Who needs praying at fixed times?

In answer to the video "Muhammad and Merkabah Mysticism"

Firstly, the daily Jewish ritual prayers whether in the HB fully endorsed and practiced by Jesus and his followers after him, or in today's practice, face a particular direction and are performed at a particular time. Among the examples are 1kings8,Ps5:8,138:2,55:18,1Chr23:30,Dan6:10,Acts3:1,10:9.

Prayers are the real means by which one is constantly kept on the right path, continuously reminded and spiritually "refuled" throughout the day and night. In a parable, the prophet likened the prayers to a wholesome stream by the person's doorsteps, available for the spiritual cleansing of the one washing and bathing in it daily. It is the "call" of God to the believers, and every obedient worshipper answers it duly 43:38. While a believer can certainly engage in worship such as remembering or glorifying God at any time

3:191"standing, sitting or lying on their sides"

some periods of time have special and unique blessings associated with them. Praying cannot be confined to moments of inspiration or desperation - praying only when one is moved by events and "feels like" praying. Anyone who waits for the mood to strike is not a praying person, and probably will not be able to pray authentically even when the mood arrives.

One needs to domesticate the stimulus - to make prayer a natural, comfortable event, a day-to-day happening. Ritual prayer is designed to become second nature, a part of a person, a daily diet. In that way, one comes to be on comfortable speaking terms with God, who, in turn, becomes accessible, almost a conversation partner. There is also a form of religious arrogance in wanting to pray as one feels like it. Taking the example of the change of qibla, the Quran explains that Without God's commission, no place has spiritual excellence or preference in its own essence. The direction in itself is therefore not something to be disputed and argued about. If one wishes to remain in a specific direction as if the place is intrinsically sacred then he may do so. He would have however disobeyed a divine injunction, prioritizing his personal desires and preferences

 2:143,148,177"and We did not make that which you would have to be the qiblah but that We might distinguish him who follows the Messenger from him who turns back upon his heels, and this was surely hard except for those whom Allah has guided aright...And every one has a direction to which he should turn, therefore hasten to (do) good works; wherever you are, Allah will bring you all together...It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteousness is this that one should believe in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets, and give away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for (the emancipation of) the captives, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in time of conflicts-- these are they who are true (to themselves) and these are they who guard (against evil)". 

This is the general principle behind every ritual, to do as one is told, as evidence of submission to the way of God. That is one of the reasons prayers for instance, are made at specific times, with even intervals where they cannot be offered. Islam is the purest form of servitude to God's will, leaving no place even for religious arrogance 

"The Prophet forbade praying after the Fajr prayer till the sun rises and after the 'Asr prayer till the sun sets". 

One can of course recite the Quran, reflect on spiritual matters or make dua/supplications in those restricted intervals.

Linguistically, among the few potential roots all related to another in a certain aspect, salaat stems from silah meaning a close connection. In a horse race, when the second horse follows the first one so closely that its head always overlaps the first horse's head, that horse is called the musalli. The word is thus highly appropriate, as it describes the most essential manner by which the believer holds permanent and perpetual contact with the great Origin of Creation, establishing a relationship with Him, expressing and internalizing his humility, obedience, gratefulness, seeking guidance, protection and forgiveness, as well as imitating the way of the righteous among the prophets and their followers.

That is why Ibrahim demanded God to make him and his offspring keep up prayer 14:40, and keep him on the straight path

6:72,92,1:6,4:103"remember Allah standing and sitting and reclining; but when you are secure (from danger) keep up prayer; surely prayer is a timed ordinance for the believers". 

This immemorial 19:31,55,20:11-6,21:73 (Bible Dan6:10,Ps55:18,Acts3:1,10:9,Matt6) and timed ordinance that the generations subsequent to the prophets neglected 19:59, of turning oneself to the Creator and Sustainer 38:30,44 solemnly applying one's mind, spirit and body to being in the presence of Allah in total and exclusive devotion 6:162-3,73:8 is done with great joy by the obedient and true believer who does not see it as a heavy task 2:45.

As he accomplishes the first introductory step of purifying his physical self through the ablutions, symbolizing his mental preparedness, he performs it in due time as a demonstration of one's dedication 107:4-5, persistent, consistent and watchful in terms of quality (as denoted with "aala") in the way it is performed 70:22-3, maintaining in mind the remembrance of Allah which is the goal of the ritual, not simply the repetition of gestures and words 20:14, mindful of its contents 4:43 since the ritual is for our own benefit as many times stated throughout the Quran, whether alone or in congregation, with dignity (both mental and physical), humbleness and discretion, in fear, hope, and love of God with a quiet and moderate voice for whether it is uttered loudly or kept within our deepest selves nothing is hidden from Him, without any pride and in total humility at the prospect of addressing the Lord of the universe 7:31,55,56,205,206,17:110,20:7,21:90,23:2,36:11,62:9,67:12. All these qualities are adjoined to the act of prayer as a recipe for success in both this life and the next because prayer in itself becomes meaningless if devoid of spiritual depth and humble intent

23:1-2"Successful indeed are the believers, Who are humble in their prayers.."

A hypocritical, shallow outward ceremonial is a detestable thing to God 

"We visited Anas ibn Malik after dhuhr and he stood up and prayed asr. When he had finished his prayer, we mentioned doing prayers early in their time, or he mentioned it, and he said that he had heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, the prayer of the hypocrites, the prayer of the hypocrites, the prayer of the hypocrites is that one of them sits until the sun becomes yellow and is between the horns of Shaytan, or on the horn of Shaytan, and then gets up and rattles off four rakas, hardly remembering Allah in them at all". 

That is also why some jurists argued that a seemingly valid prayer, whose outward form is correct, can nevertheless be deemed invalid. 

The HB equally admonishes against the soulless ceremonial during rituals

Prov28:9"He who turns his ear away from hearing the Law-even his prayer is an abomination".

Similarly when Jesus in the NT Matt6 denounces certain prayer rituals, he is pointing to their vanity in contents, when they are false in spirit and directed to false deities then they are vain no matter how many times they are repeated, as in the case of the prayers of the pagans.

On the other hand, even if the contents are true in spirit, but the person reciting them is a hypocrite, doing so just to be seen by men and not acting upon the words he utters, then the prayer becomes meaningless, no matter how many times it is repeated, as was the case of certain Pharisees. Jesus then instructs on the mental manner (in submission to God's will Matt6:10) and contents of a meaningful prayer ritual. He doesnt deny its application with steadfastness and constancy if done with the correct mindframe. If done hypocritically, even that very prayer becomes as meaningless as the prayer of the Pharisees. Neither does Jesus deny the repetition of any other prayer ritual when done with true form, contents and intention as alluded to in Lk18:7. He did so himself when he desperately and repeatedly cried to his Lord Matt26:42-44. Groups of angels are depicted whether in the HB or the Quran, as unceasingly praying in Heaven Isa6:1-3,Rev4:8,Quran37:3,40:7-9,42:5. The HB contains many repetitive passages, as in Ps136, which any believer may recite during prayers.

As to the form of the prayer, it comes in answer to man's natural urge to express his feelings outwardly. When his emotions, in this case spiritual, are released he finds himself fulfilled and satisfied. This action brings balance in man's dual nature, physical and spiritual. Expressing that emotion abstractly, keeping it to one's mind and meditation, is not enough to satisfy the requirements of religious worship. Nothing compares to involving both aspects of one's being during worship, with the senses, a coordinated movement of the body, and position, direction, dress, and recitation of set text, etc.

Prophets of all times, as seen from both the HB/NT bowed and put their forehead to the ground as the utmost sign of humility to God

23:1-2"Successful indeed are the believers, Who are humble in their prayers..."

There is a tradition that says when the Prophet was standing to perform the prayers, he would occasionally look up to the heavens, but when this verse was revealed, he began looking downwards from that time onwards and never raised his head while at prayer. The ritual prayers reflect the servant's humility through a combination of words and gestures.

The words Muslims recite in each position are highly meaningful and appropriate, for example in the state of sajda/prostration, the lowest one can put his most honorable body part, we acknowledge that God is the highest, most exalted. In the state of ruku', the weakest position in which the slightest push can throw one out of balance, like the bending of a runner crossing the line at the height of his exhaustion, we recognize God's infinite power (al athim). The alternation in tone of voice suggests God's Exaltedness when the pitch is higher, or His attribute of closeness, closer than the jugular vein 50:16 when the pitch of voice is lower.

The consecutive movements of salaat illustrate a progressive humility and submission to the Creator. According to the wise Ali ibn Abu Talib, the cousin and son in law of Muhammad through marriage with his daughter Fatima, each couple of sajda, starting with the forelock on the ground, then up, back to the ground, then up, then standing symbolize respectively; the soil from which we started, then fully grown, then back to the soil at death, then resurrected, then standing for judgement. Besides being meaningful in and of themselves, the etiquettes of prayer, from the pre-prayer purifying rituals, the prescribed timings, body positions or words of worship, all are meant to instill the manner of having a proper conversation with the supreme Being, just as one would learn the manners to prepare, present oneself and address an eminent worldly personality

"This prayer of ours is not the place for ordinary human speech, rather it is glorification and magnification of Allah, and reciting Qur’an".

God is not in need of this worship, we do, so He recommends it for the good it brings and the spiritual growth it causes

25:77,20:132"And enjoin prayer on thy people, and steadily adhere to it. We ask not of thee a sustenance. We provide for thee. And the (good) end is for guarding against evil".

Many times when giving sharia directives, the discourse is interrupted with a reminder of the importance of guarding the prayers 2:238-9. In other instances when speaking of the importance of upholding certain moral virtues like the trusts, oaths and promises, the discourse begins and ends with a stress on diligent observance of the prayer 70:23-34. It is as if the prayer is like a boundary wall which encircles and protects everything within it. No other directive in Islam occupies as much significance as the prayer. Like a sentinel it guards both a person’s religious concepts and his deeds. A person who is indifferent to the prayer is as if he is indifferent to religion as a whole.
Beyond the timed obligatory prayers, and for their own good

20:130"that you may be well pleased"

the believers are recommended to stand up for prayers in parts of the night, not forcing themselves, not exaggerating so as to compromise their daily obligations and activities, but just as they can bear 73:20, and if they can remain in contemplation until the later part of the night they may do so 17:79,76:25-26. The night certainly is a time most suited for the concentration of mind and for communion with God

73:6"Surely the rising by night is the firmest way to tread and the best corrective of speech. Surely you have in the day time a long occupation" 17:79"And in the night, pray humbly with it (the Quran), an addition for you, maybe your Lord will raise you to a position of great glory".

Islam critiqued unhappy with divine communications; revelations through angels?

In answer to the video "Muhammad and Merkabah Mysticism"

Divine inspiration transmitted to an individual by an angel is not something unique to Muhammad. Although the Tanakh (like the Quran) recognizes that every prophet receives the ruh/ruach that allows divine inspiration, it is mostly silent on whom the carrier of that inspiration is, except in Daniel's case whose visions, prophetic dreams and inspiration were brought by a third party, who was none other than the angel Gabriel/Jibreel Dan7:15,8:16,9:21. The fact that Gabriel is referred to as "a man" is due to his appearance in the form of a man in Daniel's vision. Gabriel, along with another angel, would later appear to Daniel while awake, but still in the shape of a man. He was sent to Daniel to reveal to him the meaning of a frightening vision he had. Again in

Dan9:21"While I was still speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I saw in the vision at first, approached me in swift flight about the time of the evening offering".

Gabriel proceeded by transmitting divine revelation upon Daniel.

Moses himself is described as receiving his ever first communication with God through an angel Ex3:2. Other prophets received revelation through angels. In dreams, Jacob was regularily visited by angelic messengers Gen31:11. Same for Elisha 2Kings1:3 or Zechariah's angelic visions later on throughout the book attributed to him.  We also read that the spirit of God descending on an individual is always a pre-condition for prophethood. Even a regular person receiving the spirit of God automatically becomes a prophet Numb11:16-30. In fact we read that when God intends to speak with a prophet, He does so through an angel Numb22:20,35 and it was enough for the prophet Iddo to be convinced of the truthfulness of a man claiming to be a prophet when the latter said he received revelation through an angel 1Kings13:18. When the prophets David and Solomon were visited in dreams by "the Lord", it obviously doesnt mean God physically appeared to them. God visiting these men means He made His will known to them through some means, like the angels 1Kings3:5. Not in one instance is there any prophet who was in this way "visited by the Lord" ever speaking of having literally seen the divine essence. Prophetic revelation through angels, and more particularily through Gabriel, was therefore an already well established knowledge at least among the people of the book before the beginning of Muhammad's mission.

The prophet himself claimed very early on in Mecca as seen from the above verses, that it was an angel who was carrying down revelation to him, not directly through God. The non-believing Arabs, who also believed in the existence of angels but had corrupted it by calling them God's daughters, echoed that claim by challenging him to show those angels of revelation 15:6-7. The Quran would reply to this demand and other similar ones that firstly angels, when they enter the physical realm, only appear in human form and that second, should they ever be sent as per the request of a disbelieving people, then the punishment would immidiately follow.

Islam critiqued's incomplete Christian religion; the function of the ruach hakodesh?

In answer to the video "Muhammad and Merkabah Mysticism"

Now lets dig a little deeper on this ruach hakodesh that descends upon the prophets. Starting with the Quran.

When Allah sends ALRUH, the Arabic equivalent of the "ruach", for divine inspiration, it executes its purpose as commanded by Him 40:15,42:52. It is important to emphasize that whatever it does and the effect it has, it is by the will of Allah alone, not its own intrinsic will or power. This is particularly made clear with what the RUH, that manifested in human form to Mary, told her in regards her miraculous conception 3:47,19:21. The angels then descend with the RUH upon those whom God deems fit

77:5,97:4,16:2"He sends down the angels with the RUH by His commandment on whom He pleases of His servants, saying: Give the warning that there is no god but Me, therefore be careful (of your duty) to Me".

RUH stems from r-w-h meaning anything that blows as in a wind/breeze/breath. It also carries the meaning of life giving breath. The word is always associated with a kind of breeze that brings something good such as life, rest or inspiration. Upon the prophet Jesus, the RUH al qudus/breeze of holiness, besides its basic role of inspiration, gave him the strength and aptitude to perform the miracles that he did 2:87,253,5:110. Jesus' association to the RUH do not however make any of them divine. It was a tool sent upon Jesus as was sent on all prophets and regular believers, each time for the purpose for which Allah intends for it. 

Jesus' mention with the RUH is among the patterns of the Quran of taking up the most cherished christological themes, then strip them from their paganistic implications. 

The Quran leaves no room to the kind of conjecture trinitarians are known for when approaching their Bible, let alone the Quran. Christians feel comforted whenever they superficially approach the Quran and find these familiar Christological themes. They are sometimes bold enough to assume the Quran is confirming their doctrines. After all, none other than Jesus is referred to as God's word, His messiah or a RUH from Allah. But by doing so Christians are missing the consistent Quranic approach of taking up the major trinitarian themes and labels associated to Jesus, then recasts them in a monotheistic, unitarian perspective. It is the case with the kalima, just as with the RUH/spirit or the name "messiah". Jesus is not the literal nor metaphorical "son of God" but simply, the son of Mary as Christians themselves cannot deny. Similarly, Jesus is stripped from any intrinsic power as regards his ascension and ability to perform miracles. Being the muhaymin/guardian of the previous scriptures and traditions, the Quran could not leave those themes unaddressed. And it does so in an impactful way, using them just as is done in Christian scriptures, while redefining them so as to deny their Christological background.

That corrective function goes beyond these aforementioned pillars of Christology. In the Gospels' eschatology, the trinitarian godhead is at the forefront and Jesus is given the leading role of judgement by his "father" Matt25,26. In the Quran, no possible ambiguity exists as to Allah's supremacy on that day, whether in terms of glory, authority or judgement.

The sending of revelation upon a prophet is carried out by an angelic delegation accompanying the spirit 16:2. In 16:102,26:192-4 that particular descending spiritual entity is not named, in another place God singles out the descending entity by name as Gabriel 2:97. The Quran describes the eminence of that particular messenger of revelation 

81:19-21"honored messenger, the posessor of strength, having an honorable place with the Lord of the Dominion, One (to be) obeyed, and faithful in trust". 

He is one who is mutaAA 81:21 denoting authority and the angels are created in different grades 35:1. His power, honor and unfaltering trustworthiness 26:192-4, his sacredness 16:102, means he is most fit to accomplish this noble task. That is why the Quran always singles him out from among the angels of revelation 2:98,66:4,97:1-4. The mention of an angelic delegation descending with the revelation expresses the prestige of Allah's word and the singling out of one entity from among them denotes the distinct nobility of the one selected to carry it. As noble and honored the carrier of revelation is, He remains under God's authority in the process 

2:97"he made it descend to your heart by Allah's command". 

This emphasis is meant at dispelling any doubt, in the minds of those that dislike the indirect manner in which God communicates with His prophets, making clear Who the ultimate source of that message is. Not only is the descent commanded by Allah, but it in addition originates from Him 

2:99"And certainly WE descended to you clear communications" 

2:105"Those who disbelieve..do not like..that the good should be brought down to you from your Lord, and Allah chooses especially whom He pleases for His mercy, and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace" 

26:192-4"And most surely this (ie Quran) is a sending down from the Lord of the worlds. The Faithful Spirit/RUH has descended with it, Upon your heart that you may be of the warners". 

The Quran originates from Allah, was commanded to be sent down by Him, through the trustworthy RUH, elsewhere named Gabriel, who is accompanied by a delegation of angels. Elsewhere the Quran, in its surgical use of words and in a similar context of attesting to the otherworldly origin of the Book, says that it is 

53:4"a revelation revealed". 

Since the most obdurate could still find a way to disbelieve, admitting to the divine origin of the Quran but rejecting the legitimacy of the prophet who could have been given the revelation by an inspired human, God makes it clear, it is a process twice revealed. The first time to the medium, that is Gabriel, and the second time to the prophet's heart, by the inspired medium. Sure no explicit statement says that Gabriel or holylspirit is an angel. Strong indications however point to the descending delegation as always and exclusively angelic. Throughout the Quran, no entity carrying God's will from heaven (revelation, punishment or else) is ever said to be other than angels. It is known that the descending entities fully encompassed by Allah's will in 19:64-5 are angels for whom Gabriel is speaking in the passage. What those attempting to deny Gabriel's identification with the holy spirit are left with is a slightly ambiguous statement in 97:4. And that is if one disregards the aforementioned patterns, as well as linguistic reasons for singling out the spirit from among the angels.

The WAW in 97:4 which is translated in general as AND, also often means inclusion of a particular entity within the general more encompassing entity. The purpose is to create a distinction in terms of prominence relevant to the context. For example the Quran says "and the prophets and Jesus and Moses" 2:136,3:84. It mentions the two in WAW/AN form to mean that they are included but to bring particular attention to those two amongst the prophets. Elsewhere it says 69:14"the earth and the mountains are lifted" or in 55:68"In both of them are fruit and dates and pomegranates". See also 31:16.

Finally, the attempted parallel of the syntax in 97:4 (separating entities part of the same angelic group) with 3:87 fails for the reason that in this verse God, angels and humans are explicitly stated elsewhere as being different entities. No statement in 97:4 or indications elsewhere say that the descending spirit and the angels are different entities, quite to the contrary as previously demonstrated.

The description of Gabriel with "RUH" denotes that angels are breeze like entities of the unseen realm. In this world they can take any form or be used for any purpose according to God's will. To Mary, that immaterial entity appeared as a human being 19:17-9. Then this immaterial entity, which assumed human form, blew a part of itself into her, so that she might conceive 

21:91"So We breathed into her from/MIN Our RUH". 

The Quran does not detail how that process was executed in relation to Mary. It uses the euphemism "farj" for the location where the breath was sent 66:12 a word referring to the space between 2 things, in this instance the legs. Farj is used for both men and women 23:5,33:35 eloquently but indirectly alluding to the private parts, which are located between that space. This process does not make Mary nor any part of her divine, just as God's breathing from His RUH in every human being doesnt make us or part of us divine 32:9,38:71-2. Ruhana/our breeze or breath is attached to God's name to stress its greatness, the particular connection it creates between the recipient and Allah, as is stated concerning the righteous 

58:22"These are they into whose hearts He has impressed faith, and whom He has strengthened with a RUH from Him/minhu". 

And just as the Quran associates the RUH with Jesus, it does the same with the prophet Muhammad in the context of divine inspiration 16:102.

The RUH sent by Allah, under His command, affects multiple people at once like the wind would. Similar usage is seen with the house of Allah or the month of Allah or the sakina of Allah/the soothing calmness that filled Muhammad and the believers, or the love from Allah bestowed upon Moses 20:39 etc. None of those things are considered parts of Allah, having any intrinsic power, or emanating from within His essence, or sharing in His divinity. Again, it is the RUH that breathed a portion of it into Mary, not Allah 

19:19"He (the RUH) said: I am only a messenger of your Lord, that I will give you a pure boy". 

The RUH is consistently described as in Allah's control and command. God in 21:91 attributes to Himself the breathing of a portion of the RUH into Mary, because the whole process is under His control. He commands the RUH to blow into Mary, and God alone gives power to the RUH to have the intended effect on Mary. The RUH has no intrinsic ability by itself other than what Allah grants it 

19:21"She said, when shall I have a boy when no mortal has touched me, nor have I been unchaste? He (the RUH) said; Even so; Your Lord says "It is easy to Me"

 3:47"He (the RUH) said; Allah creates what He pleases, when He has decreed a matter, He only says to it "BE" and it is".

The RUH, like the prophets of old, is a vessel through which God manifests His will. There are no ambiguities the like of which trinitarians have read into passages of the HB. It doesnt even say that this RUH is an emanation FROM Allah, but that it is something TO Allah, meaning belonging to Him, in His possession and full control. The RUH breathed into every human being just as the RUH breathed into Mary is said to be OF God because it BELONGS TO God. The action of God blowing the RUH does not hint to it emanating from inside of Him. The RUH is a breeze-like entity external to Allah. The action of God breathing it for the performance of a task, means He creates the conditions external to Him that make blowing to happen, so that the RUH is transferred from its location to where He wants it to be. For example God, whether in the times of Moses as depicted in the HB or the times of Muhammad as described in the Quran, is said to be literally fighting the disbelievers in battle, although the physical reality was that the believers were the ones waging war. Religious scriptures are replete with such usage of God acting, and His actions manifesting through conditions external to Him. So, instead of naively imagining a human like deity blowing air out of its lungs, one can easily preserve the overall Quranic axiom of divine transcendence, by paralleling what causes the RUH to be sent, to the meteorological causes that send the wind on earth 

30:46"And one of His signs is that He sends forth the winds bearing good news.."

Lastly, what should be kept in mind as regards the RUH, is that it is an issue of which very little knowledge has been imparted to the humans, other than it is an entity under Allah's complete grasp and control 17:85 as demonstrated earlier. Therefore, like every reality pertaining to the Hereafter or the heavenly realm, only a glimpse of its true nature and manner in which it operates can be accessible to our perception in this life.

Angels in general have thus been specifically pointed as the carriers of divine revelation, necessarily making the belief in them a tenet of faith 2:177,285. At two points during Muhammad's revelational experience, the angel Gabriel, the one repeatedly singled out as the possessor of mighty strength, became to him as a clearly perceptible, almost tangible presence, revealing himself in his true shape and form 81:19-25,53:4-18.

Very few humans have had the privilege of such visions of the heavenly creatures. They mostly appear in this world in the shape of humans, it therefore is a great favor from the Creator to make a human capable of withstanding such a vision. The HB speaks of Ezekiel's visions of the throne bearing angels in their true form.

But what is to be noted is that even during those intense encounters, clear signs were shown to Muhammad to make him understand that there always will remain areas of knowledge no human mind can penetrate, which the Creator has reserved for Himself.

Divine revelations, through which medium?

In answer to the video "Muhammad and Merkabah Mysticism"

The common understanding between the Bible and the Quran as regards to a prophet is that it is someone chosen to be spoken to by God, receiving His spirit, becoming His spokesman, conveying teachings of holiness, scholarship and closeness to God. A prophet therefore in Jewish belief doesnt have to be explicitly labelled "prophet" for him to fit the function, in the same way as, contrary to Christian belief, the promised messianic figure to come at the end of times is never labelled "the messiah". Both have to fit a certain description to qualify, and for a prophet, he has to be first of all cleared from what constitutes the criteria of a false prophet Deut13,18 and then he has to have some type of communication with the divine, through the ruach hakodesh. More on that point later.

Now the HB does not grade the prophets according to their revelational experience, ie there are no half-prophets and minor prophets. It is the Talmudic scholars that discriminate between these personalities based on the manner in which God communicated with them. For example Moses is considered the most superior -and Jews a required to acknowledge that superiority in their creed- because God spoke directly with him. All others are less in status because divine communication was in a less direct manner, in a "blurry" fashion, through visions (in sleep or awake). And the most distant mode of divine communication is believed to be either through the ruach hakodesh/ which literally translates to "spirit of holiness" or through angels. Those persons arent considered prophets anymore, but simply holy individuals with a faint level of divine inspiration.

With these principles in mind, Talmudic scholars are nevertheless in disagreement whether to consider Daniel, one with whom God communicated through angels and visions, a prophet or not.

The HB on the other hand, as stated in introduction discards these discriminatory criteria at once when it states, concerning all prophets, including since the time of their exodus with Moses whom they regard as the chief of all prophets

Hosea12:10"I spoke to the prophets, gave them many visions and told parables through them".  

All of them are true prophets, no mention of grades despite the different visions they received. The Quran addresses this discriminatory criteria they make in many places.

The Talmud speaks of hundreds of thousands, even millions of other prophets without naming them all and whose stories are omitted from the Tanakh because of the limited impact of their mission as compared to those chosen to be included in it. In the Tanakh itself, an allusion is often made of "prophets" without naming them, living and performing, alongside other prominent prophets.

The Israelites, from their corrupt leaders and doctors of Law down to the populace are known for having pursued and persecuted, rejected, mocked, slandered, imprisoned, physically assaulted or even killed the prophets sent to them and telling them to adhere to their own books meaning there could have been many more by their own standards. 

In the NT, Jesus and others use very harsh words too when denouncing their rejection and killing of prophets Matt23:30-37,Mk12:1-12,Lk7:28,1Thess2:15,Acts7. 

The killing of their prophets, as stated in the Quran was done "unjustly" ie knowingly and intentionally - not by mistake, ignorance or misunderstanding 2:87,3:21,181,183,5:70,33:69.

Cain and Abel from rabbinic texts?

In answer to the video "Muhammad and Merkabah Mysticism"

Some have attempted to source the Quran's version of the Cain and Abel story, as well as a few other stories, to the Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer. The passages in question from the Pirke only superficially resemble the Quran. The usual claim of "imperfect borrowing" can easily be dismissed by the fact that similarity doesnt entail borrowing.

Without getting to the issue of textual authenticity and which text predates which, both traditions, Jewish and Muslim might be drawing from earlier, independant sources. 

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.

The Pirke of rabbi Eliezer was actually redacted at least 200 years after the advent of Islam. Ishmael’s wives are even called Fatima and Ayesha! It is attributed to Eliezer although he wasnt its author except potentially for 2 disputed chapters. In addition various versions of it exist. Nothing of its specific information can be traced, whether from written or oral Jewish tradition, anywhere near the time of the advent of Islam. Other illusive sources from whence the prophet Muhammad supposedly constructed his well knit and consistent Quran, could be, according to the opponents, an approximate mishmash of the various informations found in works as, Targum pseudo Jonathan, which was redacted, edited and reedited, well after Islam, the Midrash Tanhuma/Yelammedenu, dated to the mid-9th century CE and having various recensions including in the Cain and Abel story, and finally the Mishnah Sanhedrin in the bit about preserving a soul, a tradition which the Qurn restores to its original universal connotation.

Islam critiqued find old murder archives; the value of a soul in Islam?

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.

Islam critiqued exposes Quran plagiarism; Islam copied moral principles from others?

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.

Islam critiqued goes back to the first Biblical man; Abel murder in the Quran?

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.

Islam critiqued plays inspector colombo; Quran addressing manslaughter?

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.