In answer to the video "The Unknown History of Islam 09 - Racism and the Islamic Slave Trade"
When the Quran states scriptures of the past were corrupted and tampered with, it never asserts corruption in an absolute sense. This is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin (Guardian/Arbitrer), when talking about what is contemporary to it in terms of revealed truths, whether available in oral or writen tradition, such as the Torah and Injil. It points out major mistakes in them, filters the Truth from falsehood
21:24"this is the reminder of those with me and the reminder of those before me".
The Quran confirming the past scriptures, as well as any tradition, oral or written, in which divine truths still remain 2:41, means that the principles taught by Muhammad come from a common source and can be found throughout these textual and oral traditons. It also means the coming of Muhammad and the Quran prove the prophecies of the Torah and Gospel as true 6:20,7:157,61:6. It is in this same sense that Jesus confirmed and fulfilled the Torah and the Prophets. He confirmed the truth in them, exposing the falsehood, oral or textual, and he fulfilled the prophecies related to himself
Matt5:17-20,19:16-19,Quran5:46"And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil)".
The Bani Israil who rejected Jesus were in reality rejecting their Torah. Now that the Quran came, if the people of the book do not stand firm by it, then they will be violating even their own scriptures which it confirms and fulfills. In 46:10 the Quran refers to a witness from among the Israelites that believed in the like of his scriptures, meaning the Quran. According to tradition, the verse is speaking of the learned rabbi Abdullah ibn Salam's conversion to Islam.
Given his religious knowledge, he knew the Quran abrogates and supersedes, exposes and denies, confirms in places while contradicting in many other places his own scripture, the Torah. But yet it literally says, this rabbi believed in the like of his scriptures. That "likeness" between the Torah and the Quran therefore can only be the statements that fully agree with one another. This is exactly what is meant by Quran confirming the past revelations.
It confirms the truth in them in several ways, including exposing what is from God and what is man-made, hence its function as the Muhaymin/guardian,arbitrer as well as fulfilling its prophecies, which the Quran repeatedly echoes and which of course the learned rabbi knew applied to Muhammad
2:146"those to whom We have given the scripture recognize him as they recognize their own sons"..
That is also why the minority comentators that rejected the application of the verse to ibn Salam, rather see in it a reference to Moses himself. He was the Israelite witness that testified to one like himself/mithlihi, as clearly stated in the prophecy of
Deut18:18"I will set up a prophet for them, from among their brothers like you and I will put my words into his mouth and he will speak to them all that I command him".
In answer to the video "The Unknown History of Islam 09 - Racism and the Islamic Slave Trade"
The corruption of the HB and NT is a historical fact. This corruption is not dictated upon what the Quran says, i.e. it is an objective reality. The Quran simply confirms this objective reality. It is nothing but the natural outcome of the moral degeneration of the Bani Israel, their heedlessness and carelessness in matters of religion, confirming Moses' predictions Deut31:25-29, Jeremiah's and other prophets' accusations, their lamentations Isa48:8.
The Dead Sea scrolls discovered in 1950 in Jordan are dated between 150 BCE and 70 CE meaning there is still over 1000 years of history between this time period and the time of Moses, let alone Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. But this is besides the point since no Torah was found among the scrolls of Qumran nor any book of the NT. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain many non-canonical manuscripts such as the Books of Enoch, Jubilees, Tobit, Sirach, additional psalms, etc., that were not ultimately canonized, as well as "Sectarian" speaking of the beliefs of smaller groups within Judaism. There is even a Book in the canonized Bible that is not found in the DSS, namely the Book of Esther. Less than 40% of the documents found are classified as Biblical. The oldest known Torah fragment is from the silver scrolls dating back to 700BCE and contains Numbers 6:24-26.
The written Torah was completely destroyed, along with the first Temple. It was rewritten by Ezra through "divine miracle" according to Jewish traditions, obviously as it was majoritarily forgotten despite their claims of unbroken chain of transmission up to Moses. In fact there are even indications of that "chain" having broken even in the first or second generation following Moses
Judges2:10"After that whole generation had been gathered to their ancestors, another generation grew up who knew neither the Lord nor what he had done for Israel".
This is unsurprising, why would one expect a people to remain faithful to Moses' teachings and preserve them accurately years following his death when during his own lifetime, his 40 days absence was enough to make them revert to idol worship, despite having just witnessed all kinds of supernatural occurrences testifying to the truth of what he was bringing. In light of all that they were made to witness from miracles and guidance, one would expect them to be sincerely obedient to God and deeply united yet the opposite happenned.
From the onset, there was not a single fundamental thing of religion to which they adhered. They had serious differences in every aspect of religion; so much so, they lost many of them just because of this attitude. And if it was so that early on in their history when they had been freshly established and tied to God with a covenant then what is to say of the later times filled with troubles, wars, exiles and enslavement? Or as is said in the Talmud of tradition given to Moses at Sinai and then forgotten,
“they were forgotten and re-established” (Sukkah 44a, Megillah 3a).
To succesfully achieve this re-establishment the rabbis openly state it is acceptable to resort to sophistry (Ketubot 103b). A similar example to Ezra is that of Otniel son of Kenaz who is credited with "restoring" some 3000 laws that were forgotten during the mourning over Moses’ death and other
"1700 analogies from minor to major, analogies by equivalent words, and obligations derived from a meticulous scrutiny of the Scriptural text were forgotten during the mourning over Moses’ death" (Temurah 16a).
There are other examples attesting not only to forgetfulness as to the contents of the books, let alone complete despise towards them Hos8:12, but also to their whereabouts. For example during the reign of Joshiah and while the Temple was being repaired, the high priest came across a manuscript not knowing what it was until it was presented to the King who rent his clothes appart upon recognizing it 2kings22. Interestingly, that period of 7th century BCE coincides with the time critical Biblical scholarship places the composition of the current HB.
It is important to emphasize, the text says what was found was "the" Torah not "a" Torah. Talmudic rabbis explain this difficulty by stating that the uniqueness of this find, and the fact nobody knew a priori what it was, doesnt mean no other Torah was in circulation, rather that it was written in a forgotten script very few could read. Consequently the king whose subjects had sunk into idolatry sent emmissiaries to
“Go and inquire of the Lord for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the Lord’s anger that burns against us because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us”.
This specific Torah, according to the Damascus Document, was none other than the original Torah fully revealed to Moses and sealed in the Ark of the Covenant 5 centuries ago in the times of Joshua. The detailed, written law was unknown to the masses all that time. The Ark itself was lost to the Phillistines and in the times of Solomon, its sole contents were the 2 tablets 1Kings8:9. There are also mention of entire pieces having been purposely burned by the corrupt elite, such as the scroll of Jeremiah Jer36:23, and even though it was re-writen later Jer36:27-32, it reveals the complete careless attitude of the comunity's most prominent figures towards sacred texts.
Jeremiah, Hosea and others often lamented at their behavior and manipulations Jer8:8,Hosea4:6etc
Too many factors have accumulated leading to the physical loss of the entire Torah, since the breaking of the oral transmission chain right after Moses, followed by blatant neglectfulness if not purposeful destruction of scriptures and their misinterpretations resulting in a faulty and corrupt oral tradition, combined with their successive massacres, destruction of their holiest sites and writings, forced exiles and assimilation into foreign cultures and all elements are there for the loss of the original. Hence the claims of divine intervention through Ezra to restore it, even having to transliterate the hebrew into Aramaic so the people would be able to read.
Ezra was the founder of the "Great Assembly", the institution that provided religious guidance to the Jews during the second temple era (520BCE – 70CE). These 120 men are said to have "finalized" the Hebrew Bible and enacted many laws, under the prophet Ezra's authority who was divinely inspired. They, after much debates, decided what to include in the final canon of the Tanakh/Hebrew bible. This era however is covered in darkness and not much is known of what was happening with the Jewish community. The identity of these “Men of the Great Assembly” isnt even known. In fact Israelite tradition isnt even sure in which language the Torah was given to them originally, whether it was ancient Hebrew, Assyrian, or Samaritan or whether it was later changed to Samaritan as a punishement (Sanhedrin 21b,22a,Y'rushalmi M'gillah 10a - chapter 1 halachah 9). In the process, they even forgot how to pronounce God's name hence the use of the tetragammaton.
What is agreed upon is that upon his return from the Babylonian exile and into Israel, Ezra rewrote the HB in Hebrew but using the Aramaic alphabet (the lingua franca of those days).
Their level of forgetfulness, as reflected in the issue of the language of revelation also reflects in their forgetfulness of the correct forms of certain ending letters, which made it impossible for them to recall the laws of Moses alluded to earlier until the intervention of Otniel son of Kenaz (Shabbat 104a). The Talmudic rabbis basically just decided on the letter forms to use, giving the current meaning to the text. Even though all Jews and rabbis agree to the rule which forbids the innovation of anything not said at Sinai, things can be recalled through discourse or any other means available, and the conclusion will be considered as having been given at Sinai.
The result is a Torah text nowadays far from being monolithic. There are 3 different Torah editions (Koren, Adi/Leningrad, Mosad HaRav Kook) each meticulously proofread from dozens of Torah scrolls on parchment then reproduced based on majority concordances between these scrolls. These 3 editions however have over 100 letter differences among them, which leaves one wondering as to the number of differences between the scrolls which were used by the proofreaders, if after all their efforts there were still 100+ letter differences.
That is without even getting into the issue of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, words of the midrash and the Zohar, showing that the Torah scrolls the Tanaaim (10-220CE) and Amoraim (200-500CE) had before them were different from the texts we have. This, as a side note, discredits the modern phenomenon of seeking Torah codes in a text whose original is unknown: one who works codes according to the Leningrad text or the Zohar text or according to the text used in the Talmud and the midrash will find, in each text, different results.
It is an undisputed fact that;
- there are parts of the Torah that must have been written long after Moses' death (Burial, Dan, etc)
- that Ezra at least re-introduced the people to the Torah (see Nehemia8) if not added rituals to festivals such as "Sukkot" that the Jews never knew about until he showed up Neh8:17 while the details of this ritual are found in Lev23 which was supposedly written by Moses.
- that Ezra is known as "the scribe", compared to none other than the one who received the Law, ie Moses who is seen as the greatest of prophets in the Talmud Sanhedrin 21b-22a
- that even in the mainstream Jewish tradition there is acceptance that Ezra at least made minor edits to the Torah
- that there is an entire book from 2,000 years ago (albeit a few hundred years after Ezra's time) that claims Ezra wrote the current version of the Torah (2Esdras14). The Talmud states:
“Reish Lakish said, ‘at first the Torah was forgotten by Israel; Ezra came from Babylon and established it'” (Sukkah 20a).
- that Ezra initiated the particulars of the prayer ritual
Medieval rabbis could not counter Muslim polemics regarding the corruption of their scriptures as there exists no foundational narrative to the genesis of the text, how these Scriptures came into being and were shaped as a book. There is no explicit “transmission chain” self-referentially described in the Hebrew Bible or in post-biblical canonical literature. Medieval Karaites, Jews that only adhered to the written Torah, exposed the embarassing traditions which the rabbis hid in these interfaith discussions with Muslims. Karaism was in fact born in Muslim lands. By interracting with Muslims Jews became aware of the problems related to the preservation of their HB, as is reported in their rabbinic traditions.
Thus in answer to Muslim polemics, they would primarily attack these Jewish traditions, in an effort to blot out the embarrassing parts and re-write the transmission history of the text. Qirqisani, the leading Karaite theologian and exegete of Baghdad said
"They (the Rabbanites) assert that the Torah which is in the hands of the people is not the Torah which Moses – on whom be peace – brought, but was composed by Ezra, for they say that the Torah brought by Moses perished and was lost and disappeared. This amounts to the destruction of the whole religion. Were the Muslims to learn of this, they would need nothing else with which to revile and confute us, for some of their theologians argue against us, saying: “Your Torah is not the Torah brought to Moses.” Against one who makes this claim we proclaim that he is lying out of a desire to contradict, and that they are reduced to this because they have nothing to say and need an argument. But were they to discover this teaching of the Rabbanites – may God forgive them – the field would be open to them and they would need nothing else".
To this, he offers the poor reply that
"There are two implications to this (claim) – one is that he who changed this (the text of the Bible) and altered it was wiser and more knowledgeable than the prophets who wrote it; and it is extremely implausible that Ezra and Nehemiah were wiser than Moses, may he rest in peace,..and wiser than the Creator..and if it were so that he changed Scripture and altered it and took out of it what was not found to be of benefit, would the shamefulness remain in its place and the disgracefulness not be removed? All the more so if what they say, namely, that the Torah which is in our hands was collated and composed by Ezra – if this were so, and there was no one besides him that would have compelled him to say that this was so and (to say) “I am the one who has changed it and fashioned it in this way”– he could have just (re-)written it in the way he wanted and left the matter hidden, without informing anyone that he had changed it!"
Karaites deflected Muslim accusations of tahrif of their Hebrew Bible, by implying that if there is a form of falsification in Judaism, it only occured in the oral Torah, the books of the Mishnah and Talmud. It was necessary to them to reject the oral Torah's preservation so as to deny the information it contained as regards the written Torah's corruption. Eventually Karaism was declared a heresy by the rabbis, due to its denial of the authenticity of the oral tradition. The mouvement failed gaining dominance due to several factors; the Jewish people's turbulent history of oppression and exile, raised their rabbinic authorities as heroes of preservation and survival in the face of the complete annihilation of their identity. That mentality of the layman perdured in time due to Judaism's position as a minority religion, forcing it to dilute ideological dissent so as to retain a sense of community and survive. Also, Jewish Karaism had a strong zionist ideology. The demolition of their Jerusalem center by the Crusade of 1099 proved this ideology unattainable and brought about their dispersal and absorption in the Karaite pockets of Egypt, Byzantium and Spain.
In answer to the video "The Unknown History of Islam 09 - Racism and the Islamic Slave Trade"
3:78"There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it"
6:91"the Book which Musa brought, a light and a guidance to men, which you make into scattered writings which you show while you conceal much".
Just to corroborate what this verse is saying, The rabbinical world is divided up to this day on whether their sacred texts should be shared with non-Jews. There is consensus that non-Jews may study the Torah as far as the noachide laws are concerned. These laws are considered binding on all of humanity. The mosaic laws on the other hand concern strictly the Jewish people, hence the oddity of Pauline doctrine and its obsession with freeing mankind from a cursed law that isnt binding on anyone but Jews. Rabbinic opinion suggest that besides the noachide laws, only general and vague answers may be provided to a non-Jew inquiring about the Torah. The prohibition is discussed in the Talmud, which is considered God-given to Moses. The Talmud itself is on a higher level of restriction with even Jewish women forbidden from attempting to learn it due to the household activities they are expected to fulfill
2:75"but when they find themselves alone with one another, they say. "Do you inform them of what God has disclosed to you, so that they might use it in argument against you, quoting the words of your Sustainer?"
3:187"And when Allah made a covenant with those who were given the Book: You shall certainly make it known to men and you shall not hide it; but they cast it behind their backs and took a small price for it; so evil is that which they buy".
2:75-79 "..and a party from among them indeed used to hear the Word of Allah, then altered it after they had understood it, and they know (this)..And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but only lies, and they do but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!--Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby".
The Quran in those verses points to several types of misusing the scriptures;
-those who conceal the greater part of the book, reluctantly sharing as little as they can 6:91
-those who throw it completely behind their backs, ignoring it so as to not compromise some worldly profit. In the process, they are also guilty of failing to make it known to the world, as per their function of being the torch bearers of the truth to mankind 3:187.
-those who misinterpret the word of Allah after having fully understood it 2:75. Whether that information was canonized or not is irrelevant. This misinterpretation thus concerns both oral and written material. In Medina, members of the Jewish community were sent to the prophet Muhammad, by their religious authorities, with a hidden agenda. They were trying to settle grave disputes in matters heavily punishable in the light of the Torah. This was just another of their ploys to avoid its harsh laws, which they perfectly understood, hoping that the prophet might have a different ruling
"they alter the words from their places, saying: If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious".
This compromising, complacent attitude is a deeply ingrained transgression they have been comitting ever since the law was bestowed upon them and throughout their history, despite the scolding of the prophets and the few righteous remnants among them whom the Quran mentions and praises
7:169-170"Then there came after them an evil posterity who inherited the Book, taking only the frail good of this low life and saying: It will be forgiven us. And if the like good came to them, they would take it (too). Was not a promise taken from them in the Book that they would not speak anything about Allah but the truth, and they have read what is in it; and the abode of the hereafter is better for those who guard (against evil). Do you not then understand? And as for those who hold fast by the Book and keep up prayer, surely We do not waste the reward of the righteous"
Virtually all prophets that came to them decried the corruption of their elite, their neglect towards their own justice system. Yet the prophet was not under any obligation to judge their matters when their intent was to use him as a pawn for their low desires 5:41-43. The prophet was nevertheless commanded to judge between them with equity should he decide so, notwithstanding their severe enmity towards him and the fact they were always plotting with the enemies of Islam with the hope of uprooting and exterminating it. One famous incident is that of
"A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess".
According to another version, when the Torah was brought to the prophet who was now seeking to expose the innovations of the rabbis in the specific matter of punishment for adultery, he first respectfully put it on a cushion then said
"I believed in you and in Him Who revealed you".
A holistic understand of both the hadith corpus and the Quran demonstrates that this statement of the prophet is not to be taken in the absolute sense. When in Medina he noticed that Jews would come and read the Torah and explain it to the Muslims, he advised them to adopt a neutral stance, neither believing nor disbelieving in it
"Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' "
This is because the scriptures of the Jews are an amalgam of truth and falsehood, the truthful parts being covered by the statement "whatever is revealed to you". Ibn Abbas would reprimand the Muslims who would seek information from the people of the book in religious matters, on the basis that
"Allah has told you that the people of the scripture changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything?"
The Quran, the prophet, the companions therefore all advise caution when approaching the previous scriptures, as they contain both truth, which the prophet confirmed and revered in the aforementioned statements, and falsehood.
The prophet then proceeded with exposing the learned ones by making them read by themselves the truthful part of the Torah which they had been hiding
"Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning".
This hadith depicting the prophet's reverence for the Torah should this be understood in light of other ahadith, as well as the many Quran passages stating that the Torah isnt absolutely corrupt, that despite the manipulations it still contains remnants of truth, hence the Quran being its guardian/muhaymin. The prophet declared his belief not in the entire Torah, but in the specific ruling on the punishment for adultery, and which Ibn Salam, the Jewish convert to Islam instantly recognized as the "divine verse".
It is this corruption in the absolute sense, which some scholars might have been referring to when they said, while commenting on the above report
"if the Torah was corrupted he would not have placed it on the pillow and he would not have said: I believe in you and in the one who revealed you".
This is speaking of complete corruption, which is not what the Muslims believe happened to previous scriptures and traditions.
-those who misinterpret the book after having fully understood it 2:75
-the uneducated/ummiyun, who have no access to the text and therefore only know the distorted lies of the learned ones 2:78
-those who alter the book physically, passing off their modifications as coming from God 2:79. These alterations may be additions and/or subtractions. Al-kitab, the writing/book alludes to a specific text, as the definite article implies, which is subjected to physical corruption. Al kitab is used for the Bible in the same sura. The Quran accuses the Jews of misinterpreting Al kitab while claiming it is from God 3:78 in reference to the HB, just as it exposes the physical corruption of Al kitab 2:79 in reference to the HB. This accusation the Quran makes is the climax of scriptural abuse, fitting into its overall polemic against Jews and Christians. Interestingly, we find similar statements as regards the integrity of the biblical text among early Christians themselves. Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew made that exact accusation against the Jewish elite whose responsibility was to preserve the Hebrew Bible.
Ibn Abbas, in comment to the verse said
"O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah's Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, 'This is from Allah, so as to have a minor gain for it".
However there is another statement attributed to ibn abbas saying
“No one can corrupt the text by removing any of Allah’s words from his Books, but they corrupted it by misinterpreting it”.
This is a known defective narration, without any chain of reporters, as noted by the scholars of hadith, including Al Asqalani. What can at most be construed from that statement, assuming it is authentic for argument's sake, is that the incorruptibility is in reference to the heavenly tablet. It can obviously not be speaking of the worldly text which anyone can change. The Quran says all the revealed scriptures are inscribed in umm al kitab/the mother book, inscribed on the heavenly tablet. None can change the words therein but only twist their meaning. Ibn Kathir understood that nuance between the 2 ahadith of ibn Abbas very well. He quotes the weak hadith in his tafsir of 3:78 which speaks of oral misinterpretation. But he also refers to ibn Abbas' authentic comment on 2:79 that speaks of textual corruption by the people of the book. Ibn Kathir quotes other companion views on 2:79, including that of Uthman saying that
"they (the Jews) distorted the Torah. They added to it what they liked and erased from it what they hated and they erased the name of Muhammad peace be upon him from the Torah and for that Allah became angry".
Ibn Kathir and the earliest Muslim belief regarding the oral and textual corruption of the Bible is therefore clearly established, based on the Quran itself. That Muslim position is even reflected in the polemical writings of John of Damascus, some 100 years after the prophet's death
"But some of them say that it is by misinterpretation that we have represented the Prophets as saying such things, while others say that the Hebrews hated us and deceived us by writing in the name of the Prophets so that we might be lost".
As already noted, anyone can remove and alter words from any worldly text at any point in time. And if that is done when not enough human and textual witnesses can independently detect that corruption, then it can easily be disseminated and passed off as true. That is what happened during the successive destructions of the Israelite nation, followed by the attempts of their scribes to re-write what was lost. Al-Razi rightly noted
"It is impossible to have a conspiracy to change or alter the word of God in all of these copies without missing any copy. Such a conspiracy will not be logical or possible".
Al-Razi here is talking of a time when previous scriptures, although in their corrupt state (see his commentary on 5:41), were already widely disseminated and could be independently attested by countless witnesses. Nobody could remove Allah's word nor any other man-made word from it then, without being detected. Corruption of the Torah at that point became only possible through misinterpretation. Similarly, some stated that the Torah cannot be corrupted, based on the verse saying God's words cannot be changed 6:115. Again, any worldly copy of the Torah can be altered. But so long as there exists the possibility for the original to be reproduced, God's words remain unaffected, only the copy of these words.
The Quran is the speech of Allah, and that speech is with Allah, uncreated, eternal, unchanged like any other attribute of His. The analogy of God's speech to the Quran we touch with our hands or recite from our minds, is as God's mercy which manifests in tangible and abstract things. Both types of manifestations are created means through which God's uncreated attributes of speech and mercy are made known to humans. These attributes arent limited to those particular manifestations
31:27"and If all the trees on the earth were pens, and the sea replenished with seven more seas [were ink], the words of Allah would not be spent".
God's speech is therefore inexhaustive. It can potentially bring into existence a limitless number of words of revelation, among them the Hebrew Torah of Moses or the Arabic Quran of Muhammad
14:4"And We did not send any messenger but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly".
Allah further states about the revelation to Muhammad, that He
43:3"made it an Arabic Quran".
The eternal speech of Allah takes on in this world the form that is relevant to the divine purpose. The Arabic Quran was thus not continuously spoken since eternity. It is the manifestation in time of God's eternal attribute of speech. Just like we may say a healthy newborn is the manifestation in time of God's eternal attribute of mercy.
Assuming for argument's sake that all things in the heavens and the earth are destroyed, including all Torahs and Qurans, the mother of the book that contains all revelations, and even the preserved tablet/lawh mahfuz. So long as the potential to generate a true Quran and Torah exists, then Allah's words that were revealed to Moses and Muhammad remain unaffected. As stated earlier, the physical and abstract things in which God's attributes manifest in this world do not exhaust the attributes themselves, neither do these manifestations share the uncreated essence of the attributes they are representing. This is the problem of Trinitarians. Jesus, a created being, is not merely a manifestation of God's word, rather he incarnates it fully, becoming this divine "person" with contradictory attributes Trinitarian thinkers have been struggling to explain for over 2000 years. Christians are quick to try and parallel the notion of uncreatedness of God's speech as manifested in the Quran, with their idea derived from the Gospel of John where God's uncreated word manifested in Jesus. The two concepts, arent comparable. Further, why would trinitarians even need the Quran to explain the logical and philosophical problems of their theology.
Not a single group within Islam says the Quran was a separate entity floating around next to God since eternity past. This is how some Christians, with their trinitarian worldview, misrepresent the statement that the word of Allah is uncreated. In Christianity, the word is not an attribute but a divine person among others like the father and holy spirit, each with distinct attributes. One man with multiple attributes isnt many men just as One God with multiple attributes isnt many gods. This is tawhid. Yet Trinity says each person is divine but with different attributes, resulting in 3 different gods. The analogy Christians attempt between tawhid and trinity stops at the word of God being eternal. Christians made that word a person with attributes among other distinct persons, while Muslims kept the word as an attribute among others within the essence of the One God. As an aside, since the word or speech of God is not an attribute within the divine essence but a separate divine entity along with 2 others, does it mean that only this divine entity called "word or speech" has the ability to speak and that the other 2 divine entities are mute?
If God's word is a separate divine entity that became flesh in Jesus, what about the words uttered by Jesus who is now divine? Are his words separate divine entities? Further, if the Torah is God's word, as Jews and Christians believe, does that make it divine as Jesus is? These are the kinds of problems Trinitarians are entangled with due to their conjectures on ambiguous matters, instead of relying on firm statements on God's oneness and unity. Muslims on the other hand, despite the early disputes as to whether the Quran was created or not, never went out of the way to declare the attributes of God, like His word, separate divine entities. No Muslim ever believed God's speech to be a separate conscious part. The reason why this issue is often brought up by Trinitarians is that the Quran is the only book that claims to be Allah's direct speech. The Bible doesnt make that claim. The closest one finds is an anonymous claim made about Jesus being God's word. Muslims on the other hand stick to clear and firm statements of scriptures to define their cardinal beliefs, including that "nothing is like a likeness of Him".
2:79 is a timeless warning, addressed to any corrupt scribes among the Jews who would in addition reap profit from such an evil deed. It is not specific to the Jews of the time of the prophet. This means, although that type of corruption did occur, it may have happened before or during the prophet's time as well as both. No contemporary 7th century Jewish writing has survived so as to compare with older manuscripts to know whether this was done during the time of the prophet. And even if such 7th century writing is found, agreeing with older manuscripts, then it still does not negate that the corruption might have occured much longer before the prophet's time. Another thing to note is that this verse doesnt target the writings of the Christians. The books that these groups follow are not the singular Gospel of Jesus of which the Quran speaks. As the Quran repeatedly says, they follow but mere conjecture. This conjecture has taken the shape of the Greek writings compiled as the New Testament. They are writings that interpret and re-interpret Jesus' words and singular Gospel, giving them a completely different intent. Sometimes this conjecture doesnt take for basis Jesus' Gospel at all, such as with the notion of human depravity and sin atonement. The Quran thus appropriately tells the Christians to abide by the singular Gospel of Jesus to find the right path that will lead them to the truth of the Quran.
When they did so, in contrast to the corrupt aforementioned groups, when they remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability, then their sincerity, unprejudiced reading and understanding of their books led them to inevitably believe in the revelation bestowed on the prophet Muhammad 2:121,83,3:113-115,199,4:162,5:13,66,69,83,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4. This is what occurred in the times of the prophet, even among their most learned figures, just as it occurred throughout time and in our days. The Quran thus expects the Jews and Christians to recognize the truth based on what is in their hands first and foremost. The prophethood of Muhammad and the truth revealed to him make ample theological sense within their own written and oral traditions.
When they behaved with insincerity, hypocrisy towards their books 2:85, then despite having sources of light and guidance in their hands, it availed them nothing "The Torah and the Gospel are with the Jews and the Christians but what do they avail of them?" (Tirmidhi 2653). They become followers of deliberate corruption and lies, or mislead by conjecture.
A little note concerning the word, ummiyun. The Quran, in the context of answering the objection that the prophet Muhammad plagiarized oral traditions from human sources, it says he was unschooled in the subjects related by the Quran
7:157"Those who follow the apostle, the ummi (uneducated/unschooled) Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own scriptures".
In 2:78 the Jews are called ummiyun so it doesnt refers to gentiles. Once a gentile converts to Judaism, he is never referred to as a gentile anymore. The word is derived from the root Hamza-M-M and it means mother or sources/origin if said as UMM and destination if said as AMM. Ummi means in this context someone who is close to the source or origin and that conceptually means someone lacking education that moves him away. In a more metaphorical sense it is understood as painting the picture of one as ignorant and uneducated as the one coming out of the umm/mother. In the prophet's case this uneducation is in terms of divine scriptures as so often stated in the Quran
3:44,11:49,28:44,12:3,102"This is of the announcements relating to the unseen (which) We reveal to you, and you were not with them..".
Some have said ummiyun refers to the Meccans, yet in 3:20 (a known Medinan sura) the prophet is told to address the people of the book and the ummiyun, those who are uneducated in a religious scripture, which includes the Arabs from Mecca and outside of it.
Another way in which the definition of "mother" applies to Ummi is that it relates to the mother's love of her child so she does not entrust anyone other than herself to educate him. The same is applied to Muhammad whom Allah loved so much He took great care in teaching him. The Quran draws a particularly affectionate description of the manner in which Gabriel approached, bent over from on high to give full attention and inspired the revelation to the prophet
53:5-10"The Lord of Mighty Power has taught him, The Lord of Strength; so he attained completion, And he is in the highest part of the horizon, Then he drew near, then he bowed. So he was the measure of two bows or closer still, And He revealed to His servant what He revealed".
This particular relationship between God and His prophet is subtly reflected through the muqataat, the distinct enunciation of the letters of the alphabet at the beginning of certain suras. Their recitation, and more particularly by the prophet, convey the idea that the transmitter of this message, the "ummi" prophet who is as unlettred and unschooled as one just coming out of his umm/mother, is now in the process of being taught by God Himself, the One claiming to be the source of the communication, teaching His messenger the basic alphabet. There is a reason why the Quran is said to have been "taught" to its audience 55:2.
In answer to the video "How Muhammad Seduced His Adopted Son's Wife"
Besides serious defects in its transmission chain and the untrustworthy, sometimes entirely rejected persons that related it, one version of the story of Zayd and Zainab as reported in some traditions including in Tabari's tafsir, presents several absurdities that led it to be criticized by specialists in hadith and completely rejected. For instance Zaynab was the Prophet's cousin, he knew her through familial relations going back to Mecca. He saw her and interacted with her 100s of times in his aunt's house, and it was the Prophet that arranged the wedding to Zayd in the first place. Besides the fact the Prophet was repeatedly providing marriage counseling to prevent the union from breaking up, what did he miss during all these years that he suddenly noticed during that short period during which Zaynab was married to Zayd? The idea that he suddenly noticed her "beauty" is an absurdity, because he had already seen that "beauty" multiple times before she was even married. In pre-islamic times the dresscode for both men and women was much more liberal.
There is nothing that the prophet would have missed from her appearance that he suddenly discovered now. He had plenty of opportunities to approach her without creating any polemic or transgressing any taboo.
The prophet Muhammad isnt the biblical David who saw a woman's beauty for the first time and decided to forcefully take her for himself by setting up the assassination of her innocent husband. You dont suddenly have a heart change based on seeing something you have already seen multiple times before and neither do you secretly desire someone whom you had just arranged to marry with another and in addition provide not one or two, but repeated counseling to make the union work despite the difficulties.
How could there exist any lust when the Prophet is trying to prevent the marriage from falling apart, and when the marriage occured right after the divorce meaning there is no way he could have lusted for her while trying to make her marriage work? It is interesting to further note that even those reports saying the prophet had a sudden heart change upon seeing Zaynab's beauty, depict him as hiding his feeling from Zayd and repeatedly denying his desire for her, urging Zayd over and over to keep his wife despite the troubles in their marriage. The prophet could have covered up his "scheme" by using Zayd's own pretext to his advantage, when he came to the prophet complaining of her being "arrogant and hurts me with her words". Instead he would tell him to fear God and preserve his marriage. He uses neither direct nor indirect ways, not even the furthest hints and suggestions that could influence Zayd to break his marriage apart.
The Quran therefore expressly contradicts the story-telling of the seera writers who collected it. Not only because of its depiction of the incident that leaves no room to such polemics, as just shown briefly, but also due to the fact the verse is narrating a past event, prior to the verse's revelation. This unequivocally cancels the claim the prophet used the revelation to achieve a secret desire. The prophet did not go around reciting this verse, which wasnt yet revealed, nor any other verse in relation to Zaynab, prior to making his intentions towards her known publicly. After he was ordained to marry her, the Prophet feared the reaction of the people once he would make the announcement
"you feared the people, when you should have feared God".
Aisha reportedly said that his fear was such that if any divine command were to be covered up by the Prophet, concealed and never made known, this would have been it.
The verses points to the exact opposite of the hatemongers' claims who think what the prophet was concealing in his heart was his lust for Zaynab while the verse says the Prophet concealed something that God wanted to bring to light. This paints God, or more absurdly Muhammad himself whom they say fabricated the Quran to suit his needs, as wanting to bring to light his own secret lust for Zaynab, in other words God wanted to humiliate his prophet, or more absurdly, Muhammad who invented the Quran explicitly issued a statement to expose and humiliate himself.
Reason and truth are found elsewhere of course than this tangled web weaved by people who arent interested in truth nor reason. God "brought to light" not a secret lust, but a command to marry Zaynab for a social reform as regards adopted children
"so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons".
These words show that the consequence of what Allah "would bring to light", would stop the believers from having any "difficulty" ie repercussions or pressures in their society. How does the supposedly bringing to light of the prophet's secret lusts create this reform, as opposed to the bringing to light of the command to marry her, which the prophet already knew about but concealed due to his fear of the people's reaction?
That is why, as a side note, Zaynab used to pride herself in the fact that the ordinance to marry her was purely divine, while there was always a human element that brought about the prophet's other unions.
The story of Muhammad's sudden crush for Zaynab isnt integrated in the prophet's biography prior to Tabari's time. That is 300 years after the the prophet's passing away. It doesnt appear in Ibn Ishaq's biography which precedes it, and neither is it found narrated by the early authorities in the field, such as Urwa bin al Zubayr, ibn Shihab al Zuhri and others. The story could have entered the exegetical tradition through the channel of the qussaas, the story tellers, notorious for their elaborations upon the lives of the prophet's wives.
In that case, recent scholars argue that the inspiration is the Biblical account of the prophet David's encounter with a naked Batsheba, followed by his lusting for her.
In answer to the video "How Muhammad Seduced His Adopted Son's Wife"
Another crucial component of that marriage relates to the pre-Islamic perspective on adopted children. At the time, Arab custom considered adopted children as blood children. Besides being against nature, they would also pass onto them the adopter's genealogy and name, thus confusing their identity. The overarching Quranic principle of preserving the adopted's true identity, as will be shown later, negates any practice that compromises this issue. This includes the modern practice of 'closed adoption' which usually conceals any disclosure of information such as the identities of the biological kin. Even if for some other reason the biological father is unknown it is still not a reason to confuse their identity by giving them the adoptive family's name because it neither corresponds to truth nor reality. In all cases, adopted persons can be addressed as brethren in religion or friends and there is no blame if they are sometimes referred to as sons metaphorically, out of affection, just as one would do with any person regardless of there existing blood relations or not 2:220,33:4-5. What the Quran does is abolishing the unnatural, unpractical, and even dangerous implications of treating non-relatives as blood relations while counterbalancing with an emphasis on practicality and moral duties towards the adopted. In Islam, the relation with an adopted person is that of guardianship, tutelage, training, protection, until he/she is mentally and physically able to enter into society, possibly using his/her own inheritance to live their life independently 4:2-7. It is not a father/mother - child relationship.
Keeping the adopted's original identity secures his specific rights, and inherited wealth that are in the adoptive father's responsibility. This wealth is forbidden to be approached or released 6:152, until the child is fully grown and mature, having reached a mariageable age and intellectual maturity/rushd. After repeated testing by the guardian and once he is reasonably convinced of them having reached maturity, he may allow them to start up their own life anew 4:2,6,8,10. The property will be returned in the presence of witnesses in order to make sure that the guardian's judgement in the matter was sound. Before that time, the guardian is warned not to consume with extravagance and hastiness the orphan's wealth and if he is a rich man then he should abstain altogether from even touching the property.
The purpose of the Quran, again, as is the case with safeguarding their identity, is so that orphans are given the best chance to kick start their own life when they are able to. However, the Quran adds its usual pragmatic instruction that if the guardian is poor then "let him eat reasonably" "out of" the profits of the orphan's capital, not "from" the capital itself lest it is eaten up completely 4:5.
Then the Quran reminds again the God-fearing people, the spiritual aware, not to fall back to the previous unjust sytems of share and swallowing the weak orphans' property because their offspring could very well be in the same situation 4:9. This particular verse does not tell the people to show mercy and compassion, they are told to fear Allah as He is quick in requiting evil. It is a threat that whatever they swallow unjustly by usurping orphan's rights, is equal to swallowing fire into their bellies 4:10. Their soul is already burning for their deeds.
In pre-Islamic times, orphans were abused by men who would take them under their wing only to take advantage of them not having any close relatives for protection and dispossessed them of their property which they rightfuly inherited, replacing it with worhtless belongings 4:1-2. The Quran, like past scriptures Prov23:10-11, strongly reprimended this type of injustice as already shown. It laid stress on the relation between good care, kindness and compassion, as well as respect and honor towards the orphans with success in the Hereafter 107:1-3,93:9-10,89:17.
The HB echoes that notion Prov14:13. The emphasis of the Quran is such that even the sincere believers became affraid of taking orphans under their care lest they would act unjustly towards them. But they were reassured that Allah knows the sincere welldoers. They should mingle with the orphans as they do with any of their Muslim breathren, with sincerety of heart 2:220 caring for them patiently and compassionately 4:36,90:11-17, considering their needs whenever giving for charity 2:177,215.
This is what qualifies one as among
90:18"the people of the right hand".
Preserving the adopted's identity opens the possibility for inheritence rights besides those of the natural heirs 4:8,33. If the adoptive parents had no children or desire to give a specific portion of the inheritence to the adoptive child or else, they can do it in writing or even before their death 4:11-12. It also prevents compromising the legitimate inheritence of biological offspring, even in some cases in Wesern societies making the adopted the complete heir in lieu of the blood children.
Preserving the adopted's identity avoids the risk of accidental incest. Another obvious problem is the lack of medical advantages of not knowing one's biological family. Islam does it utmost to guarantee the well being of the weak people of society, including the orphans, while at the same time making it clear they need to preserve their real identify and not be confused with one's own children. This isnt a negation of adoption but rather of the practice of joining their name to one's own name and compromising their and the biological offspring's rights 33:4-5.
This was the opportunity to erase these customs unfortunately still existing nowadays among non Muslims. Such a behavior is nothing short of identify theft, in addition making someone believe they are real children of the household in which they grow up. When such children realize the truth they suffer much disappointment and grief. It is the responsibility of the entire community to help children in need. They should be taken in and nurtured but again, not confused with one's own children.
Adoption in the Quran is thus more of a long term foster care which while offering guardianship for the individual, does not legally assume any biological kinship and rights. The Quran's stance therefore isnt against adoption, which is never banned, but against confusing the adopted person's identity.
All these crucial societal reforms are first introduced through admonishment in sura Ahzab 33:4-5 and then with the practical example of the prophet's marriage proposal to Zaynab, now ex-wife of an adopted son. This clearly drew a distinct line from any biological connection with the adoptive family. Nothing could strike harder and clearer at the root of that deeply ingrained belief other than a union one would consider incestuous precisely due to that notion. And none other than the most eminent member of a community, one whom an entire nation looks up to as the epitome of morality could do a better job at setting the example.
The point of the marriage of the prophet and Zaynab was therefore to implement a social reform, and the prophet, being the moral authority of his comunity as well as last transmitter of divine law 33:40, was the most apt in enforcing it. It is in that reform of principles that Muslims are obliged and commanded to follow the prophet's example. Marrying the ex-wives of their adoptive sons is neither a command nor necessity since the reform was already implemented by the prophet. But it should however never be hindered by all the false notions spoken of earlier and which the Quran came to reform, hence the statement that
"there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them".
But the prophet was at first reluctant to publicly announce the command to marry her and concealed it in his heart, fearing public reaction, until Allah brought it to light and definately ended the notion that adopted children were blood children
33:37"and you concealed in your soul what Allah would bring to light, and you feared men, and Allah had a greater right that you should fear Him. But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We gave her to you as a wife...and Allah's command shall be performed. There is no harm in the Prophet doing that which Allah has ordained for him; such has been the course of Allah with respect to those who have gone before".
And the 3rd repercussion of this marriage was to lift the burden which society put upon divorced women who were degraded and often couldnt remarry. The degradation of divorced women is still present in the Bible Matt5:31-32 and many societies throughout the world. That marriage, to a divorced woman, ex-wife of an adopted son, who in addition was now considered of far lower rank than the prophet because of her previous union with a manumited slave brought down all theses social stigmas, unjust notions and illogical practices.
So deeply were these customs anchored that to counter balance them the prophet, in addition to having practically exposed their falsehood with his marriage, according to history further stressed the psychological reform by giving the most public and generous marriage ceremony to his guests than he had done with all his other marriages.
In answer to the video "How Muhammad Seduced His Adopted Son's Wife"
Zayd complained many times to the Prophet and wanted to divorce her at one point but the prophet would keep telling him to be patient and keep his own wife, for the command was meant at accomplishing a higher and beneficial objective
33:37"And when you said to him to whom Allah had shown favor and to whom you had shown a favor: Keep your wife to yourself and be careful of (your duty to) Allah".
Taqul, when used in the simple present in classical Arabic conveys the notion of persistence and continuity of a state, ie the repeated attempts of the prophet at hindering the seperation. Nothing less could have been expected from the noble prophet who many times is depicted as a fatherly figure to his people, providing them with sincere and pragmatic advises in their private lives
"Anyone who incites a woman against her husband or a slave against his master is not one of us".
But the situation did not improve and Zayd finally divorced her, about a year after they united and he had no more desire for her of any sort
"when Zaid had accomplished his want of her".
The marriage thus ultimately failed. Both sides couldnt surmount their differences and reform themselves. But this failure did not mean that the objective of the ordinance failed. This prejudiced society that was gradually being reformed was shown, through the union of people originating from both extremities of society and under a messenger of God's blessing, that the oft repeated Quranic principle that a person's merit should only be measured by his righteousness and God-consciousness, as strongly stressed just 2 verses prior 33:35, is a reality all members of the Muslim community must learn to deal with, even in such intimate areas as marriage.
Critics argue that the union's failure did not help to bring about the reform that the command was supposed to bring, but the object of the command was not to make a union work after several years of marriage, despite the parties' freewill so the objection is irrelevant. The object was to show in what a person's true merit lies in and this was succesfully established since the taboo surrounding the union of 2 persons from different social origins was broken.
In answer to the video "How Muhammad Seduced His Adopted Son's Wife"
The eighth wife of the Prophet was Zaynab bint Jahsh of the Asad tribe. This particular marriage had multiple aims. Zaynab was the Prophet's first cousin, from a noble lineage and at first, the prophet arranged her to unite with Zayd ibn Haritha, a slave he had freed from his guardians, and whom he then adopted. It was unthinkable at the time for such unions to happen between the daughters of the aristocracy and a slave even if he was freed.
This was a radical step taken by the Prophet in order to bring down the sense of superiority the Arabs had over slaves.
The process had already started through the countless verses of the Quran speaking of dealing with the weak people of society including slaves as one would deal with his own family 4:36 that it is allowed to marry from among them 4:3,25,24:32,33:50 since the primary criteria distinguishing the people including for marriage, is piety 25:77,34:7,49:13. By persuading both Zayd himself who was hesitant and Zaynab along with her family who were skeptical as well, the marriage did finally happen and the Quran alludes to the context of skepticism as regards the prophet's decision in introduction to the story 33:36.
But Zaynab could not overcome the deeply ingrained social class system she was brought up with.
That she had personal tastes and requirements (unrelated to religion) that werent met in the person of Zayd (social status), doesnt make her sinful. It just exposes her limits in terms of self-sacrifice as regards her materialistic outlook of life. She would have been praiseworthy had she been able to restrain that aspect of her personality but she certainly isnt condemned for failing to do so. Even the prophets' wives that are told to kindly divorce him and go live their own life without any disaproval put on them, should they be unable to deal with the humble lifestyle inside his household 33:28-29.
