In answer to the video "Muhammad and Merkabah Mysticism"
The ordinance relating to unjust manslaughter in the Quran clearly has a universal connotation both for unjustly murdering or preserving a soul. Anyone familiar even on a most basic level with the Quran knows that among its most pervasive themes is the fact that to God, the value of a human, regardless of social status, gender or race only depends on righteousness in deeds and God-consciousness/taqwa 2:221,4:1,135,5:48,25:77,34:37,42:23,49:13. The Quran appeals to the believers' taqwa/God-consciousness in maintaining indiscriminate justice
"though it may be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives"
or even
"against a hated people"
5:2"and let not hatred of a people..incite you to exceed the limits, and help one another in goodness and piety, and do not help one another in sin and aggression".
These verses came down at a time where Muslims were living in Medina under the constant threat of war, in an unceasing atmosphere of plotting and suspicions between all parties, including the Jews. Yet the Quran tells the Muslims not to give up justice for scapegoating, and baseless stereotypes. There are many examples to corroborate from the prophet's life and early companions. For instance the prophet once ruled in favor of a Jew to whom a companion owed money, on the Jew's own terms despite having full authority to give a more lenient ruling in favor of his close companion. The disregard for justice, or the abuse of power from a dominant position towards any human being was an attitude severely reprimanded by the prophet to the point he said
"If anyone wrongs a person protected by a covenant, violates his rights, burdens him with more work than he is able to do, or takes something from him without his consent, then I will plead for him on the Day of Resurrection".
Once a case of theft was brought before him by a close companion for a lenient verdict
"When Usama spoke to Allah's Messenger about that matter, Allah's Messenger said, "Do you intercede (with me) to violate one of the legal punishment of Allah?" Then he got up and addressed the people, saying, "O people! The nations before you went astray because if a noble person committed theft, they used to leave him, but if a weak person among them committed theft, they used to inflict the legal punishment on him. By Allah, if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad committed theft, Muhammad will cut off her hand".
The corruption of the justice system to gain favors in a society or usurp other people's rights is forbidden 2:188. The verse 4:105 is cited in a historical context where the prophet judged a matter in favor of a Jew against the Muslim despite the tense situation between the 2 groups at the time. This is in contrast with the attitude of the Jewish elite who moulded their religious system so as to allow differentiation between Israelites and non-Israelites in their dealings Deut15,23,24,etc. Allah is Rabbul Alamin, the sustainer of all that exists everywhere. His presence in all that exists means that even the smallest degree of injustice displeases the Just Lord of the worlds 22:10. Rabbinic conjecture on the other hand has discriminated between Jews and non-Jews, in the value of a life as well as in moral obligations. In that particular issue of value of a human life, they modified the universality of the principle to make it apply solely to a Jewish soul, that consequently takes on a more sacred character
"whosoever destroys a single soul of Israel, Scripture imputes [guilt] to him as though he had destroyed a complete world; and whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes [merit] to him as though he had preserved a complete world".
This tradition is derived from the peculiar wording of the story in Genesis. The text could have originally more obviously represented that notion, but due to negligence, loss and corruption overtime the dimly remembered and reconstructed wording was altered, obscuring the correct interpretation, until revived much later through deep study of the text. The rabbis thus understood the implicit principle of sanctity of human life from it, but went on to modify it with their ethno centric worldview. The Quran reveals the original story, and although concise in its descriptions, brings to light all important aspects of it that naturally lead the audience/reader to the principle discussed later in the Talmud. Eliminating a soul innocent of any wrongdoings, those who do not engage in the spread of evil is as if one destroys all humanity. The murderer has eliminated a soul that may benefit humanity as a whole, and increased the presence of evil in the world.
The Quran further adds a clause of self-defence and application of justice to the moral principle, a clause which is present in the law of and teachings of every prophet of God
"unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land".
The passage 5:27-32 is a direct address to the Bani Israel of the prophet Muhammad's time who, like their forefathers to whom the ordinance was forcefully "written upon" because of their complete disregard for the sanctity of human life to the point they even murdered the prophets sent to them, planned time after time to kill their innocent Ishmaelite brother out of pure jealousy that God had now raised a prophet outside of their line. They subconsciously know about their unworthiness, which is time and again pointed in their own books. Like Cain, they could not see that all this, their removal as being the torch bearers of truth in favor of a new nation, was due to their persistence in transgression and lack of God-consciousness, as their own history bears testimony to.
The passage is meant at opening their eyes to their spiritual condition, and warning them of the severity of the sin they were planning on committing and how remorseful and helpless they would then become.
For a lapse of time following his crime, a murderer stays in bewilderment and shock, even denial, before something either from within or outside of him triggers back his consciousness and brings him back to reality, after which most often than not, he becomes filled with sorrow and remorse. That psychological dimension is unknown to the transmitters of the story in the HB who describe Cain as unconcerned with his brother's murder until the surrealistic and naive intervention of God and his dialogue with Cain Gen4:9-12.
In Cain's case, that trigger was the sight of a crow digging the earth to show him how to cover "sawata akheehi"/the shamefulness of his brother (ie his nakedness). The word sawata stems from S-Y-Hamza or S-W-Hamza meaning a shameful thing. That thing is determined by the context. That sight took him out of his state of shock and plunged him in regrets, seeing that besides the injustice he had just committed towards his own brother, he had in addition left him exposed in a shameful, disgraceful way 5:31. In fact in the Quran, one of the graces of Allah to human beings is the very burial of corpses
80:21"Then He causes him to die, then assigns to him a grave".
If the manner to dispose of corpses was unknown, they would humiliatingly remain putrid on the ground, and the beasts and birds would feast on them, which would be a horrible debasement. On a more general note, besides this passage indicating the importance of disposing of the dead in a dignified way, the Quran is completely silent on funerary rites and burial preparation. Cain thus proceeded to dispose properly of his dead brother's corpse, while regretting his crime.
The HB, though it implies that Cain buried his brother by speaking of the ground's "concealment" of the effects of the murder that was only known to Cain Gen4:10-11, does not speak of the encounter with the crow, and nor does Cain appear to be regretful at anytime. He even attempts to fool God who questioned him on his brother's whereabouts, minimizing the severity of his sin Gen4:9,13 and finaly God as a consequence of the murder absurdly gives him a prolonged time of respite under divine protection, allowing him to be fruitful and prosperous in a new location to which he was "banished" Gen4:15-24.
In answer to the video "Muhammad and Merkabah Mysticism"
Christian critics often absurdly try discrediting the wisdom of the Quran by arguing that some of its principles were already uttered earlier, while completely forgetting that all of Jesus' wise humanist utterings reported in the NT were either stated long before in the Tanakh by the likes of Moses, or close to his time by Jewish thinkers, let alone those Pharisees whom Jesus regarded as "sons of satan", such as Hillel -one of the highest Pharisaic authority of his time- who is quoted in the Talmud saying almost word for word what Jesus would utter about a century later in
Matt7:12"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets".
The redaction of the Talmud began after Jesus but the oral tradition it contains, such as the one uttered by Hillel, existed long before. It was already in circulation before and after Jesus in Pharisaic tradition. This tradition considers the Talmud just as revealed as the written Torah is, probably even predating the events of Sinai. We can repeatedly read of Moses receiving Torah and Law before he ascended on the Mount to meet with God Ex12-18.
Even the concept of a kingdom of God soon to be established on earth appears in numerous Jewish documents that antedate Jesus.
When trying to discredit Islam to a Muslim audience, the poorest and most insignificant of all arguments consists in pointing to the moral truths it contains then arguing they were uttered long before, that the Quran merely copied them. The Quran itself recognizes it isnt uttering anything new in matters of morality and spirituality, not only in the passage itself, but even upholds such principle as a tenet of faith, that divine guidance is a continuity that started long before the Torah, down to the Quran. By these same lowly standards, totally insignificant when debating a Muslim, Jesus and all prophets of the Bible were false prophets who merely copied from their predecessors and hardly uttered anything new. Hundreds of quotes, similarities and incidents can be shown attesting to this.
What cancels the Judeo-christian criticism further is that their religions contain very uncomfortable similarities with the pagan environments in which the successive books were authored. Contrary to Islam which has no problem with having similarities with pre-islamic practices, since it claims they are rooted in the Abrahamic legacy it came to revive, Judaism and Christianity have no common spiritual legacy with the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Canaanite or Greco-roman rituals and philosophies to help explain away the odd and uncomfortable similarities.
Here is a small example.
In the Quran, the whole matter of Jesus' end in this world appeared as if the Jews had succeeded in their evil, murdering plots because, among other reasons, Jesus was missing, or as the Quran says God "tawaffa" him, purified him and made him ascend to Heaven. This instead prevented the humiliation that wouldve happened if his enemies got to the body. If they presented it to the people in a humiliated state, leading to a psychological victory for the Israelites
4:158"Allah took him up to Himself".
They couldnt even kill him, nor could they damage his body and God states He would raise him up to himself, meaning that not only his body wouldnt be humiliated but it would be honored by God instead.
God thus lifted Jesus up and did not leave a trace of him with them yet even without proof for their claims, the Israelites that wanted him dead managed to start a rumor that quickly spread and was believed. The resulting confusion was similar to that of the rumor of the prophet Muhammad's death during the battle of Uhud 3:144. Roman crucifixions occured daily and by the hundreds, of any agitators to the point that they would sometimes run out of wood for the crosses. The accusing Jews could easily pass off their boastful claims as fact in those circumstances, regardless of whether they truly believed their own claim or not. This rumor spread among both friends and foes. It is entirely possible at this point that not only the Jews were unaware of Jesus' true whereabouts, but neither were his followers. The confusing absence of a prophet has been a means of testing the followers left behind, whether they would remain on the clear path outlined by the prophet when he was in their midst, maintain his directives, or start innovating in the religion and go back to their sinful ways. This occured with Moses, as he retreated away from his people to receive revelation, just as it did with Muhammad when many fell into despair during the battle of Uhud, and later when he died
3:144"And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels?"
The Nazarenes, like the calf-worshiping Jews thus failed the test of steadfastness in the absence of their prophet. As the rumours of Jesus' death started by his enemies became widespread, his disillusioned followers retrospectively painted the whole thing as a divine masterplan, with all the Christologies that ensued. Those among them that maintained Jewish law were sidelined by Paul's movement very early on, and within just 2 generations the little remnant of Judaism within the Jesus sect was erased. It was supplanted by a wave of converts from the greco-roman world who found in this transformed and readapted original Jewish sect, a favorable echo for their own beliefs, naming this new religion, Christianity.
It is thus meaningless to argue that because the corruptions the Quran denounces were introduced early on, then it follows that these were original teachings of Jesus. Had Moses and Aaron not quickly and violently corrected the corruptions to their teachings, executing the guilty by the thousands, nothing would have prevented the same kind of falsehood to be passed off as "genuine teachings" of Moses, as was done with Jesus
5:117"I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness".
Jesus did not have the occasion to do as Moses and Aaron did very early on so as to prevent the lies attributed to them from becoming "orthodoxy". However, if they escaped Jesus condemnation, it does not mean God was unaware of their evil doings.
Isnt it surprising that the Lord's prayer taught by Jesus himself (as opposed to every other prayer that others taught to say in Jesus’ name), never mentioned Jesus, nor vicarious atonement, nor him as messiah, nor him as intermediary, nor any trinity, among anything else Christological? This foundational prayer is more anti-christian than any passage one may find in the entire Bible.
We're not talking about the lack of Christological references in terms of labels, but in terms of concepts. The prayer is far removed from the ideas established by the Pauline movement, the creeds of the Church Fathers and later councils. Not only are those concepts absent but every sentence of the prayer clashes with mainstream Christian tenets. For example vicarious atonement, not only isnt it mentioned by name or implicitly as a concept, but in addition we have Jesus, who is supposed to be the embodiment of that notion, refuting it
"forgive us our sins, as we have forgiven those who have sinned against us".
No need for Jesus, forgiveness is attained through one's own efforts. The same is conveyed in the parable of the prodigal son Lk15. The unrighteous son is forgiven by his father simply for turning to God in sincere repentance. Not only is he forgiven but he is welcomed with a warm celebration. It is his state of contriteness that brought him back to life, not the blood on the cross "he was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found".
The idea of vicarious atonement stems from the notion of human depravity; none may claim righteousness on his own due to a sinful nature that pollutes every deed and thought. Yet Jesus undermines that notion too; temptation isnt the product of inherent human depravity and satanic influence. Rather it is God, who is perfectly righteous, whom the worshiper asks
"not to lead us into temptation".
Jesus teaches his followers to begin the prayer by calling upon "our" Father who is in heaven, not to the divine son who is on earth. Nothing distinguishes Jesus from a regular believer in terms of sonship to the Father. The same fatherhood that applies to him applies to the others. It is the Father's name only that is to be hallowed, His will is to be done, and He is the Sustainer of the devotees, including Jesus
"Give us today our daily bread".
These innovations might have initiated among Jesus' close circle, through re-interpretations of his teachings, or among the wave of new converts that supplanted them. To this new, outer circle, the claim that he was captured and killed resonated as closer to the truth and a more honest assessment of his disappearance.
His gruesome death became an attractive narrative of heroism and martyrdom not only for the sake of his followers but for the entire human race.
Jesus is portrayed as fearing death and wanting to avoid it Jn7:1,11:54,Luke 22:42. He begged God (himself) 3 times, putting his forehead to the ground, to take his soul before experiencing suffering and death in Matt26:38. He does not want to experience what he was about to go through but nevertheless submits his will to that of the father, whether he decides to make him bear the cup of suffering or not
"Yet not My will, but Yours be done".
Clearly, had he been given the choice, he would have refused "dying for the sins of mankind" despite having supposed foreknowledge of the divine plan of salvation since the beginning of creation, a plan which he himself sketched together with his divine partners. It also shows one of the co-equal partners submitting his will to another. Yet we never see the reverse, with the Father obediently submitting his will to the Son or the Holyspirit. That "hesitation" from Jesus cannot be attributed to his human nature as he himself states that it is his soul that feared and doubted Matt26:38. Then, when on the cross Jesus grieves for God's abandoning him. Even Revelations5 which is sometimes quoted to defend the notion of a predetermined divine masterplan of salvation through Jesus, is in fact speaking in eschatological terms, just as the whole book does. It speaks of the salvation of some people after events of great tribulation, ie the end of times. Then we have Heb5:7 throwing in the ambiguous statement that Jesus' prayers were heard and accepted by God, and this includes the desperate cry to "let this cup pass from" him. The realization of his prayer, his inability to take on the full brunt of the "sins of mankind" came in the form of Simon of Cyrene who relieved Jesus from his cross and carried it half way till Golgotha Matt27:31-33.
This embarrassing change to the divine master plan of salvation forced another author in Jn19:17-18 to have Jesus carrying his own cross, the symbol of mankind's sins, all the way until he reached Golgotha where he was crucified. The cross in fact was not a Christian symbol until the 6th century. Could the whole "Simon of Cyrene" tale be orthodoxy's early response to a story popularised by certain gnostics that it was not Jesus but Simon who had been nailed to the cross?
The predictions Jesus makes as regards his impending death on the other hand are portrayed as willful self-sacrifice. In these versions, we see other inconsistencies. When he tells his disciples, several times and explicitly how he would die, they are taken by complete surprise when the events unfold Matt16,17,20,Mk8,9,10,Lk9,18. Not once are they depicted, following his supposed death, as patiently waiting his predicted resurrection after just 3 days. Neither are they depicted recalling the secret miracle once it unfolds. Even when he appeals to prophecies at the third and last prediction of his death
Lk18:34"The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about".
Clearly, there was a general atmosphere of confusion as to Jesus' disappearance, a confusion which the writers could not deny as it corresponded to the reality they knew about and witnessed. But, because they were writing from the lens that he was crucified, they had to retrospectively paint this confusion as a misunderstanding by the disciples of Jesus' clear predictions. Between Jesus' desire to avoid death, his repeated predictions as to his willful execution, the misunderstandings of the disciples, the story line lacks consistency and seems muddled. We see the same pattern with other major themes retrospectively applied to Jesus, such as his messiahship, again painted as shrouded in obscurity due to the "misunderstanding" of his closest disciples. 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.
Prior to Jesus becoming God, the pagans scoffed at the notion of a human savior dying a cursed death then resurrecting. But the later introduction and spread of the deviant notion of Jesus' divinity made the Christian religion fit more easily into their paradigm.
As the Quran says in the context of Jesus' supposed divine sonship
9:30"they immitate the saying of those who disbelieved before".
Gentiles of the region believed in Mithraism, a religion already spread all throughout Europe and Asia minor centuries prior to the birth of Christianity. Among such beliefs is the death and resurrection of Osiris. Those ritually sharing in that death and resurrection through baptism had their sins remitted. The pagan Roman authorities thus welcomed the new religion seeing it was in congruence with centuries of tradition of dying and/or mutilated savior gods.
As the early church father Justin Martyr conceded
"when we say...Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified, died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you (ie the pagans) believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus".
Paul, who was at most a hellenezied Jew, was explaining Jesus teachings in ways that were unheard of by Jesus' disciples. Paul's letters were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until 60-90 meaning Paul's theories were already established before the unknown writers of the gospels started their works and earlier Christian thought was quickly branded heretical. The church was so weak that within the same generation of the disciples, this Jewish sect of the Nazarenes, whose distinction from mainstream Judaism was only in the belief that Jesus was the messiah, turned upon its heels, abandoned Jewish law, adopted concepts unheard of anywhere in Judaism. There is a reason why the Gospel writers including Paul do not quote the Hebrew Bible but the Greek Septuagint which was hated by the rabbis as it represented the Hellenization of many Jews of the time. The early church thus became irrelevant very early on following Jesus' departure, due to Paul's efforts at supplanting it, dismissing Jewish law as obsolete, reinterpreting core Semitic concepts of God so as to appeal to his pagan audience.
After Jesus' death, Paul's main problem was to convince his Jewish audience that the messiah's death, without accomplishing any of the messianic criteria, instead of being a failure was actually a necessity. He did so by introducing the doctrine of total depravity, making all humans de facto sinners and therefore in need of an atoning sacrifice Rom7:14-25,Rom3:10-11,5:13,8:7-8,1Cor2:14,Eph2:1-3,Titus3:3. His addressees however already believed in the resurrection of the dead, in a just God who forgave the sins of a penitent heart. Nothing was missing in their system that Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection could fix. Paul's redeeming hero was a redundancy to them, so he was obviously met with fierce resistance wherever he preached his unscriptural ideas. This led him to eventually turn to the gentiles among whom he found a much more favourable audience. All this is evident from a cursory reading of the NT and the writings of Paul. That is how Christianity was shaped, using its target audience's sensitivities all the while toning down to the maximum its Jewish heritage.
The sect that "won" and became "orthodoxy" achieved victory by political rather than epistemic means. The dominant branch was but one among many early, conflicting Christian sects, as even reflected in Paul's letters and the desperate struggles he had with them to maintain control of his own congregations. The process was not a difficult one considering Mithraism's tendency to accommodate with other rival cults, throughout its vast geographical spread, before and after Christianity. Christianity of course wasnt that accommodating, doing everything to supplant it due to the disturbing similarities. Many Church Fathers (Justin, Origen, Tertullian) attempted rationalizing Mithraism's similarities with their religion; "satanic imitations" being the standard explanation. The fine details of those similarities are now lost due to the Christian destructions of all "mithraes" they could put their hands on as well as persecute its followers. The task of reconstructing which themes Mithraism absorbed from Christianity so as to embellish its own narrative, versus what actually pre-dated Christianity, becomes a speculative task. But the presence of such vehement defenses by church authorities reveals their major embarrassment, their discomfort at their opponents' accusations of plagiarism. Instead of engaging their critics in debate, these church fathers and other Christian "orthodox" writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries slandered their opponents with exaggerated or even false charges, shunned them or socially intimidated them. This pattern of engaging their critics is in itself revealing of their own insecurities.
In answer to the video "Muhammad and Merkabah Mysticism"
The story of Cain and Abel illustrated the previously mentioned points about equal retribution and manslaughter, to the prophet Muhammad's addressees. It was similarily through this story that the gravity of murder was forcefully brought to the Israelites' attention for the first time. This moral principle existed since the dawn of humanity, both Cain and Abel were aware of it, as clearly depicted in the Quranic account. Again, the incident between the 2 brothers is not what caused the decree regarding the sanctity of human life to be issued and nowhere does the Quran say so.
What it clearly states is that the first time the decree was brought to the Israelites' attention, it was illustrated through that incident. There are many examples whether in the Quran or the Bible where a prophet or sage person reminds his addressees of a universal principle, expressed by others before him.
It being "written upon" the children of Israel is a striking wording stressing its gravity to a people known for their long history of wars with their neighboring nations and bloody inter-tribal conflicts during which very little to no sanctity for human life was given. That is not to mention their persecution and slaying of the most righteous elements of the comunity, their own prophets. That this law was decreed upon the Israelites does not take away its applicability to any murder commited anywhere in the world by subsequent nations. Many laws and notions were prescribed and taught to groups of people prior to Islam, this doesnt take away their applicability to Muslims, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
In fact the verse says "whoever slays a soul" not "whoever among you slays a soul". The prophet's companions understood the verse as applying to their own time, Uthman for example is reported to have quoted it as he was under siege, to prevent bloodshed.
In answer to the video "Muhammad and Merkabah Mysticism"
Manslaughter has several degrees of seriousness depending on the victim, as exemplified through the story of Adam's 2 sons, whom the Quran does not name as it eloquently and concisely draws its audience's attention to the story's core precepts without distracting it with names of persons and places. The one slain was innocent of any wrongdoing, even warned his brother that was about to kill him, tried reforming him.
But this family tragedy was about to repeat itself, as the murderous Israelites were trying by all means to put an end to their Ishmaelite brother's life, despite his warnings and calls to reforms, there being no reasons for them to threaten and attack him. The Jews of the prophet's time were not only trying to kill a man innocent of any wrongdoing against them and in general, but were trying to kill a prophet of God as their forefathers tried doing and sometimes succeeded against the prophets raised from among themselves and who called them to adhere to their own Books which they had thrown behind their backs and forgotten.
The story of the 2 sons of Adam ends with a reminder of a lesson they knew very well
5:32"For this reason did We write upon the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men".
This is to emphasize the sanctity of human life, indiscriminately. It is essential for its preservation that everyone should regard the life of the other, whoever he might be, as sacred and help to protect it. The one who takes the life of another without right, does not commit injustice to that one alone, but also proves that he has no feeling for the sanctity for human life and mercy for others. But if one helps preserving a single human life, then it is a though he saved the whole human race.
Notice the subtle nuance between killing, which is conditional, and saving, without any condition. This is because killing may be inevitable and necessary, such as in war situations. It may also be a legitimate right for the family of a murder victim. But saving is a course of action which the person is freely left to apply, depending on his internal disposition and ability to forgive. When a person chooses that option despite the right and possibility to kill, then the Quran praises him for his selflessness.
This is the supreme realism, pragmatism of the Quran, which will forever remain far above the heads of those mindless critics. Let me dig the knife a bit deeper before getting back to Cain and Abel.
While always opening the door to a peaceful resolution and magnanimity, the Quran however never denies the basic human right of self-defense when unjustly opressed beyond the limits where peaceful diplomacy can still stop this harassement and eventually reform the opposite party, when such oppression goes as far as threatening one's life. If in such case, one opts for a more confrontational stance, as most would tend to do when wronged, the Quran explicitly forbids any retaliation above and beyond what a person has himself received 2:190-5,16:126-8,22:60,42:39-43.
The very foundations of the divine law, as taught by all Prophets, is the establishment of justice and to argue a person has no right to seek his rights, or no say in the matter once guilt has been established, is an absolute wrong. In various types of social felonies, the Quran gives the right of having recourse to the law of "equitable punishment or compensation"/qisas, which is approximately equivalent to what Judeo-Christian tradition refers to as lex talonis 2:178,5:45. It is not an "exact same thing" situation, since killing another's child because he killed mine would be against all common sense, and justice. "Life for life" does not entail "your child's life in exchange of my child's life". The point is that the offending party must compensate with a life, the murderer's own life. It is a "punishment fits the crime" scenario. The definition of the word "qisas" itself stresses the importance of fairness and justice in the application of that system.
As stated in 17:33, the retribution must never exceed the harm suffered. This blocks the way to blind vengence and actually helps society to seek reparation for a moral or spiritual harm in conformity with justice. However it is stressed that in both cases (self-defense and social justice) the opressed or the victim may show magnanimity and forgiveness in order to grow spiritually, an issue the Torah, which also mentions the law of retaliation, does not contain in its proper context. To its credit, the HB does speak in other places of self-restraint as a great virtue
Prov14:29,20:22,19:11"It is good sense for a man to be slow to anger, and it is his glory to pass over a transgression".
This then means that the equitable physical injury is the maximum that the victim can ask for with preferrance for forgiveness and even better forgiveness. It says that such patient attitude is a great sign of spiritual might and courage, a blessing from Allah and the way He prefers for His creatures
3:134,16:126,41:34-36,42:43"And whoever is patient and forgiving, these most surely are actions due to courage".
This shows that the the spirit of vengeance is absent from the law, which is but aimed at reforming the society and deterring future vices. By encouraging instead of imposing this act of amnesty, it appeases the aggrieved party by giving it the position of superiority because the death penalty is a legitimate and authorized option. Further, by knowing that execution might be an option, the instinctive reaction of seeking revenge killings is neutralized. Another aspect of forgiveness, as stated in the verse is an act first and foremost beneficial to the victim of injustice. As the Quran says, it isnt an act of weakness but of courage. The injustice comitted isnt condoned, neither is one required to forget, deny or minimize it. Nor does forgiveness in this context necessarily entail reconciliation. Forgiveness is first meant at benefitting the victim, not the offender. It prevents wasting mental and emotional energy by being trapped in a self-consuming anger.
In case of murder, there are several aspects of wisdom in leaving the life of the killer directly at the mercy of the heirs of the murdered person. It firstly compensates to some extent the tremendous loss caused, because once the justice system has done its job of exposing the guilty, true justice consits in compensating emotionaly or materialy for those first and foremost concerned, ie the victims themselves.
The other wisdom in leaving the punishment of the killer in the heirs of the slain person's hands is that in case they adopt the preferred issue of being magnanimous, they do a big favour to the murderer and his family, resulting in many other benefits. The prophet waived his right for equal retribution many times against his opponents once he had the power to execute justice
"Whoever suffers an injury done to him and forgives (the person responsible), Allah will raise his status to a higher degree and remove one of his sins” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi).
There are countless traditions about his life illustrating his forgiveness to others, even those caught red handed attempting to murder him. But he had no right to force the believers to be forgiving in similar situations, it would be contrary to the spirit of the law as he would be negating their rights to resort to it should they desire.
As already said, although the Quran encourages magnanimity in these cases it can only be from the victim, on his or her own accord, without any pressure or influence from anyone, or without any interference from the authorities. This way, because it is an unexpected, benevolent act, it heals both the victim and the criminal.
In answer to the video "Muhammad and Merkabah Mysticism"
The believers, in their graves, will be questioned as regards their previous faith. While on earth their inner reality was hidden from view, in the grave they will be incapable of lying and their true self will become apparent. Depending on the answer, the grave will then instantly turn into a pleasant or punishing place until the resurrection.
Muslims in the Quran and the prophetic traditions, are taught to never feel complacent as regards their righteousness and what will be their condition in the Hereafter. So when the prophet informed the public of that notion of being tested in the graves, people were frightened. Some enemies of the Muslims used that occasion to insinuate things that were not intended by the prophet. A Jewess quickly came to Aisha, who was unaware of the prophet's statement, telling her that
'You will be tested in your graves.' The Messenger of Allah got upset and said: 'Rather the Jews will be tested."'
The testing maliciously intended here was one of punishment, which will not happen to the righteous believers, rather to those like the Jews contemporaries of a prophet and disbelievers in him. In another version of the hadith, Aisha told the prophet how she understood their statement
'O Messenger of Allah, two of the old Jewish women of Al-Madinah said that the people of the graves are tormented in their graves.' He said: 'They spoke the truth. They are tormented in a manner that all the animals can hear".
As a side note, the immediate response of the prophet to Aisha's question shows that the inspiration in regards to the intermediary world of barzakh had occured to him prior to the Jewess coming to Aisha. However the prophet did not confirm the Jewess' generalization
"A few nights later, the Messenger of Allah said: 'It has been revealed to me that you will be tested in your graves."' 'Aishah said; "Afterward I heard the Messenger of Allah seeking refuge with Allah from the torment of the grave".
Countless verses explain that punishment begins at the moment of death to those burdenned with major worldly sins left unrepented for. But as stated earlier, the Quran teaches both the prophet and all believers, no matter their level of faith and righteousness to never be complacent and secure of God's threats, even if these threats arent necessarily directed at them and, this includes the grave which is a place that could potentially be unpleasant to anyone.
Fear of God, awareness of the seriousness of His threats avoids one from falling into self-complacency, makes one feel obliged at all times to act upon Divine Commands and regard the righteous good deeds as insignificant in the face of divine perfection 7:99,70:24-8. This state of mind further frees one from any tinge of idolatry as it makes one aware that no protector ultimately exists outside of Allah
6:14,51,70,17:111"Praise to Allah, who has not taken a son and has had no partner in [His] dominion and has no [need of a] protector out of weakness; and glorify Him with [great] glorification" 33:17"Say, "Who is it that can protect you from Allah if He intends for you an ill or intends for you a mercy?" And they will not find for themselves besides Allah any protector or any helper".
Fear however can never be the sole constituent of belief, it must be balanced with 2 other elements; hope 12:87 and love for God
32:16"call upon their Sustainer in fear and in hope"
21:90"These people exerted their utmost in righteous deeds and called upon Us with love and fear and they remained humble before Us".
From a philosophical viewpoint, fear, whether in the natural or spiritual world, is an asset without which survival is impossible. But it must be balanced and controlled or else it leads to stagnation and even death. As is taught to us by the Creator, spiritually, fear must be balanced with love and trust.
The correct attitude is to never fall into either extreme, becoming self-complacent or hopeless of God's mercy. This upright perspective leads one to continuously strive to increase safety/iman in Allah.
This balanced attitude is reflected in the saying of the prophet
“If the believer knew what was with Allah of punishment, no one would hope for Paradise; and if the disbeliever knew what was with Allah of Mercy, no one would despair of attaining Paradise".
Elsewhere the Quran describes the successful as those who "hope" to meet their Lord and "hope" for His forgiveness 2:218,18:110. This is a sign of humility, when even within the same verse, those people are reassured that Allah is surely forgiving and merciful, they still keep in mind that salvation is ultimately in God's hands
2:218"Surely those who believed and those who fled (their home) and strove hard in the way of Allah these hope for the mercy of Allah and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful".
The believer in those concepts, the one who knows what God demands of Him and what not, what His Sustainer loves in His servant and what not, continuously toils in the path of truth, without pride and self content. Contrary to the scripturally indefensible concept of an unconditionally loving God, which leads to conceit and self-righteousness, the one striving to meet God's explicit criteria of approval, constantly remains God-conscious. He remains humble, never thinking he is beyond reproach, fearing the seriousness of God's threats as well as hoping for His mercy, until he meets his Creator.
39:23"Allah has sent down the best statement: a consistent Book wherein is reiteration. The skins shiver therefrom of those who fear their Lord; then their skins and their hearts relax at the remembrance of Allah. That is the guidance of Allah by which He guides whom He wills".
The Love is evident in the word IMAN that denotes profound and sincere feeling of safety implying that one is in complete trust of a protective entity, that is, God. One cannot feel safe in an entity without having love for that entity, and knowing in turn that the entity is loving. This is where the Quran explains that this love isnt reciprocal, but more intense when coming from God. He is as al-rahman, the intensification of rahma. The root R-H-M means WOMB. Therefore in order to imagine what this word actually means one has to picture the womb and what it does to the fetus. It nurtures, protects, provides warmth, love etc. without even the fetus being aware of it.
In answer to the video "Muhammad and Merkabah Mysticism"
The Quran often addresses the Jews as a monolith. But that isnt a particularity of the Muslim book. This is done in their own books and prophets following Moses, because from all people, and up to this day, no community claims continuity to their ancestors and the rights and obligations placed on them than the Israelites. They were bound as a nation by a covenant in which they entered while being persuaded, one can even say compelled, by the sight of miracles. The terms of the covenant were that should they breach it, then it would result in their rejection from God's grace as a whole, even if not all of them transgress.
However this prided covenant was, and still is, in great majority and even sometimes entirely disregarded, with them only laying claim to the favors which were in fact conditional to obedience (land grant, divine protection from enemies, light unto the nations etc). This is actually one other reason to call them out for their sins as a single unit, to show them that if they want to lay claim on the favors conditionaly bestowed upon their ancestors, then they should equally recognize as a nation the less glorious parts of their history.
Another thing to consider is that the Quran, which is often accused of being anti-Jewish or antisemitic actually spares the Israelites and is much more tempered and balanced in its description of their early history than their own scriptures, down to the Christian writings and Jesus' outright insults towards them. Jesus himself was no antisemite, but his followers, the descendants of Greek and Roman pagans, certainly were and gladly used the crude depictions and insults that Jesus reportedly makes of his fellow "vipers" and "sons of satan". Jesus' racial slur is so intense, the general feel of the Gospels so anti-semitic that one can only conclude they had been written by Gentiles.
The Quran speaks of their failures and rebellions under various prophets, as well as their multiple divine destructions, in a passing manner without delving much over the details, as if it is seeking to spare them some dignity, just as it does not report the scale of their prophets' loathing of them. This is among the facets of divine mercy, the like of which was inculcated to the prophet Yusuf/Joseph.
When his brothers and former persecutors were within his powerful grasp, as he had all authority and right to exert justice and revenge, he instead, in his legendary patience, dignity and magnanimity with which God had established him since his youngest years, he still gave them the benefit of the doubt
"Do you remember what you did with Yusuf and his brother while you were jahill?"
Yusuf's tact and mercy manifest in that opening statement by saying, in an investigating, ambiguous tone that what they did was in a time where they were ignorant, meaning that they are expected to know better by now and not repeat the misdeed he passingly alludes to. Second, he doesnt even make it personal by speaking in the first person "me" but instead by alluding to himself in the third person. Then when they recognize him, instead of making them feel the lowest by boasting of how life has vindicated him so that now he is the highest, he immediately attributes his status to God, it is a favor which isnt on account of any personal achievements, he is no different than them. In addition God's favor, he says, is within anybody's reach, not just himself
"surely he who guards (against evil) and is patient (is rewarded) for surely Allah does not waste the reward of those who do good".
One can hardly think of a more intricately humble, merciful address than this, given the circumstances. And the rest of the dialogue, which is more akin to Yusuf giving moral lessons to his brothers without demeaning them, is full of similar wording. When he declared that Allah forgives them, again avoiding to make it personal "I forgive you", and that no blame will henceforth be attached to them, Yusuf remained consistent and respected that declaration a little later on when he saw his childhood vision unfolding, he only mentioned God's favor in protecting him during his years of imprisonment, without saying anything of his much more dangerous ordeal of being thrown in a well by his brothers.
Whatever evil had occured between he and his brothers -he is wording the statement so as to leave open the possibility that he might be equally blameable although he never did anything wrong to warrant the cruelty with which his older brothers treated him in his childhood- was because
"Shaitan had sown dissensions between me and my brothers".
Not only he puts himself as potentially having equal share of responsibility for the conflict, he attributes the source of evil to Shaytan, not even his brothers who stand blame free just as he had previously pledged. These kind of intricacies as are contained in just a few verses among many other verses within that specific story of the prophet Yusuf's life, clearly cannot have been devised by any human being orally and publicly transmitting an account without any chance at going back to a previous statement to correct and edit himself to improve his overall eloquence and coherence
"this is of the announcements relating to the unseen (which) We reveal to you, and you were not with them when they resolved upon their affair, and they were devising plans".
This is the kind of divine mercy with which the Quran treats them. When it points out some of the dark periods of their history, it isnt done wantonly or inapropriately but always in a specific context and to draw a moral lesson, both for them as a nation and anyone hearing and reading it. A parallel reading of the list of incidents starting from 2:40, with the same ones related in their books reveals the mild manner in which God has spared them further humiliation by not detailing their dark past. This past the Quran says was "thrown behind the backs" of their educated elite, unknown to the majority of the Quran's addressees, even among the Jewish laymen of the time.
Even if we taken into account the loathsome words that later Muslim scholars, the likes of ibn Qayyim, describe them with; tricksters, conspiracists, liars, slanderers, consumers of usury and bribe, killers and rejecters of prophets etc. every single one of those accusations and more, are directed at them collectively in their own sacred writings. The Quran also, almost every time it cites one of those past failures, demarcates between the transgressors and the upright among them so as to not condemn them collectively although they have failed collectively to uphold the covenant they were bound to with God as a community.
Throughout time, they were a fringe among the masses, and remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability. Their sincerity, unprejudiced reading and understanding of their books led some of them, from the times of the prophet where they “recognized him like their sons” to our own times, to inevitably believe and enter the fold of Islam 2:121,83,3:113-115,199,4:162,5:13,66,69,83,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4.
That separation is done in the apocalyptic hadiths as well, where in a time where several supernatural events will occur, including inanimate objects and plants pointing to those among them that will side with the dajjal to murder innocents, they are said to be on both sides of the conflict between good and evil. Those on the wrong side (Muslim,B54,H99), in opposition to the returned prophet Jesus will be completely eliminated, together with their allies among all religious groups including Christians and deviant Muslims who will seek to kill other Muslims (Sunan Ibn Majah 179, Sahih Bukhari 1881, Musnad Ahmad 3546, al-Buhur al-Zakhirah 1/493). The same destruction will befall them as was done to previous nations that sought to destroy the messengers and their followers. The Quran in 17:8 alludes to a future destruction of the mischief makers among them. They will not constitute the entire world Jewish population but a fraction of it that will believe in the dajjal as their promised messiah (Sahih Muslim 2944). The dajjal is thus the arch-deceiver, not an "anti-christ" although among his actions is that he will oppose the returned Jesus, besides opposing the Mahdi and all those that shall side with him.
Their biblical history speaks at length of the wrongdoings of the majority of them, despite the presence of a few righteous among them, and how those sins have often plunged most of their community into suffering, and for several generations, as pledged by God in their scriptures Ex20 and later observed in Jeremiah for instance when the nation was decimated by the sword and famine, from the youngest to the oldest, men and women, if not taken captives.
In answer to the video "Al-Hijra 15:9 - The Quran Affirms the Bible"
Allah has repeatedly pledged throughout the Quran that He will structure and compile, explain and protect the Quran from falsehood
15:9"Verily, we have sent down the Reminder, and, verily, we will guard it".
This verse comes in answer to the prophet's opponents, trying to discredit him with taunts and sarcasms. It tells them this reminder is divinely sent, meaning not the product of the person they are objecting to. So in reality they are opposing God who sent it. And even if they try to oppose the One who sent it, the only way being to tamper or destroy His communications, then the verse tells them in the form of a strong affirmation, this revelation will remain firmly guarded. As a side note, "the reminder/al dhikr" is a general word that may be used to anything that serves the function of reminding. This reminding can be done in many ways, including orally. It is the context that defines what is meant by it. In 15:9 above it means the Quran, whether written or recited from memory. The pledge of protection despite the people's opposition to Muhammad refers only to the Quran in that passage.
In 16:43, the reminder/al dhikr refers to whatever served the function of reminding prior to the Quran, and this includes both written and oral traditions of the Jews and Christians, in totality.
In 21:105 the dhikr still refers to whatever served the function of reminding prior to the Quran, but this time, to the exclusion of certain Judeo-Christian scriptures, namely the Psalms and all that came after it. Dhikr here refers to what was divinely inspired prior to the Psalms of David.
In 40:53-4 the dhikr/the reminder is in reference to what served as a reminder of the truth to the Israelites only, and which they inherited from Moses. This means the Torah exclusively.
All these verses prove that the generic word dhikr/reminder is flexible and its application depends on the context of its use; it does not mean the same thing everytime it appears, and not everything that the Quran says about it in a context, applies to another context. Just as when it refers to both the Quran and the Torah with the general word "writing/kitab" doesnt mean they are one and the same writing, or that what it says in the context of the writing being the Quran, also applies to the Torah because it is also called a writing in another passage. The same goes for other dual applications of general words to both the Quran and previous scriptures, such as criterion, guidance, light etc.
In answer to the video "Islamicize Me Day 3: Wax On, Wax Off"
All his practices and utterances, outside of the Quran, cannot be automatically assumed as divinely inspired, and the Quran itself sometimes disapproves of some of his deeds and words 66:1,80:1-10. The same is the case of other prophets, including as eminent as Ibrahim who, despite of being an illustrious example to emulate, immitating him does not include all aspects of his life deeds 60:4.
That is why the Quran repeatedly announces obedience to the messenger instead of 'Muhammad', albeit they are the same person. The 'message' remained connected to the 'messenger' and it was in this capacity of the 'messenger' that Muhammad needed to be obeyed. The Prophet forbade Muslims to write down anything other than the Quran. And effectively, the traditions weren't compiled until centuries following his death.
The reason was that he used to make statements and deal with people in different ways that were the result of particular circumstances, which narrators might believe to be of universal and permanent bearing. From divine knowledge, the prophet Muhammad had only access to what His Lord granted him 6:50,7:203,72:26-7. That knowledge took the form of a divine scripture to
16:64"make clear to them that about which they differ, and (as) a guidance and a mercy for a people who believe".
Muhammad believed
7:158"in Allah and His words (the Quran)"
this is why Allah tells us to
"follow him so that you may be guided".
To follow Muhammad means to follow what was sent to him from signs and/or revelation
7:157"and follow the light which has been sent down with him".
This reflects in the hypothetical scenario of a people not having received a messenger, complaining that had they had one in their midst, then they would have followed God's signs, not necessarily the messenger
28:47,20:134"..O our Lord! Why did You not send to us a messenger so we would have followed YOUR SIGNS (not the messengers) before we were humiliated and disgraced?".
Again with the example of the qiblah, we are told to only follow Muhammad in what Allah has commanded him
2:143"and We did not make the Qiblah that you observed in the past except that We know who follows the messenger from the one who turns back upon his heels".
It is very compelling to read how the Quran says that it is itself the best hadith.
39:23"Allah has revealed the best HADITH, a book conformable in its various parts, repeating, whereat do shudder the skins of those who fear their Lord, then their skins and their hearts become pliant to the remembrance of Allah; this is Allah's guidance, He guides with it whom He pleases; and (as for) him whom Allah makes err, there is no guide for him"
45:6"These are the communications of Allah which We recite to you with truth; then in what HADITH would they believe after Allah and His communications".
Anything besides that best hadith, Allah tells us that the rightly guided are those people who use their brains and reflect over them, following only the best and discarding what is inapplicable or that contradicts the Quran
39:18"Those who listen to the word (qawl or saying), then follow the best of it; those are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men of understanding".
The Quran contains such warning because
31:6"of men is he who takes instead frivolous hadith to lead astray from Allah's path without knowledge, and to take it for a mockery".
These verses warning to keep the best hadith and discard all frivolous and counterproductive talks, useless and misleading narratives, provide clear evidence that idle tales were even being disseminated at the Prophet's time. If this was then already a problem reaching such levels that the Quran had to correct it, then how much worse did the problem potentially manifest after the prophet's death? It further tells us to investigate thoroughly any information of importance related by an untrustworthy source 49:6. It does not request the outright dismissal of the report based on the unreliability of the source but simply advises utmost caution in the authentication process of the narration itself which doesnt only include reliability of the transmitor but also of the information in light of certain established facts.
This opens the way to the possibility that the source might be telling the truth despite its untrustworthiness. Hadith scholars mostly stress on scrutinizing the narrator and do not give much importance to scrutinizing the content of the report. It should also be noted, a few verses down in 49:12 it warns not to harbour ill thoughts of others who have not shown through their words or deeds any misapropriateness or imorality. People should first and foremost think well of one another, abandon the kind of outright suspicion and ill founded inquisitiveness (with harmful objectives).
In answer to the video "Islamicize Me Day 3: Wax On, Wax Off"
The Quran never came to correct the prophet's worldviews in terms of knowledge of nature and general causality, neither of his contemporaries but rather guide him and the rest of humanity through him, to the most complete, advanced human spiritual knowledge
"The Messenger of Allah and I passed by some people who were at the top of their date palms. He said: “What are these people doing?” They said: “They are pollinating them, putting the male with the female so that it will be pollinated.” The Messenger of Allah said: “I do not think that it is of any use.” They were told about that, so they stopped doing it. The Messenger of Allah was told about that and he said: “If it benefits them, let them do it. I only expressed what I thought. Do not blame me for what I say based on my own thoughts, but if I narrate something to you from Allah, then follow it, for I will never tell lies about Allah, may He Glorified and Exalted is He.”
He continued in another version
"You know better about your worldly affairs".
The divine protection therefore only pertained to the Quran which is the source of that perfect spiritual knowledge. The prophet was "uswa hasana" in his application of the Quran, not how he ate, slept or saw the nature around him. This phrase in no way implies that he was a perfect creation. Many verses urge him and those with him to seek God's forgiveness for shortcomings and the prophet used to implore God daily to be protected from sins.
Anyone is free to imitate his lifestyle and adopt his worldviews as found in extra Quranic writings, if one finds any personal benefits in doing so but that isn't a religious requirement nor relevant to it, and that is explicitly stated in the Quran itself. With that in mind, when the prophet made deductions as related in the ahadith, pertaining to his natural environment, general causality and basic observation of certain phenomenon, it is only expected from him that they would fit what the ancients of his time would find "plausible". These views however, right or wrong, no matter how extraordinary they might seem in light of our current knowledge, have no bearing on the Quran itself, which is again, pledged to be fully protected. It would have been interesting to have had written records of how the previous prophets saw the world, as we have with Muhammad, and see who among them held the most "unscientific" personal views.
There are many examples to be extracted from the ahadith, most of them inappropriately derided and misunderstood by modern people, although none of them are falsifiable and even if proven wrong, as said above, have no bearing on the Quran itself.
As said above, just as Muhammad was uswa hasana, Ibrahim and the believers in his nations are called uswa hasana 60:4-6 and to follow the prophet 3:31 means to follow the revelation sent to him 6:106,33:2. Muhammad and the Muslims are told to follow the way of Ibrahim, this can only be achieved through the Quran which is the reminder of his way 16:123,4:125,3:95. It was indeed the Quran that guided Muhammad to the way of Ibrahim 6:161. The Quran also says to follow the pious, humble believers 31:15 and this again only means to follow them in their obedience to Allah's commands, in their belief in His revelation because
6:116"if you obey most of those in the earth, they will lead you astray from Allah's way; they follow but conjecture and they only lie".
The rules of salaat for example were handed down from the prophet orally and were not written in any book, this is the sunnah or inherited practice, his detailing of what is mentioned in general terms in the Quran
16:44"and We have revealed to you the Reminder that you may make clear to men what has been revealed to them".
The prophetic sunna is thus the manner in which the prophet applied the timeless ordinances of the Quran in his own time and place. It does not necessarily include his personal likes and dislikes, or particular recommendations which in the vast majority of cases the prophet himself never claimed were inspired. He gently declined eating a roasted lizard out of personal taste, leaving those around him to freely eat as they wished. Certain of his own standards of body hygiene, like trimming the mustache, letting the beard grow, using the toothstick, sniffing water into the nose, clipping the nails, washing the knuckles, removing hair from the underarms, shaving pubic hair, cleaning the private parts with water, rinsing the mouth etc, or the manner he slept, ate or dressed, all reflected the needs, culture and manners of a specific time in history.
A case in point would be the instance where the Prophet allowed an adopted freed slave who had reached puberty to drink his adoptive mother's breast milk, to put the husband at ease. As adoption in Islam doesn't entail blood relationship, this action created a fostership link, making it impossible for them to be married afterwards. This was an exception to the general rule that fostership is only possible prior to 2years old, and was allowed by the prophet to bring peace within this household where the young man had been living for years prior to reaching puberty. Neither he could be turned out, nor was his adoptive mother to have to veil in his presence. The solution was relevant to the Arabian culture of the time. Furthermore, the situation in which this household found itself, occured while the Quranic restrictions as regards adoption and veiling were being revealed. No cases would thus arise in the future where the permission of the prophet as regards late fostership would apply. Of course, and as understood by the hadith commentators the servant did not touch his mistress or drink from her breast, as it would have defeated the purpose of the act from the start. The hadith doesn't say to drink FROM her breast but her breast MILK.
Also one doesnt need, in all cases, to apply saliva or suck on a child's tongue to relieve him from thirst as the prophet and desert Arabs did when in the absence of water in the extreme conditions of their environment.
"The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, heard Hasan and Hussein crying while they were with their mother, so he hurried to them and he said: What is the matter with my boys? Their mother said: It is thirst". As the water source had dried out, the Prophet called out: "Does anyone have any water?" As nobody answered, he asked for one of his grandchildren be brought to him "He massaged his tongue and moistened it until he calmed down".
This obviously is a practical solution to a specific situation. We arent talking here of rubbing adult tongues and ears with one's saliva as some are depicted in the NT Mk7:33,Jn9:6.
A similar reliable narration has the prophet kissing his grandson Hasan's navel as a father and grandfather would playfully do. This was unfortunately interpolated, either maliciously or not, in another unreliable, discarded hadith into the prophet kissing his genitals.
In answer to the video "Islamicize Me Day 3: Wax On, Wax Off"
As is explicit in the Quran, the divine protection of the carriers of the revelation pertains strictly to the revelation itself. But in everyday affairs, the messengers, who are still humans endowed with freewill and thus the potential, if not to sin due to their heightened level of spiritual awareness, to make mistakes, they are left to their own devices in their everyday lives to fight off the assaults of evil forces.
No prophet was in a constant state of communication with the divine realm. The hadith and Quran itself speak of long periods where revelation had stopped, and the subsequent tauntings of his enemies on the issue, the questions of his followers and his anxious anticipation. The prophet is for instance reported, as a reflection of his all too often humble character, to have said
"I am only human like you; I forget as you forget. If I forget, then remind me".
This comes in the context of a slight mistake which he had done during prayer, inadvertently shortening it, apparently angry with himself as he suspected the mistake, then humbly accepting the correction from the attendance which confirmed his thought
"The Prophet (peace be upon him) meanwhile, stood by a piece of wood placed in the mosque, leaning against it, as if he was angry. So a man stood and said, 'O Messenger of Allah, have you forgotten or has the prayer been reduced?' So the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) said, 'I did not forget nor has it been reduced.' So the man said, 'Rather you have indeed forgotten.' So the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to the Companions, 'Is what he is saying true?' They said 'Yes' So the Prophet (peace be upon him) went forward and prayed what remained of the prayer, then he gave the salutation, then he prostrated twice, then he gave the salutation".
The prophet did not forget the Quran. He forgot, momentarily like any one with a memory lapse, certain passages. That is irrelevant to the issue of Quran preservation. When these memory lapses occured, the Quran had already been transmitted, in both oral and written form. Hence even regular members of the community, not even renouned memorizers, correcting the prophet's recital.
Something important noting in that regard. The Quran assures him
87:6"We shall make you recite (sanuqriuka) so you shall not forget".
Allah was literaly puting the holy words into the prophet's mouth
19:97"We have only made it easy in your tongue that you may give good news thereby to those who guard (against evil) and warn thereby a vehemently contentious people"
and teaching him how to read them out. As the prophecy of Deut18 says
"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him".
Man is apt to forget, and the Prophet was a human being and he too was apt to forget and since the Quran was also a great asset which was being entrusted to him, he would repeat each and every word of the revelation fearing that any of it might slip away from his memory. This verse, telling him he will be made to recite in manner so as to not forget, came as a reassurance, stressing that God has taken upon Himself its impression on his memory. This was not by his own power and leave, being a mortal like anyone else and it is a reminder of this reality that the Quran continues
87:7"Except what Allah pleases, surely He knows the manifest, and what is hidden".
The context of the verse is about intricate, detailed, purposeful divine planing for all things and how nothing escapes God's grasp and knowledge. The prophet's rare occasions of very limited forgetfulness (and his followers and recorders' reminding him) were fully in accordance with that master plan, meant among other things at humbling him as well as to the believers' eyes around him, of his own faillibility as a human being as well of God's being in control of the process of memorization and compilation of the Quran, allowing only what He wills to be temporarily, not completely, forgotten. As a principle, the Quran reminds in many instances of that concept, how this revelation and its very preservation is a mercy from Allah that could be taken away from Muhammad or erase parts of it from the prophet's own memory without him noticing it as said above, therefore man should remain grateful for it and never feel complacent
17:86-7"And if We please, We should certainly take away that which We have revealed to you, then you would not find for it any protector against Us. But on account of mercy from your Lord-- surely His grace to you is abundant".
There is one recorded incident where God caused a permanent blackout among the Muslim community's best reciters
"We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust." And we used so recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it, but remember (this much) out of it: 'Oh people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practise.' (lxi 2.) and, 'That is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of Resurrection" (xvii. 13)".
What is interesting here is that this report is narrated by up to 15 of the most renowned companions, over a wide geographical distribution, from Basra to Kufah, Mecca to Medina. Nothing is known from the chapter in question except for the vague snippet each narrator remembers. God in His wisdom, has left this trace in the memory of men, and took the rest so as to provide proof of His control over the transmission process of the divine revelation. He may take away what He peases and establish what He wants. With the Jews, this process took the form of punishment. Their books describe God, in answer to their complacency towards divine guidance, the rejection, persecution and killing of the prophets sent in their midst, as interrupting an ongoing guiding revelation Ezek3:26,24:27,33:21-22.
