We have seen until now how the Quran, contrary to any other religious scripture, deals with the issue of domestic violence in such a way that impulsive men cannot reach the point where they will use force.
Secondly, it is a deterrant to an emotionally abusive woman willing to live in a household and be maintained by a man while being inclined to backstab him.
The 3rd purpose for allowing a husband to beat his wife is to address the issue of passionate, toxic relationships. In these types of unions, common to any time and culture, both may separate at any time, but instead, the abusive wife chooses to remain despite knowing the husband is about to resort to physical punitive measures and the husband chooses to remain despite having tried reforming an emotionally abusive wife. None can be forced to divorce and only one option remains to reform the abusive party, physical punishment. This, again is an extreme case of passionate love where an abused husband wants to make his wife come back to her senses after having tried all peaceful avenues. Neither he wants to let go of her nor she wants to leave him despite both having the right to do so. The word used is IDRIBOOHUNNA, derived from the root Dhad-R-B and it means hitting of the limbs to serve a function. That function in this case is not only striking, but striking to encourage change of attitude and that cannot happen by a severe beating. It is a kind of physical action that brings back the person to the senses and causes a change of behavior. This is how all the commentators understand the striking that is meant, as a noninjurious form of physical force.
This verse was revealed in ancient Arabia, in a time when the world as a whole viewed beating one’s wife as a right in the male dominated patriarchal society. If it reflected the mentality of its contemporaries then it wouldnt have addressed the issue from such an intricately psychological perspective.
In terms of misogyny, nothing in Islam remotely resembles what is found in Judeo-Christian texts and traditions, whose background is, the events of the garden painting Eve as the first to sin, then leading Adam to sin, and because of that was condemned to be "restrained" through subjection to the rule of her husband forever Gen3. Prior to the modern era, that notion was interpreted as warranting physical punishment for marital disobedience, in both Jewish and Christian traditions. In Christian texts, through the writings attributed to Paul, male rulership is associated with physical coercion in case of disobedience. This includes disobedience of subjects to their ruler, slaves to their masters, children to their fathers, and by obvious analogy, wives to their husbands. Rom13:1-5,Titus2:9-10,Eph6:5,Heb12:5-11,1Tim3:4,Ex21:20-21,Prov23:13-14,20:30,13:24 etc.
The prophet himself never beat his wives, abusive or not. Had it been his habit or had the Quran condoned domestic abuse, we would have seen a pattern in the prophet's life. In fact his wives had the option to divorce him anytime they wished and be graciously helped so as to start their new life unbothered. Not only was this pattern absent from his life, but we even see one of his wives, Umm Habiba asking him to marry her own sister so she can "share with her of the prophet's goodness", which he declined.
The prophet approved of a woman's divorce request following physical and verbal domestic abuse from her husband. It was only expected by him given that he would not tolerate even the beating of women maid-servants
"one of us slapped her and Allah's messenger ordered us to set her free".
In fact it is said that this wife beating verse 4:34 was revealed in relation to the case of a woman that came complaining to the prophet that her husband had hit her. The prophet disliked that behavior, he was known for his good treatment of his wives. He was about to punish the perpetrator based on the law of retaliation then the verse came to educate husbands and wives on the matter. The prophet said
"I wanted one thing and God wanted another".
This is because, as shown earlier, there is wisdom in allowing corrective physical punishement in the intricate way that the Quran does.
Beating is not promoted nor did the Quran invent domestic violence. The Quran canalizes such behavior by preventing an immediate jump to beating, by giving a very stringent procedure to prevent reaching to that point. Men, if they beat their wives, they do so out of anger, and afterwards try and justify it by saying religion allows it.
What the Quran is doing is preventing this impulse, and it does so in a context where it reforms women status and appeals to men's taqwa, their God consciousness, with verses setting the natural order of Men-Women relationships. Verses such as 30:21 and others
"And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect".
Men and women naturally deal in terms of love and compassion, meaning domestic violence is against the natural order of things.
In 4:34 the Quran uses the word qawwam, from Q-W-M and it means standing upright. It covers the meaning that the entity stands upright and that it helps others stand upright. Man is referred to as being qawwam over the woman by means of the bounties which he has been bestowed with, the bounties which he must use responsibly in the maintenance of his household. In other words, man cannot stand upright over the woman if he does not care and maintain his base, his wife.
Qawwam in addition is in a grammatical form of siratul mubalagha, denoting a pattern of behavior. In this case, the verse's opening is stating the husband is one behaving with a pattern of care towards his wife. The word carries also the notion of qima/value, making the qawwam the one who gives value ie to his wife, which negates emotional abuse, a domestic issue often addressed in the Quran.
As is obvious, domestic violence has nothing to do with the notion of qawwam, meaning the verse itself stipulates that proper treatment of a woman is exactly the opposite of hurting a women. This is why the Quran then goes on to provide an exhaustive means to prevent hitting in the first place, and even when one reaches the point where striking becomes a valid option, it must be done in a way that encourages a change of course and can never contradict the fundamental notion of man being qawwam over the woman. This will be shown a little later.
This passage, like many others where the divine law is expounded, the Quran wraps the passage with a message that connects the divine law with spiritual awareness. This is done so that man never loses sight of the spirit of the law. In this case, the passage ends with a mention of certain attributes of God; He is the High and Mighty.
There is a greater Being, with more authority than man and he should therefore not abuse of his position. The attribute of Might is also well suited to the context; men may be stronger than woman, but there is One stronger than man. And if men abuse their power, then let them know that they will have to face the Almighty. This style is used in other instances, such as when a man is told of his superiority over a wife in certain aspects of divorce procedures but reminded that this superiority is based on absolute wisdom and should that superiority be misused outside the bounds of wisdom, then there is One mightier than all
2:228"and the men are a degree above them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise".
Prior to the "beating" portion, first, the verse urges admonishement. This reveals the Quran engages the situation rationally, appealing to the intellect of the woman which was considered lower than a man's.
"those on whose part you fear nushuz"
KHAWF means fear of credible danger, as is consistent with all its occurrences in the Quran. So, it is not fear as in suspicion/Dhann. Dhann is to hold an opinion upon uncertain evidence. KHAWF is a fear about probable significant danger but it still does not refer to something obvious/blatant, and there is an element of relativity/subjectivity to it which is why the Quran tells to ITHOOHUNNA/advise them.
Even though the reasons for fear are credible, they can still be incorrect. This advising will not be in a harsh manner, as can be seen by its occurrences in the Quran, for example 31:13-19. When you give advice, you give the advice and listen to what they have to say. Therefore if the reason for the fear is diffused, then the problem is diffused. Another thing worth mentioning is that the word khawf denotes a significant threat in terms of marriage ties, it cannot be speaking of normal disagreements and disputes.
This is corroborated by the life of the one that embodied the Quran, the prophet had many reported disputes with his wives but always kept his composure and patience, remaining of gentle character, neither did he qualify their behavior as nushuz. Nushuz from the root N-SH-Z means elevated. It is used, among other things, for when a person elevates themselves above others, as in rebellion or arrogance or disdaining others. This isnt about typical disagreements that arise normally during a marriage. One isnt disdainfully arrogant and disrespectful during such disputes. That is why the verse then says that if the wife desists from her nushuz
"do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great".
Further, this kind of attitude is one that threatens the preservation of the private, ie the intimate conjugal matters which the verse states should never be compromised, hence the parallel made between the preservation of these issues with the manner in which Allah preserves the unseen, a realm and knowledge which is shared only partially and with a select few
"the righteous women (are) dedicated, preservers of the private, by what Allah preserved".
If that first step, of engaging the situation rationally doesnt work, the Quran tells the husband to resort to step 2, distance himself physicaly. This can be done by not sharing the bed for example which is an appeal to the emotion of the woman.
Most men, the vast majority, will not even think of beating their wife even after these 2 steps, rational, then emotional, aiming at stoping her nushuz have failed. 99% of couples will simply divorce at that point. However, the verse has specifically mentionned the option of beating in order to address 3 extreme situations. First, as said in introduction, the issue of men who become violent due to impulsive anger. The verse offers them the option of beating, but after a gradual procedures precisely aimed at smoothly blocking their impulse and ultimately prevent beating. This is much more efficient than telling them from the get go that they cannot hit at all. One cannot expect a person behaving irrationaly and emotionally to want to listen to a forceful instruction.
It is well known that the best manner to deal with impulsive behavior is through mindful and calming steps. In a situation where a husband fears nushuz from his wife in matters of transgression of the bounds of "guarding the unseen" which is a grave situation for any man of any culture, equal to backstabbing, an impulsive husband will immidiately want to beat his wife, but the verse prevents that impulse, telling him to engage the situation rationaly by first reasoning with his wife then refrain from physical contact
"admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places".
These 2 successive steps are crucial and effective at curbing a violent man's impulses and give him, as well as his wife, the time to cool-down and think.
At that point, the wife who stubbornly wants to keep going with her highly injurous attitude towards her husband knows that she just waisted 2 chances at solving the situation peacefully and rationaly and that now, if she wants to stay in the same household she has no choice but to mend her ways or face corrective physical punishement.
So even before resorting to beating, the wife with whom the appeal to her intellect and emotion through steps 1 and 2 did not work, who wants to stay in the same household and knows that her attitude was highly injurious will refrain by herself, thus settling the dispute. This is the second objective to allow beating, it serves as a deterrent to that type of woman. But if at that point, the woman genuinely did nothing wrong, decides not to change anything from her attitude while staying in the same household then she still knows that her husband, who believes to have been morally injured can resort to beating her. So what will she do at that point and what option does the Sharia give her? Will she let her husband beat her while she thinks she has done nothing wrong? The Quran says
4:35"And if you fear a breech between the two, then appoint a judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they BOTH desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".
The words are clear and give her the right to appeal to a judge who will in turn designate an arbitrer from her side and her husband's, to settle the dispute and prove her right, or if she is proven wrong then she either mends her way and returns to the same household or simply divorce
"if they BOTH desire agreement".
The verse however clearly prefers reconciliation, as pointed in the words
"Allah will effect harmony between them; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".
This is reiterated in 4:128 which states that in case a wife fears nushuz from her husband, the same word used previously for a rebellious, disdaining wife, then
"there is no blame on them, if they effect a reconciliation between them, and reconciliation is better".
4:128 also stresses that attempts at reconciliation should be undertaken as soon as signs of nushuz appear, not when the wife is already abused
"And if a woman FEARS nushuz".
Another thing worth noting is that nushuz, the attitude of disrespectful disdain and arrogance, when used in the context of marriage, applies to both men and women, with a tendency for adultery. The word is used in that connotation in pre- as well as post Islamic texts. For instance when a case of domestic dispute was brought to the prophet, the husband claimed that his wife
"is nashiz and wants to go back to Rifa`a (another man)".
In a report believed to have been uttered towards the end of the prophet's life, he emphasized that the option of striking is in the context of sexual transgression, thus further pointing that nushuz, the action which allows several punitive measures including striking, is related to adultery
"Surely, I enjoin you to treat women well, for they are like your captives. You do not have any right to treat them otherwise, unless they commit a clear obscenity/fahisha. If they do so, you may forsake their beds and then strike them without violence".
A woman isnt required to go through successive corrective steps to reform her husband, even if she only fears that her husband might become disrespectful, disdainful and arrogant. As soon as she sees the signs, she may appeal to a judge and only if she accepts reconciling, then the relationship may resume. Here is the verse again
In answer to the video "The Funniest Quran Verse (Crazy Quran Verses: 2)"
The prophet's wives had the title of mothers of the believers
33:6"The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers".
That sanctified title carried several implications to those that were willing to uphold it. It is not a title of nobility but rather denotes responsibility and care towards the community. For example Zaynab one of the prophet's wives was called Barrah/pious. The prophet told her to keep her name instead of that nickname to avoid her
"giving herself the prestige of piety".
He further told his wives
"Don't hold yourself to be pious. It is God alone who knows the people of piety among you".
They had to restrain their social activities to their own houses as much as possible in order to dedicate themselves to piety and religious study, pray intensely, solidify in their memories the recitations and wisdom of the revelation so that they become means of preserving the right way 33:33-4. During their spiritual counseling activities, they had to watch for the tone of their voice when addressing the opposite sex so that they leave no ambiguity as to their intentions, or cause those with an indecent inclination to harbor inapropriate thoughts. They had to speak to males outside their close relatives from behind a curtain 33:32,53-55.
This injunction, besides it being a logical demand of modesty whenever opposite sexes interract, becomes all the more relevant if one considers the Quran's description in sura ahzab/33 of the atmosphere of rumour mongering, provocations and other verbal abuses the prophet, and the righteous members of the Muslim community at large were either already the targets of, or were potentially at risk of. There were elements within the community and outside of it that were on the look out for any opportunity to spew their malice and discredit and dishearten the Muslims.
Consequently the prophet's household and the Muslims at large are given reassurance of the nobility of their status in God's eyes, and told in which manners to fend off those with evil inclinations. The best way to fend off these attacks were with ethics becoming of the nobility of their moral status as well as by adopting a modest dresscode.
The religious duties the prophet's wives had to shoulder were such, that willingly faltering in that respect would make them deserving of a more severe chastisement in the hereafter 33:30. This was meant to stress their spiritual responsibilities and the fact they had to exemplify piety, and so their moral conduct should be corresponding.
As stated in 33:32, their difference with other Muslim women consisted in them maintaining and propagating moral, ethical and spiritual uprightness. On the other hand their reward will be more intense than regular people due to their higher sacrifices 33:31. This is just like Allah's addressing the prophet warning him not to falter in his righteousness and upright conduct lest he should face a double/more severe punishement than regular people 10:15,17:73-4,39:65,68:9.
There is a simple reason behind that principle, leaders in a society are the ones that establish moral standards and are emulated. Their evil does not remain their own but spreads fast and creates further evil, just as their goodness. One and the same sin may thus be requited according to different levels of severity depending on the person comitting it as well as the social repercussions of that sin.
Finally, in consequence of their designation and duties as mothers of the believers, they were not allowed to remarry after the prophet's death, contrary to regular muslim women divorcees 33:53. The difference between the prophet's wives and others is that obviously none would ever marry and sleep with Moses', Solomon's, Abraham's or Muhammad's wives had the prophets passed away. This sanctified status is not one that was decreed because some believers would potentially desire to unite with one of them after the prophet's demise, it was addressed to the wives he already had and those in the future that would enter into a marriage with him, making clear to them the conditions of marrying him, and the consequences.
To those that were already married to him, they could at anytime prior to his death, relinquish that status and be given the opportunity to leave this life of sacrifices and socio-religious responsibilities. Some of them did, prior to even consuming the marriage, unable to bear the burden of responsibility and an austere life. In 33:28-29 they are told that if their desire for this world and its adornment is preferable in their eyes than a life of sacrifices dedicated to their spiritual duties
"say to your wives: If you desire this world´s life and its adornment, then come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing".
After divorce the woman would have stood excluded from the category of "mothers of believers", and she would not be forbidden to any other Muslim; for she would have chosen divorce from the prophet only for the sake of the world and its adornments of which she had been given the choice. The prophet's wives had thus the option of requesting and getting a just and kind divorce for even such petty reasons like their desire to pursue this wordly life which God's prophet could not afford giving them in his household.
No shame or stigma was put on those that did nor on those that would afterwards. Divorces with prophet occured, as already said. Also, enemies of Islam were all around Medina and within the city itself. Had there been such a potential negative consequence on a divorced woman's personal life she could have joined any opposing community just as former polytheist Meccan women joined the Medina Muslims for shelter after conversion to Islam. Furthermore, in relation to 33:28-9 referred to earlier, no muslim, and no man of any culture is required to go out of his way and ask his wife if she is happy and satisfied enough in all material aspects, especially when one is just with the wife in relation to one's financial capabilities. Further, no muslim or man in general is required to offer divorce if the wife is unhappy. On top of it, not simple divorce, with each partner going his/her way, which would be fairest in this case, but a "gracious" divorce, where the wife is free to leave as well as receive compensation if she chooses to. Yet this is what was required of the prophet, contrary to all muslims, a man supposedly seeking multiple marriages of lust.
By the time this verse was revealed, and as shown in the direct context, the Muslims had conquered the rich agricultural region of Khaybar, and the community had grown more prosperous. But while life was becoming easier for most of its members, this ease was not reflected in the household of the Prophet. As was always his habit, he only allowed himself and his family only the absolute minimum necessary for the most simple living
28:83"that future abode, We assign it to those who have no desire to exalt themselves in the earth nor to make mischief and the good end is for those who guard (against evil)".
His prestigious status as a prophet and ruler never came in the way of that humble principle of living. Not only was he not ever one to ask for any kind of reward from his addressees 6:90,12:104etc, his reward and compensation being simply that people might be guided
25:57"Say: ‘No reward do I ask of you for this. All I ask is that he who so wills may find a way leading to his Lord"
but every occasion where he could make use of his status and deep knowledge for material benefit, he would do it for the sake of the needy
58:12"when you consult the Messenger, then offer something in charity before your consultation; that is better for you and purer".
The prophet's wives on the other hand naturally were longing for a share in the comparative luxuries which other Muslim women could now enjoy. His wives often stated that they had little on their shelves besides bread flour and dates. But it is reported that all of them rejected a possible seperation with the prophet and resumed their spiritual duties as "mothers of the believers", and were promised a great reward in the Hereafter for having denied themselves the ordinary comforts of life by remaining in the Prophet's house 33:31. Their voluntary worldy sacrifices can only be understood from a spiritual perspective.
Umm Habiba, one of the prophet's wives had such awareness for that spiritual favor despite the sacrifices that she even proposed the hand of her own sister to the prophet
“Are you interested in my sister, Apostle of Allaah?” He said “What should I do?” She said “You marry her” He said “Your sister?” She said “Yes”. He said “Do you like that?” she said “I am not alone with you of those who share me in this good, my sister is most to my liking. He said “She is not lawful for me.”
In answer to the video "The Funniest Quran Verse (Crazy Quran Verses: 2)"
The prophet used to answer the call of freeman, slave, maid servant and destitute alike, shortening his prayer anytime someone would visit his open house so much so that his opponents spread it as a form of weakness and credulity while the prophet knew very well who to trust 9:61. They would literally reproach him of being "an ear" because of his empathy and readiness to patiently listen to what anyone had to say.
But although at first glance that seemingly gave the impression of being credulous it in fact reveals a great leadership quality of keeping cohesion within a group. He knows very well the liars or people with ill intentions but does not immediately expose them to the rest of the community so as to leave them the chance to reform themselves, as is commanded within the Quran itself. This passive attitude should however not leave any ambiguity as regards the prophet's intellectual and spiritual stance, as denoted in the rest of the verse.
Sometimes as reflected in 33:53, his leniency, kindness and forbearance to his folks would often lead to abuse. People would enter his house at anytime, preventing him and his wives from their spiritual duties and basic privacy requirements. This injunction taught them certain rules of behaviour bearing on the life of such particular society, based on a true feeling of brotherhood, mutual consideration, and respect for the sanctity of each other's personality and privacy.
This is the timeless lesson, applicable for all times, and which is now enshrined in the Quran through incidents that concerned the prophet. A report suggests that this verse was first revealed in the context of the prophet's marriage ceremony with Zaynab. Some of the guests stayed long after the event was over, in the prophet's home. The verse, according to the report from Anas came down some time after the incident, thus thwarting any attempt by modern critics to try and use the story as evidence of "convenient revelations". Besides, the ahadith speak of other occasion of revelation than this particular incident. This is due to the traditions and Quran commentaries, typically retrospectively applying events in the life of the prophet and the community as asbab alnuzul/occasions of revelation.
The Quran is full of such moral lessons, although illustrated through temporal situations, some of them related and others unrelated to the prophet.
Here are a few other examples
24:62-63"surely they who ask your permission are they who believe in Allah and His Apostle".
In the prophet's time, the sincerity of a person's belief in God and the one representing His will on earth, was measured by their obedience to the prophet. None could dare claim to submit to Allah while rejecting the means by which He was actively communicating with the people. They could obviously not communicate with God directly and had thus to seek the messenger's guidance to know the divine will. This guidance from the messenger is still found both in the Quran and the sunna he left behind. The timeless application of the verse is thus in consulting both sources of guidance. See also 4:64.
In answer to the video "Stars Are Missiles Against Devils (Crazy Quran Verses 4)"
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 his messenger
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 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 "Zakir Naik Shocks Christians When He Says This!"
Jesus nowhere made any claim to be God, neither does the bible say anywhere to confess Jesus is God. He isnt called YHWH anywhere and neither did Abraham or Isaac worship a trinity, a god called Jesus or holy spirit. Nobody ever misunderstood God's unique, indivisible essence, nor misapplied divinity to terms such as messiah or "son of God".
Ambiguities arose when the Graeco-Roman world merged with the Abrahamic, Semitic religion of the HB. Gentile Greeks and Romans, the main targets for conversion by post-Jesus missionary activity, found a fertile ground for continuity of their ancient religions in those various terminologies and events describing the functioning of the God of the HB. Those passages however never hinted at a possible multiplicity of godhead in Semitic thought.
There is a well established pattern of God, repeatedly identifying Himself whether in the Hebrew scriptures or the Quran with phrases such as "I am the Lord". The literal terminologies "tawhid" or "Jewish monotheism" arent found in the Quran or the HB, but just as tawhid/divine transcendance is a concept stamped on every page of the Quran, Jewish monotheism is unambiguous. The God of the HB makes clear that worship is His prerogative only, and no entity besides Him is seen making the same claim. So much so that the HB uses sometimes crude imageries to refer to Israel's spiritual "adultery" whenever it worshiped something else than its "jealous" God. It is then legitimate for those opposing the Trinitarian doctrine to demand from Trinitarians an explicit, unambiguous statement from Jesus, or any of the other members of their godhead like the holy ghost, independently claiming divinity, or asking to be worshiped. No such statements exist, leaving Trinitarians with a doctrine built from assumptions, suppositions and by piecing ambiguous verses together. Its called "proof texting."
This method violates two of the paramount points of scriptural understanding: 1) Use clear verses to explain the unclear ones, and 2) gather all of the pertinent verses and study them completely before reaching a conclusion on a doctrine. And even if one were to grant Trinitarian apologist's interpretations of these scattered and isolated verses as correct, still these verses together only provide fractional support for the doctrine. The same can be said of other foundational Christian themes like inherited sin and forgiveness through blood atonement exclusively, which are all based on incomplete references.
None of the verses where God is identified, either by Himself or others, state that a multiplicity of beings is meant, nor whether these separate divine entities are co-equal or subservient to God, nor whether one is to worship each of those entities separately. The vague verses and passages used as a basis for the potential multiplicity of beings can perfectly be understood without references to Trinity or the incarnation, as was always the case in Semitic thought. Again, there are clear and unambiguous verses denying that God can be seen Ex33:20,Jn1:17 that He has a form Isa40:17,25, or that any representation of Him is to be worshiped Deut4:15.
Although God's unlimited attributes are by essence beyond human comprehension, God's identity however is not. Beyond understanding doesnt entail inherently contradictory. For example to notion of God being eternal is humanly unfathomable, but not inherently contradictory. But a single one and same entity, Jesus, who is at the same time omniscient and ignorant is contradictory. God is thus certainly beyond comprehension but not illogical and absurd as a square circle or a trinity would be.
It is obvious that the primary reason for revelation is to identify the Entity requiring exclusive worship. Only one and the same being is found identifying itself and by others as God. As there are no cases of a multiplicity of beings identified, by themselves or others as God then it follows that only One and the same being is always meant whenever the Bible speaks of God. This is the logical premise of the Bible. If Trinitarians on the other hand want to identify a separate set of beings as one and the same God, they are then forced to accept the Biblical premise that no 2, 3 or 4 DIFFERENT beings are identified as God in their Bible, only One and the same being everytime. It follows that these separate beings must be identical to one another if they are identified with God. In a nutshell, if D has the value 1 and that A, B, C are all equal to D then it must mean that A, B, C have the value of 1, making them all identical to one another. Trinitarians however need to keep the 3 components of the godhead distinct from one another. To do so, they have no choice but to conjecture outside Biblical patterns to formulate their beliefs. They begin with the unbiblical notion that a separate set of beings can identify as God all the while remaining distinct and different from one another. This however results in the problem of non transferability of attributes within 2 identical entities. If for instance father and son have all the attributes of God but that Father and son have different attributes then it must mean that they each possess attributes God does not have.
By rejecting the biblical premise above, Trinitarians begin piling up more problems until the greatest of their scholars end up admitting their ignorance of the concept, it being an impenetrable mystery. Some will even hail that mystery as evidence of their God's superiority since He is above any human concept, although in reality it is the Bible's own premises that conflict with this notion. Again, the problem stems from Christian terms and proposed solutions that do not add up. The external observer merely shows the inconsistencies of those attempts, so the comparison between the "Christian God" with the One others worship isnt appropriate. Further, if the superiority of the triune concept of a god resides in its incompatibility with human understanding, then no Trinitarian has grounds to criticize other beliefs if they are found to be illogical and contrary to empirical data. In fact with that line of reasoning, the more absurd a belief system is, the superior it becomes. Sure, a supreme and transcendental God is a simple concept in comparison. "God is One" was never meant to be a complicated statement. Christian thinkers know this, and have been wrestling with the logical inconsistencies of their creed for 2000 years, yet no progress has been made in resolving the contradictions of the notion of incarnation.
Even at a most basic level of the doctrine, Trinitarians have been struggling, since the first councils of the church fathers down to our times and the Phd thesis of Christian apologists and philosophers, to get around the charge of tri-theism; how does 3 distinct "persons", each fully divine, not result in 3 distinct gods? To add to the problem, these 3 distinct persons have 3 distinct wills/consciences. Although traditionally, trinitarians have held that the trinity has one mind/conscience, this position in unsubstantiated scripturally and logically. In the Bible, each person of the godhead speaks in terms of "I" which cannot be mutually shared. For example when the Father states "you are my son with whom i am well pleased" this proposition cannot be shared in the mind of the son or the holyspirit. This results in 3 minds and 3 wills with each being separately divine. Those among Christendom that argued against Social trinitarians precisely did so on the basis that it would result in tritheism.
The concept of Monarchia, where only the Father is uncaused, while the Spirit and Son are "eternally" caused is an unhelpful ad hoc. This unconventional way of speaking doesnt solve tritheism as there still ultimately are three divine persons. As they have three distinct personalities they must be counted as distinct gods. Due to the unavoidable fact that counting is done based on identity, Catholic and orthodox scholars admit that in a sense, monotheism can include multiple deities. Others will try avoiding that conclusion by going to the extent of trying to redefine how to count. Counting could be done based on unity of nature. 3 distinct human persons could be considered as one man just as 3 distinct divine persons are one God. Besides the fallacy of giving a material example to explain the immaterial, how does one count the 3 appart from oneanother? If their distinct identity doesnt make them countable, as would be the case conventionally, this means we only have one divine entity, thus negating trinitarianism and resulting in basic monotheism. If we were to say that conventional counting is inapplicable to the ineffable divine being, can we then count the incarnate, material person of Jesus which contains the fullness of the divine being? If yes then we can in fact count the divine being, if not then we cannot count Jesus appart from other things like a tree or a rock. Ultimately, if the divine being is uncountable, can we even say that He is one? Trinitarians will very often put arbitrary limits, unfounded in their texts, when it comes to what applies or not to God, what is similar to Him or not, whenever an aspect of their doctrine reaches a dead end. For example the bible notoriously uses anthropomorphisms, meaning there are similitudes between God and the material world, as well as worldly concepts. We understand many things about God, otherwise we wouldnt know what we are worshiping. Why is the idea of counting God something unfathomable?
At this point trinitarians pile up more unconventional terminologies and hypothesis to salvage their doctrine, pushing the whole idea further into the realm of mystery.
The Quran gives them a simple warning out of this labyrinth of confusion
4:171"People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs"
Jesus' creed:
Mk12:29-30"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment".
Jesus, coming from a long line of messengers and prophets sent to mankind was thus confirming what Moses uttered approximately 1500 years earlier in
Deut6:4"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord"
and 600 years later came the seal of the prophets with the final reminder to mankind, the Quran repeating once more this ultimate truth
2:163"And your God is one God, there is no god but He; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful".
In answer to the video "Zakir Naik Shocks Christians When He Says This!"
The HB describes God with singular pronouns over 11000 times. Singular pronouns tell us that God is a single Individual. The expression "let us" of Gen1:26 is isolated and doesnt indicate duality, trinity or a hundred members of the godhead.
The pluralization of words for intensification of the meaning is common in semitic languages. See for example Ezra 4:18. Just as Isa44:24 says it is Myself not Ourselves "who spread out the earth" Jesus says in Matt19:4,Mk10:6,13:19 etc that HE or God, not WE, created all things alone. And again in In Heb4:4 God not Jesus or the holy spirit rested from the work of creation. Similarly in
Job38:4"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?"
not We.
The Midrash Rabbah cited in Rashi’s commentary on
Gen1:26"Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman said in the name of Rabbi Yonathan: At the time when Moses was engaged in writing the Torah, he had to set down what happened on each (of the six) days of creation. When he got to the verse "And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness' " (Gen. 1:26), Moses said before Him: "Master of the universe, why do You give heretics an excuse? (they will say that there are numerous deities!)" He replied: "You write! and whoever wishes to err, let him err.""
Sure there must have been Israelites who understood some of these texts in a polytheistic manner, hence this midrash. Read on their own certain passages can be understood in a polytheistic fashion if one so chooses. But the overwhelming fact that the HB fails to give a single example that MUST be read in a polytheistic fashion justifies that all these texts in their canonical context are monotheistic.
Similarly, in the beginning elohim created the universes Gen1:1. The plural elohim does not denote a plurality of God's nature. If the meaning of this word were to be plural, then the verbs would agree, also being in the plural. The word for "created" is "barah" in the singular. And although Elohim is followed by the plural k'doshim, the very next word after it is the singular "he" pronoun, referring to God. The use of the plural simply is a literary device to evoke grandeur and majesty, and is often used in the Tanakh and the Quranic language as well.
The "im" at the end of Eloh-im is an intensive construct of the singular Eloah ps18:32,114:7 as is used at the end of many words that are not plural Gen19:11(blindnesses), Lev19:24(praises), Ps45:15(gladnesses), Ezek25:17(vengences).
To know if elohim is singular or plural it must be in a sentence where it either receives a plural suffix, a plural verb, a plural adjective. The only times where Elohim is followed by plural verbs is when referring to heathen deities Exod20:3, which ironically could be seen as a little hint to those who use that literary construct to defend a concept seen by many as pagan. The other times where elohim is followed by plural is when the addressee is a heathen as in Gen20:13, where Abraham speaks to Abimelech. Everywhere else in the surrounding text the singular verb form is used with elohim. The same is the case with the plural adjective hayyim connected to the majestic plural elohim in Sam17:26,36,Jer10:10,23:36 while all surrounding verbs with Elohim are in the singular. It is to be noted that the singular form of "hayyim" is used elsewhere with Elohim 2Kings19:4,16,Isa37:4,17.
Elohim, when referring to God in the Greek of the NT is always the singular "theos". YHWH speaks of Himself as “I” and “Me” and is referred to as “You” (singular) and “He” and “Him” thousands of times. Elohim simply doesnt hint to 2,3, or a million godhead within one, so it offers no support for the trinity.
When it is translated in the plural for example Ps8:5,82:1,Exod18:11,21:6,22:8,9,Gen35:2,and in all these cases nobody will think elohim constitutes a plurality of persons within one. When elohim is translated in the singular Ex22:20,1Sam28:12-13 again no trinitarian will say the english translation of the word constitutes a plurality of persons within one.
God in the HB is Echad/one Exod9:7,Eccl4:8. Each of the things listed are not a compound unity. And if "one" in Hebrew can also be more than one why not a trillion? Both masculine and feminine forms of echad are found in the HB almost a thousand times and Christian translators always seem to understand that echad means ONE every single place except when they choose to say that it isn't. Echad/one, as in every language can be used figuratively for a compound unity as in one nation or one family, see also Gen1:5,2:24,Numb13:23. But most often literally means an “absolute one” and not compound at all. It is the direct context that decides whether the word is used figuratively or literally. When God told Abraham to take his son to "one/echad of the mountains" did He mean to divide his son upon a compound of mountains? When Hagar put her boy under "one/echad of the shrubs" did she cut him up under multiple plants? It is the height of absurdity to suggest that a passage refuting idolatry and multiple deities, would tell the people that "your Lord is a unity of divine beings".
When husband and wife are "one" for instance, the multiplicity of subjects is made clear in the sentence. Nothing presupposes in the Schema, that the intent is figurative
Deut6:4 "Listen, O Israel – the Lord your God, the Lord is ONE”.
Echad here is an adjective, and it describes the proper noun "the Lord", which is in the singular. This rules out the possibility of a "compound unity" in this highly relevant passage in terms of what the HB teaches on monotheism. Echad in this case assumes its primary literal meaning of "absolute one". Similar usages are found in 2Sam13:30,17:12. The Schema contains 2 core messages that are prevalent throughout the Jewish writing; nationalism and monotheism. YHWH is the God of Israel (our God), and this same YHWH is echad/one. It is one of the most blatant examples of what Biblical scholars have termed Jewish monolatry, the belief in one ethno-centered tribal deity, without excluding the existence of deities to other nations. The infamous missionary corruption of a comentary from the Zohar, where the writer supposedly wonders at the threefold repetition of God's name in the Schema is a known 20th century forgery, absent from this Jewish book. In fact there is a quote from the Zohar saying
"You are One but not in a countable sense" (Zohar petichat eliyahu).
As to Yachid, it literally means "only". See Gen22 for example. To repeat, in Hebrew the word for one is echad (masculine) and ahat (feminine). Try telling a school kid to start counting with "yachid"...
In answer to the video "Zakir Naik Shocks Christians When He Says This!"
The paraclete is the spirit of truth, because of holding the correct belief in Jesus 1Jn4. He acts according to what he is inspired
Jn15:26,16:13-14"When the paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me..he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me.."
Per Jn14:16 the Father is the only sender of the paraclete and none else. Jesus saying he will send the paraclete in Jn15:26 depends entirely on the will of the Father. As Jesus says, the paraclete comes from the Father and goes out from the Father. Jesus will send him to the world through his prayers Jn14:16 to the Father. The sending of the paraclete depends entirely and exclusively on the Father and Jesus saying he will send him simply means that he will ask God to send him per Jn14:16. It doesnt say the paraclete will come to the people speaking in Jesus' name, but that the Father will send him in Jesus' name meaning at his request as reflected in other translations, because Jesus will pray the Father for this
"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another paraclete"
Muhammad the son of Ishmael is the result of the preceding prophets' prayers like Abraham' prayers to God in the Quran to raise a prophet among his descendants settled in the area that will bring them to the straight path.
Muhammad was given Al-Mizan (The Balance) and Al-Furqan (The Criterion) of truth and falsehood and told to
42:15"go on inviting, and go on steadfastly on the right way as you are commanded, and do not follow their low desires, and say: I believe in what Allah has revealed of the Book, and I am commanded to do justice between you: Allah is our Lord and your Lord; we shall have our deeds and you shall have your deeds; no plea need there be (now) between us and you: Allah will gather us together, and to Him is the return".
Through the Criterion and the Balance, Muhammad truly convicted the world of sin for rejecting Jesus, he honored and testified about Jesus' true identity; his humanity, the truthfulness of his prophethood to the Jews ONLY and a precursor of the last prophet. He reminded those claiming to be Jesus' followers of all truth regarding his message
43:59,5:14-16,75"O People of the Book, There has come to you Our messenger to explain to you much of what you have concealed of the book and pardoning much. There has come to you from Allah a light and an obvious book. Allah guides thereby those who follow His pleasure into the ways of peace and brings them out of darkness into the light by His permission and guides them to a straight path....The Messiah son of Marium is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away".
Muhammad stayed with humanity forever, obviously through the Quran. How is the holyspirit with us today and forever? What is the instant effect to an individual, of the indwelling of the holyspirit according to every single time it occurs in the HB? The person becomes a prophet and starts prophesying. Where are those prophets today?
In answer to the video "Zakir Naik Shocks Christians When He Says This!"
In the HB, the term "holy spirit" (in which "holy" is an adjective) never appears. But there is ruach hakodesh (lit. the spirit/wind of holiness). It is the pre-condition for prophethood, endowing an individual with divine intuition, wisdom Job32:8, warnings and glad tidings, as well as the ability to communicate God's direct words 2Sam23:2. Such person becomes God's representative on Earth and then either reforms or leads the Israelites to victory.
As a side note, Trinitarians claiming that this ruach is a divine entity seperate from God the Father must explain verses like Judges9:23,1Sam16:14,Isa19:14 speaking of
"an evil spirit from God"
and of
"a spirit of perverseness".
If, as trinitarians say, God's holy spirit is a divine entity, God's evil spirit should also be a different divine entity. 1Kings19:11 is even more damning to this idea
"And He said: "Go out and stand in the mountain before the Lord, Behold! the Lord passes, and a great and strong wind (b'ruach) splitting mountains and shattering boulders before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind (ha-ruach). And after the wind an earthquake-not in the earthquake was the Lord".
This spirit of God first appears in Gen1. It is neither qualified as holy nor evil, it could be any of the 2 since God directly creates both good and evil Deut30:15,Isa45:7,1Sam16:14, and neither is it described as taking part independantly in the act of creation. In fact its mention is preceded by the presence of already created wordly entities, like the waters and the earth.
The spirit/wind of holiness in the talmud is an agent sent by God to allow prophecy and revelation (Midrash Rabbah, Song of Songs 1.1,Sotah 16d). A well known teaching in rabbinic 2nd temple literature is that the end of prophecy was accompanied with the departure of the holyspirit "From the time that the last prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, died, the holy spirit was withdrawn from Israel". The RUACH is always at the disposal of God to bestow upon whomever He chooses Num11:17,25,29,Isa42:1,44:3,Joel3:1.
All this parallels in many ways with the Quran's description of the RUH that descends to the prophets to give them inspiration. The spirit of God is certainly an agent of God, seperate from Him and fully encompassed by His will. The spirit being of/from God, does not entail him being a seperate divine entity, anymore than the hand, arm or eyes of God are seperately divine. Even if one turns to the highly esoteric and cryptic Zohar, believed to have originated somewhere in the 1st-2nd century CE when Judaism had been infiltrated by Graeco-Roman concepts, one might find notions of God having different aspects through which He interracts with the world. However none of those aspects are ever manifested in human form and neither are they seperate entities to be individually worshipped.
The phenomenon of collective revelation, as is alleged to have happened at Pentecost, through the descent of the holy spirit on several people at once, will only reoccur in the messianic age
Joel3:1"I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions".
This is the passage which the Christians link as the fulfillement of Jesus' prophecy of the paraclete, based on the faulty future tense in Jn14 as shown earlier. As stated in the following verses and preceding chapters, this will only happen in the end of times, and will be accompanied by obvious cataclysmic signs. This further shows that the holy spirit is always linked to the field of prophethood.
This, as a side note, poses a problem to the peculiar Christian notion of being filled with the holy spirit once they have accepted Christ and yet are unable to prophecy and never will be. Similarly, no Christian today is able to "speak in tongues" as is alleged to have occurred at pentecost. Nothing prevents the miracle from being reproduced as the NT does not say the phenomenon ceased after pentecost. The purpose was to spontaneously evangelize in any audience's language, something missionaries are obviously unable to do today. Further, was the holyspirit limited that day, so that others who were present and heard the phenomenon Acts2:13"made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine"? The spirit left them out, their tongue was unworthy of being represented. To them, the spectacle was that of drunkards speaking unintelligibly. Where were Paul's interpreters when one desperately needs them 1Cor14? As Celsus, the early pagan intellectual opponent to Christians said
"Having brandished these threats they then go on to add incomprehensible, incoherent, and utterly obscure utterances, the meaning of which no intelligent person could discover: for they are meaningless and nonsensical, and give a chance for any fool or sorcerer to take the words in whatever sense he likes".
Not a single of the well known criteria of the messianic age as outlined in the Hebrew Bible, have occurred until now, and neither were those criteria fulfilled at pentecost were God's spirit is said to have poured on several people as described in Joel. Yet we have Paul claiming the opposite throughout his writings, including Peter, based on that very messianic passage of Joel that negates the events of pentecost.
The pentecost story cannot have occurred as it is believed it did, and what descended on the people could not have been the holy spirit, let alone the paraclete. There is a reason why the Pharisees in Acts2:13 mockingly alluded to these people on the day of pentecost as a group of drunkards, for their odd, erratic behavior and incomprehensible speech; this type of effect that the indwelling spirit of holiness supposedly had on them was something unheard of in the prophetic history. No prophet who received the holyspirit ever behaved in such a manner, whether the prophets of the HB down to the last Ishmaelite prophet.
Christians thus need to "loosen up" the definition of a prophet, despite it being firm and precise, in order to make place for their unscriptural ideas. The deeper difficulty however for Christians is that this passage from Joel, and other similar eschatological passages, rejects any attempt at identifying the end time king/messiah with Jesus.
In addition to being "a" messiah, which requires the fulfilment of specific ritual and genealogical conditions which were never met in Jesus, the end times messiah also has to satisfy some lifetime requirements, including the global ingathering of the Jews, rebuilding of the temple, ushering of the age of unfaltering observance of the Law (which bellies by the way all of St Paul's innovations), universal peace, universal knowledge of God, blissful utopia, end of evil and sin, disease and death.
Obviously none of those criteria ever occurred anywhere near Jesus' era, and in fact the least that can be said is that the 1st century, its overall state of upheaval, was the antithesis of what the messianic era is supposed to be.
There isn't a single prophecy saying the Messiah would come, die, be resurrected, and then return thousands of years later to BEGIN his mission. It in facts says he will accomplish these tasks within his own lifetime Isa42:4"He shall not fail or be crushed until he has set the right in the earth". That is why the idea of a suffering king messiah is inexistent in pre-Christian Judaism. The awaited figure is in fact expected to violently enforce the new world order. In view if this, Christians also need to explain why would anyone not see the "second coming" theory as an attempt to explain away Jesus' failure during his "first coming" to usher the messianic era.
