Acts17apologetics dazzled by miracles; Jesus gives life so he is God?

In answer to the video "David Wood Is the Word of Allah! (Just Ask Mohammed Hijab!)"

Yes Jesus did all sorts of miracles.

The healing of the blind and leper was a symbolic demonstration of how divine guidance gives insight and clears the soul from illness (if the purpose was simply to give physical healing, Jesus would have spent all day long performing such miracles or provided a practical cure for people to use). Breathing life into a bird from clay and bringing back the dead to life demonstrate to an audience highly skeptical of the concept of resurrection, how life can be gathered from dust and how a lifeless body can be risen back. 

It is interesting to note that long before, these Israelites that were now denying the resurrection in the times of Jesus, had already been shown, several times over in the days of Musa the reality of the concept. First when many among them were themselves brought back to life following their outrageous request of seeing God 2:55-6 and then when a murdered person was publicly resurrected 2:72-4. Even before, the Quran recounts how Ibrahim was shown the definite possibility of the concept of resurrection, through the bringing back to life of shredded birds 2:260. 

In the course of history, several prophets and godly people were shown, through different angles, the reality of the concept, sometimes it was only meant to them, and other times it included a larger audience indirectly. The youths of the cave that spent several centuries in a state of sleep and finally made to wake up and return to their town, demonstrated God's ability to control the process of life by preserving their bodies from decay without any food intake for a very long time 18:9-25. In 2:259 an individual was made to die for a hundred years then brought back to life, although his food, by the will of God, remained intact, unaffected by the passage of time, his donkey had almost disappeared into dust, then brought back to life in front of his very eyes. 

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".

The whole point of the Quran in regards to Jesus is that he was not fully, nor partially God. The reason it lists his miracles is to make it clear they were performed with the permission of other than him. The signs are described as "for you" and "from your Lord". They testify to Jesus' identity, leaving no doubt as to his humanity and prophethood, like others before and after him. It is a message to those conjecturing on his identity due to these very miracles, and trying hard to find a subtext to them in relation to the HB.

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.

CIRA International reveal islamic idolatry; Jesus taken to Allah?

In answer to the video "Jesus is The Messiah of The Muslims - Tawhid Dilemma Ep 14"

Jesus taken to Allah doesnt mean in God's physical presence. An entity going back to God means to where He commands it to be, and for the achievement of a specific purpose. Like a summoning, and it doesnt need to be a few inches away. It gives a sense of exclusivity to God only, complete control, dominion over that thing. It is used both in an abstract and concrete sense, for matters pertaining to both this world and the next 2:156,281,3:109,154,180,8:44etc. 

Jesus' gathering back to God, to be under His complete control, fits perfectly the context of Jesus' tawfiya in 3:55. It is usually translated as "causing to die" but lexically means "to receive fully". It is used multiple times for Jesus and many others 10:104,16:70,22:5,5:117. The Quran here isnt using such word haphazardly. It emphasizes Jesus' preservation and honouring, contrary to the disgraceful description made of him in the NT. 

Further, Jesus had no power to influence his ascension to Allah. He remained in God's grasp in the process, as he was since his miraculously conception and throughout his life. No matter how one views the process by which Allah made Jesus to ascend, whether he was made to die or not in the process, Jesus, like every creature will eventually taste death prior to his resurrection on the day of judgement 

19:33"And peace is on me the day I was born and the day I will die and the day I am raised alive". 

It is interesting to note that the Quran, consistent as it always is in its concepts, similarly describes the prophet Muhammad as God's slave during his miraculous ascent throughout space and time 17:1.

The Quran unambiguously states that Jesus 3:45 like the angels is from those who are muqarrabin/brought near and yet

4:172"The messiah will never be proud to be Allah's servant, nor the angels who are near to Him, and whoever disdains His service and is proud, He will gather them all together to Himself".

Jesus' nearness to God, just like the angels' nearness doesnt hint in anyway to divinity. In fact the nearer a creature like Jesus, the angels or any other 21:19 is to God the more eager it/he becomes to bow down in servitude to the mighty King. Here again, the gathering to Himself, just as in 5:18 and many other places, does not mean a few inches away. It means in a place where Allah commands them to be, and where they are entirely in God's control, exclusively in His possession. This control can either be for the purpose of judging them, protecting them, punishing them, disposing of them as He deems fit, etc.

Jesus in fact didnt even have to wait to be raised up to heaven, to be in Allah's presence. The Quran describes him and others as among those near Allah while on earth 3:45. In Quranic usage, being near to Allah, as is used throughout the book implies several things and none of them hinting to physical nearness. It can be honoring, both in this world and the next 3:45,4:172,5:35,54:55,56:11,88,83:28,89:28etc. or it can imply to receive God's attention and care 2:186,11:61 or it conveys the sense of God's deep, intimate knowledge of His creation 50:16. 

Finally, everything in the heavens and the earth, whether hypothetically close to the Divine Being or far, are ultimately perishing save His Glorious Self 28:88. This takes away any hint at independence, intrinsic power and will to any creature that ever existed and that ever will.

5:17"Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely, Allah-- He is the Messiah, son of Marium. Say: Who then could control anything as against Allah when He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Marium and his mother and all those on the earth? And Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; He creates what He pleases; and Allah has power over all things"

CIRA International trinity dilemma; Quranic massih same as Jewish messiah?

In answer to the video "Jesus is The Messiah of The Muslims - Tawhid Dilemma Ep 14"

The Arabic massih stems from M-S-H meaning to swipe one surface opposite another either to clean or to mark. The meaning is basically the same for the Hebrew mashiach steming from M-S-CH which means to paint, smear or anoint, more generally to spread a liquid on a surface. That swiping process, when performed by a human in a religious context must be with the proper oil and ceremony as described in Ex30:22-33. The consequence to the recipient is that he becomes selected for a special, sacred purpose 1Sam10:1-2. 

The title however can sometimes be used symbolically even if not preceded by the ceremonial, when it is God Himself doing the "swiping" as is the case with the non-Jewish king Cyrus Isa45:1. Besides prophets, and a non Jew, the title is used for Jewish priests and kings 1Kings1:39,19:15-6,Lev4:3,Ex28:41,Isa61:1 or also for objects like the Jewish Temple or unleavened bread Ex40:9,Num6:15. The common denominator is, as already stated, the dedication for a specific purpose through marking. 

This means if someone is properly anointed as a messiah in the future he/it can be "a" legitimate messiah, not necessarily the one to appear at the end of times. That is why the HB never speaks of "the" messiah but of "a" messiah. The salvific figure to come at the end of times will combine both the quality of messiah, following the anointing ritual, as well as kingship, which is recognized through lineage and an unmistakable list of accomplishments laid out in the HB. In ignorance of the above, Christians speak of this end-time Jewish king, who in addition will be "a" messiah like the aforementioned animate and inanimate entities, as "the" messiah, in an attempt to create an aura of exclusivity surrounding a title amply used throughout the HB. In their zeal and because nowhere does the HB speak of that personality preceded by the definite article, they have gone as far as modifying Dan9:25 that does not have a definite article in front of "mashiach" except in Christian bibles. This example of textual corruption at the hands of Christians and Trinitarians more particularly to advance their faulty religious ideas, is far from being an isolated case.

The Quran however, as stated earlier uses "al massih" as one of Jesus' proper names only. No theological implication, whether from a Jewish or Christian perspective, is given the slightest consideration. The Quran adopts a neutral stance, just as anyone outside the fold of Christianity would refer to Jesus using a title that became equivalent to his proper name. The retrospective application of the Jewish messianic concepts and criteria unto the fictional Jesus of the NT is a gross distortion that turned the HB/NT into the mess it currently is. Right from the start, the gospel writers betray their forgery through contradicting genealogies that fail to meet even the most basic messianic criteria of lineage as listed in the HB. While to a Jew this effortlessly denies the title to Jesus, to Christians and their NT writers, this same criteria along with many others disputed by Jews, fit Jesus' description to perfection

2:113"And the Jews say: The Christians do not follow anything (good) and the Christians say: The Jews do not follow anything (good) while they recite the (same) Book. Even thus say those who have no knowledge, like to what they say". 

The verse concisely reflects the overall state of confusion and disunity among those claiming to adhere to the same Books. It does not specify the topics of disagreement as these are endless among Jews and Christians; ranging from the most fundamental like God's essence, to the trivial like the genealogical requirements of the end times king messiah, whose nature itself they disagree upon, whether it will be a man or a god-man.

Although linguistically as shown earlier, the Arabic term "al massih" may describe any entity, animate or inanimate, marked for a spiritual purpose, like prophethood as was Jesus' case, the fact the Quran only designates Jesus, among all prophets with that word, shows that the purpose isnt to apply the linguistic, or religious meaning to him, much less the fabricated apocalyptic one. This is concisely stated in 5:75, where the Quran explains that the appellations given to Jesus do not entail anything more than prophethood 

"The messiah, son of Mary, is nothing more than a messenger". 

It would be the same as saying "the king, Jerome, is nothing but a ruler". When the title of "king" is applied to Jerome, it entails nothing more than a ruler.

The Quran never depicts Jesus as identifying himself with that mythical Jewish figure, whose descriptions he does not fulfill anyway. Christians have always been puzzled by the Quran's depiction of Jesus, using a word which they see as loaded with theological implications yet at the same time being completely silent on those concepts. The reality is this omission as well as the various descriptions made of him and his mission throughout the Quran save Jesus from all false concepts and christologies that turned him into another false prophet and false messiah, and worse, from having claimed divinity.

The Quran states, as shown from the angelic announciation to Mary, that "al massih" was (and is still) the name by which others would call him. His enemies used it sarcastically when they claimed to have killed him, although they surely did not believe him to be their messiah. His followers, who eagerly awaited the rise of a messianic savior that would defeat the Romans applied it to him as other contemporary messianic movements did with their own leaders. Anyone, regardless of their religious background, uses it in reference to Jesus today as was the case early on in history. The word became first and foremost his name rather than a title, just as stated in the Quran.

CIRA International trinity dilemma; Who is the Quranic messiah?

In answer to the video "Jesus is The Messiah of The Muslims - Tawhid Dilemma Ep 14"

At the annunciation of Jesus' future birth in 3:45-9,19:16-21 (both suras speak of the same incident while relating different, complementary information) the angels, in a soft and eloquent manner, instead of directly dropping upon Mary the heavy information that she would conceive of a child, tell her that God gives her the good news of a statement from Himself, meaning that what will follow can only be great and positive, that statement being 

"his name is al massih, Isa, son of Mary, honoured in this world and the hereafter, and he is among those brought near".

This delicate introduction, considerate to her emotions, not only made her understand through the designation "son of Mary", that she would be the one bearing the child, but also reassured her, uplifted her because of his lofty descriptions. The 3 appellations given do not necessarily imply that she would refer to him with all 3, and neither does it give a time frame for when each of those names will be used (at birth, during or after his life), rather that these will be names he will be designated by, in full or in part, whether by her or others, at some point in time.

The Quran, as is clear from the above wording, refers to his names, among them al massih. Although originally a title, Christ/massih, when applied to Jesus gradually became equivalent to his proper name, even when preceded by the definite article, and this is undisputed, since the Apostolic age and shortly after his supposed Resurrection, whether in modern or ancient usage, even in secular termminology. This is because the title meant little or nothing to the non-Jews who formed very early on after his death, the bulk of the Jesus movement. The familiar Christos to them, quickly morphed from a title into a name for the godman.

It is even a common last name nowadays, as is the case with "messiah". Although names in most Western languages are rarely preceded by the definite article, it is very common in Semitic languages (as with the Arabic al qurtubi, al ghazali, al hariri, al fayed, al jarrah etc), of which Jesus' Aramaic tongue was part of, to use it before a proper name

"One of the extraordinary features of Paul’s writings is that he uses the word “Christ” almost as though it were a proper name.  As a Jew, Paul knew very well that the word was not a proper name, and that it was the Greek translation of “Messiah”, the Hebrew word meaning “anointed”.  … The character and function of the Messiah were by no means as clearly defined as later Christian re-interpretation of the Jewish texts has led people to believe, but one thing is clear:  the “Messiah” was selected by God to play a particular role in his plans for his chosen people Israel.  It is often suggested that the way in which Paul uses the word “Christ” shows that it had very quickly taken on the character of a name, and that its original meaning had been forgotten.  Strangely, Paul uses the word as a title rather than as a name only once – in Romans 9:5.  Gentiles, it is argued, would not have understood the significance of the word.  Perhaps not, but it is Paul who is writing and he certainly understood its significance!  For the first Christians, who were all Jews, the term would have been full of meaning."  (Morna Hooker – Professor Cambridge).

This means that very early on, it became detached from any theological meaning except within the Christian fold. Al massih was connected to his name, because he had a following that believed, just like with many presumed messiahs, that he would fulfill the requirements laid down in the HB. Because of the anticipation for a salvific figure to come soon, many interpreted his sayings and actions as qualifying him for the potential position. The difference however between Jesus and other messianic claimants, is that his following managed to survive long enough, eventually taking on the pagan institutions and pagan population, perpetuating the association between Jesus and his honorific messianic title in such a forceful way that not only did it become a proper name, but it became the first time that it was used as such upon someone. 

As already noted the story of Jesus as a prophetic figure calling for repentence and Torah observance, issuing eschatological messages, was not a unique one in first-century Judaea. There were other prophetic religious figures from Galilee with a following before their arrest and/or execution by the Romans, among them John the Baptist. What made the Jesus sect stand out was Paul's focus on converting gentiles, preventing it from being just another Jewish sect. Torah observance was abandoned, Jesus became a divine messiah as a result of his necessary death. This is a typical reintepretative process that disillusioned followers of a charismatic leader go through after his passing. This allows them to keep their distinction from the larger group as well as credibility in the face of critics. Had they maintained the same original narrative (Torah observance, awaiting the ushering of the messianic end of times) it would make Jesus' death irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Worse, it would paint him as a failed messiah.

The Quran treats the title "al massih" as a name because it is an objective, historical reality. Further, the verse doesnt only say that his "name" is al massih, it continues with a first name and matronym. It is only then natural to assume, in the absence of explicit indication to the opposite, that the Quran is only refering to a proper name with "al massih/christ" just as "Isa" and "son of Mary" are proper names. As a side note, among the opinions quoted by al Qurtubi 

"And it has been said that al-Maseeh is a proper name for ‘Eesaa which is not derived from anything; that Allah named him with it. So according to this, the name ‘Eesaa can be substituted for al-Maseeh just as ‘him’ and ‘him’ can substituted for one another"

CIRA International trinity dilemma; Jesus rejected for his messianic claims?

In answer to the video "Jesus is The Messiah of The Muslims - Tawhid Dilemma Ep 14"

Jesus was rejected by his fellow Jews, not for claiming to be the promised ruler, who in addition to his functions will be "a" messiah, but because, just like his predecessors Israelite prophets whom they calumnied, rejected, killed, for harshly condemning their straying from their own Books. Jesus in particular was rejected and almost killed for his harsh condemnation of the Jewish elite, their religious hypocrisy. The Quran quotes him as urging them to fear God and obey him in his application of Torah 3:48-50 which they resisted. This is amply demonstrated throughout the NT and the numerous demonstrations by Jesus as to the importance of prioritizing the spiritual dimension of the Law.

There is a reason why plenty evidence exists for Jewish messianic claimants during or just a few years after Jesus, but not 1 concerning a person named Jesus who claimed to be the Davidic king.

There is a reason why the NT authors could not but paint that whole part of Jesus' ministry as some sort of hidden reality, with Jesus telling his followers to keep it to themselves Mk8:29, secretly admitting it to a woman Jn4, and offering differing answers to the high priest's charge against him, either obscuring or confirming the charge of him claiming to be the king messiah Matt26:63-64,Lk22:70,Mk14:62. Yet Jesus himself says

Jn18:20"I have spoken openly to the world..I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret."

"Jesus spoke about this own role reluctantly.  He rarely, if ever, referred explicitly to himself as Messiah.  On the other hand, so many aspects of his actions and teachings were “messianic” in a broad sense that we can understand how his followers claimed soon after Easter that Jesus was the promised Messiah."(Graham Stanton – Professor Cambridge).

The appeal to secrecy is one of the devices needed to paint the Jesus of the NT as a success rather than failure. His disillusioned followers and converts wanted him to be more than another prophet calling out the Jews for their transgressions and who was defeated by his enemies. The only thing higher in rank in Jewish scriptures is the awaited end times davidic king who shall fulfill well known criteria and usher the utopian Kingdom of God. But Jesus did not fit the role prior to his crucifixion, he had to do it a little later, within the generation of the disciples at his cataclysmic return and forcefully establish the kingdom of God. The prophecy failed of course and further reinterpretations were needed. The kingdom of God became a spiritual thing, with its associated Christologies and Pauline concepts. The writers however did not know the prediction they put in Jesus' mouth would eventually fail. They still expected it to happen, and so had no choice but to paint the plot as a secret because the Romans were on the lookout for any rebel leader. If, as Christians nowadays claim, the kingdom of God was something else all along then Jesus' job is done; he wouldnt need to come back so as to violently establish what the Jews and his disciples anticipated, and the Romans feared. If Jesus' kingdom of God had nothing to do with what everyone (including his disciples) understood and anticipated, then he did not need to fear the Romans either and be secretive about his operation. The Romans would have allowed this Jewish sect and their spiritual kingdom of God to flourish so as to supplant the rebellious messianic HB ideology of world dominance which every 1st century Jew expected, and still does till this day. Further, even by Christian standards, none of what Jesus did, or was done to him, brought about "victory over sin and death". These are still plenty, even among sincere Trinitarians. Anyway one turns it, the contrived NT narrative paints Jesus as a false prophet and false messiah. This is  worse to those that love and follow him, than the Quran's proposition. Christians are always taken aback by the purpose the Quran gives to Jesus. Being "just a prophet" is to them a degrading proposition, not only in light of Paul's christologies, but because in the biblical paradigm, "just a prophet" carries with it a paradigm of sinfulness. Yet here again, Islam untangles the distortions of past scriptures, as it paints prophets as the highest spiritual potential humans can achieve, the most sublime examples of morality and the highest legal and spiritual authorities.

In light of these historical realities, and the fact that the end times messianic figure did not materialize in Jesus, that it appeared to many that he was murdered, those who nevertheless believed him to fit the messianic role could not but paint this aspect of his life in "purposeful" obscurity, as explained earlier. His death/failure became his self-predicted success, purposefully orchestrated, in fulfilment of ancient prophecies retrospectively applied to him, or rather misapplied to anyone familiar with the HB. The whole NT is a poorly written apology of a new concept of the end times king messiah, as here stated

 Jn20:31"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name". 

Matt12:15-21 attempts to show that Jesus' appeal to secrecy was in fulfilment of Isa42:1-4, a passage that only relates to what Matthew infers by the most farfetched analogy. He implies that by the vast majority of Israel's being purposefully denied access to the truth, the Gentiles instead will be saved. But for these gentiles to have access to this truth after Jesus' death, there had to be a select few who would understand the secret scheme. The plot was supposedly achieved through obscured parables only his disciples would understand Mk4:11-12,Matt13:13-15 yet we many times read throughout the NT how his closest followers who supposedly were among those select few at least struggled in comprehending him if not completely misunderstood him. In fact towards the end of Jesus' mission people in general and his closest entourage had no clue about his messiahship, to the point that when Simon identifies him as the messiah, Jesus tells him that he could only have received that information in a supernatural way Matt16. 

The simple reason is that the historical Jesus did not go around claiming to fulfil the messianic predictions of the HB. The claim was later made for him. If he did, people would have laughed their lungs off, including the Romans. The Gospel writers, writing at least 50 years after the events knew that what Jesus accomplished had nothing to do with the highly anticipated establishment of the kingdom of God. They were thus left with no option other than painting the whole matter as they did.

The Jewish people were thus divinely blinded for that purpose, at least temporarily as stated in

 Rom11:11"I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous". 

As if God could not provide salvation for both Jew and Gentile without deliberately withholding knowledge so that only some Jews are saved.

When Jesus was apprehended and judged by the Romans, with the complicity of the Jewish leaders who wanted to get rid of him for his denouncing their sins as past prophets did, he did not claim to be the king messiah, neither to the Jews who were seeking a pretext to make him arrested, pressing the question to have him confess Matt26:63-64,Mk14:62,Lk22:70 nor in front of the authorities, who eventually sent him to be crucified. By doing so, and acceding to the request of the Jews, the romans validated the Jewish charge against him of messianic kingship which is punishable by death under state laws. Now that Jesus and his band became official outlaws wanted by the state, his close apostles are reported to have fled with Peter even denying he knew Jesus 3 times. The Romans, lobbied by their Jewish stooges, deemed the allegation against him enough for him to be crucified. This punishment was most often reserved to those who threatened the political status quo, regardless of their background motives (religious or else). Jesus' enemies painted him as one whom the Romans would typically go after in those days, a charismatic leader who proclaimed a kingdom "with God" not "with Caesar" at its head was seen as an immediate threat. The person didnt even have to present a violent danger to be inflicted with such punishment, nor tangible evidence, especially a non-Roman citizen or a slave. Simple suspicion, in this case instigated by their Jewish minions, was enough to trigger the authorities. 

As to Pontius Pilate washing his hands of the decision to execute a political agitator, a man known for his brutality against his subjects, is obviously a scribal corruption with an agenda. The Greeks were writing the Gospels after the Roman legions had returned to crush the Jewish rebellion of 66CE and did not want to antagonize Roman power and attract their hostility at that point in time. What is interesting to add is that, contrary to similar cases where accomplices would be tracked down and killed to crush a potential rebellion, the Romans left Jesus' disciples to freely preach their gospel. This shows that, as said above, Jesus was seen as inconsequential in terms of posing a violent threat, that the savage Roman police would easily be triggered on simple basis of suspicion and that they would readily accommodate their local puppets to safeguard their own dominion in the distant regions of the empire.

As far as the matronym "son of Mary" (others in the Bible were referred to with matronyms such as Shamgar son of Anath), it isnt a known name in the Christian world, while it is in the Muslim world. The Gospel writers had no interest in tracing Jesus' genealogy through Mary since it goes against Jewish law. Secondly, their object was to fulfill the HB's tribal requirements for the messiah. To that end they invented 2 (conflicting) genealogies through an adoptive father, Joseph. Jesus was thus described with the patronym "son of Joseph". In the process, they made flaws in both genealogies cancelling any legitimate claims to the throne of the King Messiah (see the Jeconia curse, among other blunders).

The Quranic matronym "son of Mary" carried several deep implications, besides being simply an appellation. In 3:45 the angels give Mary the news that she will soon conceive of a child. This information in itself doesnt indicate anything special, unless it was given to a barren old lady with an equally barren old husband, as in Sara's case who was consequently incredulous at the angelic declaration 11:71-3. Mary would have naturally understood she would conceive in a normal way and there wouldnt have been any reason for her to be surprised at the news 3:47,19:20-1. But by adding the information that the future child will be named "son of Mary", among other names, the angels were telling her he would be born without the agency of a father, in a miraculous way. In semitic tradition a person was identified by the father's name so nothing could have been more striking in the psyche of a woman of the time to be told that her son will not be identified by his affiliation to a male, but to a woman.

This miraculous conception is a sign not only Jesus would be known by, but also his mother and the name "son of Mary" implies exactly that; she would jointly share this sign with him forever as both of their names will be mentionned together

23:50,21:91"and made her and her son a sign for the worlds".

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. So from a Quranic perspective, that miracle equally sets Mary and Jesus appart from humanity. Before discussing the implications of this sign, it is worthwile noting that by honoring Mary in such a way and joining her name to that of one of the most illustrious individuals to have walked the earth, God has defeated in His final revelation and until the resurrection, the slanderous talk of some among her contemporaries and those that followed, who wanted to put a stain on her and abase her.

As regards the sign, it consists in demonstrating how the resurrection of bodies isnt a difficult task to God. We deem it impossible for a female to give life without the necessary biological process yet God did it, so just as He easily creates life in conditions we think are impossible then similarily He is able to bring the dead back to life even if the conditions make it unfeasable from our perspective. The rejection of the concept of resurrection by many Jews of the time adds to the relevancy of that miracle.

One can even argue that Jesus was given the greatest evidence for resurrection among God's prophets who all equally stressed the importance of that tenet to their people. This is because Jesus is the only explicit case in the prophetic history where a human's birth did not result from mating. The Quran doesnt even state that Adam was born in such a way, ie that he was not the result of sexual reproduction.

Other miraculous births are recorded in the Quran, including around the time of Jesus as was the case for the prophet John/Yahya. But they primarily served the purpose of a reward and were not meant to be disclosed and shared openly other than within the circle of the people concerned. Jesus' birth not only was different than all others in its prominence because as already said, intercourse between a man and a woman did not even precede it, but also because it was primarily meant as a sign for all of humanity.

As a testimony to this, the Quran uses a linguistic subtelty, showing again and again how it uses words surgically in order to maximize the impact. There is a slight different wording between God's answer to Mary

3:47"Even so Allah creates what he pleases"

and to Zakariya

3:40"Even so does Allah whatsoever He pleases".

The nuance -creates vs does- lies in that the miracle of a child born of a virgin is definately more striking than a child born to a couple, even if barren. It must be kept in mind the Quran was recited in the form of speech, publicly and instantly as it came to the prophet, with no chance a re-editing and modifying, and the 2 verses are very closely located. How would one, let alone a known illiterate without any background in poetry or any form of oral eloquent speeches, instantly and naturally make such a distinction in a flowing discourse?

Apostate prophet seeks the true God; should He be feared?

In answer to the video "How Allah Got His Name Wrong (Islam Debunked)"

The fear, awe and reverence to God is so deeply rooted in the teachings of Judaism that they may not pronounce what they have construed as His actual proper name

Deut28:58"fear this glorious and awesome name, the Lord, your God".

God Himself, throughout the HB, does not identify any word as His unique, proper name. It is the Jews that have identified these 4 consonantal letters YHWH (the Tetragammaton) as such. The instruction to fear the name YHWH creates difficulties within the text and its interpretation. For example HaShem, Elohim or Adonai replace these 4 consonants whenever they appear in the text. When describing the sacred Ark of the Jews, and speaking of the inscription on it representing these 4 letters, the author of 2Sam6:2 refers to "the name" so as to avoid pronouncing the word.

The biblical instruction of making God's name known to the world is reinterpreted in the sense of making His fame, reputation known. Knowing "about" God is achieved by showing the manner in which His attributes manifested in the world and throughout history. The text however shows that the name was known in ancient times, without any restrictions Gen4:1, just as was the case in the times of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Gen15:7,17:1,22:14,28:3,13,35:11. 

Later however, due to the high awe, and reverence towards the name, the priests forbade the laymen from uttering it, and preserved it among their own descendants. This of course is an unfounded traditional claim, since nobody today can claim to known the correct spelling of the 4 letters, even among those who trace their lineage to the priestly clan. Legend says that the mystery shrouding the correct spelling of the name will continue until the Messianic era where the 4 consonants will be made known to all, and without any restriction.

In addition to due reverence, there are other pragmatic reasons to avoid pronouncing the 4 letters. It only consists of consonants, which can only result in an incorrect pronunciation to anyone who tries. There is nothing more insulting than mispronouncing someone's name, let alone one used for God. 

The pronunciation "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" is based on that used by some of the Church Fathers but even among biblical scholars there is no certainty at all in this matter which is why most prefer to render it simply as YHWH without the vowels. In fact the pronunciation "Yahweh" is a Christians blunder, who took the vowelization which Jews use for ADNY (The aleph has the vowel "ah", the daled has "o", the nun has "ah" and it ends with a yud = AhDoNahY) and applied it to YHWH (They gave the first "ah" to the Y, then the "o" to the H, and finally the last "ah" to the letter vav = YaHoVah, regularly pronounced Yahweh or Jehovah).

Seeing God's name as so sacred that it shouldn't be mentioned is condemned as a great injustice in the Quran 2:114. The remembrance of God, praising Him by His name and attributes is an important part of a worshiper's rituals, continuously commanded in the Quran

87:1"Glorify the name of your Lord, the Most High".

See here how the Quran immediately corrects and elevates Judaism's defective monotheism.

Another forceful way the Quran does so is when it revisits the events at the "burning bush". In the Quran God reveals Himself to Moses, with words evoking universal, indiscriminate Lordship, words which Moses would later communicate throughout his prophetic career whether in his confrontation with the Egyptian elite, or the Israelites; He is the One Lord besides Whom there are none, the Lord of all worlds/aalamin, a word encompassing in its meaning all human beings in all ages. He will gather and judge every soul indiscriminately based on its individual merit 20:12-16,28:30. The version of the HB again reveals the deep inclination pervasive throughout the Jewish writings, for monolatry and its depiction of an ethno-centered tribal deity

Ex3:6"I am the God of your Father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob".

In another context, when the Queen of Sheba at last opened her eyes and heart, she said

27:44"My Lord i have been inflicting much wrong on myself. Now I submit myself with Solomon to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds".

In the racially prejudiced and monolatrous mindset of the scribes of the HB, this queen who had nevertheless recognized Solomon's wisdom, who had left her land, abasing herself to come and seek knowledge from another king, recognized and blessed the ethno-centric "Lord your God" and His "eternal love for Israel", but inexplicably remained a heathen 1Kings10. After all, you do not want some far away nation to come and claim their rights in the land as part of the "chosen race". The NT in Lk11 similarly doesnt indicate whether she eventually abandoned her polytheistic ways, but hints at her being higher in righteousness than the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus. It is also interesting how in the Biblical account, she praises the tribal "Lord your God" while in the Quran she submits herself, together with Solomon, to one and the same God, Lord of all worlds.

This is the consistent Quran pattern of exposing and correcting the manipulations of the scriptures of the past. 

Similarly, in contrast to Ex34:14 neither did Moses report God's name as "the jealous One" nor did he call Him a jealous God (in Numbers 5:14 the same word is used for human jealousy between spouses). Moses instead said that

14:8"if you disbelieve, you and whoever (is) in the earth together, then indeed, God is Self-sufficient, Praiseworthy".

God is Omnipotent and is not in any need of His servants or their worship. This is a major Quranic theme, again in contrast with the pervasive Biblical depiction of God as the jealous husband, going after a treacherous Israelite bride that prostitutes itself to other gods. The Quran makes it clear, it is His servants that need Him. Therefore, He has absolutely no requirement to be jealous. Further, all beautiful and best names belong to Him

7:180,20:8"Allah, there is not god but He. His are the very best names".

The best name is one that possesses the pure and sheer reality of perfection without any mix of its opposite. For example life without death or dominance without defeat

17:110"Call upon Allah or call upon the Beneficient, whichever you call upon, He has the best names".

"HE" refers to the divine Essence, which is not restricted to any name, like Allah or al Rahman/the Beneficient, so long as such a name is the most superior and perfect like the 2 names given in the verse to illustrate -Allah, and al Rahman/the Beneficient-. Also, each and every one of those names refers exclusively to the same Divine Essence. Whether the Essence is addressed as Allah, al Rahman, al Athim, al Ghafur etc. it is still one and the same Being worthy of worship that is being called upon. This is how the Quran intricately and comprehensively restores mankind's original monotheism.

dontconvert2islam tries textual criticism, different readings = different Quran?

In answer to the video "Proof The Quran Is Corrupted! Conflicting Textual Variants (Part 1)"

This youtuber, like many people who have not studied much about Islam yet attempt to draw hasty conclusions, does not know what is a qiraa. 

The early Quranic script was very basic, devoid of vowels and diacritical marks. It only consisted of the skeletal consonants. This was suitable for the memorizers. They knew, through oral transmission the correct pronounciation of each word. Others however werent orally introduced to the Quran, and in addition spoke different dialects. They found great difficulty if they opened the Book and tried to read from such basic script for the first time. The Hebrew Bible was similarly only punctualized in the 9th century CE, hundreds of years after it is believed to have been written, to help the person less familiar with Hebrew. 

This basic Quranic script was meant to keep it locked in its original double security system, textual/oral. Any one trying to bypass the established oral tradition and recite or read the Quran on his own would instantly be detected. Just as happens nowadays with critics trying to approach that basic script and suggest multiple possible readings, thinking they are discrediting it while they are in fact confirming the very purpose of those that compiled the Quran in this manner. The kind of recital and textual variants we see, either in the ancient manuscripts or as reported in Quran comentaries, testify to the early fixation of the text. Had the transmission only been oral there would have been variants the likes we have in the hadith literature when the earliest ahadith were strictly passed on orally for many decades prior to being written. This original, defective script of the Quran implies that written copies were only intended as memory aid. This is all the more true if one considers that the Arabic script had already stabilized even prior to Islam, and that Arabs already used diacritical marks. Yet the first official copies did not.

A qiraa is a mode of recitation. A recitation is orally transmitted by one reciter to the next going back to the prophet himself. That is why the fame and spread of a qiraa is in itself testimony of its authenticity and the less it is used the more its legitimacy can be questionned. One cannot create a recital in a vacuum and impose it on the masses, passing it off as authentically received from the prophet. This has never hapenned and never will. The process by which a particular recitation imposed itself was gradual, as it was transmitted from teacher to student. Had there been other mass transmitted qiraat than the 10, it would have been inevitably known. Their spread and use among the Muslims in itself would have provided a major argument for their authenticity, as with the 10.

Sometimes one and the same teacher reciter, taught a different qiraa to a different student. That is nothing new contrary to that youtuber's pompous tone.

Hafs quoted Aasim as saying that the qiraa he taught him was that of as-Sulami, from Ali ibn Abi Talib, from the prophet, while the one that he taught his other main student Shu'ba, was that of Zirr ibn Hubaysh, from ibn Mas’ud, from the prophet. That is why we find that, Shu’ba and Hafs, who studied under the same reciter Aasim, differed from each other in around forty places.

The differences between the 10 readings lie in the manner in which the basic Uthmanic text (absence of vowels and dots) was read. This formidable flexibility of the text allows for people of all cultural-linguistic backgrounds to choose which Quranic Arabic is easier for them to pronounce. As stated earlier, besides the purpose of protecting the text from corruption by locking it with the oral tradition, the defective script allowed the preservation and integration of most authentic readings into the Uthmanic mushaf. Other authentic readings which modified the skeletal text could not be accommodated and thus people progressively ceased reciting them. This is a iew shared by al Dani, Ibn al Arabi, Ibn Taymiyya, and Ibn al Jazari.

These readings are preserved till this day, the names of the most prominent teachers, and their illustrous students, eachone reciting exactly as his predecessor taught him. The name given to a particular qira'a/reading was after its most excellent or famous reciter, not necessarily after the one that first transmitted it from the prophet. The various readings, all of which are based on the very same text, are actually an integral part of the Quran's miraculous eloquence, with words carrying multiple but complementary meanings whether in areas of story-telling, beliefs or even divine laws.

What is further remarkable is that there are "only" 10 readings while the basic script allows for many times more reading possibilities, with all of them making sense. This in itself is enough to dispel the notion that the 10 qiraat were due to a defective arabic script, rather than inherited by the oral tradition we already know to exist and is well attested. An evident example to corroborate is that of the skeletal m-l-k in surah fatiha read maalik or malik. The word appears in several other places where both reading could equally be applied yet the only place with divergent readings is sura fatiha. This is because the readers were not free to apply their preferences, they were constrained by the sunna of the qiraat. The Sanaa manuscripts have since confirmed this tradition on the qira'at.

(Nicolai Sinai)"Thus, the Sanaa Palimpsest would appear to provide us with an exciting glimpse at a moment in time at which the hegemony of the Quran’s standard rasm had not yet become fully established. This, it must be said, is in line with the general drift of the Islamic tradition, which reports that during the first decades after Muḥammad’s death a variety of quranic recensions were in circulation. Although none of the exact “companion codices” described by Islamic sources have yet been discovered in manuscript, the general types of textual variants ascribed to them correspond to the types of variants found in the lower layer of the Sanaa Palimpsest. 17 The latter thus lends credence to the idea that there was originally more than one recension of the Quran and that the Islamic literary sources preserve a broadly accurate view of the scale and character of textual variance between these different versions of the Arabic scripture".

Among the aspects of the known variant readings confirmed by the most recent scholarly observations is the phenomenon of qira'at tafsiriyya/exegetical recitation. According to Hilali’s general characterization,

“[m]ost of the variations in the lower text include more lengthy text than the corresponding passages in the Cairo edition”.

This has led the major works of Hilali and Sadeghi to conclude that

"the lower text of the palimpsest is derivative from the standard recension".

Hilali further reflects exactly what the Muslim authorities have stated concerning the shaad qiraat. She opines that the authors of the palimpsest integrated interpretative passages into the text without clearly demarcating the 2 because they did not consider their writings to be transmitted to the general public. Their works were meant for personal use. Ibn al Jazari says that some companions would

“insert exegesis into recitation by way of explanation and clarification because they were endeavoring to ascertain the true meaning of what they received from the Prophet by way of recitation; they were safe from confusion [between the text of scripture and the explanations added to it], but some of them may have written it [the explanations] down together with it [the recitation].”

These Recitations were accomodating to the major dialects of the Arabs, thus leading to unifying the Arabic language, and validating all of its variations and subtleties. This not only allowed a faster spread of Islam but also solidified and preserved the language, as part of the divine pledge to protect the Quran. Had there not been approved recital variations, going back to the prophet's time himself, it would have opened the door to tampering with the text to adapt it to different dialects. It would have corrupted the meaning of the text. As time passed, the phenomenon of fame and spread of one religious, political center instead of another led in the Muslim world, movement of students and teachers led to some qiraat being supplanted by others more popular ones. Today the one most spread is that of Aasim through Hafs. 

There are several examples, among them the known case of m-l-k in sura fatiha that can be read maalik/possessor or malik/ruler. It might say in the Hafs reading of

2:271 "If you give alms...yukaffir/this will cover up some of your evil deeds"

while the Doori reading is

"If you give alms...nukaffir/We will cover up some of your evil deeds".

Both readings perfectly complete eachother, with the latter saying Who will provide the covering (God) and the former saying through which action (charity). 9:66 is very similar with Hafs saying

"If we pardon/naafu a group of you we shall punish/nuaadhib another group"

while Doori says

"If a group of you is pardonned/yuaafa another group will get punished/tuaadhab".

Doori explains what the contrasting behaviors spoken of in the passage will result in (a group will be pardonned while another will be punished) and the Hafs says Who will grant forgiveness or inflict punishment. Another similar complementary example is 2:10 in Hafs

"a painful chastisement in what they lied/yakthibun"

while in Doori it is

"a painful chastisement in what yukathibun/they gave the lie/they made a lie".

Both readings come together and reveal that their lie is twofold, consisting in knowingly misrepresenting something that is true. One can give the lie to someone or something by exposing the truth about it, which is commendable. One the other hand one might give the lie to someone/something by inventing a falsehood about him/it, which is a twofold crime deserving punishment. Again in 6:115 Hafs

"And the word/kalimatu of your Lord has been accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words"

while Doori reads

"And the words/kalimaatu of your Lord have been accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words".

The singular kalima refers to God's word in the sense of his promise as amply used in the Quran while the use of the plural kalimaat in the Doori reading reveal that this promise is none other than the words of this book. A last example to corroborate is 43:23 Hafs

"He said/qaala: What! even if I bring to you a better guide than that on which you found your fathers?"

While Doori reads

"Say/qul: What! even if I bring to you a better guide than that on which you found your fathers?".

Hafs is quoting a prophet, but Doori explains that the words of this prophet were directly inspired by God.

Yes, the Quran is truly a miracle of deep, meaningful eloquence that has not finished unraveling its intricacies.

Apostate prophet in search of God; what is the divine name?

In answer to the video "How Allah Got His Name Wrong (Islam Debunked)"

Allah is the only true deity 2:255,23:116-117,37:95-96,59:22-24,112:1-4. As already shown, He can be named by absolutely any name, so long as it is the "best of names", which includes among others, Allah. He isnt restricted to any name or any number of names and all the scholars agree that Allah's names are unlimited so long as they are the best. 

There is a prayer by the prophet in which he calls upon Allah by the name He has chosen to reveal to mankind, and those He kept in the unseen 

"I ask You by every name belonging to You which You named Yourself with, or revealed in Your Book, or You taught to any of Your creation, or You have preserved in the knowledge of the unseen with You..".

99 out of these names are special in the way they affect our existence. When the prophet urged the people to pay heed to those names, he said those who ahsaa ha/assimilates and applies them -not merely memorize them, see Quran 18:12- in the worship and in everyday life is deserving of a great reward. These Divine Names, which punctuate so many Quran verses inform us about the moral quality that human beings must strive to embody. The believer becomes a vessel of mercy, justice, etc. Naming Allah doesnt imply knowing Allah, or encompassing Him, or giving Him a similitude. Humans exist, but nothing like Allah, who ever-exists. Anyone has experienced mercy or existence, but not to perfection and infinity. The names of Allah dont describe the reality of His attributes, but tell us that He possesses a particular attribute to perfection. To clarify further, the name "all merciful" doesnt describe the reality, the essence of Allah's infinite mercy. It tells us that He possesses the concept of mercy, which we have experience of, to perfection, which we cannot fathom.

To limit God's names would be in effect a restriction on His majesty and God can never be contained, neither physically nor linguistically

17:110"Call upon Allah or call upon, Al-Rahman; whichever you call upon, He has the best names".

The most obvious of these attributes is His attribute of Rahma, or mercy.  Al rahman is the most intensive form of rahma. This is because Allah is the most merciful and this is why the attribute of mercy is the only one said to be "written" upon God

6:12,54"your Lord has written mercy on Himself".

Rahman stems from R-H-M meaning WOMB. In order to imagine the implication of the meaning, one has to picture the womb and what it does to the fetus. It nurtures, protects, provides warmth, love etc. The Hebrew equivalent of "rhm", is also found in the Hebrew Bible Deut4:31,Ps86:15 again to stress an important attribute of God from a human perspective. Many Christian and Jewish South-Arabian pre-Islamic inscriptions refer to God with Rahmanan. It is also important to mention that the pagans never referred to any of their deities with Rahmanan and in fact when they were told to

25:60"Prostrate to al-Rahman! they say: And what is al-Rahman? Are we to prostrate to whatever thou biddest us? And it increaseth aversion in them".

It is interesting noting how God, in answer to the derogatory demand to know "what" al rahman is, after giving a glimpse of His identity through the observable mercy pervasive in His creation, cites His servants as being the worldly ambassadors reflecting that attribute of mercy, physically and spiritually sincere and humble, benevolent towards their fellow men, patiently forbearing especially when confronted by the ignorant 25:60-77.

This tone was obviously derogatory, the pagans knew that this term was specifically used by the monotheistic religions so they did not want to give the impression of having forsaken their polytheism and aligned themselves with them. 

The word ALLAH was used since pre-islamic times, by the Hanif, the Arab polytheists, and both Arab Jews and Christians. The verse 22:40 states that all people in whose temples Allah's name is mentionned, were encouraged to stand up and defend their sites and rights to worship in them, including churches and synagogues. 

Elsewhere we read how the pagans recognized Allah as the supreme Creator despite having associated interceding deities to Him 29:60-65,46:28,39:3. The difference between each group however lies in the attributes they give Him and the manner they describe His interaction with the universe. That is why the Quran in sura kafirun does not negate who/man the disbelievers worship, rather what/ma 

109:2"You do not serve what I serve". 

The characteristics of the "Allah" of each group are different. What Muslims worship is not the deity of a chosen race, does not rest or slumber after creation, nor enters it. He does not have sons and daughters, nor a consort, and He did not detach Himself from creation after giving it the initial push. More descriptive points can be enumerated showing the monotheistic deficiency of every thought system claiming to worship One Creator with a common name, in contrast to Islam's supreme tawhid. The word "Allah" in itself however, "Who" is meant by it, is not exclusive to Islam. 

Up to this day, Arab Jews refer to God as "Allah". The Torah prohibits Jews from pronouncing another god's name

Ex23:13"and the name of the gods of others you shall not mention; it shall not be heard through your mouth".

If Allah was a name unknown to them and the name of another God that the unpronouncable Tetragammaton, they would have never repeated it, much less in prayer. A Jew can even go as far as praying inside a mosque but is forbidden of entering a church under any circumstances. The Arabic "Allah" could thus simply be the contraction of al ilah/the God. The word was so persistently and exclusively used to describe the supreme God that stood above the hundreds of interceding deities that it gradually became equivalent to His proper name among the Arabs, whether the pagans, the hanif, the Jews or Christians.

Apostate prophet finds the true YHWH; Allah is the biblical God?

In answer to the video "How Allah Got His Name Wrong (Islam Debunked)"

YHWH, instead of being God's unique, proper name is one of Allah's best names, describing one of His perfect attributes, like al Rahman and endless others, although its correct pronunciation is now forgotten. What strongly corroborates this is that the HB states in Ex6:2-3 that the patriarchs did not known God by the name of YHWH. Yet, as stated earlier, we do read throughout Genesis that from the first humans, down to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, all knew the name YHWH. 

The way this contradiction is harmonized is by saying that, although previous people knew the name, they did not know its meaning. In Western languages, a name is a label of identification. In Semitic languages, shem (Hebrew) or ism (Arabic) is meant to reveal something of the essence of the entity. Hence the non-exhaustive "names" of Allah given in the Quran and traditions, each evoking an aspect by which His essence manifests. To further corroborate that what is traditionally construed as a mere label of identification of God in Hebrew, is in fact a description of one of God's attributes is seen in 

Ex3:13-14"And Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'" 

God here doesnt answer Moses' question with a word, but with a definition, an expression entailing eternity past and future. That notion is found in many Quranic passages 2:255,3:2,28:88,40:65,57:3,55:27. Once God clearly defined the meaning of the label by which Moses was to identify Him, He finally spelled out His "shem" 

v15"And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'YHWH elohe/the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation". 

Moses is thus told to make God known to the Israelites by a label which in the Hebrew language denotes eternity YHWH ELOHE. The Quran conveys in Arabic the same meaning with ALLAHU SAMAD, which Muslims recite in their daily prayers. The traditions also list ALBAQI among the names of Allah, denoting everlastingness. Similarly in the Greek of the New Testament, we find the phrase aioniou theou/the eternal God Rom16:26. Just like the Arabic Quran, the Greek of the New Testament doesnt use the Hebrew tetragammaton YHWH. Nobody will claim that the God John and Jesus spoke of in the NT is other than the God of Moses in the Torah. Writing the tetragammaton is allowed in Jewish tradition, as is done throughout the HB. It is the vowelization and attempted pronunciation that are forbidden. Further, no passage within the NT hints at an awareness of the prohibition to utter the tetragammaton. The NT goes as far as saying that Jesus' name is greater than all names Phil2:9.

We even read that just as Allah was known prior to Islam, the Semitic tribes inhabiting the land of Canaan much earlier than the Israelites also knew YHWH. The very reason, per the Torah, For God deciding to uproot and exterminate those nations, then settling the Israelites instead, was not because of the Abrahamic covenant, but because these nations had become sinners, unworthy to reside in a land previously declared sacred Gen15:16,Deut9,1Sam4:7. The Canaanite were relatives of the Israelites. They were Abrahamic descendants, such as the Moabites descendants of Lot and Edomites whose father is Esau. 

There is no reason to assume that these Abrahamic tribes did not emulate their common forefather by worshiping YHWH. But as the generations passed they corrupted that worship until God sent another Abrahamic branch, the Israelites, to uproot and replace them. Similarily Jethro was a Midianite-Kenite. Midian was the son of Abraham, and Kenite in reference to Adam's son, Cain whose descendants lived among all the people of the Levant. Jethro was thus a non Israelite semite, descendant of Abraham, who had kept the Abrahamic legacy. He proclaims to Moses that YHWH is greater than all false deities Ex18:7-12. 

It is known that Hebrew, like Arabic, as semitic languages have triliteral roots for every word.
With their succesive displacement, assimiliation, loss of culture and language, the Israelites lost one of the 3 stem letters, forcing their linguists to reach the correct view regarding a Hebrew word in light of its usage in the Arabic. Among all Semitic languages, Arabic is known to be the best preserved. Obeid (2009), in his study of the pronunciation of Arabic and Hebrew, inferred that “Arabic is closer to Proto-Semitic language with average 83.67%, and for Hebrew it is 43.36%. And both (Arabic and Hebrew) are incompatible with Proto-Semitic language with average 10.71%”.

The original phonological inventory of Semitic languages (consonants and vowels) has been preserved most fully in Classical Arabic and Old South Arabian languages. This is attested through inscriptions discovered mostly in present-day Yemen and dated to the 1st millennium BCE and the early 1st millennium CE. The loss of the triliteral roots of many words led the Hebrew liguists that could not find one of the lost stem letter to a word, to argue that certain Hebrew words are in fact biliteral, or even monoliteral. This created complications as regards the principles of conjugation of verbs. 

It wasnt until the 10th century that a Jewish Arabic grammarian, David Hayyuj, transposed his knowledge of Arabic grammar, to the convoluted Hebrew grammar, in order to clarify many aspects of the language. The influence of Arabic grammar, which primarily finds its source in the study of the Quran, on Hebrew grammar is such that Hayyuj is said to have become the founder of the scientific study of the discipline of Hebrew grammar. In fact his first works were written in Arabic and the technical terms still employed in current Hebrew grammars are most of them simply translations of the Arabic terms employed by Hayyuj. The Masoretic text didnt even start adding vocalization prior to his works, a crucial step in narrowing down the pronounciation and meaning of the consonantal text. Vocalization maybe transmitted by the oral tradition. But in the case of Hebrew, that oral tradition deteriorated and the language lost its archaic form, mainly due to their hellenization as they lived under Greco-Roman culture. They in addition didnt have a vocalized religious scripture to help in ascertaining the original pronouciation of certain words. Arabic grammar was thus crucial for the Jewish interpretation of their own scriptures.