Islam critiqued sees through Hagar's viewpoint; carrying a sick teenager into the desert?

In answer to the video "Abraham's Only Son- Genesis 22"

Per the Torah, it is Sarah who in the first place got Abraham to marry Hagar in order for him to bear a child Gen16. Upon her pregnancy, it is reported that Hagar started despising Sarah, so she complained to Abraham who replied

Gen16:6"Your servant is in your hands, Do with her whatever you think best".

So she was sent away in the wilderness but came back shortly after, when God told her to

Gen16:9"Go back to your mistress and submit to her".

After Isaac's birth, the situation became unbearable between the two sons because of Ishmael's misbehavior towards his brother. At that point the Talmudic smearing campaign against Ishmael becomes humorous, he is then not only a "young" idolater but also an adulterer (Rashi on Prov19:26). Seeing this situation, Sarah asked Abraham to

Gen21:10"Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac".

Abraham accepted her request and sent Hagar with his firstborn Ishmael, food and water all on her shoulders

"and he took bread and a leather pouch of water, and he gave [them] to Hagar, he placed [them] on her shoulder, and the child, and he sent her away; and she went and wandered in the desert of Beer sheba".

As is clear in the wording of the verse and as understood in traditional Jewish interpretation, all elements mentioned are placed upon Hagar. This includes Ishmael who is now around 15years old!

The Jewish traditions state that Hagar's carrying of her child along with her food and water reserves was due to Ishmael being incapacitated by Sarah's evil eye cast upon him Gen. Rabbah 53:13.

Just as with the invented dialogue between Abraham and God regarding which "only son" was meant, this obviously is an attempt at explaining away the absurdity of having a woman wandering in the dry desert heat, carrying her 15year old grown up boy and her meager provisions. When the meager means of subsistence tarried, and because of the debilitating sickness, Hagar

"cast the child under one of the bushes".

She couldnt bare to

"see the death of the child".

There is obviously no reason to assume that a healthy supposedly 16 year old teenager's life would be threatened by lethal dehydration that fast, faster than his mother. Unable to weave out from the inconsistencies of their corrupt story, the rabbinic commentators painted themselves into a corner, forced to cast even Sarah whom they revere as superior to Abraham in terms of revelational experience (exod. rabb. 1:1 tan. shem. 1) into a bad light. Sarah is the one who invoked some evil occult science that caused Ishmael to become severely ill and unable to walk.

Eventually

"God heard the voice of the lad"

and told Hagar to

"Rise, pick up the lad and grasp your hand upon him".  

All these are obviously not the description of a 15-16 year old teenager but of an INFANT, as attested by the numerous Islamic traditions,

"Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: The Prophet said, “May Allah bestow His Mercy on the mother of Ishmael! Had she not hastened (to fill her water-skin with water from the Zam-zam well), Zam-zam would have been a stream flowing on the surface of the earth.” Ibn ‘Abbas further added, “(The Prophet) Abraham brought Ishmael and his mother (to Mecca) and she was suckling Ishmael and she had a water-skin with her.’".

The Hebrew hay-ye-led used to describe young Ishmael in that passage Gen21:14-19 is the same as the one used for Isaac when he was 2 years old as well as Moses when he was placed upon the river as an infant Ex2:3.

The same kind of textual incongruity appears within Genesis as it implicitly describes in one place Rebecca to be 3 years old when she was married to Isaac at 37, and in another place as capable of doing the tasks of at least a child between 10-15 years at the time of her marriage.

The whole story is that of Hagar desperately fearing that her infant baby would die. Isaac wouldn't even have been born at the time for the incident that is alleged to have happened in verse 12. If the incident was related to Isaac being born, Ishmael would NOT have been an infant at the time he was cast out. It should also be noted that Beersheba was a place well known to Hagar, Ibrahim having lived there with her for long. Waterwells were dug all throughout the region and even by Ibrahim. All these could not have been unknown to Hagar. She could therefore have obtained further water, after a little search, from any of the many wells in the area, some of them she was very familiar with. And yet she is depicted as desperately wandering in search of water to no avail, to the point she cast the child under one of the shrubs until

"God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water".

It is worthwhile noting here yet another attempt at character assassination by the scribes, in their commentaries and oral tradition as quoted by Rashi, in order to minimize to the utmost any positive reference to Ishmael.

In relation to that divine inspiration to Hagar, they quote the angels themselves protesting God's revealing of the well's location to Hagar

Gen.rabbah 53:14"O Lord of the universe, for one who is destined to kill your children with thirst, You are binding up a well?! And He answered them "What is he now, righteous or wicked?" They replied "Righteous" He said according to his present deeds i judge him".

This other ridiculous "divine dialogue" also bellies the notion in their own traditions, cited earlier, that Ishmael at the time was an idolatrous adulterer.

Further, the essence of the order to banish Ishmael, per the Torah was to have only Isaac as Abraham's heir, while Ismail and his descendants should settle in and populate another land. How then could they have been settled in Beersheba which was then within the sphere of Ibrahim’s and Sarah’s activities? Hagar and Ismail could only have been, and were indeed consigned to an unknown, far-away and unsettled land.

The Paran mentioned in the Genesis as the place where they finally settled could not simply have been any Paran in and around Beerseba and Sinai.

Islam critiqued reveals Ishmael's importance; Abraham's dedication of his firstborn?

In answer to the video "Abraham's Only Son- Genesis 22"

Abraham asking God that

"Ishmael might live before thee"

has a specific meaning, besides the affectionate connotation. Being "before the Lord" or "in His presence" applies in Hebrew bible terminology to anything OFFERED to God or anyone DEDICATED to His service Gen17:1,Deut10:8,Exod28:35,29:11,42,23,26,1Sam2:30,2Chron7:17 and throughout Leviticus.

Accordingly, the firstborn and "only son" Ismail was prepared for sacrifice then settled and resided beside the altar of Mecca, dedicated to the One God's service.

Every Jewish translation and rabbinic commentary agrees with the fact that in Gen17:19 God accepted Abraham's request that Ishmael be dedicated to serve the Lord.

The way this promise manifested itself obviously is a mystery to Jewish scriptures but not to the Quran 2:123-9,14:35-41 and Muslim tradition. The promise came true with the establishment of the Kaaba by both Ibrahim and Ismail, and the latter's settlement at the temple.

Islam critiqued has it mixed up; Isaac was Abraham's only son?

In answer to the video "Abraham's Only Son- Genesis 22"

The first, most "in your face" oddity is God asking Abraham to sacrifice his Gen22:2,12"only son" Isaac. This would mean he had no son other than the one to be sacrificed. Yet this same book states Ismail, Abraham's firstborn son was 14 years older than Isaac, the supposed "only son" Gen17:17,24,25,18:10.

In the presence of his older brother Ishmael, the literal, firstborn and legitimate "only son" could never, at any point, have been Isaac.

Another inconsistency resulting from the identification of Isaac with the son of the sacrifice is that the HB states Abraham had to journey from Beerseba where he dwelt with Isaac before and after the event of the sacrifice Gen21:31-34,22:19 to mourn Sarah's death in Canaan Gen23:2. Was Sarah living away from both husband and son all this time or just after the sacrifice and why? Jewish tradition suggests she dwelt in Canaan before Isaac's near sacrifice since it is this news that saddened her to the point it caused her demise Gen.Rabbah58:5. The only way she could have known of the incident while in Canaan was if Abraham and Isaac had left for the location of sacrifice (ie Moriah) from Canaan itself. However we are told Abraham and his "only son" left for the sacrifice from Beerseba, not from Canaan.

And by the way, it would have never taken Abraham 3 days to reach Moriah in Jerusalem, from his location near Hebron, which is less than a day's walk.

The only way for all these conflicting elements to come together is to say that Abraham had left alone from Beerseba to the location where he had settled his "only son", and from there to the location of the sacrifice. The Quran and the traditions say he left to Mecca where he had settled his firstborn Ismail, and from there to Marwah nearby, for the sacrifice. Interestingly, this Marwah which the the HB calls "Moriah" is located in 2Chron3 in Jerusalem and yet when David purchases the site later on from a Jebusite, neither the writer, David, the owner, the angels, nor God or any prophet make a connection between that site, and one of the most significant locations to Judaism, the place where the event of the near sacrifice occured. Instead it is simply labelled the "threshing floor" of the future Temple.

Some Judeo-Christian apologists have tried brushing away the literal and exclusive meaning of "only son" by invoking an unwarranted, textually unsupported metaphorical interpretation. Isaac was the "only son" left with Abraham since Ishmael was allegedly "cast away" along with Hagar. Others say Isaac was the "only son", not of Abraham as per the words in Genesis, but "of the covenant" (although Ishmael was also previously included in a covenant).

All these suggestions, besides contradicting the meaning of the phrase as used in other places in the HB (see Zech12:10 for example), contradict even the Jewish oral traditions which, actually shows that the rabbis understood the problem of associating Isaac with the phrase. But like recent apologists they must resort to the most absurd contortions of the text to make the phrase "only son" fit to Isaac.

They firstly present Abraham as perfectly understanding the meaning of the expression in a concrete, not figurative way, since he asks whether it is Hagar or Sarah's only son that God means. Notice the clever diversion, making it sound as if the command to take "your son, your only son" was issued to Sarah or Hagar, while it was issued to Abraham. Why would Abraham need to know whether it is Sarah or Hagar's only son when the command was directed at him alone, meaning it was HIS only son that is intended?

Secondly, knowing themselves that it is the concrete meaning that is intended, create a surrealistic dialogue where Abraham confuses God's command to him specifically into an order that includes his wives. The dialogue supposedly cuts the flow of Gen22:2 and comes right after "take your son" in order to prepare the ground for the application of the phrase to Isaac:

(Sanh. 89b, Gen. Rabbah 39:9, 55:7)"He [Abraham] said to Him,“ I have two sons.” He [God] said to him,“ Your only one.” He said to Him,“ This one is the only son of his mother, and that one is the only son of his mother.” He said to him,“ Whom you love.” He said to Him,“ I love them both.” He said to him,“ Isaac.”

One doesn't need to be told how forced on the story this 'explanation' is. But this oral tradition stresses the important point that the phrase was understood in that particular context in a literal, concrete way; it wasnt the figurative "only son" left with Abraham when Ishmael was sent away, it wasnt the figurative "only son" of the covenant. Abraham needed to know if God meant the literal only son of Hagar or the literal only son of Sarah. What this Talmudic tradition also shows is that Ibrahim loved both his sons equally and saw both Ismail and Isaac as equals and legitimate sons of his. This is in accordance with the mosaic law in Deut21:15-17.

Some modern Jewish translations though, to escape the difficulty of the phrase "only son", attach a specificity to it "the only one you love" ie (Ishmael was not loved). Neither the Midrash, nor the Talmud, nor even ancient Rabbinical authorities understand the verse in that way. This is not only incorrect grammatically, but also textually since many passages reflect Abraham's love of his firstborn.

In fact in the whole pre-binding narrative the only love one can see is the one Abraham had for Ishmael, obviously the son he so dearly desired and that came in answer to his prayers, while he seems distant from his second son Isaac. When God granted Abraham's wish of a son, he named him Ishmael meaning "God hears" in hebrew, because Ishmael was the answer of God to Abraham's prayer for a righteous son as reflected in both the HB Gen15:2 and the Quran 37:100-1. In Gen22:2 the child to be sacrificed is the one "whom you love", this love for the firstborn Ishmael is reflected in Gen17:17-18 where Abraham's reaction to God announcing a second miraculous birth, that of Isaac is

"O that Ishmael might live before thee".

It is expected for a firstborn to hold a special place in parents' hearts especially in the case of Abraham's old age who begged God for a righteous son. This adds to the relevancy of the test in relation to Ishmael, as well as the statement "whom you love". Further, from a legalistic perspective the sanctity of the firstborn (human or else) is a recurring them in the bible Gen4:4,Numb8:17-18,Ex13:1-2. 

We interestingly find in the book of Jubilees (second temple retelling of Genesis and Exodus that was considered cannonical by Ethiopian Jews and Christians), that the Lord praises Abraham for “not refus[ing] me your first-born son whom you love”.

What is even more revealing is how Jewish oral tradition explains the defeated rebellious Moabite king Mesha's offering of his firstborn in sacrifice 2Kings3:27 it was to emulate Abraham's offering of his only son, his firstborn:

 In the Pesikta of the section of Shekalim it is expounded that he asked his servants ([in] Pesikta [and] Yalkut: his astrologers), “What is the character of this nation, that miracles such as these were performed for them?” They replied, “Their forefather, Abraham, had an only son. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him, Sacrifice him before Me, and he wanted to sacrifice him to the Holy One, Blessed be He.” He said to them, “I too have a first born son. I will go and sacrifice him to the gods.”

Further, throughout their history of straying into the ways of the neighboring polytheistic nations, among the practices which they readily assimilated was children sacrifice which they adapted into their own tradition by offering the firstborn to the idol. See Rashi on Ezek20:31,39. Another interesting observation is that among the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is a fragment 4Q225 with an alternate version of the story, where Ishmael never appears on the scene prior to the binding of Isaac, making Isaac the true and literal "only son". The writer was aware of the inconsistency and obviously desired to fix it by changing the original text.

As to Isaac qualifying as an "only son" due to Ishmael being supposedly of illegitimate birth. Nothing in the mosaic law states that the child of a concubine is illegitimate or of a "lesser birth" than one born of a normal marriage. Had it been the case, it would defeat the whole purpose of the union, initiated and endorsed by Sarah herself. The purpose was to ensure a male heir to the childless couple. Ismail was thus born of a legitimate union with Hagar whom he took as a wife Gen16:3. Hagar was the princess daughter of an Egyptian King according to even some Rabbinical traditions. As a side note, Solomon became allied to the Egyptian king through marrying his princess daughter 1Kings3:1 and loved her more than his other numerous wives 1Kings11.

There are other such recorded unions, between Israelites and daughters of Egyptian nobility 1Chr4:18. David's great grandmother, Ruth, was a Moabite princess that preferred converting to Judaism and live as an ordinary member of the community. Her piety and good manners were well known, a book of the biblical cannon is named after her. Abraham's marrying the daughter of a foreign nation's nobility is therefore certainly not something illegitimate or odd for the ancient people, including the Israelites.

But blinded by their tribal hatred, they still argue that Ishmael was illegitimate due to a supposedly low birth to a foreign servant. Yet Ishmael is referred as Abraham's seed, taken to be circumsized, then distinguished as his son next to the purchased male slaves Gen17:23-27. Also, according to Deut21:15-17 the traditional rights and privileges of the first born son are not to be affected by the social status of his mother. The Hebrew text's successive promises of blessing to Ibrahim's offspring and multiplying Ismail's progeny into a great nation Gen12,17 was something the Israelites writing the stories of the patriarchs much later than the events, could not ignore Gen21:21,25:9-18.

By the time the scribes were busy compiling the Torah, Ismail had already multiplied and his progeny had already established princes and nations throughout the region. But just as they had to admit their racial affinity with the Bedouins of the Great Peninsula, at the same time they needed to degrade them by tracing their origin to a slave-concubine of their common ancestor, Abraham.

Islam critiqued searches for the Ishmaelite connection; the Jews removed it?

In answer to the video "Abraham's Only Son- Genesis 22"

The event, as reported in the Bible is one of the the most glaring displays of tribal prejudice by the Bani Israel, who are known for their tribalism, towards their own Israelite brethren and more blatantly against their brethren of Bani Ishmael. The Quran addresses this unjust behavior of theirs after giving a detailed account of the achievements of Ibrahim and Ismail, including their construction of the first Temple of monotheism, the Kaaba

2:140"And who is more unjust than he who conceals a testimony that he has from Allah? And lah is not at all heedless of what you do".

Similarly after mentioning the Safa and the Marwa as a sign and a place of pilgrimage in remembrance of the exact location where Hagar and Ismail were settled and guided to the Zamzam source, the Quran turns again to those of the Jews who conceal the truth 2:159.

The settlement of a place dedicated to propagate the Abrahamic legacy away from the sacred Jewish land, and established by their non-Israelite brethren, undermines the racist ideology prevalent throughout their scripture. This racism, besides having fueled all kinds of intertribal hatred among their own Israelite brethren, did not even spare the pure monotheism which they claimed to uphold, by turning the God of all mankind into an ethnical monolatrous deity.

Before detailing how the Abrahamic connection to Mecca and the Kaaba was distorted, the first thing to address is a recurrent question by Judeo-Christian apologists; how and when did the corrupt version of the patriarchs make it to the written Biblical text?

The simple logical answer is that these corruptions were first transmitted orally, as would any lie be repeated and exaggerated, until the matter was obscured beyond recognition as the generations passed through successive periods of destruction, enslavement, tumult and exile. The introduction of just one of many blatant falsehoods in their scriptures, is revealed by scrutinizing all related signs they could not blot out. These signs most often attest to carelessness in the transmission of religious knowledge, but also many times deliberate distortions fueled by their racial hatred. That disfigured version was eventually put in writing when Genesis was first composed, around the same time different parts of the Torah were written by priests and scribes in the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah during the First Temple period and the Babylonian Exile.

This occured very far removed in time and space, let alone the Persian and Hellenistic cultural environment, and social conditions than the time of Moses, let alone Abraham. Scholars place that first redaction anywhere from the 9th to 6th centuries BCE, most probably the 7th which happens to coincide with the discovery of a scroll which nobody knew what it was until it was ascertained that it was the forgotten Torah 2kings22,23. How uncanny that this unknown document suddenly reappears around the same time the Torah is believed to have been written and compiled. Most of these parts were stitched together by Ezra the Scribe to create a single historic narrative and legal code for the returning exiles. These authors were not writing from historical sources but were reflecting their own ideas, ideologies, cultural background, and rampant prejudices, as well as obviously their historical context.

The Quran however sheds light on the approximate period where the prejudice against Ismail began to grow among the Israelites

2:133-4"were you witnesses when death visited Yaqoub, when he said to his sons: What will you serve after me? They said: We will serve your god and the god of your fathers, Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq, one Allah only, and to Him do we submit. This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did".

In the HB, this particular section of Jacob's story, his last moments among his family, is known among biblical scholars as one of the most convoluted and problematic accounts of the Torah, betraying the conflation of multiple traditions which the scribes tried harmonizing.  

As the Quranic version makes it clear, up to the time of Jacob and the first few generations that followed, Ismail's rightful place in prophetic history was recognized. What is also interesting here is how the Quran absolves a prophet of God, Jacob, from any type of prejudice, let alone tribal, and shows that his utmost priority in regards to his sons is that they worship the one true, universal God as opposed to the tribal monolatrous Jewish religion later grafted into the religion of Ibrahim, Isaac and Jacob. What is remarkable is the manner in which the Quran, in its usual pattern of employing words with surgical precision, subtly maintains the idea of a universal religion proclaimed by the Israelites' ancestors. When it quotes the prophet Yusuf/Joseph citing his physical relatives Ibrahim, Isaac and Jacob he leaves no ambiguity as regards the universality of the religion of these noble figures. He states that the same uprightness God favored him and his ancestors with, was equally bestowed on all of mankind

12:38"And I follow the religion of my fathers, Ibrahim and Ishaq and Yaqoub; it beseems us not that we should associate aught with Allah; this is by Allah's grace upon us AND ON MANKIND, but most people do not give thanks"

CIRA International need a concrete example; Paul the false Christian prophet?

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

As to the case of Paul alluded to above, it says in Deut18 that

"a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say...must be put to death"

and paul admitted speaking occasionaly his own words but still in God's name 1Cor7:25,2Cor8:8. How can "all scripture" be "God-breathed" 2Tim3:16 while at the same time including the words of one admitting to speak his own words, the same person who, as will be shown below, overtly encouraged deception as a legitimate missionary tactic? Contrast this with the forceful Quranic statement that

69:44-47"if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand, And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart: Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath)".

Also

Deut18:22"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously"

Paul fell flat on his face regarding his predictions on Jesus' second coming.

Even the NT's criteria compromise Paul's self-proclaimed divine authority. The false prophet is one that forbids marriage 1Tim4:1-3. Paul advised not to marry 1Cor7:1. The false prophet

"will bring the way of truth (ie the way of Jesus which his direct followers testified to) into disrepute"2Pet2:2

and Paul interpreted Jesus' teachings in ways which led to disputes between him and Jesus' early followers whom he sarcastically called "super apostles" and further considered himself superior to them, proudly declaring he "learned nothing" from them Gal2:6-9. This is the sheer arogance of one who never knew or met Jesus 2Cor11:4-5,22-24. There is a reason why Paul's letters display their ignorance of, if not purposefully dismiss the writings attributed to Jesus' disciples. It is said that false prophets'

"greed..will exploit you with stories they have made up"2Pet2:3

and Paul who had several contradicting versions of his alleged encounter with a "light" admitted using deception in his modus operandi

"I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it...crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery"2Cor12:11,16.

He openly encouraged lying when preaching Jesus, becoming like a Jew to win the Jew, and becoming like a gentile (one not under the law) to win the gentile Phil1:15-18,1Cor9:19-21, because

"The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached"

in order to

"win as many as possible".

The interesting result was that Christians not only were very successful at converting pagans (much less so with the Jews) but pagans in turn transformed Christianity into a hodge podge of neo-judeo/greco-roman religion, born at the council of Nicea in 325CE, in Alexandria which was the center of Hellenistic philosophies. This is in sharp contrast to what the Quran says about the inadmissibility of using deceitful and disgraceful means for the propagation of Truth

16:92-95,125"Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner".  

This strategy helped him gather funds -not for the poor and needy- for the establishement and reenforcement of the Churches throughout the Roman empire and beyond 1Cor15,16,2Cor8,9. This fits another description of a false prophet in Micah3:11 whose motivation is money. It is from Paul's teachings and method of approaching the Jews that the Evangelical Zionists derive their missionary tactics. It consists in showing the Jews a strong support that they might be "provoked into jealousy" so that they might be convinced that God's help has come from the followers of the one they rejected (Jesus) because

Rom11"if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!".

Paul has a very peculiar feature, and that is one who consistently is found swearing that whatever he has is from God, contrary to what is preached in the New Testament, where Jesus is reported to have stated that such a thing was a quality of the Pharisees. Further, the very 'gospel' he was alleged to preach contradicted not just what was being taught in Galilee, but what was being taught in the Temple of Jerusalem itself. Paul was attacked in that Temple for what he was claiming.

By the end of his life, he had to seek refuge with the pagan Roman Authority, because people, which were obviously his enemies within the other factions, wanted to kill him.

CIRA International check the Quranic standards; a prophet according to Islam?

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

In the Quran, through the story of ancient nations and prophets, it establishes a pattern by which to determine the truthfulness of one claiming prophethood. It then places Muhammad inside that pattern; uprightness in character which includes an unflinching, uncompromising stance as regards his mission, to have been foretold by previous prophets, having access to special knowledge, and prophecies coming true. This includes warnings of punishment for fighting and opposing the messengers. God does not destroy a people among whom are messengers, believers, and potential repentent sinners. An overarching theme in the Quran is that God, being the most forgiving and merciful, always grants the prophet's addressees a time of respite during which they are intensely admonished, shown signs pointing to the truth of the revelation, inflicted with corrective punishments to cause reform. The means by which such punishment is delivered may be different. The traditions speak of a scourge of famine in Mecca, and the Quran alludes to that episode. But the essential means by which the corrective punishment would be delivered with the prophet Muhammad, as already alluded to in the Meccan phase of revelation 37:171-182, was through the believers themselves. They were the main rod of God’s corrective punishment during that time of respite. The Ishmaelites believers, like the Israelites before them who were divinely commanded to engage sinful people militarily, were being established as a nation under God, charged with carrying the light of truth to the nations of the world. It is thus expected that they would be put to the ultimate test of faithfulness, demonstrating that the possibility of physical sacrifice and martyrdom for the sake of truth would not deter them from fulfilling their obligations, their covenant with God.

 And effectively by the end of the prophet's life almost the entire people he had reached with his message, who heard the admonishments, saw the signs, who were chastised with awakening punishments at the battlefield, had accepted Islam. The threatened punishement of complete destruction was thus eventually averted, as had happened with the people of Jonas/Yunus. The Quran alludes to the story of the prophet Yunus in between threats of divine destruction, so as to make the prophets Muhammad's addressees understand that the promised doom may be averted at anytime 10:95-104.

It is important to keep in mind, the Quran establishes the pattern of the prophets while the believers are in a state of weakness, even augmenting its rethoric, further antagonizing the disbelievers. As expected the people then oppose the message and prevent the people from it and get punished by the sword. End of the matter. None after him came with any of the following and was able to back his claims up:

1) comes from a common background of his addressees, meaning they know him very well, yet claims to be a Messenger, in fact the Final Messenger of God

2) warns his people of Divine chastisement

3) the chastisement comes home to roost and the partisans of the Prophet are established in the land

This is the exact process that occurred with the Bani Israil in the time of Moses, with the drowning of the host of Pharaoh and the deliverance of the Israelites, with the uprooting of the Canaanites and the establishment of the way of God. Not to mention, the Quranic invitation to the Arabs to see or recall for themselves the fate of the deniers of Nuh, Lut, Saleh, Shuayb, Hud... It is a Book of Warning that has already delivered its judgment in this world

53:36"This is a warner of the warners of old"  

54:42-5"Are the unbelievers of yours better than these, or is there an exemption for you in the scriptures?...Soon shall the hosts be routed, and they shall turn (their) backs"  

12:111"There is a lesson in these stories of the former people for those posessing common sense. It is not a narrative which could be forged, but a verification of what was before it".

As said in Deuteronomy regarding the awaited prophet

"If any man will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name, I myself will make him answer for it".

God Almighty says that Prophethood has ended with the Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet bore witness to the unity of God, and his deniers were punished in this life. For those who claimed to be Prophets after him did they remain unvanquished as per the tradition of Allah, did they emerge as triumphant leaders or does their life and death fail to bear witness to their claims?

For example Musaylima emerged shortly after the Prophet's death and was killed under the orders of Abu Bakr. Before him and contemporaneous to the prophet was Saf Ibn Sayyad. He would eventually be completely discredited and in fact convert to Islam. He was a Jew and once when asked by the prophet if he testified to his prophethood he answered that, just as the learned Jews of the past and today reluctantly admit, Muhammad indeed was a prophet but not to the Israelites.

Another one was Bahaullah - though later his followers branched off into the Bahai faith which is based on the nice concept of unity of religions- he died a prisoner of the Ottoman Empire. There is also Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from Qadian, Punjab - his death is widely cited to be from either one of these diseases - cholera, diarrhoea, plague, or dysentery. Besides numerous prophecies regarding the timing and manner of his death were left unfulfilled - though Ahmadis now interpret those in a metaphorical manner- but the manner of death is hardly inspiring for one claiming to be a Prophet.
There is then Rashad Khalifa who was a modern claimant based on his theory of the number 19's pattern in the Quran. Well, besides being accused of paedophilia, he was assassinated and his theories entirely discredited.

But above all, their theories did not prevail and either remained confined to a small number of followers or were simply lost and forgotten shortly after their death.

Another modern claimant was Joseph Smith in the US who started the Latter Day Saints movement and is the founder of Mormonism. He too was unfortunately assassinated. As a side note even the Mormon story has more grounds to stand on from the point of view of authenticity, than the NT story, in that there are actually known then-living individuals who executed an affidavit saying that they had, themselves, seen something of the Mormon story whereas the NT is written by anonymous people with no first hand information decades after the alleged, unsubstantiated life of the NT Jesus.

Of all the new religions that have sprung up after Islam, one may perhaps say Sikhism is also there. But Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith, never claimed for himself Prophethood. Also, Sikhism emerged as a reform movement intertwined between Hinduism and Islam. The holy book Guru Granth contains quotes from Sufi saints as well.

One may also mention the case of Paul of Tarsus.

On the face of it, finality of Prophethood seems to be a tenuous claim. After all, potentially anyone can stand up and say that he is a Prophet of God - but so far all the instances in which this has happened has failed to even come close to the scale and scope of the Prophet Muhammad's mission.

Also, if we examine the entire career of these claimants - they have singularly and absolutely failed to match the life-chart of Prophet Muhammad and moreover their death poses even more questions than their life. What is even more interesting that none of them claimed to be the final Prophet, much less Jesus who predicted the coming of a powerful figure after him, the Paraclete, that shall bring justice to the world.

CIRA International seek further prophethood criteria; miracles of true prophets?

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

The HB in Deut13 warns the people to be very suspicious of anyone with the ability to perform what may seem as unexplainable supernatural deeds. The NT similarly says false prophets may be allowed the performance of miracles as a matter of test to the believers Matt24:4-5,23-25,2Thess2:9-10. John the Baptist was a true prophet but performed no supernatural miracles Jn10:41,Matt21:25-26. Besides, to base one's faith on the sight of "miracles" is very dangerous for one never really knows whether the "miracle" was in fact an illusion or other clever trick. The prophet Moses' opponents reflected that reality when they described his miracles as illusion without external reality

7:132"And they said; whatever sign you bring us to bewitch us, we are not going to believe you".

As the HB says, God may even purposefully allow a false prophet to perform miracles as a test to the people, whether their hearts and minds will be dazzled and swayed into ungodly ways or remain steadfast in their faith. In Ex7:11 Pharaoh commands his court magicians to imitate with their magic Moses' miracles, and some of these miracles were in fact successfully replicated, showing that seemingly supernatural occurrences do not necessarily come from God. Miracles therefore, whether in the Quran or the HB, do not serve the function of attesting to an individual claim to prophethood, rather have the twofold purpose of comforting an already believing heart as well as demonstrate the tremendous responsibilities of those that witness it.

The Bible doesnt even give instructions on how to recognize demonic miracles because technically, they are no different than the divine ones. But it shows how to recognize if the author is a false messenger. The djinn, as described in the story of the prophet Solomon, are capable of what is deemed supernatural bending of the expected laws of nature. But what they have no access to, except as Allah deems fit, is knowledge of the unseen, information that could only be obtained through revelation. Knowledge of the unseen, and of information that could not have been accessible to the messenger, prophecies coming true, uprightness of character are all very strong indications of a person's claims of prophethood. That is why the Quran, although it never denies that its messenger could and did perform miracles, treats this aspect of prophethood as inconsequential in determining the veracity of the claim, dismissing the requests of the doubters and disbelievers and leaving the matter to the Creator. The sending of signs is at all times depending in His will and wisdom. The Quran therefore, in its arguments, brings repeated attention the aforementioned 4 aspects of prophethood, with an additional focus on knowledge; based on what authority, and knowledge do the disbelievers among the polytheists and people of the book persist in their denial and deviations 

46:4"Say, [O Muhammad], "Have you considered that which you invoke besides Allah? Show me what they have created of the earth; or did they have partnership in [creation of] the heavens? Bring me a scripture [revealed] before this or a [remaining] trace of knowledge, if you should be truthful."

In conclusion, messengership does not necessitate that the forces of nature be bent at will and upon request. Miracles are entirely dependent on God's will and the prophets are nothing but mere mortals tasked with transmitting a message of warnings and glad tidings

17:90-3"And they say, we will by no means believe in you until you cause a fountain to gush forth..or you should cause the heavens to come down...or bring Allah and the angels face to face...or you should have a house of gold...Say; Glory be to God, am I aught but a mortal messenger?"

Any type of communication with God is a prophetic experience, it doesnt have to be an information from the future but since only God knows the future, we attach that connotation to the word "prophecy". If a prophet did tell of what would happen in the future such a statement was given either as a promise or a warning. A true prophet's promises always comes to pass but his warnings may or may not happen, such as in the case of the prophet Jonas/Yunus after the repentance of his addressees. This is what Jeremiah explained when he stated in the HB that a prophet should be tested on the basis of his positive prophecies Jer28.

The belief that whatever is written in the Torah is binding eternally is rooted in the belief that the promised messiah will reinstate all of the mosaic law that is now in great parts abandoned due to the Temple's destruction. Besides rendering Jesus' alleged sacrifice as a liberation from the "curse" of the law a useless concept, but that is another issue, not a single commandment the Israelites were given in the prophecy of Deut18, says that whatever the prophet commands in the name of God has to be in the Torah.

What it states unequivocally is that when this time comes and that this Prophet arises, ie the prophet Muhammad, whoever does not hearken to his words whatever He speaks in the name of God, they will be held accountable. Deuteronomy 18 then clarifies how one can distinguish this Prophet from others, for which the answer is NOT that he follows the Torah eternally, but that whatever he states comes to pass in the name of the Lord.  This point is important to emphasize; in the context of the prophecy, on the day of Horeb where the Israelites requested that the revelation of the law, not random prophecy, be done through an intermediary prophet, God tells them clearly how to recognize a true prophet coming to them with the divine commands. And in that context, nothing at all is said about the prohibition to add or substract from the Torah. This is because the prophecy isnt just about a random prophet, like the many Israelites including Jesus that told the Jews to adhere to their previous laws, but because it is about a law-giving prophet whom they are bound to follow if his prophecies, spoken in the name of God, come to pass.

Further, if one argues that every commandment is binding in the Torah for one to be considered a true Prophet, then this negates practically every single injunction given to the Israelites, i.e. the rites of sacrifice, which are included in Deuteronomy 12 and 17, among other. Why the Israelites arent going around driving idolaters from Israel, battling the descendants of certain specific nations whom they were commanded as an everlasting ordinance to exterminate off the earth's face, as well as not forsaking the Levites, because they have no inheritance? This surely has nothing to do with the rites of the temple and we know of countless Prophets in the Hebrew Bible that weren't driving out idolaters, between the time of Moses to this day even when the Temple was standing.

Further, as even the Hebrew Bible admits, Prophets have come and with other laws that would replace laws that were given by Moses, amongst them Solomon in Kings telling Israelites how to behave, even when the Temple is destroyed. Is every one of these Prophets a liar, despite the Hebrew Bible calling them true prophets? 

The fact is, God Himself has rendered most of the laws of the Torah obsolete, proving that the revelation to Moses and the Israelites was never meant to be the final law to the Jews, let alone mankind. And if one wants to argue that eventually, the messiah shall restore these laws at the end of time then one still has to accept that for the vast majority of Jewish history, God made these laws inapplicable. The notion of restoration of the Torah is actually a reaction by the scribes of the HB to the reality of their position, the revocation of the covenant through the abrogation of its laws.

CIRA International unveil why Jews rejected Muhammad; He was a false prophet?

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

Although the Quran, the traditions and the history books relate the rejection of the Jews, and gives their reasons, they never based that rejection on the criteria of a false prophet laid down in their books.

The Jews had the misconception that prophecy ended wwith the last minor prophets. There was no true prophecy in the 1st century CE when Jesus was alive, and there hasnt been any since it was removed from the world. The removal of prophecy occured, in their belief, when the first Temple was destroyed in 586 BCE (1Kings25:8,Jer52:12), except that it still continued for those true prophets who were alive at that time, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, until they passed away.

These last prophets saw the decline of holiness amidst their people due to their helenization, scattering and assimilation into the cultures they were supposed to guide. They realized prophecy would decline and ultimately disappear for it is traditionally believed that prophecy is contingent upon the people's unity and high level of holiness. Therefore the prophet Ezra called a Sanhedrin which came to be known as the Men of the Great Assembly. It was started a short while after the destruction of the 1st Temple and continued until the 2nd Temple's reconstruction began under the Persian king Cyrus. He had defeated the Babylonians and freed the Jews from captivity. He allowed the Jews to return to their homeland and begin the 2nd temple works, which were finished 70 years later under Darius/Daryavesh Ezra6.

These "Men of the Great Assembly" gathered under Ezra, were 120 members, the last of whom to pass away is believed to be Shimon Hatzaddik. It is to be noted that some confusion exists as to that person's identity, with 4 being potential candidates and none coming earlier than 300BCE, thus leaving a 2centuries gap between Shimon and the traditional dating of the assembly. Besides canonizing certain books and rejecting others, and "finalizing" the Hebrew bible under Ezra's guidance who was divinely inspired, they requested the end of prophethood, and prepared the Jews for the move from the era of Prophecy or the Biblical Period where prophecy was a general phenomenon experienced by all Jews, where miracles were open and obvious to all, to the Talmudic Period ca. 200BCE also called the "era of knowledge" where prophecy shall temporarily cease. This is the era we are still in today, until messianic times.

What all this entails is that the prophets spoken of in the NT such as Zechariah/Zacharias, John the Baptist, or even Jesus and ultimately Muhammad were false prophets. In fact this is one of the reason why even Daniel, who came after the aforementioned last prophets, isnt considered a prophet and his Book included in ketuvim/writings rather than neviim/prophets in the Hebrew Bible based on the Masoretic text. His story is described briefly in order not to lay too much stress on his obvious textual depiction as a prophet. The Septuagint on the other hand, which was partly redacted by Christians, describes him with much more length and includes his Book with those of the neviim/prophets since evidently Christians do not consider prophecy to have ended with Malachi.

Psalms 74:9 is cited as proof by Jews that prophecy ended long ago and for an indefinite time

"We have not seen our signs; there is no longer a prophet, and no one with us knows how long".

This cessation shall remain in force and only reappear in the future messianic era

Joel3:1"And it shall come to pass afterwards that I will pour out My spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and daughters shall prophesy; your elders shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions".

That prophecy was "long gone" prior to Jesus or Muhammad is undeniable. But it says more of the Israelites state of spiritual degradation and consequent divine disapproval, than about prophecy having ended altogether. Joel 3 is not symmetrical to Psalms 74 because it (Joel) refers to the return of collective prophecy in the messianic age. Psalms does not negate that an individual prophet may come prior to the messianic age. The prophet Elijah, according to tradition interracts with prominent rabbis, and will reappear to everyone before the messianic era (the interval between his appearance and that of the messiah varies). There was also expectations of the return of prophecy much prior to Jesus, as reflected in 1 Maccabees. Nothing in the poet's lament over the absence of prophecy implies the cessation of the phenomenon altogether.

The Quran recognizes that prophethood had been suspended for long, that is to the Israelites, but not "ceased" and so urges them to hearken the ultimate reminder of the truth

5:19"O followers of the Book! indeed Our Messenger has come to you explaining to you after a cessation of the (mission of the) messengers, lest you say: There came not to us a giver of good news or a warner, so indeed there has come to you a giver of good news and a warner; and Allah has power over all things". 

Prophecy therefore certainly did not end altogether as the rabbis thought, until the institution was explicitly sealed and emphatically stated so by Allah through the last prophet sent for all of mankind.

A false prophet, in the Hebrew Bible is one:

- whose prophecies do not come true Deut18:22

- who speaks in the name of other gods Deut13

- who proclaims any precept of the Torah to be abrogated or adds to it Deut13:4-5. It is to be noted that a case is mentionned where a prophet -Elijah- was commanded to conduct the famous challenge of the two bullocks on Mount Carmel, even though that temporarily violated the Torah prohibition against offering sacrifices outside the Temple or places designated fit for the ritual by God. And this is an "accepted" innovation. The book of Ezekiel for example is so full of cases where the prophet overturns, adds to Torah commandements and revises historical incidents that the famous Talmudic "sage" Hananiah ben Hezekiah needed 300 oil barrels to keep him busy overcoming the contradictions. His successors praised him for not having to hide the book of Ezekiel that simply exposes the fact that its writer either had no Torah in his time or had a different one because he obviously knew for example the First Temple, its order of service, the laws of the priesthood and of the land and yet treats those issues differently.

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. They most certainly harboured racial prejudice and jealousy in their hearts but could not declare these reasons as warranting rejection of prophethood to a non-Israelite, as it would be scripturally baseless. They thus essentially based their opposition in that Muhammad, 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.