CIRA International wont haven a gentile prophet; prophecy to the Jews only?

In answer to the video "Deuteronomy 18:18 - Scripture Twisting 101"

Rabbinic literature recognizes the prophethood of 7 non-Israelite, non-Jewish men (Talmud, B. B. 15b) besides those whom they did not recognize but were nevertheless true prophets. That is not to speak of the others they rejected or murdered throughout their history, more notoriously during the near collapse of their nation's spirituality as they vastly reverted to idol worship after Solomon's reign. They began slaying any person claiming prophethood and speaking against their practices. They had done the same under the reign of Ahab.

These non-Israelite prophets they recognize are Job (Ayyub in the Quran, Iyov in Hebrew), as well as several other men mentionned in the book of Job. They also recognize the prophethood of Balaam and his father. Jonah or Nahum were Israelite prophets who preached to non israelites. Obadiah was, according to tradition, an Edomite convert to Judaism who admonished his own non-Jewish people.

The Israelites Jeremiah and Ezekiel prophecied to the non-Jewish nations that had destroyed and plundered the Jews, announcing the inevitability of their doom. All this to corroborate that even within accepted JEwish tradition, prophethood to non-Jews or by non-Jews isnt a strange thought.

It is also to be noted that God in the Torah is reported to have announced several covenants with Abraham, and none of them is related to prophethood being the sole prerogative of one branch or another.

Many Jews therefore, including the most learned among them, as related in both Quranic and non Quranic sources, accepted the prophethood of Muhammad and those that rejected him didnt do so for racial reasons. Although the bestowal of prophethood outside of their fold did cause them anger and jealousy, their essential opposition consisted in that he, like Jesus and countless others as related in both the Hebrew Bible and the NT, brought a message that wasnt to their liking. Others admit to Muhammad's prophethood in light of the Biblical criteria of what constitutes a prophet or not, but are not ready to heed his message and so invent the excuse that although he is a true prophet, his message does not concern them; he is a prophet to the Ishmaelites only.

Continuing with the analysis of that ambiguous "brethren" term. While Deut17:15 says that Israel's brethren cannot be non-Israelites, it is speaking of the appointement of Kings above them and it is obvious that the appointed Ruler must be from the same nation as his subjects, not a foreigner. The Quran echoes that reality, through its linguistic precision. Moses reminds the Israelites that they were made rulers over their own fate by people of authority among their own ethnic group, while in contrast, prophets were sent among them, which doesnt entail similar ethnicity 

5:20” And [mention, O Muhammad], when Moses said to his people, "O my people, remember the favor of Allah upon you when He appointed among you prophets and made you possessors/kings and gave you that which He had not given anyone among the worlds”. 

In their biblical history, even that clear criteria of authority among their own ethnic group was subject to their deeply rooted inter tribal prejudices. They disliked the appointment of Saul/Talut over them as king, even though he was selected by a prophet in their midst, because of his humble tribal lineage from the Benjamites. By specifying in which case a brethren to the Israelites is not a foreigner, the HB shows that -unless specified otherwise- when the word "brethren" is used to relate them to another people, these people must be considered by default Israel's brethren and it has already been shown above how the HB makes use of the word repeatedly to relate them with Israelites and non-Israelites alike.

In 18:18 the context is entirely different than 17:15, it is speaking of prophethood and it is obvious that a messenger of God's lineage to his addressees is irrelevant, and even more so if we consider the demographics at the time of Islam's advent. Nations, cultures and religions intermingled and lived in the same areas. In the Hijaz, Ishmaelite pagans and Ishmaelite monotheists, the hanifs, as well as Israelites and Christians closely coexisted, speaking the same language even. A prophet therefore "to" any of those groups did not necessarily need to be a native of any of them to deliver God's communications effectively and in fact Muhammad the Ishmaelite is repeatedly described as carrying a universal mission, bringing mercy to all the worlds, starting with the mother city/Mecca and its surroundings. The geographical location of the Hijaz, at the crossroad of the major civilizations of the time, was all the more appropriate for the fulfillement of that universal mission.

As already seen, even Judaism recognizes the prophethood of non-Israelites and this is precisely why the Deuteronomy prophecy does not stress that such "brother" must be from within Israel contrary to 17:15 speaking of the necessity of appointing an Israelite king.

CIRA International look beyond common points; differences between the prophet and Moses?

In answer to the video "Deuteronomy 18:18 - Scripture Twisting 101"

As already explained earlier, Deut18 states that, despite Moses' similarities with the prophet, his essential difference with him would be in how God's commands or laws would be communicated to the people. Moses received the law through direct communication with God himself or as the Quran says, "God spoke directly to Moses".

In the case of the "Prophet like unto Moses", God would not communicate in this manner, but would inspire His words into the mouth of this Prophet.

During the time of the prophet Muhammad, the Israelites would try and obscure, denigrate and discredit him and his followers by saying that God spoke to Moses directly, but not to Muhammad, so why should they believe him 28:48? Yet, not only did they majoritarly disbelieve in both Moses and Aaron despite the miracles witnessed and the manner in which Moses received revelation, preferring even to remain in Egypt and die in slavery, but also the very prophecy within their own books outlines that such would be the type of divine communication with the awaited one and they were bound to follow him and if anyone of them fails to do so God himself "will make him answer for it".

Finally, nobody after Moses claimed to be "like unto Moses", until

73:15"Surely We have sent unto you a Messenger as a witness over you, even as We sent To Pharaoh a Messenger".

In fact this prophecy of Moses was so clear that it was as if Muhammad was there at the side of the mountain and Moses saw him with his own eyes however, despite the spiritual closeness of both individuals

28:44"you were not on the western side when We revealed to Musa the commandment, and you were not among the witnesses". 

After Moses, there had been no other prophet from among the descendants of Abraham who claimed to bring a complete divine law for the people, revealed to him by the Lord, establishing a new community as was done at Horeb in the context of the prophecy, except the prophet Muhammad. There did not even exist any claimant of having been "a prophet from among the brethren of the Israelites with a "Fiery Law for them"Deut33:2 "like unto Moses", that could have been presented as a rival to the single and sole Prophet from among the Ishmaelites who did exactly that, who revived the religion of Ibrahim

6:161"Say: Surely, (as for) me, my Lord has guided me to the right path; (to) a most right religion, the faith of Ibrahim the upright one".

In this aspect only Moses, and his effort to erradicate idolatry from among his own people and some foreign nations, can come close to him.

As shown earlier, after Moses's death and Joshua's appointment for prophethood Deut31, the HB says there never arose a Prophet like unto Moses, who in addition spoke to God face to face and performed great wonders Deut34. This means that him being "like unto Moses" is an indicator still awaiting fulfillment, even after an Israelite prophet appeared on the scene. The word "brethren" used to qualify the prophet like unto Moses it is a general term especially in semitic languages. It implies the real brothers, first cousins, the remotest cousins, or anyone else sharing a specific particularity with the addressees.

In the Torah itself, in Deut23:7 or Numb20:14 and Deut2:4, the word brehtren is used in the broader sense, in the context of the lengthy instructions being delivered to the Israelites. God orders regarding the Edomites who are non-Israelites, non-Jewish descendants of Jacob's elder brother Esau and calls them Israel' brethren. What this means is the tribal affiliation of brethren that exists between the tribes of Israel, such as between the Levites and other tribes, is the same affiliation that exists between the Israelites, Ishmaelites and Edomites. In 1Kings11:1 Edomites are designated as foreigners to Israel yet the Edomites were clearly brothers, designated as such by a much earlier scriptural document, that of Genesis. The Book of Kings is from a totally different era as the Torah and the forbiddance of marrying them is not because of lineage, but because

"they will surely turn your hearts away after the gods".

The Edomites in the beginning were clearly worshippers of YHWH and the designation by the writer of Kings as a foreigner is clearly a racial slant against them. Kings was written after the exile of the Jews from Babylonia and it was the Edomites who helped Nebuchadnezzar II slaughter the Jews and send them into exile. Besides, the Ishmaelites are not included as foreigners in this particular passage, and the very scriptures tell us that Ishmael lived in the presence of all his "brethren".

At the beginning of the chapter in which the prophecy is found, in Deut18:2, it plainly shows how "brethren" can be used for people outside the tribe for whom the word applies. It says the priests are excluded from sharing in their brethren's inheritance. The priests are Levites. It isnt saying the Levitic priests are excluded from sharing in their Levite brethren's inheritance but in the other Israelite tribe's inheritance. So, just like "brethren" here is used for the Levites but doesnt mean the brethren from within the same tribe, in the same way, "brethren" in the prophecy of Deut18:18 is used for the entire Israelites but doesnt mean the brethren from within the same tribe.

As is seen from the language, let alone the use of the word throughout the HB and even within the same chapter of the prophecy, if the promised prophet was to come from among the Israelites, the wording of the prophecy should have been clear cut, leaving no possibility for any alternate rendering: "I will raise them up a prophet from among themselves". In this regard in this interesting to note the gloss in the masoretic text that attempts precisely that. It contains the extra words "from among themselves" to restrict the word brethren to the Israelites. The addition was noted by critical scholars and is in fact absent from several texts, including the Septuagint, the Samaritan Torah, the NT in Acts3 and 7.

CIRA International seek the individual prophet; general or specific prophecy?

In answer to the video "Deuteronomy 18:18 - Scripture Twisting 101"

It becomes all the more obvious that the idea of a Prophet simply being sent within Israel makes no sense because Prophets were always sent to Israel speaking in the name of God through the 'spirit of God' before and after the prophecy of Horeb, prophets like Jeremiah

Jer1:9"Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth".

It can't refer to simply revelations, because their subsequent prophets did not promulgate any new laws, as was the case at Sinai in the context of the prophecy. Jesus for example adhered to the law of the Torah to the minutest detail and ordered his followers to do the same. None of them and no prophet after Moses established a new nation, Jesus said that he was sent to the Lost Sheep of Israel. After Moses's death and Joshua's apointment for prophethood Deut31, the HB says there never arose a Prophet like unto Moses Deut34. This means that him being "like unto Moses" is an indicator still awaiting fulfillement, even after an Israelite prophet appeared on the scene. That indicator cannot be what is stated in the rest of Deut34:10-12, such as God speaking face to face with the prophet, since the prophecy of Deut18 itself says in which manner he would receive revelation

"I will put My words in his mouth and he shall speak to them all that I command him".

Neither does the indicator has anything to do with prophetic miracles the like of which Moses performed, since the 2nd criterion of the prophet has to do with divine judgement of those that reject him.  

By Jesus' time and their successive humiliations at the hands of their enemies, that prophetic, legislating and governing figure that is to to establish a new nation under a new law, which they will be bound to follow and support, became garbled with a davidic royal, supposed to bring back their own former glory above the nations, as well as re-introduce their own law that became obsolete with the loss of their right to exercize it. This is seen by their vague allusion to "the prophet" on one side and "the messiah" on the other, when they came questionning John the Baptist as to his identity. They knew this prophet was still awaited but lost the purpose of the prophecy related to him, as well as the indicators that would lead them to recognize him. However, the evidence, as is being shown, was not blotted out entirely hence some among the most learned Jews in the prophet Muhammad's time claiming to

"recognize him as they know their own sons".

There is a reason why Moses, their most prominent leader and prophet, never says a word about that messiah supposed to re-establish them as a nation under God. And yet this messianic king is the most anticipated religious figure of the entire Jewish scriptures? Moses predicts the Israelites' future disobedience and destructions, as well as rehabilitation, but never speaks in that context of the royal messiah supposed to achieve what they would later claim will be precisely his role Deut31-32. Simply put, this end times savior is a post-mosaic development meant at consoling the exiled Jews. There is no notion of a messianic salvific figure anywhere in the 5 books of Moses. This is significant because the Torah, in terms of authority ranks higher than other parts of the Hebrew scriptures. In orthodox judaism, the books that comprise the bible are arranged in descending order of inspiration. First the Torah considered word for word divinely inspired, then the books of the various prophets which God motivated the prophets to write without telling them exactly what to write, then lastly the ketuvim or writings in which God had no direct influence. Given the cosmic importance of the messiah, we should expect a mention of the person, or even the concept in the Books of Moses, but nothing.

As already pointed, in the days of Jesus the priests were still awaiting the coming of "the prophet". The text points to that personality with a definite article, meaning a specific, unnamed, unidentified prophetic figure that has not appeared yet. Along with this prophet, the Jews awaited the coming of the messiah, as well as the return of previous identified, known prophetic figures to them, including Elijah or Jeremiah Matt16:14. So they proceeded in questionning John, inquiring to see if he fitted any of the roles Jn1:19-25. John answered no to all

The reason John gives this answer is because he was not the Messiah, not "that prophet" and not a physical reincarnation of Elijah. He demonstrated a misunderstanding on the Jewish priests' part who thought Elijah would be resurrected in flesh hence their inability to recognize his fullfilement of the prophecy, as here stated

Matt17:12"Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him".

John hinted to their misunderstanding by identifiying himself with the messenger prophecised in Isa40:3 who is none else than Elijah. Jesus is also quoted in Lk7:27 confirming John had fulfilled the prophecy of Malachi3:1,4:5 speaking of Elijah returning and paving the way for the Messiah, and because John had fulfilled that role, he is said to have come

Lk1:17"in the spirit and power of Elijah".

These 3 prophecies eagerly awaited to be fulfilled by the Jews were thus speaking of 3 separate entities, 2 of which have already been settled in the persons of John as Elijah and Jesus as the messiah.
 
In Matt11:2-6 John asks Jesus to clarify his position. This, as a side note, is a contradiction in itself as John identified him earlier as the "lamb of god". Nevertheless, John asks JEsus

"Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?"

"He that should come" may signify both the Christ or a Prophet like unto Moses, because both had been waited for. As evidence of his true identity, Jesus gives various miracles and none of those qualify him as being the "Prophet like unto Moses" and all of them qualify him as the prophecied Messiah/Christ Isa29:18,35:5-6. Here is a clear statement by Jesus himself using the scriptures as evidence of who he is and who he is not. Nonetheless the gospel of John in jn1:45,5:31-47,6:14 still wants to equate Jesus with the specific prophet but since the Gospels and the HB cleary distinguish between "that prophet" and the Messiah/Christ, the author of Acts3, conscious of the difficulty in equating the 2 personalities attempts to reconcile them together. He argues that the prophecy of Deut18 still refers to the Christ, but the one that is supposed to return, since the pre-crucifixion Christ did not qualify as being the awaited prophet.

All this tangled web is cleared if we go back to the basic fact that the HB and NT make a clear distinction between the "Prophet like unto Moses" and the Christ/Messiah. But what is even more important is that Jesus nowhere claims to be or presents himself as the promised "that prophet" or "Prophet like unto Moses". The most important message of all 4 gospels is the belief in Jesus as the promised Messiah, not as the promised prophet like unto Moses. In Jn20:31 for example, the author signs his work with the statement that all that precedes was written to convince the readers that Jesus is the Messiah, a personnality clearly distinct from "the prophet like unto Moses".

Jesus was a personality distinct from "that prophet" and in fact part of his mission was according to the Quran to give glad tidings of the Awaited One. This is precisely what he did in the NT when prophecising of the paraclete who would establish justice and a new order.

CIRA International enlarged perspective; deeper meaning of the prophecy?

In answer to the video "Deuteronomy 18:18 - Scripture Twisting 101"

The essential part of this prophecy which will lead us to the true identity of the prophet is its context of revelation. The prophecy and the covenant concerning that prophet, the unconditional obedience to him and support to his mission once he is identified, was made on the Day of Horeb at Mt Sinai.

That mountain by the way, contrary to the arbitrary, baseless designation in the south central Sinai Peninsula, points rather towards the present day Saudi Arabian mountains. But that is another discussion.

The day that prophecy was made, was when Moses received the Torah for the Nation of Israel, giving real birth to the Israelite community. This means that the primary purpose of this event was the establishment of a new nation commissioned by God to fulfill certain objectives under a new Law sent to humanity.

This is the most important aspect of the covenant God established with the Israelites regarding this Prophet and the Quran reminds them of it 3:81-82,86 when Allah made a covenant with the people, through the prophets, commanding them to accept the prophet about whom they prophesied

"Certainly what I have given you of Book and wisdom--then an messenger comes to you verifying that which is with you, you must believe in him, and you must aid him".

The people of the book bore witness to that pledge

"He said: Do you affirm and accept My compact in this (matter)? They said: We do affirm. He said: Then bear witness, and I (too) am of the bearers of witness with you".

The prophecy clearly relates the statement of Moses to the promise granted to the righteous among the offspring of Abraham per both the Torah and the Quran, which includes the Ishmaelites. It also relates it to how the offspring of Abraham are commissioned with assisting this Prophet

Deut18"you must listen to everything he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from their people". 

It is clearly strange that the prophecy appears very late in the text, at chapter 18, well after the event of Horeb when it actually took place, and when Israel received the law, which means it is actually out of context. Why is it narrated well after Israel had fought battles and the events of Horeb were over, and not recorded with the actual incident of Horeb when it was taking place? How much of those events were obscured, nobody knows. The prophecy is disconnected from the flow of the discourse hence the difficulty, for those approaching the text and assuming it to follow a chronological order of events, to understand to whom the words of the prophecy apply to.

This peculiarity of the Torah however only confuses Christians who are largely unfamiliar with the Hebrew scriptures. Jewish scholars on the other hand have long ago accepted this difficulty, as encapsulated by their rabbis' saying

"There is no earlier or later in the Torah".

The reality is the original prophecy was made in the context of Moses receiving a law that would establish a nation, the only difference being this new community would not receive the divine law like they did when God manifested it directly to Moses and the Israelites, but through an intermediary. This is due to the Israelites themselves requesting not to hear God's voice anymore nor witness the dreadful conditions which were created at the foot of Horeb. The dreadful manifestation had the purpose of instilling in them the importance of the covenant, which included the support of the prophet like unto Moses when he comes Ex20:19,Deut5:23-27,18:16. So this time, instead of manifesting the new covenant through a dreadful event, Divine Words will be put in the mouth of the Prophet who would be appointed to that office, and he will recite the divine law before the people. As related in Ex20, what was collectively revealed to the Israelites were the 10 commandments, not random revelation. It is the revelation of law which they didnt want hearing directly anymore, fearing they would die. They requested to indirectly hear the law, through Moses. And effectively, Moses began going back and forth between God and them whenever subsequent instructions came. This is the proper context in which the prophecy of the future prophet was uttered; receiving law will from now on will only come through an intermediary between God and the people. Besides law, revelation could still occur without an intermediary, as described for example in Numbers11 which happened after the prophecy of Deut18. The further corroborate the textual corruption and displacement of the prophecy, in the dead sea scrolls, it is actually placed in its proper context in Exodus 20.

The fact that this prophecy was made at Horeb shows how important the covenant God established with the Israelites regarding this Prophet was, and how true the Quran is when it says that they mix truth with falsehood. The events of Horeb were threatening and forceful, compelling the reluctant Israelites to enter into a national covenant. The Quran depicts their shameful, ungrateful attitude that led up to that moment. It is in that context that the prophecy of a new nation under a new law they will be bound to follow, was made; due to their pattern of disobedience, they will ultimately be deposed of their spiritual eminence among the nations. God was telling them that in His mercy, they will not be left without guidance. If they follow and support that prophet from among their brethren, they will be part of something far greater.

CIRA International delve into Bible prophecies; who is the prophet like Moses?

In answer to the video "Deuteronomy 18:18 - Scripture Twisting 101"

We Muslims believe, Muhammad was destined to be the seal of the line of prophethood and that no warner would be sent to mankind till the Day of Resurrection. Such an assertion predicates that past prophets and scriptures made clear his imminent arrival in such a way that people would have no difficulty in recognizing him.

The Quran and the prophetic traditions allude in many places to the predictions of the Ishmaelite prophet in previous scriptures. Not all prophets were foretold by their predecessors. For example, no prophecy in the HB applies to Jesus just like most Israelite prophets have no prophecies about them.

But in the case of the last prophet and the importance of his final message, the matter was different. The Quran reinforces the notion that the predictions about Muhammad are so clear that

6:20,2:146"those to whom We have given the scripture recognize him as they recognize their own sons".

This verse echoes what the prominent Jewish Rabbi of Medina, Abdullah ibn Salam used to say as regards the prophet Muhammad "

Certainly, I have greater knowledge of this Muḥammad than my knowledge of my son".

The Quran would mention the reaction of such early converts among the Jews and Christians

5:83"hear what has been revealed to the messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: Our Lord! we believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth)".

The Quran speaks in sura Baqara of the predictions of the HB regarding Muhammad in the context of the covenant established with the Israelites at Mt Sinai, emphasizing that the context of the prophecy is the promulgation of a new law and the birth of a nation under God.

Muslims throughout the ages have used the Bible to prove Muhammad was foretold by previous prophets. This was and still is a proselytizing strategy aimed at Jews and Christians. The idea is to have a common ground for discussion with those religious groups, after which Islamic teachings are introduced. There are however other proselytizing approaches Muslims have taken, namely pointing to the inconsistent, incomplete theologies of other systems in comparison to Islam, or naturalistic arguments, or simply presenting Islamic teachings by themselves for the audience to appreciate. Going back to the argument from the viewpoint of prophecy, Muslims didnt alter any text nor invent reports so as to create the striking parallelisms that can be seen between the Bible, the Quran and the authentic Islamic traditions. We thus see the prophet himself addressing those Jews that did not believe in him, telling them to honestly look into the writings in their hands and draw the relevant conclusions, as some of the most learned in their community did

 "I adjure you to tell me if you find in that revelation which Allah sent down to You, that you should believe in Muhammad. If you cannot find that in your scripture, no displeasure will fall on you. Guidance will be distinguishable from error, and I invite you to Allah and to His prophet".

Christians on the other hand are notorious for their distortions of the meaning and of the text itself so as to retrofit their christologies into the HB. The text of the Septuagint, the Greek rendering of the HB is known for its numerous mistranslations. But the NT text is by far the most corrupt. The anonymous writers create impossible scenarios, are anachronistic, fabricate genealogies, misquote the Hebrew writings, allude to non existent HB prophecies so as to allign their Jesus character with the previous writings.

Now of course Christians contend this Deut18 prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus, while to the Jews Deuteronomy 18:18 comes solely in the context of the Israelites wanting an intermediary with God, instead of hearing and seeing the dreadful divine manifestation. YHWH answers them positively and tells them that instead of this, revelation will now be a personal experience through a chosen individual from their midst, whom they are bound to follow. Deut18:18 is thus speaking of a prophet generically, just as Deut13:2 is speaking of a false prophet generically, not a specific prophet. Such prophet will be like Moses, ie an Israelite, but inferior in terms of prophetic eminence. To derive that conclusion, they use

Deut34"Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, who did all those signs and wonders the Lord sent him to do in Egypt—to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel".

This passage comes after Joshua's appointment as a prophet to succeed Moses. If one argues that the dissimilarity between them is in prophetic rank, why would the text immediately negate Joshua's likeness to Moses without any standard of comparison? Joshua didnt even start his role as a prophet so as to demonstrate his worth in relation to Moses. If the dissimilarity is solely in terms of prophetic rank, then it should have been made towards the end of Joshua's prophethood, after he received revelation and after he performed his miracles, including some nearly identical ones to Moses, like parting the waters Josh3:6-17. Joshua being unlike Moses in that context of Deut34, cannot therefore be solely related to prophetic status and performance of miracles.

Moses' major particularity is that he reformed an intensely rebellious, idolatrous community, shackled under a ruthless ruler, into a nation under God's Law. But because Moses had just selected his successor before passing away, it was necessary to emphasize that this successor will continue his work. Joshua will not change Moses' national agenda and neither bring about a different Law to the community. He was thus unlike Moses in this major aspect; he simply continued reinforcing the nation already founded under Moses, under a previous Law. The efforts and obstacles Joshua would have to face in that task would be much less than what Moses had to face, hence him being inferior in terms of prophetic experience and miracles as stated in the verse.

The passage now makes complete sense in that context

"Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses (ie establishing a new nation and a new law, then needing the following intense revelational experience and miracles to bring about that new nation), whom the Lord knew face to face, who did all those signs and wonders the Lord sent him to do in Egypt—to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel". 

Acts17apologetics find Quran paradox; can Allah beget?

In answer to the video "Why Is Jesus Called "The Son of God"? (Answering Islam Part 20)"

When it addresses the issue of carnal begetting, the Quran explains the incompatibility of that concept, from the point of view of God's majestic status, unique essence, for God to physically beget both sons and daughters as the polytheists claimed throughout time 6:100-101 ascribing to Him even a lineage among the jinn 37:158.

The desire for children is based upon the desire to continue one's own legacy, i.e. it is based upon an inherent weakness within man and this rejects the majesty of Allah, His transcendence, and status as beyond causality and contingency. Why would He need entities besides Himself, sharing His essence? Is He lacking in power, knowledge to rule creation by Himself, or  is He limited in lifespan?

The Quran rejects this concept of progeny and sonship to God, as well as all the implications undermining His supremacy, by for instance pointing to the facts that nothing precedes or outlasts Him 57:3, that nothing is even within the realm of the remotest of comparisons, that He neither begets nor is He begotten 42:11,112:1-4.

WALAD is the term translated as "son" in 6:101 but the word really means a "product of birth". This covers that Allah does not give birth, nor does he have a consort to give birth for Him. It is important to note, the verse does not tie the impossibility for God to beget to the absence of consort exclusively. It says Wa/And He has no consort.

So, the absence of the consort is one of many reasons why Allah does not have a son. Along with the absence of consort, the other reasons for God not having any son are "innovator of the heavens and Earth", "Creator of everything" and so on. It does not befit the One holding sway over all creation to have the need for a son, which entails an inherent weakness.

Why would He need to, when His grasp over creation is so all-embracing, that His will, whatever it may be, is instantly executed

19:35"It is not for Allah to take a child; glory to be Him. When He decrees a command, He only says to it: Be; and it is".

The Quran treats this assertion as so far removed from reality, that it tells its messenger, had it been true he would have been the first to be instructed to worship such an entity 43:81.

Finally the word ANNA translated as How, is an exclamatory expression through several angles, as in "How" and "why" together, to mean "why should He?!" The primary Quranic argument against God procreating is thus not linked at all the presence or absence of consort, but to the contradiction that notion creates with His uniqueness, supremacy, perfection, self-subsitence and so on.

But had the Quran not refuted the idea of God physically procreating by mentionning the absence of a consort, its argument would have remained incomplete. That is because the very notion of God needing to procreate demotes Him in His self-sustained status, restricts His power and will. This inevitably entails the need for partners in His rule, including a consort to procreate. In such a demoted status, the notion of God doing whatever He wills through His creative word "BE" becomes an impossible proposition.

The Quran is here showing the necessary implications of the polytheists' belief, exposing their flaws and refuting them from every possible angle. The perfect example to illustrate is that of Mary 19:20. Being a human, she was limited in her power and will just as God would have been, had He needed a progeny. Mary was unable by her own will to conceive, just as Allah would have been due to His demoted status. They would have both needed a counterpart to procreate. But the reality is different. God, the Majestic, is free from any need, including that of having children, which necessarily implies Him being limitess in His power and will

19:35"It is not for Allah to take a child; glory to be Him. When He decrees a command, He only says to it: Be; and it is".

The verse makes it clear, the total absence of any need to have a child is linked to His supreme dominion over all things, as encapsulated with the creative word "BE". On the other hand, the need for a child would immidiately negate that absolute power. But Allah is limitless and that is why He was able to impose His creative will upon Mary, making her conceive even in the absence of a male counterpart.

Furthermore, the phrase used in this verse is

6:101"..How could He HAVE (yakun lahu) a son (waladun)..".

The different wording for a physical/carnal son in 6:101 as the pagans claimed and 2:116/39:4 speaking of God TAKING a son from among His creatures as some Christians claim, irrefutably shows that the Quran does not mix the 2 notions.

Acts17apologetics see Quran flaw; Jesus was the carnal son of God in 6:101?

In answer to the video "Why Is Jesus Called "The Son of God"? (Answering Islam Part 20)"

The Quran does not say Jesus is the son of God in a physical/carnal sense, or that Christians believe such. In 2:116 for example,

"And they say: Allah has taken to himself (ittakhadha) a son (waladan)".

This is saying that Christians claim Allah has TAKEN a human being "as his son". This subtle wording represents the mainstream "declared" Christian belief concerning Jesus' sonship. But in reality, in the minds of the hellenistic converts that shaped Christianity, Jesus is literally "begotten by God, not made". The early translations of the Bible where the Greek monogenh occurs, represents that ecclesiastical tradition.

When The Quran says "ittakhadha" (to take) for God taking Jesus as a son, it uses the same word in other places too without any carnal or biological connotation. For example

4:125"..and Allah took (ittakhadha) Ibrahim as a friend".

39:4 elaborates on the meaning of "taking a son" when refering to God

"If Allah desire to take (yattakhidha) a son (waladan) to Himself, He will surely CHOOSE those He pleases from what He has created".

This proves that the meaning of "TAKE a son" when it refers to God as in 2:116, is to CHOOSE one from among His creatures NOT to physically conceive one. Jesus must have been taken by God the Father as his son at some point in time, regardless of the sophistries trinitarians conjure so as to make sense of their doctrines. Jesus, the incarnate word of God, as a human being with a human soul did not exist from eternity, even according to their creeds. This man/god creature came took shape some 2000 years ago, which is when he was "taken" as a son by God. Whatever the speculation on the pre-incarnate form or nature of the son of God, it was different than the form he took on the earth, and the form he has now in heaven. This results in further problems, including a God to whom things are added or substracted.
In the Quran, although this hypothetical scenario is given, the reality of the matter is rejected alltogether, as is found elsewhere

23:91"never did Allah take to Himself a son, and never was there with him any (other) god"  

21:26-29"Glory be to Him. Nay! they are honored servants. They do not precede Him in speech and (only) according to His commandment do they act. He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they do not intercede except for him whom He approves and for fear of Him they tremble. And whoever of them should say: Surely I am a god besides Him, such a one do We recompense with hell; thus do, We recompense the unjust".

The remotness of such a notion is thus rooted in that all these eminent persons are, along with all things, obedient creations of His. An interesting observation is the statement that those nearest to God

21:19"are never too proud to worship Him and never grow weary".

Contrary to wordly ownership and mastership, the closer a servant is to his master the more benefits he gains in terms of power, material gains and personal freedom. But as regards to God's ownership which is the true and absolute one, the closer the servant is drawn to Him the more humbled and submissive the servant becomes, aware of his insignificance in relation to the Supreme Being. That is how complete and intricate the Quran is, in its argumentations for perfect monotheism. Elsewhere the Quran depicts the notion of God's absolute sway over all things, including those the polytheists claim are His physical descendants

19:92-5"And it is not worthy of the Beneficient that He should take a son. There is no one in the Heavens and the earth but will come to the Beneficient as a servant. Certainly He has a comprehensive knowledge of them and He has numbered them a comprehensive numbering. And everyone of them will come to Him on the day of Resurrection, alone".

These entities who are supposed to share some of the divine essence are in fact so lowly before their Creator and far removed from any sort of divinity and intrinsic power, that they are numbered like slaves are. Their provisions decided, their tasks assigned and ultimate purpose defined. This reality will become manifest when all of creation is resurrected and brought to its Creator empty handed. It is further important to understand the psychology behind the notion of "taking a son" for a ruler, let alone a regular human being. Kings used to resort to this practice when they chose among their subjects an individual that fit their subjective/desired/missing criteria when their own progeny wasnt satisfying, in order to fulfill a certain purpose, most often their succession. The taking of a son reveals an inherent weakness, whether it be the desire of continuity or association in accomplishing a task. The Quran refutes these needs from various angles

2:116-7"Glory be to Him/subhanahu; rather, whatever is in the heavens and the earth is His; all are obedient to Him. Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth, and when He decrees an affair, He only says to it, Be, so there it is".

First and foremost He is far above any concept in terms of exaltedness, perfection, as denoted with subhaanahu. This necessarily precludes any need or weakness. Then, all of existence is fully encompassed by His grip meaning He does not need to pick and choose something if He already owns everything, even moreso when all things are submissive to Him. This submissivness began since the origin of the creation of the heavens and the earth

41:11"willingly or unwillingly",

a process that will be reproduced on the resurrection 84:2. What would then be the purpose of declaring an entitiy His son, when all reasons for which He would hypotheticaly need one are already covered? Finally, God does not require searching through His own creation for an entity endowed with qualities needed for the accomplishment of a supposed need of His, when He is

2:117"badeeu/Innovator and initiator of the heavens and the earth".

This term badieeu means that in His case, contrary to all creative endeavours, He creates without any blueprint, preexisting inspiration, experience, simply through His word

"and if HE decreed an order done, He only says be and it is".

This is why God is the

"best of creators".

Acts17apologetics hijack Judaism; What is son of god in the Bible?

In answer to the video "Why Is Jesus Called "The Son of God"? (Answering Islam Part 20)"

The concept of a divine fatherly figure typically is a Hebrew one, with God calling the nation of Israel His firstborn and referred to in the book of Jeremiah as their father. Jews are very much attached to that concept and dispute Christian appropriation of that title through their mistranslations of the Hebrew texts. 

The Hebrew understanding of the notion of God as a fatherly figure has nothing to do with the Christian one. 

In their monolatrous concept of God, Jews are the preferred sons above all nations charged with being the torch bearers of the truth, and their father is in charge of educating them throughout that process, sometimes in the harshest of ways. This is a notion which the Quran refutes. 

The Quran rebukes the people of the book for their misappropriation of the phrase "son of God" metaphorically on themselves 5:18. Here the verse is not making a sweeping condemnation of the usage of that terminology, rather its abuse. They were making that claim in the context of moral accountability. Being the sons of God implied them being His "beloved", honored among the nations, His favoured. Forgiveness was thus their due and will always eventually be restored to their station of nearness to God despite their sins. If that is the case then the Quran reminds the Jews more particularly, of the destructions that befell them throughout their recorded history.

Each of those, as related in their own books were the result of divine disapproval. None is immune in this life to hardships, whether the most righteous or the sinners. These difficulties are either meant to strengthen one's spiritual resolve, make him mend his ways, or utterly destroy him, not leaving him any chance to even repent 

3:140-1"and We bring these days to men by turns, and that Allah may know those who believe and take witnesses from among you; and Allah loves not the unjust. And that Allah may purge those who believe and eradicate the unbelievers". 

The violent hardships that befell those very ones claiming to be God's favored among the nations, were neither meant at improving their non-existent spirituality, nor to make them mend their ways and forgive them. God, their "father" meant to eradicate the sinners off the face of the earth. They knew this reality and could not offer an answer in defence of their claim of being God's "beloved". Their history of punishments, down to our recent times, is no example of a father-son relationship where the child is being lovingly raised and corrected. Further, because the verse does not forbid the notion of sonship to God, it does however make sure that anyone using it does not think of himself in any way intrinsically superior to other human beings 

5:18"you are mortals of His creating". 

Nowhere here or elsewhere does the Quran accuse individual Jews of claiming divinity, rather it seeks to blot out that notion even on a subconscious level.

In 19:34 following the story of Jesus' nativity and infancy, the Quran addresses 2 issues. First in a statement from God rejecting any notion of sonship to Him 19:35 and then in a quote from Jesus stressing the basic monotheistic principle that 

19:36"indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him; this is a straight path". 

In light of Jesus' clear statement, which happens to be quoted almost verbatim in the NT although in a different context Jn20:17, the Quran then continues by condemning as disbelievers those that contended, and still do, with these 2 principles 19:37. Jesus during his time among his people did not forbid the expression "son of God" since it did not carry ambiguous connotation to the Jews, as regards the relationship between the person whom the expression was applied to, and God. A "son of God" was neither an extension of God, nor shared in the divine essence. It is thus God who took it upon himself to reject the notion once it became perverted and loaded with polytheistic significance after Jesus. As a prophet however, Jesus, like his predecessors, always stressed the basic monotheistic tenets to his addressees, and hence the verse 19:36 rightly quotes him doing so. The whole passage from 19:30-7 in defence of Jesus aims at condemning people for different reasons and at different times during his life and prophetic mission. Where the Jews in Jesus' time transgressed in their use of that metaphorical appellation, was in the implicit notion of intrinsic honor due to them, the "children of God". Jesus in the NT condemns this Jewish self-conceit in no uncertain terms, whether it pertained to their abuse of the notion of sonship to God Jn3:10,8:42-44 as the Quran does in 5:18 quoted earlier, or whether that conceit was due to their Abrahamic ancestry Matt3:9,Lk3:8. When Jesus himself, the prophet in their midst could not in anyway be compared in greatness to the One that sent him Jn13:16 then why would they, the sinful ones boast of them being God's sons? This was no false humility from Jesus and when he asked to be honored as the father is Jn5:22-23, he meant in terms of recognition 

"Whoever does not honour the Son does no honour the Father who sent him". 

This is very similar to the Quranic statement that rejecting the messenger (dishonoring him) is the same as rejecting the One that sent him. Jesus in fact desired for his followers the same honor and glory that were due to him Jn17:21-22. It is remarkable to note how the Quran who, had it been the product of its historical milieu, should have followed the example of its predecessors in claiming the honorific sonship title to the Muslims. Instead it emphatically states that no one has any unconditional right or privilege against Allah. The only ones honored and privileged by Allah are those of correct faith and righteous deeds, regardless of their claim of belonging to a religious group or specific ancestry. And the highest distinction God may confer among His creatures, is that of obedient slaves. Such distinction does not cause an increase in relation to God, rather in relation to the rest of creation. Further, contrary to the "son of God" terminology, it does not carry the misleading notion of special privilege with God, nor of particularity in terms of essence and lineage.

The concept of a divine fatherly figure is different in Christianity. To Christians, God is the father firstly in relation to the son/Jesus whom he has "begotten not made" and of whom he is the head in the trinity. The Jewish and Christians concepts have nothing to do with oneanother and Jews loath that misappropriation of the term by trinitarian Christians. Even the extension of God as a paternal figure to regular Christians has nothing to do with the notion as described in relation to the Jewish nation.

This father-son connection is only used in Hebrew scriptures for the Jews themselves and all other instances where "sons of elohim" is translated "sons of God" in Christian Bibles is considered erroneous, not only from a Jewish theological perspective, but also from a contextual one. The word elohim although may apply to God, primarily means a powerful entity like for example judges, rulers or notables Ex7:1,4:16,22:6-7,20,1Sam28:12-13,Ps82:6.

One famous Christian rendition of "sons of elohim" as "sons of God" is in Gen6. With their "fallen angel" concept in mind, Christians prefer the "sons of God" rendition due to the mention of "nefilim" in v4 whom they speculate are the progeny of fallen angels/sons of God with sons of adam. Yet "sons of elohim" obviously is in reference to the progeny of men with great power, who rather than using their position for justice, committed crimes against their fellow men, abusing the "daughters of Adam", indulging in lawlessness to their benefit. Follows God's decision to destroy the world and everything in it, explicitly because of the human race's injustice, nothing is said about angels.

Everything is destroyed, since all this world was created for man to rule over it Gen1:29-31, except those chosen to survive in the ark. But again, nothing about angels or do Christians mean that mankind was destroyed because of the angels´ wickedness?

Now regarding the nefilim, the v4 says they were already on the earth in those days and they continued to be so afterward. They were not the result of mating between fallen angels and humans.

This race of people had the peculiarity of counting giants among them, who even survived the flood Numb13:22,33,Josh12:4. In proportion, these giants were to the Israelites what a grasshopper is to a regular human being. 

The Quran being the supreme protector of monotheism, never refers to God with such imperfect appellations, as it easily paves the ground for polytheistic beliefs, similar to the ones that polluted Christianity 17:110"HE has the best names". Interestingly, in Islam the closest one comes in parallelling God's relationship to His creatures, to that of human parent-children connection, is a hadith where the prophet compares the mercy of Allah towards the people with that of a mother to her infant. One of Allah's names, al-Rahman, stems from the root of rahm/the womb, evoking the nurturing, loving care of the mother.

Even when the masculine pronoun HE/HUWA is used in reference to Allah, it does not denote gender. In literature this masculine can either be the grammatical or biological masculine. Also, singular neutrality in Arabic is expressed with the masculine (not biological) pronoun. There is no IT in Arabic hence the use of the grammatical masculine HUWA to denote neutrality of gender (for a singular entity, while the feminine is used for a couple like the eyes). In the HB/NT, the title of "Father" has gender as well as sexual connotations. That notion of fatherhood associated with God may easily lead to polytheism, or at the least false, exclusivist, monolatrous notions as one finds throughout the Hebrew writings. Christians however took that misleading appellation to a more crooked level, as seen above. 

Apostate prophet uncovers Quranic wisdom; keeping silent sometimes a good thing?

In answer to the video "Islam With Muhammad Makes No Sense"

Besides the twofold message that there is wisdom in having some things not known to us, that one should not ask about minutiae related to the religion which may have the opposite effect of making it obsessive compulsive, hard to follow and the potential danger of falling out of religion, the verse 5:101 also carries a timeless import in regards to one's understanding of the Quran itself. It teaches one not to be hasty, but instead wait for the detail that will elaborate on a topic requiring further explanation.

This detail, present in the book, will not cause the religion to become a burden. It will eventually appear as one progresses through the Quran with an open heart, as it is being revealed to oneself. For these reasons, the Quran is to be approached with patience 75:16, one should ponder and meditate on its verse before forming any adverse opinion.  

God's law as originaly intended is meant at providing spiritual purification. It would then be contrary to that purpose for God to make it complicated. He has lightened our burdens through a simple and natural sharia

22:78"and has not laid upon you an hardship in religion".

Man, being a creature endowed with freewill, has a frail spirituality 4:28 that makes him lack resolve when a moral crisis arises. That spiritual weakness is only a natural outcome of an original, untrained spiritual state just as a newborn is physically weak. Only the appropriate training, spiritual or physical can make one overcome the challenges, abstract or concrete 70:19-35. Therefore to facilitate the attainement of that goal, the sharia has been made simple and appealing to man's nature

2:185,5:6"Allah does not desire to put on you any difficulty, but He wishes to purify you and that He may complete His favor on you, so that you may be grateful".

Had Allah wished

2:220"He would certainly have caused you to fall into a difficulty; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise".

Even after mentionning clear prohibitions, the Quran stresses the soulful nature of the Sharia by declaring lawful these same things whenever the circumstances make it too burdensome to abide by them 5:3. God's law is thus very close to human nature, it does not run contrary to it, rather it is the disobedience to the law of the Creator that is unnatural. Neither is a person expected to be over-zealous in his religious duties

24:53"reasonable obedience (is desired); surely Allah is aware of what you do".

Sincerity, not perfection is required and so if one stumbles during the pursuit of the right course, God is forgiving 4:17,53:32. One can therefore clearly see that this notion of the naturalness and simplicity of the divine law is not based on some whims by the Muslim scholars and jurists, but on Quranic indicants which occur so frequently that they cannot be mere metaphors. It is the principle of facilitation/taysir of the sharia as stated in

2:185“God wills that you shall have ease, and does not want you to suffer hardship”.

This verse is treated as belonging to the category of muhkam/decisive or explicit verses, corroborated by many others cited above. The traditions reflect that Quranic axiom

“I was sent to people with the lenient, tolerant, True Religion” or “Do [good] deeds that are within your capacity”

or

“This religion is very easy and entails no hardship".

The prophet instructed Muadh as he sent him to Yemen

“Facilitate things for the people and do not make things difficult for them. Be kind and lenient [both of you] with the people, and do not be hard on them and give the people good tidings and do not reject them,”.

Based on the traditions and the Quran, the scholars have thus asserted that making things easy/taysir is one of the higher objectives of the Sharia. It aims at protecting the life, property, and dignity of the whole community without causing inappropriate hardships. Throughout the ages, despite the mindless islamophobic rant, nations have been receptive to the teachings of Islam without any difficulty or hardship.

This is evidenced by the transformation that Islam has brought about in the daily lives of the Arabs, the Persians, the Copts of Egypt, the Berbers, the Tartars, the people of India, the Chinese, and the Turks, without these peoples facing any difficulty in discarding their age-old bad habits, or being compelled to abandon their good customs.

Apostate prophet enjoys Quranic criticism; Islam encourages questioning?

In answer to the video "Islam With Muhammad Makes No Sense"

As is clear from the previous posts, the Quran doesnt prevent the honest debate and search of knowledge. Many Quranic verses begin with questions that are stated very compactly and their real purport becomes evident through their answer

2:189"They ask you concerning..".

The verse 5:101 rather warns against questionning that could lead to unnecessary complications in religious laws. In addition, and as demonstrated through the Israelites' example, such questionning also stems for shallow belief and hypocrisy. Asking questions, politely humbly with pure intent is never disallowed.

The angels were permitted to voice questions to God directly 2:30. No religion says, almost at the end of every argument for its truth, to reflect, ponder, think for themselves. It invites sceptics to bring forth any constructive criticism and argument.

As just stated, the epitome of that principle is the angels' questioning God's plan for creation, questioning God Himself and yet they arent condemned at anytime. Justified curiosity is not wrong but even encouraged

21:7,16:43"ask those who possess knowledge if you do not know”.

In 58:1 a reference is made to an incident in which a pious woman had to face a severe difficulty regarding a religious issue; instead of becoming frustrated and showing distrust in God, she presented her case before Him and His Prophet with purity of intentions. Her difficulty was resolved and her case set forth as an example in the Quran: that of a person who adopted the correct attitude when troubles came her way.