Apostate prophet belongs to a known community; the opponents of the sequential revelation?

In answer to the video "The Origin of the Hijab - Allah Takes Orders From a Man"

Just as in this world daytime and its light and heat are essential and so are the darkness and stillness of the night, in a similar manner, the trials of happiness and sorrow, ease and difficulty, affluence and poverty are essential for mankind's spiritual development. It is through these circumstances that the Almighty tests a person's gratitude and patience.

The prophet is thus assured that the stiff opposition he faced, the little following and meager resources he had and the interruption of revelation did not mean that his Lord had abandoned him or was displeased with him: these circumstances are a trial and test to train and instruct him in order to fully prepare him to bear his responsibilities. Just as night and day are necessary phases this material life needs going through to develop, so to is our spirituality bound to pass through bright and dark moments in order for it to be trained and purified

93:1-3"By the morning brightness And (by) the night when it darkens, Your Lord has not bidden you farewell, nor has He become displeased".

An interesting linguistic observation testimony once more to the Quran's surgical use of words is that, just after illustrating the fact that revelation, through its phases of interruptions and descent, obeys to an established pattern very similar to the natural and transient phenomena of daylight and darkness of night, the Quran then eloquently consoles its messenger. It does so by negating any thought in his mind that such interruptions, even if long, indicate complete cessation or displeasure by God

93:3"Your Lord has not bidden you farewell, nor has He become displeased".

One does not "bid farewell" to a hated but to a loved person and so the verse uses the particle ka/you in order to establish a link with the prophet "bidden YOU farewell". This connection is broken in the second part of the verse with qalaa/displeased, because it implies a situation of conflict between enemies or hated people. The Arabic text makes the distinction more obvious. The sura goes on reminding him of what the revelation brought him in the past and what it was about to bring to him soon for it could not be that the Prophet to whom the Quran was revealed, should remain unsuccessful in bringing about the transformation for which it was revealed 20:1. He should therefore remain patient, and his burdens will be removed 94:1-8, steadfast on the right path along with his followers.

The Quran relates how the prophet's opponents among the pagans and the People of the Book did everything to make him compromise his revealed principles with theirs, forge verses or deliberately corrupt them but the message was divinely protected from the interference of the evil ones -men and jinn- from its descent from heaven all the way to its uttering by the prophet who was repeatedly warned 2:145,10:37,42:15 and never allowed to yield one bit to them despite the hardships he and his followers suffered. Like the prophets of old, who despite the pressure to alter the divine messages and make them more appealing he answered

2:120,10:15,13:37,17:75,68:9,69:44-7,40:66"Say: I am forbidden to serve those whom you call upon besides Allah when clear arguments have come to me from my Lord, and I am commanded that I should submit to the Lord of the worlds".

As reflected is sura qalam, which is among the earliest Meccan suras, pressure was already being imposed on the prophet at the onset of his mission to change and compromise his message. It is to be noted, when the Noble Book unapologeticaly warns its messenger in the context of temptation to yield to his opponents, these frequently seen conditional statements do not mean that the prophet was actually tempted in doing so. There are many implicit meanings to these warnings, including that regarding the obligation to abide by the divine law/sharia, there is no difference between a prophet and a regular believer.

The second thing is that, seeing that the prophet is warned, how much more should they be careful of their responsibilities in upholding the principles of this revelation.

And finally, seeing and hearing that the messenger is in no position to change anything in Allah's ordinances, the enemies should know that it would be fruitless to even think of approaching him with such objective.

When the prophet Micaiah the son of Imlah was under the same kind of pressure, he answered, knowing the dangerous repercussions of refusing to yield to the rejecters

1Kings22:14"As the Lord lives, for what the Lord will say to me, that will I speak".

The prophet Isaiah was equally warned not to yield to the disbelievers' requests Isa8:11 who, unhappy with his strong warnings and admonitions, would openly demand that he should forsake the straight path, the true God and give them false prophecies

Isa30:10-11"You shall not prophesy for us true things. Speak to us with smooth talk; prophesy mockery". 

The prophet's opponents practiced deception upon him, and tempted him with greed, held out threats, and raised a storm of false propaganda against him, and persecuted him and applied economic pressure and social boycott against him. Yet the prophet did not compromise an iota of what was revealed to him, even in the direst Meccan period. Although he did experience fear at the consequences, never did he withhold a word that needed to be uttered in the face of his opponents, so as to soften their stance. Even when his uncle and protector Abu Talib was pressured by a Meccan delegation to withdraw his tribal protection of Muhammad and the Muslims, he firmly replied: 

"0 my uncle, if they placed the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left hand to cause me to renounce my task, verily I would not desist therefrom until Allah made manifest His cause or I perished in the attempt". 

The prophet then turned to depart until Abu Talib called him back 

"Say whatever you please; for by the Lord I shall not desert you ever". 

It is to be stressed that the prophet took this stance when his uncle, his last resort, seemed on the verge of letting him down. This attitude, besides the established reputation he had as a man of great integrity by his friends and foes, before and after the revelation, confirm the testimony of God Himself about His chosen one 

68:4"And indeed, you are of a great moral character".

The Quran also presents situations where the prophet is showing fear in communicating certain revelations to his people 5:67,33:37 fearing their reaction, judgements or tauntings but the Quran would compel him to keep transmitting what he is receiving, not to ever

11:12"give up part of what is revealed to you"

showing how he wasnt acting according to his whims

2:120"If you (Muhammad) give in to their whims and desires despite the knowledge that has reached you, you will have no protector or helper against Allah".

Apostate prophet finds pattern of prophecy; piecemeal revelations?

In answer to the video "The Origin of the Hijab - Allah Takes Orders From a Man"

The 114 suras of the Quran were revealed on a period of 22 years, 5 months and 14 days: 13 years in Mecca and the rest in Medina, as and when it was required.

This system of occasional, piecemeal revelation applies to all prophets. Ezekiel for example and other prophets in the HB were granted a vision of their entire individual book and its content which they will be responsible to later communicate and put into writing Ezek2:9-10. They still had to follow directions and commands revealed at specific times in answer to certain events.

There are ample examples of biblical prophets, including Moses who received revelation in answer to specific incidents, whether having to do with the prophet's own personal life or concerning the comunity at large. There are even situations in the Hebrew Bible where the solution to a situation is deffered until God reveals the answer Lev24:12. According to Jewish tradition, the entire Torah was given to Moses in 2 parts; the first during the year after the exodus, then followed a 38 years hiatus after which the rest was revealed. David is reported to have told his followers to wait for God's decision as regards a possible strike on an enemy 1Sam22:3. Moses received oral instructions for 40 years and long before the events of Sinai, see for example Ex12:49,13:9,16:4,28,18:19-20 all refering to Torah and Law before Moses went to Mt Sinai.

This process is meant at smoothly establishing socio-religious reforms, among other benefits as will be pointed out below. Gradual revelation also ensures a continuous connection between the receiver/prophet and the Source, providing him further comfort and legitimity in the face of the unavoidable persistent, increasing opposition, as well as answers to new challenges and questions.
Muhammad went through the same process for 23 years, just like Jeremiah was inspired with warnings and glad tidings to his people for 23 years Jer25:3. This was objected to by the Quraysh, and, ironically, by the People of the Book themselves, just as missionaries do today, in ignorance of their prophetic history

4:153,25:32"Why has not the Quran been revealed to him all at once?".

Yet had the request been granted, it would still not prevent the rebellion and disbelief of those that requested it in the first place, since the demand did not stem from sincere hearts seeking to confirm their belief and intuition, rather it was a mocking challenge and an excuse to justify their rejection 6:7.

Sometimes even the sincere early Muslims would grow impatient if long periods would pass without a new revelation 47:20, yet the precedent in the history of the prophets, per the HB as shown earlier, is that prophets received prophecy only when God desired it. Some would go months or years or even never again without communication from God.

This created in the prophet the yearning to receive the whole of the Quran as soon as possible. But he was told to show patience through prayer and remembrence of God, and to wait for the decree of the Almighty, not worry about the opposition and idle talk of people. God will deal with these people and He is sufficient to do this 76:23-6. This is because the prophet never asked to be the recipient of revelation, so that it is his responsibility to prove the truths and premises it presents. His authority rests exclusively in delivering the message, not in deciding its timing or contents.

As a side note, studies have been made of the prophet's speech patterns by regrouping all sayings attributed to him, authentic or not, and it has been shown that the Quran, a book revealed over a period of 23 years, uses patterns not only different to the messenger but also that were unknown to the masters of eloquence of the time all the while retaining deep, intricate meanings.

The Quran also depicts him in situations of extreme grief and anguish as he apparently felt abandonned, deprived of his divine support in the midst of the soul tearing taunts and ever growing spiritual conflicts with his opponents. This grief led him to the point he thought his Lord had become displeased with him on account of some error he had done, and had forsaken and left him to fight the battle between truth and falsehood alone. But he was told to remain patient in such moments otherwise he might compromise his divine mission 68:48, to keep conveying the message relentlessly despite the opposition. Slackness in this regard and in such a crucial time would help his opponents in attaining their objective 28:86. A passage even came down quoting the angels themselves, the carriers of revelation, justifying their silence by the fact that they act in obedience to a Higher, all encompassing Authority

19:64-5"And we do not descend but by the command of your Lord; to Him belongs whatever is before us and whatever is behind us and whatever is between these, and your Lord is not forgetful. The Lord of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, so serve Him and be patient in His service. Do you know any one equal to Him?"

Neither the prophet nor even the angels are free to decide the timing of revelation; there can be a break in the process whenever Allah deems it fit, and a continuation whenever He wills it. Although that process would sometimes put him in difficulty opposite his detractors, it in fact supported his credibility that the revelation was not his invention and he had no control over it.

Islam critiqued taught a lesson; was Abraham commanded to sacrifice his only son?

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

In a dream Allah

2:124"tried Ibrahim with certain words".

Ibrahim had formerly shown great spiritual resolve by steadfastly opposing the religious practices of his people and relatives, even when they attempted murdering him. He turned away from his nation and migrated. He made the painful step of leaving, by Allah's command, his wife and infant son in an area of dry land, where no food and water or any inhabitants could be found. He was now being tested a step further as an upholder of God's way and will. The aim was this time, through his attachement to that progeny he had so long desired and prayed for, to make him reach the climax of prophethood by becoming the universal leader (Imam) of monotheism 2:124. 

This was another step in Ibrahim's journey, freeing himself from desires of prestige, wealth, women and children and turning with total surrender and progressing with complete devotion to the Lord

37:99"Surely I fly to my lord; He will guide me".

Ibrahim was put through this difficult trial when he was already a great Prophet and Messenger of Allah. When he sacrificed his connection to his homeland and idolatrous father, God re-established these broken connections. Ibrahim, the prototype of the religious outcast, was saved from his polytheistic environment, resettled in a better place and granted a righteous offspring. No sooner was all this achieved that once more, all is compromised through a new test of obedience. Would Abraham fall into complacency or be prepared to repeat his former sacrifice of social belonging for the sake of God? 

Abraham demonstrated again his unshakeable obedience to God, giving it precedence over human loyalties under all circumstances, just as the subsequent prophets would teach their followers, including Jesus and Muhammad.

Neither he nor his son failed the test of their trust in God; they both willingly set the stage for the sacrifice. Ismail, aware of the hardship ahead humbled himself to God, does not give himself any credit in the matter, instead asked to be increased in patience 37:102. Contrast this attitude of Ismail with the Biblical account where the son of the sacrifice is a passive participant. Up to the last moment when Abraham was about to slit his throat, he is unaware of the divine command and of his father's intentions towards him Gen22.

Ibrahim then placed his only beloved son, raised his hand with the knife but was stopped from going further

37:105"you have made the vision true..Most surely this is a manifest trial".

This shows that the reality of Ibrahim's vision was that he was GOING to sacrifice his son and not that he had sacrificed him. The act of slaughtering was therefore not part of the divine vision since it was not needed for its fulfilment, rather the preparedness to do it amounted to its fulfilment. God did not want him to sacrifice his son, but wanted to detach his heart fully, test his trust for a higher objective that included the dedication of Ismail (and his descendants through him) to the worship of Allah. This is Islam's essence, God wants nothing from His servants other than that they submit themselves to Him totally, with nothing too precious to be given up, including life itself. When both Ibrahim and Ismail demonstrated their Islam, what was left was flesh and blood, which the Quran says is secondary compared to submission 22:37 and which was thus substituted by another type of flesh and blood.

Again, the Quran never says that Allah ordered Ibrahim to sacrifice his son, but speaks of Ibrahim being tried with

"certain words"

like Adam received

2:37"some words"

that taught him how to perform repentance. The dream was symbolic and its fulfillment consisted in the preparedness in sacrificing his son, just like the fulfillment of the prophet Joseph/Yusuf's symbolic dream of celestial bodies bowing before him consisted in having his close family members prostrating to him

12:4,100"When Yusuf said to his father: O my father! Indeed, I saw eleven planets and the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating to me...And he raised his parents upon the throne and they fell down in prostration before him, and he said: O my father! this is the significance of my vision of old; my Lord has indeed made it to be true".   

Ishmael was ransomed with a great sacrifice 37:107. The text does not say what that sacrifice was and what is it that made it great but as we continue reading, we see a clear correlation with the great institution of yearly sacrifice at the hajj and this heavenly ransom. It is the prime symbol by which Abraham is commemorated, as stated in the next verse

37:108"and we left for him a good name among the succeeding generations".

Until now and throughout the Muslim world, the courage and trust of Ibrahim in his Lord, his complete detachment from all worldly benefits, including the most precious gifts for God's sake, are remembered through the day of sacrifice ('id al adha). The theological significance of both the near sacrifice and the settlement of Ishmael away from Canaan had the clear purpose of making Abraham the leader(imam) of mankind and the establishment of a monotheistic sanctuary that would eventually guide mankind to the Abrahamic path.

So the whole thing had nothing to do with sin atonement, as retrospectively claimed by the NT writers that applied the incident to Jesus' death. This selective application, considering that Abraham's son was never sacrificed but rather saved by God, also ignores the unequivocal mosaic prohibition of human sacrifices of any kind Deut12:30-31,18:9-12,Jer19:4-6. It is an act of abomination and among the explicit examples given is that of the sacrifice of a son by his father, which eerily resembles the trinitarian idea. God's anger towards this action is because He never commanded such a thing, not because they were made to another deity. God did not command Abraham to sacrifice his son in Genesis, just as He did not command the sacrifice of Ishmael in the Quran. In Genesis it says, to "take him up", using ambiguous words as a means by which Abraham's trust in God is tested. The purpose was for Abraham to understand God's will based on His former promises. 

Neither did the sacrifice have for purpose to establishment a covenant. This had occurred prior, and included Ishmael. Isaac's particularity from a covenantal perspective is the land grant to his descendants, of which Ishmael wasnt part of. This, even the Quran agrees with; the Israelites, because of Abraham's obedience, were promised to be settled in the holy land, as a matter of test, whether they would remain on the straight spiritual path or not. Further, following the near-sacrifice, Abraham is told

 Gen22:16-18"I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me". 

None of those divine blessings apply to the Israelites, while all can easily reflect the trajectory of the Ishmaelites, and the climax being the revival of the Abrahamic way with the rise of the last Ishmaelite prophet.

To further elaborate on the incompetence of the transmitters of biblical tradition prior to it having been put unto writing, in Gen17:1-19 after announcing Isaac's future birth, God promises to establish through his line

"an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him".

How could God then demand Isaac's sacrifice while Abraham knew Isaac would live and have many descendants? Why would God change his name from Avram/exalted father to Avraham/father of nations, in connection to that promise and then almost immediately after request him to sacrifice his "only son"? It would render the whole goal of the sacrifice as a test of his loyalty to God meaningless. Because of this absurdity, the Talmud presents different opinions with some suggesting that it was actually Abraham that was testing God and not the other way around, since Abraham was already aware that God had made a promise to him through Isaac. This is because a valid test is when one isnt sure of the outcome.

That difficulty in the text reflects down to the NT in Hebrews 11 which attempts to explain a contradiction. If God himself promises Abraham a covenant through Isaac, there is no reason for him to think God is a liar. Abraham will simply go on with the command all the while knowing the outcome (Isaac will live and fulfill the covenant). That is in fact exactly what Hebrews11 suggests, postulating that Abraham even thought beforehand that God would raise Isaac back from the dead after the sacrifice in order that the covenant be fulfilled through his line, just as He had promised prior to the test.

It may be argued that this objection applies to Ismail too as he was also promised many children but the difference is that Isaac's promise of many descendants was made BEFORE his birth, whereas Ismail was already born and THEN the promise was made, meaning it happened AFTER the event of the sacrifice.

Islam critiqued seeks support; scholars undecided on the child of sacrifice?

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

The sequence in 37:99-113 shows Abraham asking God for a son. Ishmael, whose name itself means "God-hears", was the only one from his progeny that Ibrahim prayed God for. And this happened early on in Ibrahim's life, as he set himself to leave his land and people, disconnecting himself from his nation. He then naturally begged God to provide him with a righteous child so as to restore this broken connection. God directly answers the prayer, appeasing the heart of his devout servant. But later on, when Allah was about to raise Ibrahim to the status of guide/imam of mankind, father and son are put through a test. It occured once the boy reached his working age (which corresponds with Ismail's age of 13-14 right before the birth of isaac). When they both willingly fulfilled the command, God blessed Abraham with another son, Isaac as a reward. This concluding announcement of Isaac's birth would have been a redundancy had it been mentioned a few verses earlier. Also, the good news of Isaac came at a much later time in Ibrahim's life 11:72. 

The network of Quranic evidence together, all point to Ismail as the son of the sacrifice, while none, within the Book, support the Isaac view. The strongest argument in support of that later opinion is that the unnamed son is a "good news" to Ibrahim, while Isaac is also twice described as "good news" 37:112,51:28. This only works assuming Ishmael was no "good news", which he certainly was, as explained earlier. 

Further, the unnamed son is described in the same passage as forbearing and steadfast, like Ismail is 21:85. This fits the character of one going through a difficult test. Isaac is never qualified as such. Similarly, Ismail is one messenger prophet who was

19:54"truthful to his promise".

The stress laid on that quality is due to him fulfilling a word which would lead to what he thought meant to give up his own life in obedience to the divine will

37:102-3"O my son! I have seen in a vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills, one of the steadfast!" So when they had both submitted..."

The reports stating that the sacrificed is Isaac are part of the Israeliyyat transmitted by those who converted among them like Kaab al-Ahbar and it was only transmitted as sign of trust. None of those reports go back to the prophet or his companions. Reuven Firestone, who is the leading scholar quoted by misinformed critics, admits that those opinions endorsing Isaac which he deems are earliest, were developed in a biblical milieu when

"Early Muslims naturally turned to Biblicists for information regarding legends found both in the Quran and the Bible".

All later opinions endorsing the Isaac theory eventually go back to such discarded reports that fooled them. With the conversion of many believers of former scriptures to Islam, the early Muslim authorities went to great lengths trying to curb the influence of Israeliyyat on Quranic exegisis and traditions. Although they could not completely stop the phenomenon, one notable example is that of the 4th Caliph Ali who threatened to flog those that interpreted David's encounter with the litigants in the Quran in light of the Biblical tradition. That however did not stop some of the classical commentators from doing so. Every book of exegesis (Yusuf Ali's commentary is often misrepresented and misquoted, he does not endorse the Isaac theory) or biography or even history would mention the argument that took place on the topic. However, some would follow the argument by outlining the truth and others wouldn't add any commentary.

Many, most of those quoted by Islam critics are even found sometimes on both sides of the argument and this is because they were reporting both opinions. The most classic examples are those often quoted from Tabari, such as reports from Abu Kurayb, Ya’qub, Ibn Humayd or Ibn Bashshar who all relate both sides of the argument. Reuven Firestone himself admits that

"Most of al-Tabari’s traditions, however, place the location of the Sacrifice in the area of Mecca" and that "The battle between the two kinds of exegesis was probably won by the Mecca-Ishmael school even before the time of al-Tabari".

As he notes, even those faulty reports endorsing Isaac place the sacrifice in and around Mecca, which shows the baselesness of their opinions. The strongest reports going back to pillars of Islamic scholarship all endorse the position that the sacrificed was Ishmael, the likes of Ali, Ibn Umar, Abu Hurayrah, Abu Tufayl, Saad Ibn Jubayr, Mujâhid, al-Sha'by, Al-Hasan al-Basri, Muhammad Ibn Kaab al-Qardhy, Saad Ibn al-Musayyab, Abu Jaafar Muhammad al-Bâqir, Abû Sâlih, al-Rabî' Ibn Anas, Abû Amr Ibn al-Alâ', Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and others.

The unanimous position of the scholars of hadith is that the Sacrificed is Ishmael. This is supported by Quran, sahih reports from the Companions and Followers and reports rated Marfu' (tacit approval) of the Prophet.

This opinion was famous among the Arabs before the advent of Islam and it was transmitted from generation to generation in tawatur and it was also mentioned in the pre islamic poetry of Umayyah Ibn Abi al-Salt.

The Muslim scholars have solved this case a long time ago and, very early in the history of Islam, the popular Islamic tradition has integrated the fact that Ishmael was the sacrificed.

Islam critiqued despises Abraham; an insensitive husband sending his wife and child to die?

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

The claim that Ishmael and Hagar were cast into Paran as a result of some wife jealousy is patently false, and as the Quran states, Ishmael was re-located by the command of God for a particular purpose, by Abraham, and neither were there conflicts between the wives or the brothers who are even depicted as attending their father's funeral together in the HB itself Gen25:9. This means, and just as the Quran states, there were frequent trips throughout the years between the 2 locations, where both Abraham and Ishmael resided, involving at least Abraham as per the Quran, and implicitly Ishmael as per the HB since he was aware of his father's condition.

Abraham in addition, would never commit an act so be-smearing of any sensitive person. People dont just send their other wife and child into the midst of the wilderness to end the bickering of their wives. If this was the case, Abraham would have simply let Hagar and Ishmael reside in some tent in a nice place and not the desert wilderness, where they were to suffer from extreme thirst to the point the infant child, in addition ill on account of Sarah's evil eye, was on the verge of death.

But the scribes needed to depict Abraham as giving the "final order" as it would be tantamount to declaring Ishmael not a legitimate heir. Abraham was this way openly dissatisfied with Ishmael's actions and behavior, and all this with God in the background giving the directive

Gen21:12"in all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall seed be called to thee".

As a side note, although some progressive religious feminist Jews like presenting this verse as if women should sometimes be listened to and highly regarded, it isnt so in their own Talmudic writings, where there "sages" depict them as secondary to men and should be especially disregarded in spiritual matters (Bava Metzia 59a). One can only wonder why would God depose Ishmael from his birthright due to some mistreatment of his younger brother but on the other hand maintain the favors bestowed upon Isaac and subsequent Israelite prophets despite their reported treacheries and evil deeds.

Anyway, now that it has been established that Ishmael isnt part of any inheritence, cast away geographically and stripped from his birthrights by his own father, the scribes, obviously writing long after the events could not but mention his being made into a separate nation Gen21:13.

And Abraham is not a typical human being, in the Quran's words

11:75"forbearing, tender-hearted, oft-returning to Allah".

He is a prophet, known for his empathy, piety and obedience to God, as well as notorious in the Bible for his arguing with YHWH himself to spare the lives of innocent strangers Gen18 and yet here he is suddenly incapable of pleading with a wife for his own beloved, and sick son. To claim he would place his wife and child in the desert for the sake of the petty jealousy of Sarah is a smearing campaign. It isnt normal behavior, let alone behavior for a Prophet of God. The scribes knew this so although they speak of Abraham's reluctancy Gen21:9-11, he nevertheless submits to his wife's alleged request and casts his beloved firstborn -heavily ill on top of that if one is to believe the Jewish tradition quoted earlier- into the wilderness. And as is often the case in the Hebrew Bible, God Himself is taking sides in those tribal conflicts

"Be not displeased concerning the lad and concerning your handmaid; whatever Sarah tells you, hearken to her voice, for in Isaac will be called your seed".

The Quran and the traditions state that it was for a clearer plan of which we see evidence today in the manifestation of the altar in Mecca known as the Kaaba. It is the prime symbol of the oneness of God throughout the whole world and will forever be, until the Day of Judgement.

Abraham's divine blessings indiscriminately extending to the righteous among his offspring, Ishmael's vital role in making this possible through his willing submission during the test of the sacrifice, all this clearly was against the scribes' tribal prejudice and notion of exclusive, unconditional chosenness.

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.

Another interesting observation is that Jewish tradition, firmly based on calculation from the HB, state that Rebecca was married to Isaac when she was 3 and he was 40. Isaac was 37 at the event of the near-sacrifice. Rebecca was born straight after that. Isaac was married to Rebecca when he was 40 Gen25:20 meaning 3 or 4 years after her birth. And yet these calculations, despite their accuracy do not agree with the descriptions that are made of her prior to her marriage, which clearly denotes physical and mental maturity Gen24.

This is the kind of internal inconsistency that happens when tradition is neglected, partially forgotten, inappropriately handled and transmitted, let alone purposefully tampered with.

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.