4:23-24 expands on the categories of women that are illegal for intimate relations however it makes an exception for already married Ma Malakat aymanikum. In case a married woman embraces Islam and then decides to desert her non-Muslim husband (only for the sake of her new faith) seeking shelter in a Muslim area. If after examination she is believed to be sincere in her faith then she cannot be turned back to her previous home, not only for safety reasons but also because -in the case her husband is an idolator- her new faith has made unlawful intermarriages with idolaters 2:221.
A Muslim man may take her under his wing in his household, thus making her his mulk yamin. They become legal for eachother and if they wish to marry, they may only do so after payment of the dower to her initial husband thus definitely annulling the previous marriage ties 60:10. Notice here the justice in the Quran where it first encourages Muslims to pay what is due to the opposite party with whom one is at war, regardless of potentially these enemies not reciprocating with the Muslims in the same situation. 60:11 then discusses that eventuality and says that should it occur, then for the next cases, a disbelieving husband will only be compensated proportionally to what his predecessor unfairly compensated the Muslim camp. By first encouraging indiscriminate justice, and then justice by deterrence, the Quran skilfully equalizes the balance of justice even in times of war.
The other case of a married woman becoming lawful to a Muslim is that of a former married war prisoner. Once the threat of war was over, the defeated enemy and their belongings brought at the battlefield were confiscated, including their women which per their customs they used to unjustly drag with them as a means by which they were emboldened to fight. They now fell under Muslim custody, as a punishment and lesson to those who do not value their own, including a lesson to these very women.
When they were integrated into the fabric of society, taken in a Muslim household and made to benefit from the strict regulations as regards right hand possessions, which includes being kind and caring with them as one would be with the remaining members of the family, these women learned that Islam gave them, even in such conditions, a value they could never have hoped for in their own communities. Their surviving husbands that in fact do not deserve to be married to them in the first place, are only hurt in their male "pride". They didnt love these women, who would treat a wife in such way, bring her to the battlefield as a motivation not to surrender? Even then, they learn that wives, and women in general, do have a value seeing how Muslims treat the wives of their enemies.
There were also cases of wars where Muslims were on the offensive, and after defeating the enemy, seized the property and families of the combatants. When a Muslim guardian takes into his home such women war captives, making them his right hand possessions, their former marriage is dissolved. After a waiting period until one menstrual cycle is cleared, she becomes sexually lawful to him. This in no way entails forced sex. There are no such recorded cases in history and if anything, whenever a case of mistreated and abused person was brought to the prophet, he condemned such a behavior, especially when the victims were women and slaves. The guardian may in that case either keep her in his household and stop insisting or send her away from his household by ransoming her against benefits of any kinds to her former camp, if anyone among her own people desires taking her back. For example upon the conquest of Khaybar, Safiyya fell under the prophet's possession. He offered her to return to her own people, or be freed and married to him and she chose the latter.
The social contract between a guardian and his right hand possession is exclusive to them both, legalizing and regulating sexual activity as would be in a marriage contract and its accompanying responsibilities of maintenance and good treatment.
Here this youtuber is trying to mix up several issues and i will address them all.
Firstly as regards to the incident of Awtas.
In 8/630, 15 days after the conquest of Mecca, news came that the tribe of Hawazin allied with that of Thaqif with the purpose of launching a large assault on the Muslims in Mecca. The Messenger of God then immediately remobilized the 10000 men that had entered Mecca with him, in addition to 2000 men from the new Quraysh converts, including Abu Sufyan. The Hawazin were led by the old Durayd for his wise counseling and the fierce Ibn Awf who was so eager to finish the Muslims that he brought each of his soldier's women, children and wealth to the battle in order to stir them up and never retreat. The Muslims reached the valley of Hunayn by night where they got ambushed by a surprise attack from Ibn Awf jut before dawn, first with arrows and then with a general charge. Muslims had no choice but retreat and Muhammad moved to the right, protected by 9 horsemen. Ibn Awf rushed to the Prophet killing one of his guards, then spurred his horse on, but it would not advance. Others similarly charged against the prophet, taking advantage of that apparent moment of vulnerability, in order to avenge their past defeats and deaths at the hands of Muslims, but all suffered similar, unexplainable phenomenons. Muhammad then dismounted his mule, prayed Allah to grant him the promised victory and cursed the unbelievers, called back his retreating Companions with the help of Al Abbas' deep, far reaching voice and summoned them to fight. The Muslims regrouped and took control of the battlefield chasing away their enemies who split into two groups. One went in the direction of Awtas and the other to the stronghold of At-Ta'if where Ibn Awf found refuge and from whence they resumed their military preparations for a future confrontation. Knowing full well their intentions, the prophet postponed their case to another time
9:25-26"Certainly Allah helped you in many battlefields and on the day of Hunain, when your great numbers made you vain, but they availed you nothing and the earth became strait to you notwithstanding its spaciousness, then you turned back retreating. Then Allah sent down His tranquillity upon His Messenger and upon the believers, and sent down hosts which you did not see, and chastised those who disbelieved, and that is the reward of the unbelievers".
The families of the Hawazin, with all their flocks and herds, fell into the hands of the Muslims. Besides the enemy soldiers that were killed, others retreated, leaving them behind at the battlfield. Per the regulations of warfare, these prisoners were now under Muslim authority and could be disposed of in several ways, including their integration in Muslim households. Those that were managed in accordance with that option, were confronted to Muslims who were
"reluctant to have intercourse/HARAJ with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers".
What is interpolated as "sexual intercourse" is haraj/unease. In another version it says karah/dislike. And nowhere does the Arabic speak of "the presence" of the polytheist husbands causing that unease, rather it is the fact that they have disbelieving husbands that are still alive, although these husbands had cowardly abandoned them after bringing them at the battlefield. This battle occured at an advanced stage in the early history of Islam, after the conquest of Mecca. War prisoners, including women, had already fallen into Muslim hands before. Suras 70:30,23:6 allowing sexual relations with them had already been revealed. There is no issue of shamefulness or lack of justification for having sex with them. But by the time of this battle, Muslims had grown more self-conscious as a community. Having in a Muslim household women still attached to their polytheistic families via their surviving husbands, made the Muslims feel unease towards them. Maybe it would compromise the values that unite them as a community. This is what happened before when the Israelites intermarried with the conquered nations and adopted their pagan ways.
Under Islam however, there was no risk of such a thing happening; the manner in which these captives had to be treated favoured their acceptance of the new religion and their wilful assimilation in the Islamic society. 4:23-4 came to cancel that unease by the Muslims. It specified, contrary to the general wording of 70:30,23:6 all women lawful for intimacy, including those married captives of war. In theory therefore, Muslims had all the justification to have these captives within the privacy of their homes, and have sexual relation with them if they desired. In practice however something else happened;
The prophet freed his part of the booty, captives and material belongings. He could not compel the Muslims to do the same, but he nevertheless mediated for that outcome. He said
"To me, the most preferable speech is the most honest. So choose one of the two, either the property or the captives.’ ‘"O Messenger of God!’ they replied. ‘As far as we are concerned, if you force us to choose between property and honor, we shall choose honor.’ Or they said, ‘We esteem honor above all else.’ Thus they chose their women and children. Then the Prophet rose to address the Muslims. He first glorified God, as His due, and then proceeded to say: ‘As for the matter at hand, these men, your brethren, have come as Muslims’ – or ‘having surrendered ourselves (mustaslimin)’ – ‘and we have given them a choice between their offspring and their property. They regarded nothing as equal to their honor; this, I have seen it fit for you to return their women and children to them. Whoever wishes to act so magnanimously, let him do so; and whoever wishes to demand compensation for his share so that we may give him a portion of what God has granted us as spoils, let him do so.’ The Muslims answered God’s Messenger: ‘The judgement is good". The Prophet then said, ‘I do not know who has permitted that and who has not. So command your leaders to convey this information to us.’ Once the leaders had informed the Messenger of God that the people had acquiesced to the agreement and permitted it, God's messenger returned the women and children to the Hawazin clan. God's messenger also granted to the women whom he had given to several Qureshi men the choice between remaining in the households of these men or returning to their families".
This is an earlier report than the one of al-khudri quoted in ibn Khatir's tafsir, stating that eventually, some were kept as right hand possessions. If one accepts that report as true then it means it was marginal, and only could have happened after some of those women chose to remain among the Muslims. One cannot blame these women nor is it a surprising decision, seeing how their own male relatives, husbands and fathers, had irresponsibly brought them as hostages to the battlefield to galvanize their troops. This showed how little they valued their own
"When it was the day (of the battle) of Hunain, the tribes of Hawazin and Ghatafan and others, along with their animals and offspring (and wives) came to fight against the Prophet. The Prophet had with him, ten thousand men and some of the Tulaqa. The companions fled, leaving the Prophet alone. The Prophet then made two calls which were clearly distinguished from each other. He turned right and said, "O the group of Ansar!" They said, "Labbaik, O Allah's Messenger! Rejoice, for we are with you!" Then he turned left and said, "O the group of Ansar!" They said, "Labbaik! O Allah's Messenger! Rejoice, for we are with you!" The Prophet at that time, was riding on a white mule; then he dismounted and said, "I am Allah's Slave and His Apostle." The infidels then were defeated".
The prophet, after defeating them, waited for them on the spot for 10 days, signifying to them that he was willing to negotiate. The Muslims could have left with their defeated enemies' wealth and prisoners as soon as the battle was over. But the leaders of Hawazin expected the unconditional release of their families and belongings, hence the prophet patiently waiting for them to come forth. As time passed and they didnt get what they expected, the leaders among them thought they could succeed otherwise
"When the delegate of Hawazin came to Allah's Messenger declaring their conversion to Islam and asked him to return their properties and captives, Allah's Messenger got up and said to them, "There Is involved in this matter, the people whom you see with me, and the most beloved talk to me, is the true one. So choose one of two alternatives: Either the captives or the properties. I have been waiting for you (i.e. have not distributed the booty)." "Allah's Messenger had delayed the distribution of their booty over ten nights after his return from Ta'if. So when they came to know that Allah's Messenger was not going to return to them but one of the two, they said, "We prefer to have our captives".
When one's relatives are taken, the natural reaction is to immediately seek to negotiate to secure their release. Especially when the other side manifests willingness for compromise. The Hawazin not only failed in that regard, but even when they did, they still failed prioritizing their families until the prophet left them no choice but one of two options.
The case of such married war captives is discussed in 4:23-4.
This passage speaks of the categories of women that are illegal for intimate relations however it makes an exception for already married Ma Malakat aymanikum/or right hand possessions.
Furthermore the early scholars, such as al Nawawi, commenting on the hadith of war captives said that sexual relations with polytheistic women were forbidden, and only could happen following their willful conversion, hence the connection with 60:10.
A contradiction occurs when 2 statements cannot coexist. This is not the case in the Quranic account of creation, nor in any other Quranic story.
The repetitions in the Quran do not contradict one another, but instead complement and elaborate on different facets that are relevant to the direct context in which the story is recounted. If we merge the different accounts of Iblis for example, we get a complete picture of what occured. As he was about to leave, in his hatred for the human race that caused his loss of glory, he requested a time of respite until the day of resurrection to show God that He was mistaken in honoring this new creation, and the request was granted
7:14-15,38:79-81,15:36-8,17:62"Tell me, is this he whom Thou hast honored above me? If Thou shouldst respite me to the day of resurrection, I will most certainly cause his progeny to perish except a few".
Seeing that his demand was accepted, Iblis now laid out his detailed plan. He will lie in wait on the straight path, ensnaring those upon it from every possible angle, making their evil deeds alluring to them, all of them except God's purified servants 7:16-17,15:39-40,38:82-3. When he had finished stating his intentions, God, Who had previously demonstrated mankind's potential and Who created it with the inner ability to rise spiritualy, accepted. God further said that the authority of Iblis will be limited to those who follow him of the deviators, not His servants, and that hell will be his abode and that of those who follow him. Those that act according to their ingrained spiritual predisposition, that remain God-conscious will enter the secure and pleasurable dwelling place for eternity 38:84-5,15:41-8. The matter was now closed, God definately marked Iblis as one of lowly character and ordered him out once more and violently, augmenting the tone of His address while summing up the area of authority granted to him, the consequences for those he might succesfully deceive, and restricted means at his disposal for doing so
7:18"Get out of her, despised, driven away; whoever of them will follow you, I will certainly fill hell with you all"
17:63-5"And beguile whomsoever of them you can with your voice, and collect against them your forces riding and on foot, and share with them in wealth and children, and hold out promises to them; and the Shaitan makes not promises to them but to deceive. Surely (as for) My servants, you have no authority over them; and your Lord is sufficient as a Protector".
On the day of Judgement, Iblis will recognize exactly that, he had no autority other than within the area granted to him by God. He is waswas ilkhannas/the whisperer that withdraws. Through these stealthy suggestions, he attracts unto him the deviators
14:22"Surely Allah promised you the promise of truth, and I gave you promises, then failed to keep them to you, and I had no authority over you, except that I called you and you obeyed me, therefore do not blame me but blame yourselves: I cannot be your aider (now) nor can you be my aiders; surely I disbelieved in your associating me with Allah before; surely it is the unjust that shall have the painful punishment."
The issue of apocrypha is a big can of worms in the turbulent history of the Christian texts. The apocryphal Gospels were rejected because of many reasons including doubtful authorship yet the canonized scriptures arent that much more authentic. Some books are considered apocrypha by the western church and scripture by the eastern church. When comparing the canonical and apocryphal writings, it isnt a case of first-hand versus second-hand information. It is merely a choice between doctrinal points of view, with the choice being made by men with a doctrinal bias. Some have been partially preserved such as the Gospel of Thomas. It is different than the infancy gospel of Thomas, and lacks any mention of crucifixion or resurrection. It is considered by some scholars to be the or one of the initial documents out of which developped the other more elaborate gospels. This Gospel of Thomas was for the first 2 centuries considered holy scriptures.
The same with the gospels of Matthaias or "The Twelve", Acts of Andrew or Acts of John, Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas. The last 2 books were still included in the codex sinaiticus, which is the earliest complete copy of the NT that is dated to around the year 350. There is also the Didache and the Apocalypse of Peter. On the other hand rejected by the early church fathers were Paul’s letter to Philemon, the 2nd and 3rd letters of John, the 2nd letter of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude, all part of the canon after Christianity became the state religion.
Nobody ever found the books from which the writers of the NT are sometimes quoting, as in Jn7:38,Lk11:49 or James4:5,Jude1:14-15. The Book of Revelations was considered apocrypha for the first 200 years of the Christian Church until it became God-inspired. However even as late as the 4th-century, many Christians either rejected it in favor of the Apocalypse of Peter, or believed that they should both be included in the canon.
The Epistle of St James was ignored for centuries until the Council of Trent put it in the canon in 1563. That book received a cool reception, obviously as it appeals greatly to JEwish scriptures, rejects the Pauline concept of "faith alone".
In the 2nd century, Marcion who claimed to have known Paul, composed the first NT, calling it "Evangelicon" which he attributed to Paul himself, and appended ten of Paul's epistles to it. He rejected all of Jewish scriptures, based on YHWH's cruelty versus Paul's loving god. One can argue he was right in a sense, nothing could be further in terms of similarities than the Gods and their plan for creation than the Gods of the HB and the NT.
This youtuber here is appealing to candidate number 109 and trying to make a case for it being one of the umpteenth illusive sources of the Quran.
This Book of the cave of Treasures, is predated by another book the "conflict of Adam and Eve". Both works are based on an earlier unknown source, so right from the get go, there is a problem in claiming that the Quran finds its source in one of these 2 traditions. Simply because, the "source" could very well be the same lost one that inspired these 2 traditions or even an altogether different original source that gave birth to all potential later versions. That original might be the tradition directly connected to Adam himself and transmitted down through time. Or it might be the same divine source that inspired it to a prophet of God who transmitted it among his people, this same divine source later revived the story through another individual down the line of prophethood, the prophet Muhammad.
Another possibility is that this apocryphal writing was influenced by contact with Islamic teachings, because its textual boundaries was not closed until the 8th century. In the late 7th century, Anastasius of Sinai makes a deragotary reference to the Quranic story of Iblis refusing to prostrate to Adam as "the myth of the Hellenes and the Arabs". He makes no allusion to the Christian apocryphal tradition.
So in these non-canonical books we see a superficial parallel with the Quranic account of creation, more particularily on the issue of Satan (the Quran only says Iblis) refusal to prostrate to Adam. Although the Quranic intricacies, fully loaded with meaning, from sura to sura and verse to verse are absent from the apocryphal texts, the most prominent difference is that in the Quran, the divine command to prostrate to Adam was to demonstrate the addressees' obedience to God while in the Christian text it is to worship God's image, ie Christ. In fact the whole account in these Christian traditions revolve around typical Christological concepts, Jesus' divinity, his sonship, salvation from sin and humanity's cursed nature. These themes are so blatant, running throughout the whole storyline that one wonders how these stealthy Quran authors managed to create a parallel account with its peculiar ethical-spiritual implications, without erroneously integrating any of the corrupt christological notions, in all the places where the story is told and retold. The cave of treasures is a typical example of Quranic intertextuality, a subtle manner in which the Quran displays its role as the Muhaymin of previous scriptures and traditions. The Quranic retelling is one that takes elements from both Christian and Jewish versions, affirming the parts that do not compromise its theological outlook, while rejecting the rest. For example Adam merely had the role of vicegerency, the angels prostrated to him in obedience to God, not in disobedience (as asserted in the Jewish version) not due to an intrinsic quality in him, declaring instead God's glory above everything, using even Arabic cognates of the Syriac terms wrongfully applied to Adam in the Christian narrative. The Quranic presentation of the angels as obedient servants of Allah also refutes the Meccans' angelic worship.
And once more, similarities doesnt entail borrowing. One first has to establish that the supposed (illiterate) author of the Quran had access to the similarities. One then has to explain how he cherry picked among a long list of books and traditions, besides other philosophies and thought systems, to form a well knit, flawlessly intricate narrative in its literary form that left the masters of eloquence of the time dumbfounded, as well as depth of contents that has not finished unravelling its subtleties.
Why wasnt the source ever exposed nor came out to denounce him, leaving him reap the fruits of their labor. How wasnt this source detected given the largely exposed lifestyle of the time, the open circumstances in which the prophet lived and received revelation, as well as many other factors, not the least being that the Quran never claims to be relating something unknown in that particular narrative, repeatedly says it is a revelation in a long tradition of revelations.
This means the superficial similarities might be remnants of revealed truths that eventually found their way into these apocrypha. In those writings from which the Quran supposedly draws, one can many times see how the superficial similarities are poorly weaved into the fabric of the story. The apocryphal writer, or his source, was aware of certain elements of the story but poorly integrated them in the whole account.
This is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin (Guardian), when talking about the textual and oral traditions contemporaries to it. It points out major mistakes in them, filters the Truth from falsehood
21:24"this is the reminder of those with me and the reminder of those before me".
The Quran confirming the past scriptures, as well as any tradition, oral or written, in which divine truths still remain 2:41, means that the principles taught by Muhammad come from a common source, which Muslims believe is the Source of creation, and can be found throughout these textual and oral traditions. This is pointed to in the common phrase "musaddiqan lima bayna yadahi". With the passage of time these traditions were burdenned with additions, suffered from corruption and/or neglectful transmission. The Quran then acts as a criterion that distinguishes truth from falsehood.
Therefore, and for argument's sake, to Muslims, it is irrelevant whether a story bearing similarities with a Quranic passage was even in circulation during and before Islam. It is even less relevant to Muslims whether the similarities were cannonized in the Bible or not. By what standard is the current Bible canon more reliable than the apocrypha? And what proof is there that the unknown Bible compilers rejected these traditions based on these points common to the Quran? Does the current Bible canon even claim to relate every single aspect of the life of its Biblical characters? Is it quiet possible that during the tumultuous process of transmission of the Bible, more particularily the HB which was lost at least twice as recorded in the Bible itself, some parts of the overall transmitted traditions were retained by the editors charged with reconstituting the lost text, and who reflected their own socio-cultural background in the process? Could they have been Selecting what was appropriate for their storytelling purposes and what was not? Of course from a secular viewpoint, the Quran, as a later text, is irrelevant in determining the authenticity, original versions or actual beliefs of those who originated or penned the previous oral and written traditions, canonized or not. But then so is the NT irrelevant in determining those matters from the HB, just as within the HB itself parts are far removed in time and space from other parts, making certain books insignificant when exploring these matters from earlier or later books. However, as soon as one introduces the divine into the equation, then all groups Jews-Christians-Muslims are equal in their claims as regards the authority of one scripture over another. The only factor from a non-secular view point enhancing one claim over another, would be the group with the most authentic, contradiction-free scripture.
In today's mainstream academia, no Islamicist asserts the Quran was influenced by the textual and oral traditions of its milieu, let alone copies from them. Simply because there is no possibility to know whether the human mind who supposedly authored the text had access to those traditions or understood them. What academics do at most, is present what they see as similarities, without disregarding or minimizing the vast differences. On the other side of the spectrum are Judeo-Christian religious zealots and apologists whose methodology and ideas are vastly inherited from their medieval peers' polemical writings. In order to enforce their untenable, unproven claims of borrowing, they retrospectively cherry pick convenient snippets from within larger stories that have very little to do with the corresponding Quranic passages. Then, not only do they disregard the significant differences loaded with theological meanings, but go on magnifying the tiniest similarities to the maximum so as to serve their paradigm. In the process, they inadvertently attribute to Muhammad an encyclopediac knowledge of texts and traditions, as well as an army of unseen informants from a variety of backgrounds and cultures following him around. This weak methodology can be applied to any thought system so as to build up a case for plagiarism.
The Judeo-christian scriptures themselves relate, through the successive prophets and inspired personalities, different stories that were known to the addressees. This doesnt mean their statements were inspired by these traditions floating around. Rather, the common truths found between these traditions, and the statements of the prophets come from God. There is a myriad of similarities between the HB and stories, texts, inscriptions, including the Ugaritic mention of Adam and Eve, the Mesopotamian myth of Gilgamesh where he is cheated of immortality by a snake who eats a plant (had Gilgamesh eaten it, it would have made him immortal. The elements are the same but play out differently). There are other such myths circulating in Babylon where the Israelites spent a long time in exile, of a hero tricked out of immortality through the device of a plant/food. One could extend the parallelism with the laws of Hammurabi, or the global flood, among many examples, all predating Moses' supposed writing of the Torah. Some of these similarities might be due, as in the Quran, to being remnants of ancient truths partially preserved by these different cultures. But other biblical parallels with predating writings and traditions obviously are copies of unsophisticated legends floating in the region. The oldest and original account of creation in the Bible isnt found in Genesis but in Isaiah, Job or the Psalms. God in these crude stories divides the seas and fights off aquatic monsters. The same is found in the Ugaritic tablets and in a language very similar to Hebrew, with the myth that creation began when the storm god Baal vanquishing the god of the sea Yam and his sea monster-serpent-dragon helpers. Isa27:1 has a very close wording to what a Canaanite says about Baal
"When you killed Litan, the fleeing serpent, annihilated the twisty serpent, the potentate with seven heads".
One shouldnt forget that the canonization of the Bible was a long and controversial process, influenced by men with doctrinal bias, and that the current Biblical text is far from being a valid criterion of what truly constitutes divine knowledge from purely human invention.
In answer to the video "Al-Qasas 28:48 - The Quran Affirms the Bible"
When the Quran states scriptures of the past were corrupted and tampered with, it never asserts corruption in an absolute sense. This is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin (Guardian/Arbitrer), when talking about what came before it, including the Torah and Injil. It points out major mistakes in them, filters the Truth from falsehood
21:24"this is the reminder of those with me and the reminder of those before me".
The Quran confirming the past scriptures, as well as any tradition, oral or written, in which divine truths still remain 2:41, means that the principles taught by Muhammad come from a common source and can be found throughout these textual and oral traditons. It also means the coming of Muhammad and the Quran prove the prophecies of the Torah and Gospel as true 6:20,7:157,61:6. It is in this same sense that Jesus confirmed and fulfilled the Torah and the Prophets. He confirmed the truth in them, exposing the falsehood, oral or textual, and he fulfilled the prophecies related to himself
Matt5:17-20,19:16-19,Quran5:46"And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil)".
The Bani Israil who rejected Jesus were in reality rejecting their Torah. Now that the Quran came, if the people of the book do not stand firm by it, then they will be violating even their own scriptures which it confirms and fulfills. In 46:10 the Quran refers to a witness from among the Israelites that believed in the like of his scriptures, meaning the Quran. According to tradition, the verse is speaking of the learned rabbi Abdullah ibn Salam's conversion to Islam. Given his religious knowledge, he knew the Quran abrogates and supersedes, exposes and denies, confirms in places while contradicting in many other places his own scripture, the Torah. But yet it literally says, this rabbi believed in the like of his scriptures.
That "likeness" between the Torah and the Quran therefore can only be the statements that fully agree with one another. This is exactly what is meant by Quran confirming the past revelations. It confirms the truth in them in several ways, including exposing what is from God and what is man-made, hence its function as the Muhaymin/guardian,arbitrer as well as fulfilling its prophecies, which the Quran repeatedly echoes and which of course the learned rabbi knew applied to Muhammad
2:146"those to whom We have given the scripture recognize him as they recognize their own sons".
That is also why the minority comentators that rejected the application of the verse to ibn Salam, rather see in it a reference to Moses himself. He was the Israelite witness that testified to one like himself/mithlihi, as clearly stated in the prophecy of
Deut18:18"I will set up a prophet for them, from among their brothers like you and I will put my words into his mouth and he will speak to them all that I command him".
But as attested in history, not all of them remained obdurate
3:199"And most surely of the followers of the Book there are those who believe in Allah and (in) that which has been revealed to you and (in) that which has been revealed to them, being lowly before Allah; they do not take a small price for the communications of Allah; these it is that have their reward with their Lord; surely Allah is quick in reckoning".
These are the righteous among the followers of previous scriptures and who remained truthful to their Books. This sincerity inevitably led them to believe in the Quran
4:162,5:83"But the firm in knowledge among them..believe in what has been revealed to you and what has been revealed before you...and when they hear what has been revealed to the apostle, you will see their eye overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize. They say; our Lord, we believe so write us down with the witnesses".
A subtle aspect worth noting in 2:121 is that since the righteous among them are mentioned, the expression used is "We have given them the Book" not "They were given the Book" conveying the idea that it is God who gave it to them and guided them on account of their righteousness, contrary to those who were given the book without identification of the giver or instructor. This pattern is present throughout the Quran and is actually one of the many examples of its linguistic precision. This is why the people of the book are never told to reject their scriptures in 5:68,69 but rather to stand by not only the Torah and the Gospel, but the Quran, to which the previous scriptures naturally lead to. This has been pointed to in the words "and that which is revealed to you from your Lord". Because it is the "Muhaymin" of their revelations, the guardian of the truth which God himself has pledged to preserve unlike any holy book, the reminder of the pure way of Ibrahim.
As to those who would claim, and still do, that they only believe that which has been revealed to them then the Quran answers them that even Prophets that came from among their own people, preaching adherence to their own books were killed by these men, as Jesus put it Mk12:1-12,Matt23:31-37. This charge was levelled against them in the earliest Meccan revelations such as 37:37 before the interraction with them in Medina.
In answer to the video "Islamicize Me Day 6: The Prophet's Drinking Game"
It is interesting to note the manner in which God instilled an etiquette of humility when about to communicate with the divine, that would later forever be perpetuated. God, as He was about to impart divine wisdom, prophecy, miracles to Musa told him to be aware of the sacredness of his surrounding and humble himself by taking off his sandals
20:12"Surely I am your Lord, therefore put off your shoes; surely you are in the sacred valley, Tuwa".
As stated in the HB
Ex3:5"Do not draw near here. Take your shoes of your feet, because the soil upon which you stand is holy soil".
God himself required it, not because of mourning and neither humility, as is sometimes understood in Judaism but
"because the soil upon which you stand is holy soil"
God does certainly mind the issue of impurities desecrating a place Holy due to being a location of communication with the divine. The prophet Muhammad also invoked the presence of impurities as a reason to take off the shoes in congregation. These things matter to God and, just as one wouldn't present himself soiled with feces in front of any wordly respectable figure, one similarily does his best to avoid doing so when about to address the Creator.
Muslims take their shoes off because they emulate their prophet who preserved the way of his predecessors. Of course the law isnt rigid, and has a spirit, like every divine ordinance, hence the prophet Muhammad's flexibility in the matter, depending on the circumstances. He sometimes prayed with shoes off, or on but in the latter case always made sure his shoes had no impurities on them.
In answer to the video "Islamicize Me Day 6: The Prophet's Drinking Game"
The purification of the garments 74:4, another pre-requisite of religious rituals, similarily contains an element of symbolism as seen with the classical Arabic metaphor of garment purity being equal with moral uprightness, as well as encourages rectitude. Beyond this symbolism, purification of the garments encourages general rectitude.
A neat and clean, as well as pure appearance helps one to remain mentally uplifted everyday, and gives the correct introduction of one's personality to others. This is a reason why, as a side note, the prophet is reported to have avoided both in his private and religious life, foul smelling foods and used to perfume himself on all occasions, always seeking to be presentable so as to not offend neither the humans nor the angels, especially in a religious gathering context
7:31"O children of Adam, take your adornment at every place of prayer. Eat and drink, but not to excess. Verily, He does not love those who commit excess".
Here again however, just as above, there is no need to over exert oneself and be obsessed with the cleanness of one's clothes prior to engaging in the prayer ritual. A case in point is the following, and there is no shame in speaking of it. People do not always undress entirely naked during sexual intercourse. His wife Aisha said
"I never saw the Messenger of Allah’s (Allah bless him & give him peace) private parts”.
Naturally then, it might happen that visible traces of sexual fluids remain on one's clothes, especially if those clothes are wide and ample as is the case in many cultures.
Someone asked Umm Habibah, the wife of the Prophet:
"Did the Messenger of Allah ever offered prayer in a garment in which he had sexual intercourse?" She said: "Yes, if there was nothing noxious on it".
So even though one must perform a ritual bath prior to prayer in that case, one's clothes do not need to be entirely washed because of a few traces. The removal of these visible impurities is enough to purify the clothes again. This happened to the prophet, as it must have happened to countless prophets and regular people before, and after him.
The prophet was a saint, but remained entirely human, living in according to what he thought was the most suited behavior of his time and space, so long as it did not contravene the principles of higher morality and pragmatism. Unfortunately nothing survived of the prophets Moses, David or Solomon's standards of behavior in similar circumstances for comparison.
In answer to the video "Islamicize Me Day 6: The Prophet's Drinking Game"
Islamic pre-worship rituals symbolize mental and physical preparation before the momentous instant of addressing the Creator, like a transitional time from the hustle and bustle of life to the remembrance and glorification of Allah. It isnt some kind of ritualistic obsession or constant concern with hygiene. Without water for ablution one may perform "tayammum" which is touching the ground/earth/sand then passing over certain body parts. This means that ritual purity isnt due to the inherant condition of water, rather it is aqcuired through obedience to a symbolic command, with or without water.
To further corroborate on the symbolism of pre-prayer rituals, one may even pray without tayammum prior in extreme cases where neither water nor clean earth is found 2:239,4:101-3. This is not something new and is present in the previous scriptures. Throughout the book of Leviticus in the HB, the speech is interrupted every now and then in between very intricate purity rituals, reminding the higher reason for the practice
"You shall be holy, for I, the Lord, your God, am holy".
Najasa, or ritual uncleanness, isnt therefore a state of physical uncleanness. It may be the case, for example if one would come in contact with feces, but not necessarily. On the other hand, tahara or ritual purity, isnt a state of physical cleanness. One may be wearing clothes whose dirty condition isnt caused by something impure (dust, dirt from the ground, grease etc). The prophet however laid great stress on general body hygiene, declaring carelessness in the matter a sin, such as using the restrooms inappropriately and causing one's self to be constantly soiled in urine. This reveals a lack of care not only for oneself but for other people using the same space and society at large with whom one comes into physical contact. This condemnation of course does not include those affected by a medical condition, as per the prophet's own words, and neither is it some kind of obsession or exaggeration with hygiene
"from Um Qays Ibn Mihsan that she brought a baby boy of her’s who was not yet eating food to the Messenger of Allah (Sallalahu Alayhi Was-Sallam) and he sat him in his arms and he urinated on his garment, so the Messenger of Allah called for some water and sprinkled over it but did not wash it".
This is simple pragmatism. As anyone whose had male children knows, or who was in close contact with them, including while playing, carrying or cleaning them, when they suddenly urinate, the urine generally spreads dropplets on a wide surface. And this is something that happens very often at this stage of their development. Cleaning thoroughly the whole surface everytime, be it one's clothes or other object would be cumbersome. Girls' urine on the other hand tends to spill onto a narrower area, easier to clean, hence the recommendation to clean that specific soiled area thoroughly
"Water should be sprinkled on the urine of a baby boy, and the urine of a baby girl should be washed away".
It speaks of washing away the girl's urine, not the entire clothes on which it fell. However when a baby boy starts eating a more varied diet, meaning at a later stage when such urine accidents are less frequent, and that in addition the quantity of urine has increased, then the ruling of conveniency is lifted and a more thorough washing is prescribed.
When he said to eat with the right hand exclusively it was because the left was reserved for cleansing oneself. This is again, far from being a ritualistic obsession, a pragmatic approach to general hygiene.
Some reports depict the prophet discouraging excessive usage of water and over washing and cleaning oneself, while performing the pre-worship rituals. He also refrained from doing so himself. He said that wastefulness applies to ablution
"even if you were on the banks of a flowing river".
Also he did not lay strict stress on the kind of water to be used for ritual purity. As depicted earlier, ritual purity isnt caused by the inherant quality of the water. This doesnt mean one is to sacrifice common sense and basic hygiene by using any kind of water regardless of its condition to perform the ablutions. So although the prophet didnt lay great stress on the kind of water to be used, he did explain that it shouldnt be used if it is perceptibly altered in its smell, color or texture as reported in a prophetic saying
"Water cannot be rendered impure by anything except something which changes its smell, taste and colour".
This is the least one would expect from the prophet who laid great stress on general body hygiene. This hadith has been quoted in its complete version. Some scholars think that this version might be a conflation of different ahadith, but in any case it still shows how the report was understood because there are other ahadith that define the conditions for water to be deemed pure, meaning not all water is pure. It is also to be noted that the report has for background a believer asking the prophet about a particular well, the large well of Budaa, whose water was not stagnant, and the person was unsure whether the filth accidentally carried into it due to flooding and rain affected its purity. The citation is also found in the context of believers coming across a large body of water (the Arabic also includes the meaning of rivulet) in which a dead animal was found.
The people naturally refrained from using this water until the prophet allowed them to do so. In both cases the people were being too cautious considering the flow and volume of water involved.
In answer to the video "What Does Kafir (Really) Mean?"
When Allah "mocks" certain people, he does not do so by laughing or joking, but with concrete, appropriate actions 9:79,2:15.
God's word in the next world either abases with utter humiliation or elevates and dignifies, as echoed both in the HB Ps75:8 and the Quran 3:26. The process in the Hereafter is thus not in need of empty mockeries, as in laughter and finger pointing, as one imagines when this word appears. For such anthropomorphisms, a God in Heaven looking down mocking, laughing while his punishment is inflicted, one needs not look further than the depictions of the HB
Ps2:2-4"Kings of a land stand up, and nobles take counsel together against the Lord and against His anointed?...He Who dwells in Heaven laughs; the Lord mocks them"
Prov1:26-27"I, too, will laugh at your calamity, I will scoff when what you fear comes; when your fear comes like a storm, and your calamity comes like a whirlwind; when trouble and straits come upon you".
God mocking or humiliating in the Quran is always linked to Him delivering verdicts and punishments, facts and evidence. His mocking IS His verdict, not dissociated from it. During their judgement, the earthly mockers and deniers will be proven wrong on various points that were the subject of their mockeries such as hell and the resurrection 83:17. A major humiliation will be when they are asked to call those whom they thought would be their saviors, and then realize their error 28:62-66. Again, this is no arbitrary setting that they will be made to experience, but a humiliating answer to their earthly abuse of the True God
16:27"Then on the resurrection day He will bring them to disgrace and say: Where are the associates you gave Me, for whose sake you became hostile?".
The innocent and oppressed of this world who could not defend themselves and whose pleadings were silenced and suppressed will be represented by God Himself at the divine court. He will be the prosecutor on their behalf, claiming justice for them and facing their tormentors who are now ashamed and abased 3:161,81:8-9. Allah mocks, not by sitting and laughing, but by delivering a judgement whose truth will be so manifest that the former deniers and mockers cannot but feel humiliated.
Abasement is not an injustice when it results from presenting the truth. Abasement and humiliation is unfair when one is the victim of inappropriate, unjust words or deeds. When the mockers are presented all the truths they used to mock and deny, God's mockery wont be inappropriate or unjust. Their long and difficult reckoning will be in itself a humiliation;
Firstly with their inability to physically bend their knees and kneel to demonstrate their worldly obedience 68:42-3, then ironically, at one point their knees will be free to bend, not to worship, but to beg to be spared the entry in hell 19:72, just as they will beg in vain to be relieved from it later on from the punishment 40:49-50, chained 14:49,69:30-31, gathered
25:34"on their faces"
ie in total spiritual abasement, shamefully holding their book of deeds behind their backs 84:10. They will witness a different spectacle on the plain of resurrection, which in itself is a type of abasement
66:8"on the day on which Allah will not abase the Prophet and those who believe with him; their light shall run on before them and on their right hands".
In contrast, this group will be upholding proudly their book of deeds 69:19,83:18,84:7. Their humiliation will continue, as they witness the elevation, and honoring of those they disgraced on earth being praised and dignified by entities called ashaab al aaraf, right before their admission to heaven 7:46-49, begging them for water to be relieved from the distress of that Day 7:50, asking a share of the light beaming on the righteous while they stand in darkness
57:13-15"Wait for us so that we may acquire light from your light. It will be said (to them): Go back behind you and seek a light. And a wall would be struck between them with a door, its interior containing mercy, but on its outside, there will be torture".
Their faces will be blackened 3:106,39:60 as if literally
10:27"covered with slices of the dense darkness of night",
their whole being engulfed by a thick and burning smoke driving them inside of hell 44:10-11,77:30-4. The absence of light upon the wicked on the day of judgement is alluded to in the Hebrew Bible, including in Job38:14-15. The mocking faces they were making in this life, will be reproduced in the hereafter, but not by their will and desire, rather the violence and intensity of the fire that will come in contact with their faces will cause them contortion in their facial expressions and scaling back of their lips from the heat 23:104. Such descriptions conform with the Quranic notion of there being a physical connection between this world's deeds and the experiences of the hereafter.
