In answer to the video "The Significance of Jesus' Resurrection"
When Jesus was apprehended and judged by the Romans, with the complicity of the Jewish leaders who wanted to get rid of him for his denouncing their sins as past prophets did, he did not claim to be the king messiah, neither to the Jews who were seeking a pretext to make him arrested, pressing the question to have him confess Matt26:63-64,Mk14:62,Lk22:70 nor in front of the authorities, who eventually sent him to be crucified.
By doing so, and acceding to the request of the Jews, the romans validated the Jewish charge against him of messianic kingship which is punishable by death under state laws. Now that Jesus and his band became official outlaws wanted by the state, his close apostles are reported to have fled with Peter even denying he knew Jesus 3 times. The Romans, lobbied by their Jewish stooges, deemed the allegation against him enough for him to be crucified.
This punishment was most often reserved to those who threatened the political status quo, regardless of their background motives (religious or else). Jesus was a typical person the Romans would go after in those days, a charismatic leader who proclaimed a kingdom "with God" not "with Caesar" at its head was seen as an immediate threat. The person didnt even have to present a violent danger to be inflicted with such punishment, nor tangible evidence, especially a non-Roman citizen or a slave. Simple suspicion, in this case instigated by their Jewish minions, or even non-violent anti-government talk such as the promised rule of God's kingdom, was enough to trigger the authorities.
As to Pontius Pilate washing his hands of the decision to execute a political agitator, a man known for his brutality against his subjects, is obviously a scribal corruption with an agenda. The Greeks were writing the Gospels after the Roman legions had returned to crush the Jewish rebellion of 66CE and did not want to antagonize Roman power and attract their hostility at that point in time. What is insteresting to add is that, contrary to similar cases where accomplices would be tracked down and killed to crush a potential rebellion, the Romans left Jesus' disciples to freely preach their gospel.
This shows that, as said above, Jesus was seen as inconsequential in terms of posing a violent threat, that the savage Roman police would easily be triggered on simple basis of suspicion and that they would readily accomodate their local puppets to safeguard their own dominion in the distant regions of the empire.
As Paul candidly admits,
1Corin15:17"If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins".
In essence, the validity of Christianity stands or falls on this claim. Yet the admittedly crucial nature of that event is contrasted by the scarcity of material related to it within the Gospels. Barely 5 people witnessed the risen Jesus, and when analyzed critically, these testimonies are contradictory and inconsistent. In Mark, Matthew and Luke, Jesus' message is centred not on the resurrection, but on the establishment of God's kingdom on earth, a metonym in those days for God's rule of justice and restauration of JEwish glory among the nations, with the defeat of the Romans. It is only with the development of Christology with John's Gospel and Paul's writings, as well as the Greek Church fathers, their rich Hellenistic background of mythologies and legends of deified leaders, that supplied the fertile ground for the short story of Jesus' resurrection, his interpolated deification.
This Hellenistic perspective however isnt on par with the Jewish background which the writers and early Christian scholars claim provide proof for their beliefs on Jesus. In Jewish understanding, the resurrection of the dead is a common theme that has already occured in the past and that shall happen again in the messianic era, without any divine connotation or connection with atonement for sins.
These men were formulating their ideas, interpreting inherited traditions while still infused with stories of demigods, Achilles, Dionysus or Heracles to name but a few. By the time they expressed their thoughts and the Gospels were put to writing, the Jerusalem Temple had been destroyed in 70CE, and the centers of Christian thought were spread around the Mediterranean. This opened the way for non-Jews and foreigners to Jesus' socio/cultural/religious background to take the reigns of power in the early church.
When challenged by the Pharisees to display a miracle, Jesus promised them his resurrection after being dead for 3 days Matt12:39. Once he is supposedly resurrected, he doesnt appear to those who specifically asked him for the sign and to whom he said he will reappear. Instead, Jesus' followers come to the Pharisees, claiming that the sign had occured.
Neither is there any claim that the risen Jesus ever appeared to anyone but believers. There is only the word of a mere handful of "witnesses" whose stories vary from person to person, and we dont even know who transmitted those biased accounts until they were eventually put to writing by scribes whom nobody knows.
In answer to the video "The Significance of Jesus' Resurrection"
Modern (biblical) scholarship highly questions the authorship of Mark, John, Luke, Matthew. Further, and as already noted, the NT itself states in Matt26:56,Jn18:15-27 that the apostles who are reporting the events of Jesus' crucifixion and public humiliation, never witnessed those particular events. So what added benefit is there in bringing in the testimony of someone outside the circle of those to whom the texts are ascribed, and who claims to derive knowledge from them? The allusion here is to Ignatius, who himself states that the birth and death of Jesus were obscured by God who revealed them to the world by some shining star, not eyewitnesses, as there were of course none
"Mary's virginity was hidden from the prince of this world, so was her child-bearing, and so was the death of the Lord. All these three trumpet-tongued secrets were brought to pass in the deep silence of God. How then were they made known to the world? Up in heavens a star gleamed out, more brilliant than all the rest; no words could describe its lustre, and the strangeness of it left men bewildered".
Before getting into the passage, this "early" disciple of the apostles named Ignatius is unheard of in secular history and almost nothing in early Christian writings testifies to his having been bishop of Antioch, the centre of Christianity in Roman Syria, nor of him readily dying a martyr at 2 conflicting dates according to "tradition" by Trajan's direct order. We're talking of the same Trajan known as a tolerant ruler who requested stringent procedures before laying any accusations on Christians. Yet he executed this Ignatius simply for having witnessed the apostles' sacrificing their lives in preaching Jesus whom they had seen resurrected. In his supposed prison letters, Ignatius confronts Christians that argued against basic tenets of current Christian orthodoxy, including the death, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. These groups were arguing against these notions based on the fact that they are absent from "the original documents"
"When I heard some people saying, If i do not find it in the original documents, I do not believe it".
Instead of pointing to the verses depicting the death, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, Ignatius vaguely says that they exist in those originals, adding that Jesus himself is sufficient as proof. This group was basically accusing Ignatius of following and believing in a tampered, and falsified gospel.
It is therefore no surprise that the Quran charges Christians for believing with "no knowledge" what it calls a "conjecture"
4:157"they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture".
The NT shows in Matt26,Jn18 that the disciples did not witness anything but Jesus' arrest by the Romans, and among the disciples only Peter saw Jesus' questioning by the high priest at the courtyard. None of the disciples saw or were present at Jesus' alleged public beating, humiliation and crucifixion. While there is mention in Jn19:25-27 of a "disciple" being near Jesus at the cross, there is no proof that this unnamed disciple mentioned by John's Gospel's writer (mentioned in the 3rd person by the way, why would John mention himself in the 3rd person?) is John the son of Zebedee. That traditional interpretation is still a matter of dispute among scholars. Also, the other gospels dont mention a "disciple whom Jesus loved".
So that "beloved disciple" who witnessed the crucifixion is the John who authored the gospel that holds his name, yet that "beloved disciple" fails to mention the spectacular transfiguration of Jesus, and the talking cloud, of which he was only 1 of 3 eyewitnesses Matt17:1-13,Mk9:2-13? That is not to mention that "beloved disciple"'s silence of other events of which he was the privileged eyewitness, leaving instead others who werent present to those events to testify in his place. Incidents such as the raising of Jairus' daughter Mk5:37-42 or Jesus' ascension Lk24:33-51. There are various theories on the identity of that unknown and unnamed male disciple "whom Jesus loved" that allegedly stood near Jesus on the cross. According to the NT, he was one of the unknown eyewitnesses who recounted the event to the several unknown writers of the Gospel of John, as attested by the text
Jn21:24"This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true".
Who are "we" and who is the one whose testimony is believed to be true?
The NT sometimes speaks of "disciples" without them being necessarily those among his inner circle of 12. For example Paul says the resurrected Jesus firstly appeared to Peter then to the twelve 1Cor15:15 at a time when Judas was already dead Matt27:5, and his successor had not yet been chosen Acts1:26. The other Gospels also say nothing about any disciple or any women being near the cross, or talking with Jesus while he was on the cross. They only mention a group of women watching the scene from a distant place. Accepting this for argument's sake, unlike his male followers, these women would probably have been allowed to watch without being arrested, provided that they didnt try to interfere.
Execution sites were guarded by Romans who would certainly not allow access to the followers and accomplices of one who was supposedly executed for being a political agitator that could threaten the state Matt27:37,Mk15:26,Lk23:38,Jn19:19-22. It isnt even known how Jesus - or any other victim of this brutal Roman execution method - was affixed to the cross. The earliest artistic depictions of Jesus’ death were made centuries after the fact, long after the Roman Empire had turned Christian and outlawed this punishment. Also, there are very few archaeological remains of crucifixion as a practice in general. In fact the only known solid piece of physical evidence is a 1st century C.E. heel-bone pierced by a nail, found in 1968 in a Jewish tomb in Jerusalem. The piercing doesnt even follow the image of crucifixion made famous in Christian iconography.
During the years when Jesus was growing up, many people believed that the End Times necessary for the appearance of the warrior king Messiah per the HB had already arrived, and that this liberator would soon organize a revolt against the hated Romans and drive them out of the country. There were many claimants to the role before, and after Jesus.
The Romans were fully aware of this and were constantly on the look out for rebel leaders and their accomplices in a time where uprisings against the state were more frequent in Palestine than any other part of the Empire.
In light of these historical realities, and the fact that the end times messianic figure did not materialize in Jesus, that it appeared to many that he was murdered, those who nevertheless believed him to fit the role could not but paint this aspect of his life in "purposeful" obscurity, as shown above. In addition, his death/failure became his self-predicted success, purposefully orchestrated, in fulfillment of ancient prophecies retrospectively applied to him, or rather misapplied to anyone familiar with the HB. The whole NT is a poorly written apology of a new concept of the end times king messiah, as here candidly stated
Jn20:31"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name".
Matt12:15-21 attempts to show that Jesus' appeal to secrecy was in fulfilment of Isa42:1-4, a passage that only relates to what Matthew infers by the most farfetched analogy. He implies that by the vast majority of Israel's being purposefully denied access to the truth, the Gentiles instead will be saved. But for these gentiles to have access to this truth after Jesus' death, there had to be a select few who would understand the secret scheme. The plot was supposedly achieved through obscured parables only his disciples would understand Mk4:11-12,Matt13:13-15 yet we many times read throughout the NT how his closest followers who supposedly were among those select few at least struggled in comprehending him if not completely misunderstood him. In fact towards the end of Jesus' mission people in general and his closest entourage had no clue about his messianship, to the point that when Simon identifies him as the messiah, Jesus tells him that he could only have received that information in a supernatural way Matt16. The simple reason is that the historical Jesus did not go around claiming to fulfil the messianic predictions of the HB. The claim was later made for him. If he did, people would have laughed their lungs off, including the Romans. The Gospel writers, writing at least 50 years after the events knew that what Jesus accomplished had nothing to do with the highly anticipated establishment of the kingdom of God. They were thus left with no option other than painting the whole matter as they did.
The Jewish people were thus divinely blinded for that purpose, at least temporarily as stated in
Rom11:11"I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous".
As if God could not provide salvation for both Jew and Gentile without deliberately withholding knowledge so that only some Jews are saved.
In answer to the video "The Significance of Jesus' Resurrection"
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 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.
Here are a few examples, it was in the 4th century that Pope Damasus I introduced the 25th of december as the birthday of Jesus (Christmas). He used the immensely popular ancient mid-winter solstice Roman festival, which lasted for several days and culminated in the feast of 'Brumalia' on December 25th. This major celebration among pagans caused agonies for the Church, and since the early Christians had absolutely no idea of the day, month or even year of Jesus' nativity, it was a relatively easy matter to superimpose a Christian festival on the pagan one.
Easter similarly has its origins in a pagan celebration of nature’s resurrection, with rabbit and eggs symbolizing fertility and renewal. In fact it is well known that pagan Europe, up to the middle ages was undergoing a Christianization of their old rites and customs. This process facilitated European conversions.
In answer to the video "The Significance of Jesus' Resurrection"
The devastating defeat of having their messiah dying, was retrospectively written as a divinely planned victory since before the universe's creation. IT was then put in writing by several unknown authors whom nobody knows, who attributed their works to Jesus' close disciples yet these disciples are reported to have fled the scene at Jesus' arrest. Add to this the fact that not even a single historian exists, attesting to the wonderful and cataclysmic events surrounding the crucifiction that were allegedly witnessed by an entire city.
The NT itself testifies to the fact that his close circle, let alone the rest of his followers never approached the dead body and could not therefore burry it. The passage of Acts13:27-29, which is attributed to Paul, shows that the disciples included among those guilty for the execution anyone who took part in the recovery of Jesus' body. Thus, Paul emphasizes that Jesus was buried not by his followers but by his enemies yet Jn19:38, which was written after Acts, speaks of 2 elements among those who burried Jesus -Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus- as being secret followers of his. This obvious manipulation with the burial party being turned from hostile to favorable and positive is an effort to first of all circumvent the difficulty of having Jesus' body dumped in an unmarked pit as would have been done by his executioners, and second find reliable witnesses to the event. These invented characters would have then "faithfully" transmitted their testimony to their brothers in faith and Gospel writers, without being noticed.
How strange is it that Joseph of "Arimathaea" (a mysterious and unknown "city of the Jews" Lk23:51) was a Jesus disciple Matt27 yet he is unheard of until the very end. He is a convenient hybrid to the whole plot; close enough to the Jewish elite to avoid suspicion so that he may approach the body, but yet a closet Christian. HE is a
"honourable member of the Jewish council, also waiting for the kingdom of God".
Regardless, this Joseph was needed to rescue Jesus' body. Thats not to speak of another similar character only found in John3, called Nicodemus, a "ruler of the Jews" who was allegedly attracted to Jesus because of his miracles yet besides the "water to wine" one, Jesus' hadnt yet performed any miracle, did not begin his ministry, even though Jn2:24 states many miracles were performed only to later claim that a healing he performed in Capernaum was only his second miracle Jn4:54.
Contradictions and sidestepping aside, this Jewish ruler was supposedly convinced from seeing water turned to wine that "no man can do these miracles..except God be with him". One can only wonder what would have his reaction been had he seen what Pharao's magicians were able to do when urged to replicate Moses' miracles.
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Destruction of Idols"
When Jerusalem became Christianity's holy city, the Christian authorities would allow entry to some exiled Jews once a year to mourn the destruction of their Temple. One cannot but notice the cynicism of the Christians who viewed in the desecrated ruins, the triumph of their religion, the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy and thus satisfactorily left it as it is. In the Quran, besides them being subdued up to this day to the Christians, God warns them of further chastisement 17:8 whenever they return or persist in their wrong ways. Their known long and painful history in Christian lands bears testimony to this. The Quran further condemned them to have their security fully in the hands of others
3:112"Abasement is made to cleave to them wherever they are found, except under a covenant with Allah and a covenant with men".
It isnt God Himself who would repel their numerous enemies and Who would give them the upper hand on more powerful foes as he did in the times of Moses. Such security could either come from some Muslim states (of the past and today) in the name of Allah or from some non-Muslim states for other reasons. This is because
3:112"they have become deserving of wrath from Allah, and humiliation is made to cleave to them; this is because they disbelieved in the communications of Allah and slew the prophets unjustly; this is because they disobeyed and exceeded the limits".
Here the Quran plays on the concept of shade, the comfort provided by the pillars of clouds during their lengthy exodus, telling them they are now under the shadow of humiliation and oppression instead of the shadow of peace, comfort, protection, sustenance.
In its usual pattern of drawing a line and not generalizing, the Noble Quran continues
3:113"They are not all alike; of the followers of the Book there is an upright party.."
Their own books speak of their cursed state, made to hang upon them, and destined to expire only at what they call "the end of days", which in their terminology refers to the Messianic era of bliss and utopia
Zech8:13"And it shall come to pass that [just] as you were a curse among the nations, O house of Judah and house of Israel, so will I save you-and you shall be a blessing. Fear not; may your hands be strengthened".
By the year 638, Muslim troops led by the Caliph Umar entered Jerusalem and as they cleared the garbage on the Temple mount and uncovered scattered jumble of architectural elements, they identified the ruins as those of Solomon's Temple, instead of Hadrian's, and decided to clear an area of around 35 acres.
It was covered in garbage and debris of all sorts that were cynically left to be accumulated by the Christians as a reminder of Jesus' vindication, then a small prayer house was built on the site. The whole area of the mount that was cleared is what is known today as Masjid Al-Aqsa, sometimes also referred to as Haram Al-Sharif. Umar also uncovered what is suspected to be the Foundation Stone; the Rock from where it is speculated the prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven on the Night Journey 17:1, and which is believed by the Jews to be the first part of the Earth to come into existence and from where Adam, Cain, Abel, and Noah offered sacrifices to God. So no, Umar, contrary to the islamophobic rant, did not steal temple mount, he restored this area that was abandoned by both Jews and Christians, to its purpose, dignifying and honoring it.
It would be interesting to mention here the passage of Genesis 49. The writer promises that rulership over Israel will stay in the house of Judah and that the law will remain studied and kept. Historically neither were fulfilled. Then it mentions shiloh and how nations will gather around that figure, followed by metaphors of abundance. This isnt the concept of an end times figure that shall reestablish Jewish glory and law. As assumed earlier by the author, both are supposed to remain uninterrupted, up to the point of the arrival of "shiloh". Christians claim Jesus is this shiloh.
But assuming Jesus is traced to Judah, despite it being a violation of Jewish law due to him not having a biological father, how can he be the shiloh when it says the scepter shall not depart from Judah UNTIL shiloh comes? It implies that kingship rights will be removed from Judah at some future point and then given to shiloh (which etymologically means "the one to whom it belongs"). For Jesus to be shiloh in that sentence, he needs to be from other than Judah, which doesnt fit the Christian position. Further, neither shiloh nor Jesus appeared when Jewish self-government was over with the capture of the last king from the tribe of Judah, Zedekiah, in about 586 B.C.E. And even when Jesus did appear, he did not do so as a ruler over the Jews. To preserve the integrity of their text, the rabbis are now forced to reinterpret the promise and project it to the long haul, as Christians do with Jesus' second coming as ruler. To the rabbis, "the scepter not departing from Judah" became an allusion to right of governance instead of actual rulership and "the one to whom it belongs" (shiloh) a future ruler who shall establish it. Yet this still doesn't solve the problem of the removal of Judah when shiloh appears. The solution for them is elsewhere. Up to the arrival of the Ishmaelite prophet and the establishment of the Muslim nation as the new torch bearers of the truth to the world, the Jews could have potentially returned to their former glory, provided they repented and returned to the straight path; abiding by their covenant and accepting the last messenger sent to them, Jesus. When shiloh "the one to whom it belongs" appeared, that door was shut and will remain so until the day of resurrection
Ps132:12"If your sons keep My covenant, and this, My testimony, which I shall teach them, also their sons will sit on your throne forever".
The current state of Israel is illegitimate, ethically, legally, let alone scripturally. That is why it is a deeply fractured, majoritarly secular society and that despite the apparent independence, is actually living under humiliating subjugation to other nations on whose support its survival depends, as the Quran even tells them (as referenced earlier).
The Jews, until now and as corroborated by their rabbis and their books, have still not been given the divine authority to rebuild their destroyed temple on its previous location, in order to re-dedicate it to their religious rituals. Per the Torah it is God that must give them the right to do so, when a Jewish king and prophet is among them, to indicate the now lost original dimensions, the location of the altar, let alone get the Jews out of several insurmountable ritualistic difficulties such as sacrificing a red heifer, complicated purity requirements, identifying the priests, the specificities of their clothings. Jews cannot just decide to go and build the temple arbitrarily.
So they're waiting, and will keep on waiting, for their promised messiah to come and do the job. In the meantime, another nation has been raised in their stead as the torch bearers of the truth among the nations, with its own divinely restored Temple and its altar.
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Destruction of Idols"
Umar did not steal anything, he restaured this area that was abandonned by both Jews and Christians, to its purpose, dignifying and honoring it. To understand the issue precisely, lets go back in time.
Physical destruction and abasement came on Jesus' rejecters soon after his departure. In the years 69-73, the Temple of Jerusalem was razed to the ground as Jesus predicted in Matt23,24,Mk13,Lk23 (Quran 17:7,3:56), their priesthood was destroyed, the Israelites were slaughtered in large numbers women and children included, by the Romans. Many more were enslaved and sold in the markets, as Jesus prophesied lk21:24, deported throughout the Roman empire and colonies for hard labor.
Some were boarded on prison ships and sent to Corinth for the digging of an isthmus. Soonafter in the years 114-135 they suffered further destruction and enslavement by the tens of thousands, impoverishment and scattering throughout the earth. The greatest abasement was that for the next 1900 years they would have no authority in this land that was divinely granted to them. Following Jesus, Judea would be wrecked and destroyed several times by pagan forces, in accordance with Jesus' prophecy that not a stone would be left standing on another, for the Israelites' rejection of him Luke21.
The predictions as reported in the NT however seem to be retrospectively written. The Temple was destroyed in 70CE. The Gospels were written after that time. If the Prophecy of the Temple's destruction was made by Jesus in the 30s as is suggested in the Gospels, then one needs to explain why earlier NT books seem uninformed of it. We're not talking about the tearing down of a place of worship in some remote location, but of Jerusalem's Temple, known throughout the empire and beyond, a place of particular significance to the authors' own religion. Yet the book of Hebrews, written in the 60s describes it as a reality which is in competition with the nascent Jesus sect because it epitomises rabbinic Judaism.
Previous prophecies, in their own books warned them that should they turn away from the commands of God, as was the case with their rejection of Jesus, God Himself will uproot them from the land they were settled in.
They were not settled in it to enjoy it as an unrestricted holiday resort but to assert therein true faith and righteousness. Failure to do so would instead turn their sacred shrine into an object of ridicule among the nations 2Chronicles7:19-22. Eusebius the early church father notes that
"stones from the Temple itself, and from its ancient sanctuary and holy place, were used for the building of idol temples, and of theatres for the populace".
The Romans, led by Hadrian sought to build upon its ruins their new city "Aelia Capitolina". To achieve that vast project, the erasure of the previous city of the Jews had to be complete. In the process, their oppression was so intense, their expulsion so effective following their repeated rebellions and the 3 years of vicious warfare led by their messiah Simon bar Kochba, that by the 4th century the exact location of the temple edifice was beyond recall
"Rabbi Yermiah, son of Babylonia came to the Land of Israel and could not find the site of the Temple" (Tractate Shevuot 1 4b).
If 4th century Christian historian Eusebius is to be believed, the new city that Emperor Hadrian built upon the ruins of Jerusalem was colonized by a "new race of Gentiles" after "a total destruction of its ancient inhabitants". The whole province of Judea was even renamed Philisti as a further humiliation, after the ancient inhabitants of the land and bitterest enemies of the Israelites, the Philistines.
The new laws forbid Jews to live in the city or anywhere between Jerusalem and Hebron. Capital punishment faced any Jew who so much as stepped foot in the city. The harshness went so far as imposing penalties on any Jews caught laying eyes on the city on their "day of mourning". A day of mourning is one where they would remember the calamities that befell them. In Josephus' words
"Jerusalem ..was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited".
The scarcity of archaeological evidences for the biblical stories attests to this.
As 4th century churchman Jerome tells us, a statue of Hadrian, seated on horseback, was erected on the levelled platform of Jerusalem's Temple Mount after the crushing of the bar Kochba revolt in 135 AD. The Roman Emperor despised the Jews for their insularity and arrogant claims for a single concept of the divine. Just as Hadrian had erected a Temple to Zeus on the top of Mt Gerizim close to which the Samaritan Temple stood, it isnt inconceivable that he had erected a similar temple in Jerusalem, more precisely a temple dedicated to Jupiter, next to his imperial statue, as some scholars suggest.
It was not until the Christianization of the Roman empire late in the 4th century that these pagan "abominations" were eventually torn down. Stones from the ruined sanctuary were looted for use in later Christian structures. On the neglected esplanade the Byzantine emperor Justinian built a church to Mary Mother of God but little else.
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Destruction of Idols"
Whether one likes it or not, there is a pattern of the prophets. When they are sent with manifest arguments, warnings and prophecies, if the people do not heed during their time of respite then the prophecies come to roost, the opponents to the prophets are uprooted and the prophets and their followers established in the land. This pattern is all the more true in regards to a land declared sacred by God, and subsequently defiled.
A point came where the prophetic warnings were about to come to fruition and the prophet subsequently sent with Ali the final ultimatum to the tribes gathering for the annual pilgrimage from across the Arabian peninsula and the remaining Idolators of Mecca. They were unworthy of being the guardians of a land declared sacred by God since its establishment by their forefathers Abraham and Ishmael 8:34-35,53,9:17-22,28.
This is just as God, in the times of the children of Israel, declared Canaan sacred and unfit to any trace of idolatry Deut9,Lev18:24-8,20:22-3. The Israelites consequently had to exterminate or forcefully expell from it those who indulged in it and defiled it Ezra9:12, erasing all traces of idol worship, not allowing any covenant or peaceful outcome to its inhabitants. The only exception was an occasion where a Canaanite tribe disguised as coming from a foreign nation deceitfully or rather desperately, got into a peace covenant under oath with Joshua.
He was Moses' successor who had to carry on the task of cleansing the land from idolaters. When this desperate ploy of a nation trying to save the lives of their people from Bible loving Yahweists was uncovered, Joshua could not abrogate that peace covenant, contrary to the will of the rest of the community Josh9.
Similarly to Ali, Joshua, before engaging the Canaanites in battle, sent an ultimatum to the inhabitants, offering them three choices: to leave the land, surrender and declare peace, or stand up and fight. The native tribe of the Girgoshites accepted the first condition. However, thirty-one kings chose to fight and were eventually all defeated by a 40.000 strong Jewish army at the end of a 7 years struggle Josh4:13,Josh12. 14 years later, Canaan was entirely conquered and divided among the 12 tribes of Israel. In many areas however the native population was neither entirely exterminated, nor expelled as explicitly commanded and made binding on the Jews for al times to come Deut20:16,25:19. They were enslaved instead Judges1:28. This disobedience led the Israelities to gradually lose both their ethnicity through inter-mixing with the natives, and their monotheistic religion Judges3:5-7.
As a result God lifted His divine protection, and the Israelites could not contain their enemies anymore, becoming themselves slaves in that very land they had been promised and which they successfully conquered previously, the land in which they were supposed to lead a pious, grateful and free life following their Egyptian bondage. These periods of idolatry and submission to their neighbors were interrupted by short periods where, in answer to their desperate cries, God would choose certain individuals to gather them back to the straight path, reunite them under one religion and purpose, and give them back control of the land. These righteous members of the community would be endowed with God's spirit, empowered to be "judges" because of their morality, intelligence, valor, achievements Judges2,3. The Quran refers to them in 5:44. They commanded respect because of their known uprightness and their advices and judgements were highly regarded.
The community would however quickly fall back into spiritual degeneration and would disunite, after the judge's death or sometimes during his own life. For a period of about 300 years following the conquest of the promised land, this cycle of domination by the polytheists -Amalekites, Philistines, Ammonites, Midianites and other Semitic tribes- followed by a return to power through the rise of another God-chosen "judge" would repeat itself many times. It wasnt until the time of David's reign, Israel's second king, that the heathens would be entirely subdued once more as they were centuries before when the land was first invaded.
The Arabs at the time of the prophet, not only were guilty for corrupting the way of the land, but they were also preventing the righteous from it. By that late point in the prophetic history of communicating the divine message and laws of the land, one can say that among the pagans, the most obdurate and hostile to the establishment of Islam were the people of Dhul Khalasa in Yemen. They dubbed their temple "the Kaaba of Yemen" in order to lure the newly converted Arabs back to paganism and to their temple. The prophet peacefully called them to Islam, contrary to the appeals of his companions to invoke God's destruction upon them. Yet they would not desist even until that late stage of prophetic warnings, the unfolding of all prophecies and establishment of the way of God in front of their eyes, they were still trying to instigate spiritual corruption in the hearts of people that had just come out of the darkness of paganism.
This gave the prophet the right to apply God's unalterable law of retribution upon a nation of rejecters. A little over 100 men were sent to the temple and as he was marching, the prophet's emissary was met with resistance according to Hisham Ibn Al-Kalb. A battle took place, resulting in the killing of all enemy combatants and tearing down of the temple. There is surviving poetry of the event recounting how the women of the tribe were humiliated by the defeat of their men and destruction of the temple. As a side note and as is always the case when trying to interpret a report from the prophet, the principle is to take into account the whole corpus of ahadith and history, as well as the Quran, in order to find a pattern of thought and behavior, so as to fill in the blanks where there is ambiguity. In this case it is clear that only combatants could have been killed. Not unarmed citizen, as well as the weak.
There are countless ahadith, besides the rules of war laid down in the Quran, forbidding and condemning the purposeful targeting of women, children and the elderly during battle. Muslims could however be confronted to a situation where the necessity of war in self defence and the particular circumstances of a battle make it hard or impossible to distinguish between fighters and innocent civilians. Just as initiating fighting in certain times and places is forbidden (months of hajj or within the inviolable precincts of Kaaba) but should the enemy attack first then one is left with no option but to respond, the ethical rules of engagement should not prevent the Muslims from defending themselves should they be attacked at first, even if it carries the risk of causing unintended collateral casualties
"The Prophet passed by me at a place called al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They are from them."
Had there been a pattern by the Muslims of disregarding innocents in warfare, the question wouldnt have been presented to the prophet but the very fact that it was, shows that by default, the Islamic rule is to avoid civilians or any entity that does not pose a threat. In jihad the overarching principle is to always be proportional in retaliation
2:190"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits".
Such war ethics are absent in biblical warfare.
Had a similar report been read with the Judeo-Christian pattern of behavior towards other religions in ancient times the case would have been different.
True prophets and men of God were divinely sanctioned to tear down pagan temples in all the land of Canaan and exterminate the unrighteous natives, men, women, elderly, children, infants and animals 1Sam15. Contrary to the aforementioned report where no intentional targeting of innocents is meant, God in the HB allegedly commands the purposeful and indiscriminate killing of all that breathes. In addition, the hadith comes in the context of preemptive warfare, as already pointed while the situation in the HB is not one of hostility against the Israelites, rather to allow their establishment. The purpose of such measures was to avoid the Israelites' assimilation into the remaining pagan natives and adoption of their customs. And because the task was not thoroughly completed, with the Israelites intermarrying the natives, reverting to polytheism and worshipping in pagan temples, subsequent prophets and leaders were charged with destroying these rebuilt pagan temples once again and murder all their priests and false prophets. One notorious case is that of Elijah's mass slaughter of the false prophets of Baal.
This demonstrates the important point that God making a nation to inherit a land and placing on it the responsibility to preserve a certain din/way of life, is nothing but a matter of test that could equally result in their uprooting should they reach similar levels of transgressions. With dominion and authority comes great responsibility and accountability. God remains particularly watchful over the powerful nations 89:6-14 and does not fail crushing them with all their resources should He deem their existence harmful to their own selves and others. Ultimately this new people, the Muslims, were made successors in the land while being warned that if they transgress they will be swiftly requited. They will be replaced by the One encompassing them as He encompasses the whole earth, capable of erasing them completely then re-establish a similarly great human creation, even better yet in make should He want to 6:165,70:40-1,76:28.
Similar warnings were issued to the Israelites should they break the covenant after being established as a nation. They inherited a land which the previous possessors were enjoying in unrighteousness, hence their replacement Quran7:137,26:57-9,Deut8:19-20,Deut28-31,Deut9. This did not only happen with the Israelites, or Ishmaelites in the times of Muhammad, but previous nations that rejected their prophets were equally destroyed and another nation raised in their stead as trustees of God's favors
10:71-3,44:26,7:69,74,137,100"Is it not clear to those who inherit the earth after its (former) residents that if We please We would afflict them on account of their faults".
The HB uses a very appropriate metaphore to describe that pattern, picturing a sacred land becoming sick of its inhabitants' practices to the point it cannot contain them anymore
Lev18:24-8"Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants..."
Lev20:22-3"And you shall observe all My statutes and all My ordinances, and fulfill them, then the Land, to which I am bringing you to dwell therein, will not vomit you out. You shall not follow the practices of the nation that I am sending away from before you, for they committed all these [sins], and I was disgusted with them".
The prophet Solomon Prov2:21-22 and before him David spoke of that reality
Ps37:9-11"evildoers shall be cut off, and those who hope for the Lord-they will inherit the land. A short while longer and the wicked man is not here, and you shall look at his place and he is not there. But the humble shall inherit the land, and they shall delight in much peace".
The heritage of the earth in this worldly life is neither permanent nor everlasting. It is merely bestowed as a trial for different communities. That is why, everlasting heritage of the "land" is only possible in the Hereafter, in Heaven where those that will be established, the righteous believers, will never falter in their spirituality 21:105,39:73-4.
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Destruction of Idols"
This isnt the prophet's decision, but a divine one inscribed within an established pattern. the Quran retells the stories of past nations who were ordained, against a mightier ennemy and with God's help, to uproot unrighteousness and establish the will of God in a specific land. Such was the case with the Israelites back in the times of Moses who were commanded to cleanse the blessed land of Canaan from its unrighteous dwellers, to Saul/Talut and David 2:246-252, down to the Ishmaelites. Under the IShmaelite prophet and just as was commanded to the previous semitic prophets, they had to purge the ancient temple of monotheism in Mecca from its unworthy guardians who had swayed into the ways of polytheism
22:40-1"Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And had there not been Allah's repelling some people by others, certainly there would have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah´s name is much remembered; and surely Allah will help him who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty. Those who, should We establish them in the land, will keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and enjoin good and forbid evil; and Allah´s is the end of affairs".
So just like it was ordained to Muhammad and the Children of Ishmael, Allah previously ordered in the days of Moses and the prophets of the children of Israel to fight in His way for specific purposes, see Deut1:41,Deut7,9:4-6,12:1-3,20:16-18 and allthroughout Deuteronomy. The Israelites are commanded to cleanse the land from idolatry, destroying all altars and not leaving a physical trace of it. All subsequent Israelite prophets were to purge all remaining traces of idolatry and evil from the land, by the sword without holding back whether it involves killing Jews or non Jews as prophecised in Isa1:25. In the HB, we read that God's established way of erradicating idolatry is so forecful that He sometimes even tasks non-Jews to do the job where the ISraelites failed, as stated in Jer48:10 concerning the Chaldeans sent to destroy the Moabites
"Cursed be he who performs the Lord's work deceitfully, and cursed be he who withholds his sword from blood"
or the Assyrians of Sennacherib raised by God and through whom He destroyed, exiled and enslaved the idolatrous Kingdom of Israel Amos6:11-14 or the Babylonians of Nebuchadnezzar whom God calls His servant for performing His will, sent firstly to inflict massacre upon the Israelites for their repeated transgressions, and then upon those Ammonites and Edomites that occupied the holy lands and reintroduced idolatry in it Jer25:9,49:19.
Later on it would be the non-Jew Cyrus, king of Persia who would be divinely aroused and commanded to wage war against the Babylonians until their defeat, expulsion from the holy land and the return of the Jews to Israel so as to re-establish monotheism in it Jer50:14-21,51:1,53.
The same semitic pattern of prophethood is thus found in regards to Muhammad, the Ishmaelites and the Kaaba. God does not and never did tolerate the presence of idolatry in a land declared sacred and dedicated to monotheism. So God tasked His prophet with re-establishing the monotheistic practice at the Kaaba, and should his opponents try fighting and exiling him and his followers, they will consequently be uprooted from the land they had complete dominion over 17:76-7.
It was not the prophet's job to relocate the uninvited idols of the Kaaba, especially after years of warning those that put them there, against their corrupt practices, and the impending forceful expulsion.
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Destruction of Idols"
Allah was never an idol within the Kaaba, the Kaaba was dedicated to Him. The accumulation and piling up of idols above idols was due to the complacency and unrestrictedness that the Meccans and the custodians of the Kaaba felt as time went on. IT was their neglect regarding the status of the Kaaba and its original dedication to Allah alone. In fact their descendants would argue to the prophet Muhammad that had their innovations been harmful to the worship of Allah then Allah Himself would have prevented them and their forefathers from doing so
16:35,6:148"Those who are polytheists will say: 'Had Allah wished we would not have associated (aught with Him) nor our fathers, nor would we have forbidden anything.' So did belie those who were before them until they tasted Our punishment. Say: 'Have you any knowledge with you to adduce for Us? You follow nothing but conjecture, and you are nothing but idle talkers'".
Of course this unreasonable, deterministic argument that ignores the monotheistic principle of accountability and freewill in religion, in addition devoid of scriptural and prophetic support, disregards that God's disapproval has and does manifest itself, either as it did in the past with the destruction of nations that indulged in the same practices as theirs, or through the sending of prophets and revelations clarifying the right and the wrong as was unfolding to their eyes
6:149-151"Then to Allah (alone) belongs the conclusive argument. Had He wished, He would have surely guided you all aright...Say: 'Come, I will recite what your Lord has forbidden you from: that you do not associate anything with Him, and show kindness to your parents, and do not kill your children for poverty -We provide for you and for them - and do not approach indecencies, the outward among them and the inward ones, and do not kill the soul that Allah has forbidden save for justice. This He has enjoined you with so that you might understand. And do not approach the property of the orphan except in the best manner until he attains his maturity, and give full measure and weight with justice-- We do not impose on any soul a duty except to the extent of its ability; and when you speak, then be just though it be (against) a relative, and fulfill Allah´s covenant; this He has enjoined you with that you may be mindful; And (know) that this is My path, the right one therefore follow it, and follow not (other) ways, for they will lead you away from His way; this He has enjoined you with that you may guard (against evil)".
As to Hubal, the place from where it was brought from is uncertain, although all Muslim authorities of the past are united in that its origin is foreign. As already discussed above, it was fairly common in those ancient times for ideologies and religious beliefs to be exchanged through migrations and travels, as well as economic interests. We see this in our own times with people selling their inherited traditions and beliefs, customs and values for the sake of opening up business, political or other interests. The corrupt and materialistic custodians of the Kaaba were no different. They desired to attract as many far away people as they could, from every religious backround as possible, to the yearly pilgrimage, even puting portraits of Jesus and Mary on the Kaaba's wall according to tradition.
Hubal's "foreign" origin is partly the reason why he was not integrated into the "divine family" of Allah unlike the three "daughters of Allah", Allat, Manat and al-Uzza mentionned in the Quran. Thats also why Hubal never supplants Allah as the lord of the Kaaba. The cult associated with him involved divination and future forecasts. The custodian of the idol acted as the oracle. He requested blood sacrifice followed by a consultation of the divination arrows lying in front of him.
The Quran does not speak of Hubal, just as it doesnt mention the other deities of the Arab pantheon, except for al-lat, Manat and al-Uzza. These were specifically pointed because of their feminine gender, serving as an argument against the misogynistic pagans who, paradoxically, were not only worshiping females, but also gave them a status of influence alongside Allah, the supreme deity 53:19-23.
Their paradoxical mysoginy lied in the fact that they worshipped goddesses and yet murdered their infants if they were females.
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Destruction of Idols"
Forget about the Islamic stance, the Kaaba, to the pre-islamic Arabs, belonged to their supreme God Allah who commanded his prophet Abraham to settle in Mecca a monotheistic temple.
The Arabs were traders and they brought back all sorts of gods as time developed, in order to attract foreign tribes to their city, forming alliances with them. It is this introduction of idolatry which is the essential criminal act the Quran accuses them of in regards to the Kaaba.
One such major deity imported was Hubal. It was inserted among countless other deities, mainly playing the role of intercessors with Allah 46:28,39:3. As attested throughout the Quran and the traditions, Allah was the supreme God whom all Arabs recognized as the Almighty Creator, including the Hanif and both Arab Christians and Jews before the advent of Islam. Although the Quran denounces the religion of the polytheists, even names some of their prominent idols, it never does so on the basis of them supplanting Allah, the supreme God they recognized, with other more powerful or authorative deities. Rather the condemnation always is in terms of associating partners to Him in the dominion, as well as ascribing a progeny to Him.
There is abundant evidence in pre-islamic poetry depicting Allah as the Creator of the heavens, involved in human lives, sustaining them and inflicting retribution. A famous pre-islamic poem attributed to 'Adi ibn Zayd swears by
"Rabbi makkata wal salibi/The Lord of Mecca and of the cross".
It is well known that pre-Islamic Arabs, including pagans, Christians or Jews, referred to God with Allah, as well as Rabb/Lord. Several poets call the Kaaba the "House of Allah" (ibn Shihab, ibn al Hudadiya, ibn al Khatim). Not only that, there are poems associating pilgrimmage rites, including sacrifice at the site with veneration to Allah (al Nabigha, al A'sha).
Among the gods brought to Mecca, serving the funvtion of partners of Allah was Hubal whom tradition asserts was brought in from outside the Arabian Peninsula, either from Syria or Iraq by Amr bin Luhayy
"0 'Amr! you have invented various gods; At Mecca - idols around the House. And there was for the House One Lord from ever; But you have made for it several lords (which are now worshipped) by the people. Surely you should know that Allah is in no hurry; Soon He will choose for (His) House stewards other than you".
Although the People protested originally to the innovations of Amr bin Luhayy, they were quickly curtailed and cannot be compared in that sense to the Israelites who were sent countless prophets and shown numerous miracles, even during the time of Manasseh where idols had been placed within the Temple, and yet still refused listening.
With their Ishmaelites brethren, however, it only took a fraction of what their predecessors were shown from proofs, and it was enough to eradicate the corruption grafted into the religion of Abraham once and for all. This shows how deeply ingrained monotheism and the Abrahamic legacy was, in the hearts and minds of the Arabs, despite the passage of time and the religious innovations. Thus even a minute of straying by the Israelites is equivalent to 1000 years of deviation by the Ishmaelites at their own temple of the one God in Mecca. In the course of time, worshiping the transcendent Allah became difficult for the increasingly idolatrous Arabs. By the time of the prophet, although they still majoritarily recognized the superiority of Allah above all their interceding idols, many others had abandoned the worship of Allah altogether. The lack of representation of the supreme Allah among a myriad of statues and images proved too challenging to the shallow spirituality and primitive mindset of some of the ancients. This is seen in Abu Sufyan, the Quraysh chieftain and early enemy of the prophet, taunting the defeated Muslims at the battle of Uhud
"Superior may be Hubal!" On that the Prophet said (to his companions), "Reply to him." They asked, "What may we say?" He said, "Say: Allah is More Elevated and More Majestic!" Abu Sufyan said, "We have (the idol) Al-`Uzza, whereas you have no `Uzza!" The Prophet said (to his companions), "Reply to him." They said, "What may we say?" The Prophet said, "Say: Allah is our Helper and you have no helper." Abu Sufyan said, "(This) day compensates for our loss at Badr and (in) the battle (the victory) is always undecided and shared in turns by the belligerents".
The hadith is longer but what transpires is that at no point does Abu Sufyan negate the prophet's declaration that Allah is the superior Deity. He knew that Hubal was only an intercessor with Allah. Hence instead of reaffirming Hubal's superiority in answer to the prophet, he boasts that contrary to the Muslims, he has more gods in support. Ibn Abbas, as quoted by the historians including ibn Hisham, relates other parts of the exchanges that occured on that same occasion. When Abu Sufyan called out the besieged Muslims and that Umar answered, Abu Sufyan asked him
“By Allah o ‘umar! Did we not kill Muhammad?” Umar answered back, “By Allah, you did not. He can hear you speaking now".
Abu Sufyan, on that same occasion where he taunted the Muslims with Hubal's superiority, still swears by Allah. He was an example of Arabs that knew of Allah's position but had abandoned worshiping him in favor of more "trending" and physically tangible deities. That even people like Abu Sufyan never denied Allah's superiority is seen at his time of conversion, stating that
"By Allah, I thought that had there been any ilah/deity with Allah, he would have continued to help me".
As he regretfully remembers his time as a pagan, he doesnt blame himself for not believing in Allah, or for doubting His superiority, but for ascribing partners to Him. This was exactly the Quran's reproach towards these Ishmaelites.
