion introduced that concept, he stated that meteors similar to the one observed, served that function
"As we were sitting during the night with Allah's Messenger, a meteor shot gave a dazzling light. Allah's Messenger said: What did you say in jahiliyya when one like this one was thrown?"
He did not say "when a meteor is thrown" rather when one "like it is thrown". The likeness therefore could be in that both are meteors, but with different purposes.
When revelation of the Quran started descending from the heavens, carried by the angels down to earth, the jinn were prevented from even trying to listen
72:9"but he who would (try to) listen NOW would find a flame lying in wait for him".
Guarding angels filled the atmosphere, besides those descending with revelation 16:2,97:1-4, which further prevented the jinn from their usual sitting places
72:8"And we have sought [to reach] the heaven but found it filled with powerful guards and burning flames".
It had never happened to those jinn contemporaries of the prophet Muhammad, that even as much as trying to rise in the skies resulted in them being pelted by meteors
"So it was with the advent of the Messenger of Allah that they were prevented from their places. So they mentioned that to Iblis – and the stars were not shot at them before that".
Umar once encountered a Muslim who was a fortune teller in pre-islamic times. That person told him of the state of confusion among the jinn folk close to the time the prophet appeared
"Once, while `Umar was sitting, a handsome man passed by him, `Umar said, "If I am not wrong, this person is still on his religion of the pre-lslamic period of ignorance or he was their foreteller. Call the man to me." When the man was called to him, he told him of his thought. The man said, "I have never seen such a day on which a Muslim is faced with such an accusation." `Umar said, "I am determined that you should tell me the truth." He said, "I was a foreteller in the pre-lslamic period of ignorance." Then `Umar said, "Tell me the most astonishing thing your female Jinn has told you of." He said, "One-day while I was in the market, she came to me scared and said, 'Haven't you seen the Jinns and their despair and they were overthrown after their defeat (and prevented from listening to the news of the heaven) so that they (stopped going to the sky and) kept following camel-riders (i.e. 'Arabs)?" `Umar said, "He is right." and added, "One day while I was near their idols, there came a man with a calf and slaughtered it as a sacrifice (for the idols). An (unseen) creature shouted at him, and I have never heard harsher than his voice. He was crying, 'O you bold evil-doer! A matter of success! An eloquent man is saying: None has the right to be worshipped except you (O Allah).' On that the people fled, but I said, 'I shall not go away till I know what is behind this.' Then the cry came again: 'O you bold evil-doer! A matter of success! An eloquent man is saying: None has the right to be worshipped except Allah.' I then went away and a few days later it was said, "A prophet has appeared".
Through that guarding system, the matter became so obscure to the jinn, that they could not but conclude that
72:10"we know not whether evil is meant for those who are on earth or whether their Lord means to bring them good".
So in the time of revelation, as was the case prior, the rebellious jinn who heard something from the angels were chased by meteors. The difference being that when revelation started, they could not be allowed to corrupt the revelation, hence the increased preventive measures
26:210-12"And the devils have not brought the revelation down. It is not allowable for them, nor would they be able. Most surely they are far removed from the hearing of it".
Only those who stole something of a sound, regardless of how negligible it might have been, from the angelic delegation were followed by a meteor 15:18,37:10. The Quran therefore, just as the traditions, nowhere make absolute statements about the function of meteors. Rather, mentions are made of a specific situation with its consequence. On a general note, this "chasing" doesnt entail an odd, erratic trajectory. The object in outer space could be orbiting the earth and then made to descend, as any meteor would, into the atmosphere towards the location of the rebellious jinn, like a laser beam. Every occurrence in the universe is caused by God, and just as He causes space matter to descend into the atmosphere at a time unrelated to the jinns' behaviour, He may cause one of those entities to descend towards a jinn whenever one of them hears, or tries hearing a saying of the angels.
In answer to the video "Scholarly Ability: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 2)"
That isnt what the Quran says. It speaks from Dhul Qarnayn's perspective.
18:86,90 relate some of Dhul Qarnayn's journeys across the Earth. The Quran describes, as a third party observer, what he and the people he met experienced and saw in these places. 18:90 describes his arrival at the place of the rising sun, where HE saw it rising. matliAAa alshshams/maghrib alshshams do not have a fixed meaning in classical Arabic. It all depends on the context of its use. It can be rising of the sun/setting of the sun, it can be ‘the land of the rising sun’/land of the setting sun, it can be farthest east/farthest west. The scene is being described after the event had happened, and as perceived by one person. It is not making a general statement of fact as regards the cosmic path of the sun, as it does in 21:33.
Dhul Qarnayn travelled the land and at one point during his expedition saw the sun rising from where he was standing. This is how he knew he had reached the rising place of the sun, not because he had arrived at the flat earth's edges or to a place with a hole in the ground from where the sun came up. Wajadaha, means subjective perception of any of the senses. As is amply used in Arabic, the word doesnt imply that what is perceived corresponds to actual reality. It could be, just as it could not be. Again the passage relates Dhul Qarnayn's perspective, not necessarily a phenomenon physically occuring. This is seen a few verses later. It says Dhul Qarnayn "wajada" the sun rising on a people. It specifies the location of rising just as it does for the setting. No commentator argued that wajada here entails physical sunrise on a people, literally above them, because they did not think that the word indicates a literal location of sunset a few verses back. Had the word wajada, or any of the other words used indicate literal sunset, and that the early commentators endorsed such a view, then they would have stated the same as regards the location of sunrise. The fact that both Dhul Qarnayn and these people were in the same place, but yet only the locals were harmed by the rising sun proves that wajada cannot mean literal sunrise, just as it cannot mean literal sunset in a water source.
This location of sunrise was not unique, as the Quran speaks of mashaariq and maghaarib. But it was worth mentioning for the point of the story. He met a particular people there, whom the Quran says Dhul Qarnayn found the sun rising upon. The reason for singling out a group from among those standing there and saying the sun was on them from Dhul Qarnayn's view, was to illustrate how they were, contrary to himself
"a people to whom We had given no shelter from It".
The blazing sun was affecting them only as a primitive people who did not cover themselves or know how to build proper protection against it, contrary to Dhul Qarnayn and his men who were standing at the same location, and who were obviously equally under the same sun. Dhul Qarnayn's finding the rising sun has thus nothing to do with a scientific observation or general statement of fact, rather temporary perspective from Dhul Qarnayn's angle.
Similarly in 18:86, no civilisation ever believed, including the pre-Islamic Arabs, that the sun would sink in the water at night. People instead thought the sun rose and set at the flat Earth's edges. Had the Quran been merely reflecting its contemporaries' understanding of astronomy, it should have said something along the line of "he found it setting behind the water" had it meant Dhul Qarnayn reached a spot of physical sunset. But it says "in" the water. This description is appropriate to Dhul Qarnayn's location. He reached the westernmost spot of his journey, where he stopped his progress because of a water source/aynin. At this spot where he met a people, from his perspective, he saw the sun setting in the water. Al gharb as a side note means to disappear, not simply setting as in entering into another entity.
Ibn kathir, much before the scientific era and while the consensus on astronomy was geocentric, stated that this setting in a spring was from Dhul Qarnayn's perspective.
Tafsir literature as a side note is a literary genre open to reinterpretation even today, using exactly the same tools (linguistic, ahadith, fiqh) that are preserved and were available to the earliest generations of mufassirun. So to say that one tafsir says something and another more ancient, using exactly the same tools, says another is no proof of anything. Even the earliest works reported, discussed, selected, discarded previous views, as Attabari does for instance. As a further note on a particular angle of interpretation; the meaning of the Quran is not dependant on a commentator's projection of his own understanding of nature. Science is a field in constant reevaluation, and thus is not part of the exegetical tools of a mufassir. If however a commentator chooses to integrate it in his reading of a passage, then a commentator today, using the same tools available to his predecessors, added with current knowledge of nature, can supersede older interpretations in which the commentator projects his outdated scientific knowledge.
All the references in at Tabari to the sun setting in a spring allude to what Dhul Qarnayn saw. None of the views reported say that the setting place of the sun is in a spring, independently of Dhul Qarnayn's perspective. In fact Attabari, commenting on 21:33 states that the sun floats in a heavenly orbit. How could he then argue that it enters the earth to sink in a pond? Al Baghawi, al Mawrudi, Makki ibn abi Talib, Al Tusi, all of them much prior to ibn Kathir, and Al Tabarani who was a contemporary of Attabari and even ibn Qutayba who preceded Attabari all spoke of the metaphorical meaning of the verse, as a subjective perception from Dhul Qarnayn.
These verses speak from Dhul Qarnayn's perspective, what he saw on his expeditions, more specifically the people he met. That is why it speaks of several of his journeys including one inside a valley where his sight was blocked by the mountains and couldnt therefore see the sun rising nor setting 18:93. In short, Dhul Qarnayn probably saw many sunsets and sunrises on his journeys. But some of those where he saw sunrises and sunsets at the horizon were worth mentionning, because he met in them particular people whose characteristics are given in the verses 18:86-90. At the setting of the sun, it was disbelievers deserving punishement, at the rising of the sun it was very primitive people. Keeping in mind that the Quran repeatedly says there are countless rising and setting places for the sun. Finally, there is an expression used in 43:38 by the disbelievers on the day of judgement, to signify an infinite distance
"Oh, I wish there was between me and you the distance of two sunrises/mashriqayn – how wretched a companion".
The implicit meaning is that no matter how much one may pursue the physical rising place of the sun, one will never reached that spot. But even that unfathomable distance is not enough to express the disbeliever's loathing of his evil earthly companion, hence his wish to have him twice as far. This type of phraseology meant at expressing something with no qualitative or quantitative ending is found in other places, such as when depicts God's infinite knowledge and wisdom should it be put into writing
31:27"And if whatever trees upon the earth were pens and the sea [was ink], replenished thereafter by seven [more] seas, the words of Allah would not be exhausted. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise".
The Quran, it is to be kept in mind, repeatedly says there are countless rising and setting places for the sun 37:5,70:40. There isnt one single place of sunrise or sunset but each of those ephemeral sunrises and sunset spots where one can see the sun rising or setting when looking at the horizon must be referred to with a definite article when spoken of on their own 18:86,90. Mashaariq literally means "the places where the sun rises".
The east can be implicit depending on one's position on Earth however "the places where the sun rises" can also include the south or the north as happens in certain Arctic/Antarctic times of the year. Thats how accurate and consistent the Quran truly is contrary to other similarily ancient religious scriptures, such as the Hebrew Bible from where it is claimed the Quran finds inspiration.
The HB, contrary to the Quran reflects the faulty cosmic understanding of the people that penned it, speaking of
Isa45:6,Ps113:3"the rising of the sun to the place where it sets".
It speaks of the sun traveling across the heaven from one end to another Ps19:7, circling the earth Ecc1:5. A salvific figure will be coming
Isa41:25"from the rising of the sun".
When daylight was miraculously prolonged for an additional 24 hours, it was because the sun stood still, instead of the earth Josh10:12-14. The end of a day was understood as when
"the sun descended very much"
until it set
"near Gibeah"
Judges19:11-14. There is a "dwelling" God has created for the setting sun, somewhere in the heavens Ps19:5, the place where both the sun and moon stand still in the face of God's might Hab3:11. There is also mention of times where 1Sam11:9"the sun is hot" which implies that there are others where it cools down. What the ancients who wrote the Bible didnt know is that during this cooling off time, the opposite side of the round Earth was still receiving the Sun's warmth. The Sun was moving backwards in relation to the Earth during the miraculous extending of daytime Isa38:8.
Of course, the words of the Talmudic rabbis traditionaly considered God-given to Moses at Sinai, reflect all these faulty notions. In order to move from daylight to night (and vice versa) the sun had to go through the solid firmament, a dome sitting on top of the shallow flat earth. This passage happens twice a day, in the morning and the evening. As it goes through the firmament's width, the sun appears to be setting. This apparent time it takes for the sun to pierce through the firmament (approx 70min) is included until today by religious Jews as part of the daylight cycle. It is perfectly expected for a human work, the Bible, to reflect every faulty notion of its human writers.
What is astonishing is that all these erroneous views and others were equally believed by the ancient Arabs yet we do not find even as much as the remotest resemblance of any of these concepts with verses from the Quran depicting some natural phenomena.
Allah is the Lord of the mashaariq and maghaarib, the Creator and Ultimate Cause of all phenomenons in the universe, making the sun rise and set at different spots of the horizon throughout the solar year. God causes the movements in the universe making the sun rise at different spots in the horizon. Sometimes the Quran, when discribing a thing positionned far on the horizon, describes its position in terms of altitude as opposed to longitude which would have been the case had it thought the earth was flat 53:7.
In answer to the video "Scholarly Ability: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 2)"
As is explicit in the Quran, the divine protection of the carriers of the revelation pertains strictly to the revelation itself. But in everyday affairs, the messengers, who are still humans endowed with freewill and thus the potential, if not to sin due to their heightened level of spiritual awareness, to make mistakes, they are left to their own devices in their everyday lives to fight off the assaults of evil forces.
No prophet was in a constant state of communication with the divine realm. The Quran never came to correct the prophet's worldviews in terms of knowledge of nature and general causality, neither of his contemporaries but rather guide him and the rest of humanity through him, to the most complete, advanced human spiritual knowledge. The divine protection therefore only pertained to the Quran which is the source of that perfect spiritual knowledge.
The prophet was "uswa hasana" in his application of the Quran, just as following Jesus' way, as he is quoted saying in the NT, meant following his footsteps in his application of the Torah. This phrase in no way implies that he was a perfect creation. The prophet was not uswa hasana in how he ate, slept or saw the nature around him. Anyone is free to imitate his lifestyle and adopt his worldviews as found in extra Quranic writings, if one finds any personal benefits in doing so but that isn't a religious requirement nor relevant to it, and that is explicitly stated in the Quran itself.
With that in mind, when the prophet made deductions as related in the ahadith, pertaining to his natural environement, general causality and basic observation of certain phenomenon, it is only expected from him that they would fit what the ancients of his time would find "plausible". These views however, right or wrong, no matter how extraordinary they might seem in light of our current knowledge, have no bearing on the Quran itself, which is again, pledged to be fully protected.
It would have been interesting to have had written records of how the previous prophets saw the world, as we have with Muhammad, and see who among them held the most "unscientific" personal views.
It is worthy of note that although the Quran was revealed in the backward milieu of pre-Islamic Arabia, it nevertheless repeatedly calls its audience and readers upon reflection and observation of every aspect of creation, most often the universe, in order to increase in spirituality, not in scientifc discovery. It is not one of the Quran’s goals to tell everything about the universe; its main goal is to guide its audience to the apparent significances that they can see with their eyes and feel. This is why the Quran only speaks of the apparent significances like the sky, earth, mountains, sun, moon, clouds and so on.
Whether we look at nature and the universe according to ancient beliefs or in light of the latest discoveries, our appreciation and awe of these phenomena, how they are regulated and preserved, is not diminished. Regardless of what we may call these laws, they continue to serve as evidence of the truth and of God’s power which is manifest in
3:190"the creation of the heavens and the earth and in the succession of night and day".
This not only pertains to astronomy but other aspects of the observable nature, spoken of with just enough depth to be relevant spiritually, while maintaining a neutral wording so as to avoid either confirming or blatantly rejecting the scientific notions of the ancients. The Quran was not sent to clear their misunderstandings, rather to clear their ignorance of the higher realities of our existence, and which are present in every aspect of nature
2:115"so whichever way you turn, there is the Face of Allah".
It would have been counterproductive for the Quran to blatantly mention unknown science facts. It carried the risk of deflecting the audience's attention from the deeper message, confusing them further during the delicate process of spiritual reform. Early Muslims appreciated the spiritual portents of these verses but were then free to delve deeper into the unintended scientific aspect, interpreting it in accordance with their own views. We do the same today and others will continue after us, the more scientific advancements are made.
To the spiritually aware, for whom all observation of nature is seen through the prism of God-consciousness, these advancements are simply unravelling further God's might. Islamically, this is the correct approach to all scientific endeavor. When devoid of the spiritual angle, observation of nature only scratches the surface of reality
30:7-8"They know what is apparent of the worldly life, but they, of the Hereafter, are unaware. Do they not contemplate within themselves? Allah has not created the heavens and the earth and what is between them except in truth and for a specified term. And indeed, many of the people, in [the matter of] the meeting with their Lord, are disbelievers".
All Quranic facts are absolute, and non falsifiable which isnt the case for most scientific facts, because they are the evolutionary product of the human mind as it goes from the primitive to the complex. In the course of human search of knowledge, previous postulates evolved from a speck of truth, to half truth to certain truth then many times only to revert back to ignorance. Most of what we knew, know and will know as science facts always prove in the course of time to be transient.
That is why the modern trend of seeking science "fact" or "errors" in the Quran, while science itself is undergoing an evolutionary process through the human medium of reasoning, is a fundamental mistake in approaching the meanings of the Quran. This book doesnt need its “credibility” enhanced by means of technical, mathematical, or quantitative data. The Quran is an integrated and consolidated whole that is in no need of scientific confirmation, while science is in need of constant substantiation as it keeps moving from one theory to another. Finite man will never be able to produce infinite science; man will never be able to produce eternal facts.
In answer to the video "Scholarly Ability: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 2)"
The chosenness of an individual for prophethood has never depended on his religious education. The examples are too many to mention including Moses, raised in the polytheistic environment of his adoptive Egyptian family, let alone Abraham.
In the Quran, through the story of ancient nations and prophets, it establishes a pattern by which to determine the truthfulness of one claiming prophethood. As previously stated, these are; uprightness in character which includes an unflinching, uncompromising stance as regards his mission, to have been foretold by previous prophets, having access to special knowledge, and prophecies coming true. This includes warnings of punishment for fighting and opposing the messengers. The Quran places Muhammad inside that pattern of the prophets, at a time when none, not even the nascent Muslim community whose fear and reluctance to engage in military confrontation is related in the Quran, could have imagined for him and his small band of followers to become victorious and establish themselves 37:171-182.
Muhammad then effectively rises up and says to his tribe that they will meet a similar fate. He made the claim while in a state of weakness, and augmenting his rhetoric that should have antagonized his people against him instead of gaining him followers. As expected the people then oppose the message and prevent the people from it and get punished by the sword. End of the matter. None after him came with any of the following and was able to back his claims up:
1) comes from a common background of his addressees, meaning they know him very well, yet claims to be a Messenger, in fact the Final Messenger of God
2) warns his people of Divine chastisement
3) the chastisement comes home to roost and the partisans of the Prophet are established in the land
This is the exact process that occurred with the Bani Israil in the time of Moses, with the drowning of the host of Pharaoh and the deliverance of the Israelites, with the uprooting of the Canaanites and the establishment of the way of God. Not to mention, the Quranic invitation to the Arabs to see or recall for themselves the fate of the deniers of Nuh, Lut, Saleh, Shuayb, Hud... It is a Book of Warning that has already delivered its judgment in this world
53:36"This is a warner of the warners of old"
54:42-5"Are the unbelievers of yours better than these, or is there an exemption for you in the scriptures?...Soon shall the hosts be routed, and they shall turn (their) backs".
As said in Deuteronomy regarding the awaited prophet
"If any man will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name, I myself will make him answer for it".
God Almighty says that Prophethood has ended with the Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet bore witness to the unity of God, and his deniers were punished in this life.
For those who claimed to be Prophets after him did they remain unvanquished as per the tradition of Allah, did they emerge as triumphant leaders or does their life and death fail to bear witness to their claims?
For example Musaylima emerged shortly after the Prophet's death and was killed under the orders of Abu Bakr.
Another one was Bahaullah - though later his followers branched off into the Bahai faith which is based on the nice concept of unity of religions- he died a prisoner of the Ottoman Empire. There is also Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from Qadian, Punjab - his death is widely cited to be from either one of these diseases - cholera, diarrhoea, plague, or dysentery. Besides numerous prophecies regarding the timing and manner of his death were left unfulfilled - though Ahmadis now interpret those in a metaphorical manner- but the manner of death is hardly inspiring for one claiming to be a Prophet.
There is then Rashad Khalifa who was a modern claimant based on his theory of the number 19's pattern in the Quran. Well, besides being accused of paedophilia, he was assassinated and his theories entirely discredited.
But above all, their theories did not prevail and either remained confined to a small number of followers or were simply lost and forgotten shortly after their death.
Another modern claimant was Joseph Smith in the US who started the Latter Day Saints movement and is the founder of Mormonism. He too was unfortunately assassinated. As a side note even the Mormon story has more grounds to stand on from the point of view of authenticity, than the NT story, in that there are actually known then-living individuals who executed an affidavit saying that they had, themselves, seen something of the Mormon story whereas the NT is written by anonymous people with no first hand information decades after the alleged, unsubstantiated life of the NT Jesus.
Of all the new religions that have sprung up after Islam, one may perhaps say Sikhism is also there. But Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith, never claimed for himself Prophethood. Also, Sikhism emerged as a reform movement intertwined between Hinduism and Islam. The holy book Guru Granth contains quotes from Sufi saints as well.
In answer to the video "Scholarly Ability: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 2)"
The famous hadith, gladly picked up by the critics if Islam, where the prophet reportedly admonishes a group of women for their "deficiencies" isnt speaking of mental IQ, that notion is bellied by the description of the inquisitive woman as jazlah/wise,intelligent.
The second part of the hadith, with the word ghalaba which means to overcome, plainly states that women might outsmart "dhi lubbin”—a very intelligent, or wise, or resolute man. How can an intellectually inferior individual outwit one of superior intellect?
The word 'aql does not always equate with general mental capacities. That is why the prophet corroborated his statement "'aql deficiency" with the verse 2:282 spoken of earlier which deals with the issue of 2 women witnesses replacing one male witness. And neither does naqs necessarily equate with deficiency but also "to reduce".
This is like telling them that though they have been reduced in their worldly and religious duties, this does not mean in any way that they are of lesser mental/spiritual capacities since they can overcome the smartest of men. The statement within the hadith that most of hell dwellers will be women is not due to an inherent spiritual flaw but because of them cursing more and being more ungrateful. In another hadith and using the same wording it says that most of the dwellers of Paradise will be women too.
Imam Muslim quotes ibn Sireen as sayong that there was discussion between men and women as to which gender will be the majority in Heaven. Abu Hurayra answered, based on the prophet's statement that women will be more (Fath al Baari 6/325). By applying the same misunderstanding one would interpret this latter hadith as saying that women are spiritually superior to men. A woman is commanded by Allah not to pray or fast during her menses, which are the 2 examples the prophet gives of how they are reduced in religion. And though they are exempted from these rituals, by obeying these commands they will still receive their rewards. Seeing that a woman on her way to perform was sad, Aisha asked
"What is wrong with you?' I replied, ' I do not offer the prayers (i.e. I have my menses).' He said, ' It will not harm you for you are one of the daughters of Adam, and Allah has written for you (this state) as He has written it for them. Keep on with your intentions for Hajj and Allah may reward you that."
Men do not receive rewards for not praying or fasting and although the divine law stipulates different rights and obligations to men and women their ultimate reward is the same.
Anyone who knows the character and eloquence of the prophet with which he was able to effectively change the hearts and minds of his addressees, knows that he would never utter such hurtful, insulting speech, much less on a festive day of Eid. He would never put anyone down, especially due to gender, race, class or any other matter, and this is something the Quran forbids anyone to do.
Furthermore had the prophet been a proponent of such notion of women being mentally and spiritually inferior then he would never have entrusted his wives with safeguarding, transmitting and teaching the most sacred knowledge to both men and women. He is also reported as giving precedence to his wife Umm Salama's opinion in a very crucial matter, during the treaty of Hudaybiya over that of his closest male companions. The caliphs would later emulate the prophet in this behavior, on certain occasions. Aisha would even issue fatwas.
In answer to the video "Scholarly Ability: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 2)"
The ratio of 1 man equivalent to 2 women's testimonies mentionned in 2:282 is a general advice
"so that IF one of them errs, the other can remind her".
It is a conditional statement, which makes the second female a passive witness unless the primary witness is forgetful. Therefore if a women is sound and competent, then she would need no other woman to remind her of something she knew but forgot. Her single testimony becomes equal in value to that of the man. The testimony is not gender based as one expert is not sufficient for a transaction to be binding; it requires 2 men as is clear from the verse's beginning
"get two witnesses out of your men".
The verse actually favors a woman witness who wouldnt automatically be dismissed for incompetence but would be supported in case of error while the single male witness would be replaced in the same case. The verse addresses the issue of financial matters and the fact is that on average, women are much less qualified than men in financial expertise, even in western societies. As well, women are almost all affected, sometimes completely debilitated by PMS symptoms during and around the times of their menstrual cycles, in their emotional-intellectual and physical capacities, all of which might potentially compromise female testimony in such a situation. To dismiss that condition as potentially affecting every single woman simply for the sake of preserving a facade of progressive thinking, is a denial of an objective reality.
The Quran doesnt deny human nature and instead approaches everyday matters realisticly and pragmaticly. It only accepts the testimony of a person affected by a psycho-emotional condition that could potentially influence the objectivity of a case, when it is a woman -hence the 2nd woman to remind her. It is clearly referring to a condition not to the presumed intellectual capacities of a woman, hence the 2nd woman's role to remind her of something she knows but was mislead into forgetting.
If what the Quran meant was that a man's testimony is equal to 2 women's, the Quran in other instances ie when a woman is accused of adultery, would be saying that one woman's testimony is equal to 4 men's because if 4 men are not brought forth then their testimony will not be valid and they will be lashed for lying 24:4. Also, in the case a husband accuses his wife of adultery without bringing forth eyewitnesses, her testimony has the same value as her husband's, contrary to the Bible where the accused wife is immidiately considered guilty by default and is made to undergo humiliating and strange rituals to prove her innocence Numbers5:11-31. Without forgetting the fact that in Jewish law, women arent even allowed to serve as witnesses in legal matters in a court of law.
Among other superstitions associated with the jinn, and rejected by the Quran, is the supposed possibility for humans to master them. The Quran refutes that belief through the story of the prophet Solomon. He was given unlimited mastery over them, had the capacity to summon and use the jinn, the evil as well as the good ones, at will and for the accomplishement of positive actions only 27:17,38-41.
This however was a favor from God and was done by God's express command. Their subjection, despite the rebellious nature of the sinful ones among them, was not of Solomon's own will or power and the jinns concerned had no say in the matter or else they would face God's chastisement. They were under God's complete control in the process 21:81-2 meaning Solomon by himself had absolutely no special ability that allowed him the possibility to master them the way he did, use them at will and without any fear of having to render an account 34:12,38:36-38. In Jewish oral tradition however, it is stated that Solomon was overpowered by one of those demons, Ashmadai who chased him from his throne.
That such an eminent personality, favored by God and drawn near to Him, a prophet imparted knowledge of the unseen like all prophets, was not able to control the jinn except by God's will is an emphatic rejection of the claim that some random people with alleged powers have the capacity to summon them at will, making them perform certain tasks (most of the time for evil purposes) or obtain hidden knowledge, which is rejected as stated earlier with the verse 34:14. On a more specific note, it also negates the notion that solomon himself, contrary to the suspicions and calumnies of some of his contemporaries and the subsequent generations, used to practice the occult sciences
2:102"And they followed what the Shaitans chanted of sorcery in the reign of Sulaiman, and Sulaiman was not an unbeliever, but the Shaitans disbelieved".
We see traces of these allegations even in the Jewish historian Josephus' works. He relates how Solomon had, through incantations and the use of the occult sciences, mastery of demons, could perform exorcisms. He speaks of a Jew contemporary to him that made use of these Solomonic practices.
Obviously the people misinterpreted Sulayman's ability, granted to him by God, of controling entities of the unseen for his own benefit. Such falsehood is abundantly found in a wide variety of Solomonic lore, including the 5th century CE Testament of Solomon, each drawing from oneanother as well as other lost sources, written and oral. Particularly among Greek Christians that used amulets, medallions seals or rings with his name.
What we find in certain Jewish traditions in regards his perception of the language and behavior of birds, is that his ability wasnt a divine gift but due to his mastery of ornithomancy, an occult science involving birds (Pesika de-Rav Kahana, Ecclesiastes Rabbah). Here again, just as it does with his other supernatural abilities where clearly states they were divinely granted gifts to him, and that Solomon was humbly grateful to his Lord, it introduces the story of Solomon's interraction with the bird messenger with a prayer
27:19"My Lord, grant me that I should be grateful for Your favor that You bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I should do good such as You would be pleased with, and make me enter, by Your mercy, into Your servants, the good ones".
For a book that supposedly reflects the superstitious notions of 7th century Arabia, the Quran surprisingly demarcates itself from the belief systems of its contemporaries. It says, in regards to the jinn for instance, that before the times of revelation, they used to sit anywhere they wanted in the sky
72:9"we used to sit in some of the sitting-places thereof to steal a hearing".
But contrary to what the preislamic Arabs thought, these jinn could not hear anything no matter their obstination, as they declared themselves
72:10"we know not whether evil is meant for those who are on earth or whether their Lord means to bring them good".
Had they been able to hear a thing, even prior to revelation descending, they would have been destroyed as happened to those that tried during Revelation. This means the Quran doesnt given any credence to the pre-Islamic belief of jinn with the ability to spy on heavenly affairs or have any glimpse of the unseen and the future
34:14"the jinn came to know plainly that if they had known the unseen, they would not have tarried in abasing torment".
Here the Quran refers to Solomon who passed away but whose dead body was held by a wooden staff for a while until it disintegrated, eaten by a woodworm. It is only when his inanimate body fell to the ground that the jinn, living under his servitude, realized he was dead. The passage not only shows them as subservient to one of Allah's servants, but they are unable to even fathom something superficially hidden from them, yet very close: how then can they gratify people’s appeals to learn the secrets of the unseen?
It is also interesting to note, that when speaking of Iblis himself, the Quran says that his pledge to God that he would doubtlessly lead astray a portion of Adam's descendants, was in fact a conjecture and guess. The archetype of jinn himself has no access to special knowledge, not even of the future. It was just a coincidence that his conjecture and guess became true
34:20"And certainly Iblis found true his conjecture concerning them, so they followed him, except a party of the believers".
Satan or shaytan is used in the Quran for Iblis as well as for any creature that is mischievous, misleading, among the jinn and human beings 2:14,3:175,6:112,25:27-9,114:4-6. Iblis is the archetypical shaytan, the leader of them all, whether they be from among the men or jinn. After his banishement from his nearness to God, Iblis pledged to stray man away from the path of guidance and God allowed him to do so, giving him the respite until the Day of Resurrection that he demanded.
On the other hand, man has an innate capacity to understand good and evil, will receive divine guidance, will be guided through his own reason towards God Whose attributes reflect in the universe inside and outside of man, and is therefore expected to be able to choose good above evil. The mischieving entities, Iblis included, therefore fullfill a definite function in God's plan; tempting through the power of suggestion only, enabling man to exercize his God-given freedom of choice between good and evil
15:39-42"He said: My Lord..I will certainly make (evil) fair-seeming to them on earth, and I will certainly cause them all to deviate. Except Thy servants from among them, the devoted ones. He said: This is a right way with Me: Surely, as regards My servants, you have no authority over them except those who follow you of the deviators".
Iblis and all mischieving entities are therefore not God's "enemies" in the sense that he has no power over them, that they have escaped his grand design and act contrary to His all encompassing will. That is why they are only called mankind's enemies/adversaries 7:22,17:53,36:60. Yet others are called God's enemies, like Pharaoh 20:39 because of his claim to the divine and cruelty. In fact if there is one thing Iblis is never portrayed as claiming, is divinity. He even denounces shirk 14:22. The opposite transpires in Christian writings, Satan wanted man to worship him as a deity Matt4:9, shedding light on the original pagan notions of early Christian converts and the manner in which those notions were projected unto Jewish writings and Jesus' teachings.
Shaytan stems from SHATN meaning the long rope that pulls the bucket out of the well. The verb SHATAN means to pull on the rope so that the bucket is taken out of the well. Therefore SHAYTAN is the one that pulls on that rope and takes the bucket out of its place (out of the well). Metaphorically it is thus any person or being that pulls people out of their own natural place (The natural place is in harmony with God). So SHAYTAN is anyone that takes a person away from God.
Iblis and his followers from the men and jinn misguide man by beautifying ugly deeds 16:63, making false promises 4:120 or playing on our fears and uncertainties in the future 2:268. These tricks disturbs man's innate capacity to distinguish good and evil, truth from falsehood. Man is only misguided if his innate capacity is not trained enough through worship and constant remembrance of God
17:65"Surely (as for) My servants, you have no authority over them; and your Lord is sufficient as a Protector".
SHAYTAN is therefore not a proper noun, it isnt an independant evil creation, contrary to Chrisitian belief (without any scriptural support). In fact the very notion of YHWH being the creator of evil, a pillar of Jewish belief based on Deut30:15,Isa45:7,1Sam16:14, refutes the notion of an independant evil entity acting against God's will or plan for mankind.
Similarly in the HB, it is haSatan or "the opponent". Satans are both humans and non-humans who "oppose" particular characters Deut22:32-33,1kings11:14,23-5. Hasatan/the opponent is therefore the description of a role that can be played by anyone, an angel or even God Himself. In the Hebrew, the absence of a definite article merely implies an indefinite article. Christian translators of the Hebrew bible are often unaware of this, so they think that 1Chron21 uses "satan" as a proper name because it appears without the definite article.
By doing so, they fail to realize that the verse is talking of God Himself as being David's adversary 1Samuel24. In all other cases, ha-satan is a loyal servant of God. He is neither evil, nor "fallen", rather sent by God to test humans with hardships. There is no Lucifer in the Bible either. Why would the Hebrew and Aramaic HB contain a Latin word all of a sudden? As explicitly stated in the Quran, shaytan, whether from the men or the jinn, is a tool fully encompassed by God and part of a higher scheme whose intricacies only a glimpse can be perceived.
In the book of Job, HaSatan acts as Job's prosecutor, while God is acting as both Judge and attorney for the defense. Nowhere in Job is HaSatan against God. His role is to test Job.
The Jinn are beings whose essence is, contrary to the earthly substance of mankind, a special kind of fire 6:100,15:26-27,21:30,55:15. Just as we originated from inorganic earthly elements, then passing through various stages of creation, became a flesh and blood entity capable of procreating 30:20 so did the jinn species originate with what the Quran calls "smokeless fire" and water 21:30 (water and ethanol can emit fire if ignited for example) then passing through various stages of creation, the initial model became a different entity of which we know little or nothing, capable of spreading its species 55:14-15,15:26-27.
They are not immaterial or non-physical entities, rather non visible to mankind specifically.
The term itself, stems from JNN and means hidden. The Arabic for garden is JANNA, from the same root, as it implies a hidden place from sight due to the lush vegetation. The term is thus used for the hidden entities. All beliefs, including the Abrahamic faiths, accept them. But each culture has ascribed more or less fantastical additions to this belief. The Quran refutes many of the beliefs the pre-Islamic Arabs had about them. It also adds some insights that were unknown about their nature and history.
They have freewill, a body and a soul, males and females 72:6, were made before men 15:27 and currently live on earth but cannot be perceived by mankind. Man's current vision is only engineered to perceive a fraction of the spectrum of light. Many realities of the universe remain hidden to us in this world yet they surround us. They are morally accountable for both their actions and spiritual choices, so they will be raised for judgement like the humans 6:128-130,51:56,55:14-16,31-39,72:1-7,11-14.
The NT makes several mention of unseen demonic entities, as well as refers to them believing in God James 2:19. The notion of non-human entites possessing freewill isnt explicitly stated in the HB, but there is mention of evil agents under God's control which He sends against some people Judges9:23,1Sam16:14,1Kings22:20-22, as well as mention of demons in Job3:4. God unleashes them for the destruction of a people Deut32:24. More details about them is found in Jewish oral tradition as well as in their comentaries over several verses including Job24:17,2Sam7:14,Isa24:12,34:14,Ezek26:21,Ps91:5-7.
Those traditions assert among other things, that demons come in different genders, have superhuman powers, with some of them being half-humans because of Adam having had intercourse with them. This happened during his 130 years seperation from his wife after the death of Abel. These half-breed humans/demons have nowadays majoritarily or fully been destroyed, or kept from interfering with humans. That is because the current spirituality of the world is so low compared to what it was in the times where prophets abounded among the people, that humans today would stand no chance in repelling those evil spiritual forces by themselves.
Contrary to the Bible that unequivocally states, that God is the creator of evil Deut30:15,Isa45:7,1Sam16:14 the Quran says God indirectly creates evil, by endowing entities like humans and jinn with the capacity of freewill which they may either use for the good or the bad.
Whatever evil comes from God's creatures is entirely encompassed by God's power and knowledge, meaning He may either allow or prevent it. Whatever His decision, it is done with wisdom and justice that takes into account a global perspective whose intricacies none other than Him can fathom. From a purely speculative view point, rabbinic writings state that the passage of Judges5:23 refers to non-human intelligent lifeforms outside our world (although freewill is ruled out) and in different places there is mention of God "visiting" other worlds, just as He visited and interracted with sentient beings in this world.
In answer to the video "Paul Was a Contemporary of Jesus; Muhammad Wasn't (PvM 4)"
The Quran demarcates itself in the most subtle and meaningful of ways, from the embellishments added on top of the nativity and infancy stories.
The RUH/the breeze, the immaterial entity sent by Allah, tamathala laha/lit. he transformed to her, as a well made human being. He then breathed into her part of his own self that she might conceive Isa 21:91.
Contrast this subtle Quranic wording with the crude depiction made in the NT of the holy ghost (a trinitarian deity) coming upon Mary and overshadowing her like a man getting ready to copulate Lk1:35.
At an advanced point of her pregnancy, she withdrew to a remote place, away from the Temple in which she was secluded. She was searching for a private place to deliver when the moment would come. The verse 19:22, through the double use of the particle "fa" indicates a time interval between the moment she got pregnant and her decision to leave her dwelling place.
She would this way be hidden from the people's eyes and ears. Her pain was intense and she did not want to be heard suffering and then have to explain herself 19:23. Away and secluded, she would have time to compose herself mentally and physically prior to the return with her newborn. She was seeking to safeguard herself from the clamor had she been seen or heard during or right after the process of delivery, in a debasing state. Her accusers would have gladly picked up on the occasion, seeing a supposedly chaste and pious woman devoted in the sanctuary to God's service, conceiving outside wedlock, in addition in the sanctuary itself and under the guardianship of Zakariya one of the most highly regarded Temple devotee and prophet 19:22.
As she set herself on her way out of her community, she did not know what to expect and how things would turn out, but being the God-conscious woman that she was, she trusted in God. During her walk, the suffering of childbirth began, prompting her to stop and sit under the shade of a palm tree. As a side note, Christians were too quick to adopt pagan symbolisms (christmas tree) around Jesus' nativity from the pagan cultures surrounding them. Had they waited for the Quran's revelation, they would have found the closest one can come to the significance of a tree in the story of Jesus' birth, and they would've been decorating palm trees around Christmas instead of evergreen conifers.
Mary's case at that point was desperate. She had to deliver in the middle of nowhere without any food and most importantly no water. Water is crucial for a woman about to deliver, providing hydration during and after labor when she would have lost plenty of body fluids, as well as afterwards to help her cleanse herself and the newborn. Lacking these elements, in addition to her intense suffering and emotional toll, she wished she had died.
But unexpectedly, God, as He did during her seclusion in the Temple, took it on Himself to sustain and protect her. A voice called from beneath her position, indicating to her the presence of a water source directly under her and the tree, plentiful and flowing meaning it will not stagnate or spoil as she makes use of it throughout her ordeal. The voice comforted and consoled her with words telling her how the sustenance of food and water is abundantly put within easy reach and would re-energize and reinvigorate her entirely 19:23-6. God was watchful over her, taking care not only of her physical suffering but also soothing her fearful heart due to her emotional isolation from her community. All she had to do was shake the trunk of the tree, no matter her feebleness, the simple action of attempting to shake it, would miraculously create a motion in the tree that would force loose the ripe fruits.
It is interesting to note, how the Quran in its well established pattern of employing meaningful words and placing them surgically in a sentence, relates how before anything else, the first comfort Mary was given was the abundance of water, being of primary importance to a woman in labor, and then speaks of the availability of highly nutritious food.
The Quran at that point omits the fictions, absurdities and anachronisms of the NT and apocryphal writings, as well as Christian traditions -such as Herod's mass killing episode that prompted Mary to flee to Egypt in order to give birth safely, or the census of Quirinus-. It is interesting to note how Muhammad the illiterate was able to cherry pick the right information everytime, among the plethora of written books and oral traditions supposedly widely available, managing to glue everything together in the most well-knit, intricate and meaningful manner. It is even more remarkable considering the manner in which the Quran was uttered, openly and publicly, instantly written down by the scribes and leaving him no chance at going back to his word and re-editing it so as to harmonize it or correct an error, which would have been brought to his attention later on.
And once more, similarities doesnt entail borrowing. One first has to establish that the supposed (illiterate) author of the Quran had access to the similarities. One then has to explain how he cherry picked among a long list of books and traditions, besides other philosophies and thought systems, to form a well knit, flawlessly intricate narrative in its literary form that left the masters of eloquence of the time dumbfounded, as well as depth of contents that has not finished unravelling its subtleties.
Why wasnt the source ever exposed nor came out to denounce him, leaving him reap the fruits of their labor. How wasnt this source detected given the largely exposed lifestyle of the time, the open circumstances in which the prophet lived and received revelation, as well as many other factors, not the least being that the Quran never claims to be relating something unknown in that particular narrative, repeatedly says it is a revelation in a long tradition of revelations.
This means the superficial similarities might be remnants of revealed truths that eventually found their way into these apocrypha. In those writings from which the Quran supposedly draws, one can many times see how the superficial similarities are poorly weaved into the fabric of the story. The apocryphal writer, or his source, was aware of certain elements of the story but poorly integrated them in the whole account.
This is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin (Guardian), when talking about the textual and oral traditions contemporaries to it. It points out major mistakes in them, filters the Truth from falsehood
21:24"this is the reminder of those with me and the reminder of those before me".
The Quran confirming the past scriptures, as well as any tradition, oral or written, in which divine truths still remain 2:41, means that the principles taught by Muhammad come from a common source, which Muslims believe is the Source of creation, and can be found throughout these textual and oral traditions. This is pointed to in the common phrase "musaddiqan lima bayna yadahi". With the passage of time these traditions were burdened with additions, suffered from corruption and/or neglectful transmission. The Quran then acts as a criterion that distinguishes truth from falsehood.
Therefore, and for argument's sake, to Muslims, it is irrelevant whether a story bearing similarities with a Quranic passage was even in circulation during and before Islam. It is even less relevant to Muslims whether the similarities were canonized in the Bible or not. By what standard is the current Bible canon more reliable than the apocrypha? And what proof is there that the unknown Bible compilers rejected these traditions based on these points common to the Quran? Does the current Bible canon even claim to relate every single aspect of the life of its Biblical characters? Is it quiet possible that during the tumultuous process of transmission of the Bible, more particularly the HB which was lost at least twice as recorded in the Bible itself, some parts of the overall transmitted traditions were retained by the editors charged with reconstituting the lost text, and who reflected their own socio-cultural background in the process? Could they have been Selecting what was appropriate for their storytelling purposes and what was not? Of course from a secular viewpoint, the Quran, as a later text, is irrelevant in determining the authenticity, original versions or actual beliefs of those who originated or penned the previous oral and written traditions, canonized or not. But then so is the NT irrelevant in determining those matters from the HB, just as within the HB itself parts are far removed in time and space from other parts, making certain books insignificant when exploring these matters from earlier or later books. However, as soon as one introduces the divine into the equation, then all groups Jews-Christians-Muslims are equal in their claims as regards the authority of one scripture over another. The only factor from a non-secular view point enhancing one claim over another, would be the group with the most authentic, contradiction-free scripture.
In today's mainstream academia, no Islamicist asserts the Quran was influenced by the textual and oral traditions of its milieu, let alone copies from them. Simply because there is no possibility to know whether the human mind who supposedly authored the text had access to those traditions or understood them. What academics do at most, is present what they see as similarities, without disregarding or minimizing the vast differences. On the other side of the spectrum are Judeo-Christian religious zealots and apologists whose methodology and ideas are vastly inherited from their medieval peers' polemical writings. In order to enforce their untenable, unproven claims of borrowing, they retrospectively cherry pick convenient snippets from within larger stories that have very little to do with the corresponding Quranic passages. Then, not only do they disregard the significant differences loaded with theological meanings, but go on magnifying the tiniest similarities to the maximum so as to serve their paradigm. In the process, they inadvertently attribute to Muhammad an encyclopediac knowledge of texts and traditions, as well as an army of unseen informants from a variety of backgrounds and cultures following him around. This weak methodology can be applied to any thought system so as to build up a case for plagiarism.
The Judeo-christian scriptures themselves relate, through the successive prophets and inspired personalities, different stories that were known to the addressees. This doesnt mean their statements were inspired by these traditions floating around. Rather, the common truths found between these traditions, and the statements of the prophets come from God. There is a myriad of similarities between the HB and stories, texts, inscriptions, including the Ugaritic mention of Adam and Eve, the Mesopotamian myth of Gilgamesh where he is cheated of immortality by a snake who eats a plant (had Gilgamesh eaten it, it would have made him immortal. The elements are the same but play out differently). There are other such myths circulating in Babylon where the Israelites spent a long time in exile, of a hero tricked out of immortality through the device of a plant/food. One could extend the parallelism with the laws of Hammurabi, or the global flood, among many examples, all predating Moses' supposed writing of the Torah. Some of these similarities might be due, as in the Quran, to being remnants of ancient truths partially preserved by these different cultures. But other biblical parallels with predating writings and traditions obviously are copies of unsophisticated legends floating in the region. The oldest and original account of creation in the Bible isnt found in Genesis but in Isaiah, Job or the Psalms. God in these crude stories divides the seas and fights off aquatic monsters. The same is found in the Ugaritic tablets and in a language very similar to Hebrew, with the myth that creation began when the storm god Baal vanquishing the god of the sea Yam and his sea monster-serpent-dragon helpers. Isa27:1 has a very close wording to what a Canaanite says about Baal
"When you killed Litan, the fleeing serpent, annihilated the twisty serpent, the potentate with seven heads".
One shouldnt forget that the canonization of the Bible was a long and controversial process, influenced by men with doctrinal bias, and that the current Biblical text is far from being a valid criterion of what truly constitutes divine knowledge from purely human invention.
Back to the Quran's nativity account.
After the blessed Mary delivered, God inspired her, taking in charge the responsibility of answering the critics among her people with compelling evidence
19:26"Then if you see any mortal, say: Surely I have vowed a fast to the Beneficent Allah, so I shall not speak to any man today".
As a woman known for her chastity because of having lived secluded in dedication to Allah's worship all her life, Mary was received with suspicion when she came back to her people with the newborn. A priest's daughter had to exemplify modesty and piety and tradition asserts that should she commit a sin such as fornication she would suffer a punishment worse than that of regular women. So to remove all doubts -justifiable to some extent- of seeing an unmarried woman supposed to represent the epitome of piety and chastity conceiving and bringing forth a child, Jesus, while in the cradle began speaking clearly, identifying himself and his future role 19:22-33.
Mary could not bring evidence of her virginity anymore so the only way she could dispel all doubts was to prove this child is a miracle from God so he cannot be the product of sin. The blessed Mary, who was previously divinely ordered to remain silent in the face of criticism, kept her mouth closed and simply "pointed to him". She let him speak to prove his miraculous conception. Jesus did so by clarifying his identity, purity, and the fact he has been made kind, respectful and "dutiful" to his mother. Interestingly, in another case of the Quran's cherry picking the correct information, this statement negates the NT's depiction of his irreverent interactions with his mother Jn2:4. Another subtlety is his being dutiful to his mother only, contrary to another miraculous birth, that of John/Yahya who was made "dutiful" to both parents 19:14. This is because Jesus had no father contrary to John. It is also worthwhile noting the honorable manner in which Jesus implicitly defended his mother; it was not necessary to repeat the slanderous accusations and argue against them. In the manner of an orator confident of his being on the side of truth, Jesus preserved his eminence and that of his mother by not steeping to the level of the slanderers' injurious talk, the statement of his identity would suffice to dispel all doubts to any intellectually honest individual.
As a side note, some critics among Christians and Jews have denigrated this infant speech miracle, forgetting what their own scriptures say about God giving even to animals, such as a donkey, the ability to utter a clear speech Numb22:21-30 as well as forgetting that some prophets were appointed by God and sent to preach at very early ages, such as Jeremiah Jer1:6.
Despite witnessing that miracle, some among Mary's folk remained obdurate in their position as regards her chastity, contending with others who were convinced of her innocence 19:34.
Mary and Jesus were then given
23:50"shelter on a lofty ground having meadows and springs".
When Jesus later began denouncing the Israelites, exposing their leaders for their hypocrisy, moral degradation and its consequences, those same disbelieving Jews who had absolutely no ground for suspicion about his miraculous birth without father because God had caused the whole community to stand as witness to the miracle, started accusing Mary of the most grievous calumny in order to put a stain on Jesus. In their mind, this stain would discredit his claim of prophethood, because of being the product of fornication.
They were once again mistreating, rejecting, and blaspheming against a prophet sent to them with that which they did not like despite witnessing clear signs. At this point, Allah labelled their accusations "disbelief" and "monstruous calumny" 4:156 because they knew it for certain that Mary and her son were absolutely free from this taint. It wasnt real honest suspicion, which they might be harboring in their hearts as they did in the beginning when they saw Mary with a child for the first time, but it was a pure, invented calumny with a clear evil aim; opposing the Truth and hindering the people from the Way of God. Again, one cannot but notice the remarkable manner in which the Quran connects the most subtle points of a narrative together, even while these 2 parts of the story are mentioned in different suras, years appart, and in different contexts. These repetitions always retain a core meaning, and are always thematically correlated with similar passages in other suras, like conversations and dialogues between the suras. The brilliant Pakistani scholar Islahi called the recurrence of themes in several suras "complementarity".
During his prophetic mission, these Israelites to whom he was preaching the return to the straight path kept rejecting him, despite the miracles he performed. Some of these miracles the Quran mentions 3:46,49,5:110-114,19:28-34, while the NT omits
Jn20:30"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book"
Jn21:25"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written".
The Quran makes it clear, these miracles of Jesus, bringing the dead to life among other things, would not have been possible without God's license. They were performed with the "ithn" of Allah 3:49 which means with His knowledge and approval. Jesus was given whatever abilities he had by God, as a favor 5:110. In fact the Quran connects all the miracles that marked Jesus life, with Allah's permission, as signs meant to distinguish both Jesus and his mother 5:110. God this way defeated in His final revelation and until the resurrection, the slanderous talk of some among Mary's contemporaries and those that followed, who wanted to put a stain on her and abase her. Jesus as well as his mother were chosen to be made jointly, "A" single sign of the power of the Maker and Creator over all things 23:50,21:91. With every miracle Jesus performed by God's permission, it had the double effect of elevating Mary against the slanderers and strengthening Jesus' mission.
But again, these miracles, Jesus did not obtain them on his own and neither could express them except with his Maker's license
40:78"and it was not meet for a messenger that he should bring a sign except with Allah's permission".
This message was so embedded in Jesus' teachings that he proclaimed it since infancy and all throughout his prophetic career, surprisingly in a wording found almost verbatim in the NT although in a different context
19:36,3:51"Surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore worship Him"
Jn20:17"I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God".
Jesus' direct disciples understood well this distinction and never saw him as the originator of miracles; he was but a means of their manifestation. Just as the staff of Moses was, or like every naturally occuring phenomena through which Allah manifests His will. In 5:111-115 Jesus' close circle did not request Jesus to send down a table-spread. Rather they asked him to invoke his Sustainer, if He would consent to this miracle so that their hearts are reassured through it. They knew that this man whom they saw as sent by God, a prophet, was but a means through which God manifested His will.
This reflects in Jesus' own reported sayings in the NT Jn17:6-8,13:3,8:28,5:30,Matt28:17-19,Mk2:10 where he teaches his audience he is given everything and cannot do anything on his own Jn10:25. He further emphasizes this reality by invoking Allah's name during and after the performance of miracles Jn11:40-43. He was fully dependant of God's power when he exorcised demons Lk11:21,Matt12:28. Neither did he forgive sins, but stated a fact, in the passive form "your sins are forgiven".
What happened, by the way to the blood pre-requisite for atonement, allegedly established by Jesus himself since Genesis? Jesus in this statement doesnt take God's place but uses a circumlocution for God: “your sins are forgiven” means “they are forgiven by God” as he said "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” Mk2:5-10. He states himself that he is given that authority. He is authorized to declare forgiveness on God's behalf, the same way priests think they can do. In fact in a passage absent from the oldest manuscripts of Luke over a wide geographical distribution, Jesus while on the cross prays the Father to forgive his killers, instead of forgiving them himself
Lk23:34"Father forgive them, they do not know what they are doing".
It is however difficult to blame the branches of Christianity that have misunderstood the NT's sometimes blurred lines between the Creator and His creation.
The transmitted oral traditions of Jesus were put to writing not by Jews like him with a Semitic concept of the Divine but by gentile converts who understood and transmitted these traditions through the lens of their previous Hellenistic thought system. That is why we find "difficult" passages obviously tainted with Roman Mithraism, the likes of Jesus telling regular people that they should strive to become
Matt5:48"perfect just as your father in heaven is perfect".
Nothing is more abhorred in Semitic monotheism, of which Jesus was part of, to suggest that the Creator could in any way be brought to the level of his creation.
The unsurmountable difficulty Trinitarians face is that Jesus, contrary to God as depicted throughout the Bible, never asks to be worshiped. This is because he was a prophet, and prophets never departed from the pattern of complete obedience and servitude to the supreme authority that sent them among the people
3:79-80"It is not meet for a mortal that Allah should give him the Book and the wisdom and prophethood, then he should say to men: Be my servants rather than Allah's; but rather (he would say): Be worshippers of the Lord because of your teaching the Book and your reading (it yourselves). And neither would he enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for lords; what! would he enjoin you with unbelief after you are Muslims?"
The long line of prophets supported one another in that principle, never departing from it by virtue of the covenant they had entered into with their Lord
3:81"God made a covenant with the Prophets: “If after what I have vouchsafed to you of the Scriptures and wisdom, there comes to you a messenger confirming the truth of what you have in your possession, you shall believe in him and you shall help him. Do you,” said He, “affirm this and accept the obligation I lay upon you in these terms?” They answered: “We do affirm it.” Said He: ‘Then bear witness, and I am also a witness with you".
Here the Quran overlooks the time intervals which separated the messengers, and groups them all in one majestic scene with God, addressing them all at the same time.
The specific miracle of the bird from clay, an example of miracle reported in the Quran but absent from the canonical Gospels, is found in another transmitted Christian text, the infancy Gospel of Thomas. Although it connects this miracle to his childhood along with the ability to speak in the cradle, the Quran only qualifies the ability to speak in the cradle as a childhood miracle (serving the purpose of clearing Mary of the slanders), and then proceeds to connect the bird from clay miracle to his ministry to the Israelites, coming to them and preaching and performing other miracles with Allah's permission like his healing powers and knowledge of the unseen 3:49-55,5:110. Obviously there would have been no reason to give Jesus such powers in his childhood, because he needed them in adulthood in support of his ministry to demonstrate certain points, including the process of resurrection of the dead from dust, a concept heavily disputed at the time. The Quran ascribes special traits to other prophets in their infancy, such as John/Yahya, given wisdom and divine knowledge as a child in answer to his father Zakariya, who requested an upright progeny as opposed to his wicked and sinful contemporaries 19:12.
Concerning the relevance of Jesus' miracles and their purpose, it was already seen that the ability to speak in infancy was highly pertinent in absolving Mary from any suspicion of sexual transgression which in turn would purify Jesus' own identity. This twofold purpose is the reason why the Quran, when listing the divine favors experienced by Jesus from miracles, including the speech in the cradle, says that it benefited both him and his mother 5:110.
Concerning the infancy Gospel's reliability, just because it was rejected as apocrypha, does not mean it was rejected for all of its contents and besides, a man's apocrypha was another's scripture until very late in the canonization process of the Bible. The book of revelation for example was regarded as apocrypha and then finally canonized. Current estimates for the composition of the book of revelations point to the late 80s while traditionally believed to be around the 60s. If oral tradition can be preserved for almost a century for it to be considered reliable enough according to Church standards, then what kind of logic denies the reliability of the transmission of oral tradition just a few years later when the infancy Gospel of Thomas was put to writing? That Gospel is believed to have been finalized anywhere between the late 80s (which would make it contemporaneous with Luke's gospel) and 185CE. It was never discredited for all of its contents, neither for the miracles in it such as the bird from clay miracle. It was rejected because among other things it depicts Jesus in an unflattering, capricious, malicious way, similarly to how Greek mythological “trickster” gods and pagan “child-gods” from antiquity were depicted. Scholars believe this Gospel integrated these pagan themes so as to serve as a missionary propaganda tool. It demonstrated the divine nature of Jesus in a manner familiar to the Hellenistic, Egyptian and other pagans proselytized by the early Christians.
Even a "late compilation" argument of that Gospel is a non-issue, considering that every book of the NT was composed decades after Jesus, containing traditions obviously preceding it and transmitted orally until written down. There exists no other account anywhere of Jesus' infancy and childhood. The canonical Gospels make a passing reference to a 12 year old Jesus. Besides that there is no point of reference in Christian tradition to determine the genuine from fictional parts in the Infancy Gospel.
In fact by the time of the writing of the Gospels, many lost accounts, written and oral, of Jesus' life were in circulation. The Gospel of Luke's author, unknown and thus making it impossible to ascertain his agenda and credibility, chose, according to his standards, one or more versions of Jesus' early life to include in his writings Lk1:1.
