Islam critiqued asks for equality; different values to human lives?

In answer to the video "YHWH, Allah and the Jews"

Anyone familiar even on a most basic level with the Quran knows that among its most pervasive themes is the fact that to God, the value of a human, regardless of social status, gender or race only depends on righteousness in deeds and God-consciousness/taqwa 2:221,4:1,135,5:48,25:77,34:37,42:23,49:13. A case in point is the famous verse

5:32"..whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men".

This ordinance in the Quran clearly has a universal connotation both for unjustly murdering or preserving a soul. Anyone familiar even on a most basic level with the Quran knows that among its most pervasive themes is the fact that to God, the value of a human, regardless of social status, gender or race only depends on righteousness in deeds and God-consciousness/taqwa 2:221,4:1,135,5:48,25:77,34:37,42:23,49:13.

The Quran appeals to the believers' taqwa/God-consciousness in maintaining indiscriminate justice

"though it may be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives"

or even

"against a hated people"  

5:2"and let not hatred of a people..incite you to exceed the limits, and help one another in goodness and piety, and do not help one another in sin and aggression".

These verses came down at a time where Muslims were living in Medina under the constant threat of war, in an unceasing atmosphere of plotting and suspicions between all parties, including the Jews. Yet the Quran tells the Muslims not to give up justice for scapegoating, and baseless stereotypes.

 There are many examples to corroborate from the prophet's life and early companions. For instance the prophet once ruled in favor of a Jew to whom a companion owed money, on the Jew's own terms despite having full authority to give a more lenient ruling in favor of his close companion. The disregard for justice, or the abuse of power from a dominant position towards any human being was an attitude severely reprimanded by the prophet to the point he said

"If anyone wrongs a person protected by a covenant, violates his rights, burdens him with more work than he is able to do, or takes something from him without his consent, then I will plead for him on the Day of Resurrection".

Once a case of theft was brought before him by a close companion for a lenient verdict

 "When Usama spoke to Allah's Messenger about that matter, Allah's Messenger said, "Do you intercede (with me) to violate one of the legal punishment of Allah?" Then he got up and addressed the people, saying, "O people! The nations before you went astray because if a noble person committed theft, they used to leave him, but if a weak person among them committed theft, they used to inflict the legal punishment on him. By Allah, if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad committed theft, Muhammad will cut off her hand".

The corruption of the justice system to gain favors in a society or usurp other people's rights is forbidden 2:188. The verse 4:105 is cited in a historical context where the prophet judged a matter in favor of a Jew against the Muslim despite the tense situation between the 2 groups at the time. This is in contrast with the attitude of the Jewish elite who moulded their religious system so as to allow differentiation between Israelites and non-Israelites in their dealings Deut15,23,24,etc. Allah is Rabbul Alamin, the sustainer of all that exists everywhere. His presence in all that exists means that even the smallest degree of injustice displeases the Just Lord of the worlds 22:10.

Rabbinic conjecture on the other hand has discriminated between Jews and non-Jews, in the value of a life as well as in moral obligations. In that particular issue of value of a human life, they modified the universality of the principle to make it apply solely to a Jewish soul, that consequently takes on a more sacred character

"whosoever destroys a single soul of Israel, Scripture imputes [guilt] to him as though he had destroyed a complete world; and whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes [merit] to him as though he had preserved a complete world".

 This tradition is derived from the peculiar wording of the story in Genesis. The text could have originally more obviously represented that notion, but due to negligence, loss and corruption overtime the dimly remembered and reconstructed wording was altered, obscuring the correct interpretation, until revived much later through deep study of the text. The rabbis thus understood the implicit principle of sanctity of human life from it, but went on to modify it with their ethno centric worldview.   The Quran reveals the original story, and although concise in its descriptions, brings to light all important aspects of it that naturally lead the audience/reader to the principle discussed later in the Talmud. Eliminating a soul innocent of any wrongdoings, those who do not engage in the spread of evil is as if one destroys all humanity. The murderer has eliminated a soul that may benefit humanity as a whole, and increased the presence of evil in the world. 

The Quran further adds a clause of self-defence and application of justice to the moral principle, a clause which is present in the law of and teachings of every prophet of God

"unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land".

The caliph Umar ibn Abdul Aziz for example is reported to have left a Muslim murderer's life in the hands of the non-Muslim victim's family. Before him, the caliph Umar ibn al Khattab warned that

"if one of you were to give a gesture of safety to an idolater and he came trusting you and you killed him, then I would execute you for it".

When the prophet reportedly

"judged that a believer should not be killed for killing a disbeliever"

it isnt speaking in an unrestricted sense, but as agreed by many hadith scholars, and schools of law, in the case a Muslim soldier independently kills the soldiers of a hostile army in a declared war. This hadith, as a side note, is a classical case of the prophet speaking in an unspecified context, answering/reacting to an unknown question/situation/remark and thus the only way for someone to ascertain the meaning of the report is to take into consideration the whole corpus of hadith and historical records, establishing a pattern of actions from the noble prophet, as well as the overarching Quran commands, to arrive at the correct interpretation. Based on that holistic approach, the classical schools of law derived different conclusions; while most Hanafi jurists argued that qisas applies between 2 individuals regardless of status (slave/free person) or religion, Malikis or Hanbalis only validate qisas between Muslims.

This however did not, and never meant that a crime committed against someone not covered by qisas, implied that the crime would remain without consequences, whether worldly through the justice system, or before God Who sanctified the soul of every innocent human being, indiscriminately 5:32. A hadith sometimes cited to demonstrate discrimination in qisas among Muslims themselves on the basis of social status, is the one where Zinba'/Zanba Abi Rawh found his servant boy with his own servant girl 

"so he became jealous of him, and cut off his penis". 

In answer, the prophet freed the slave from his owner, writing a testimony that he shall be financially supported by the state for as long as he lived. Qisas here didnt apply as the slave committed a wrong against his guardian and was entitled to punishment, but not in the manner and harshness his guardian inflicted on him. We thus see that in an incident which isnt exactly adapted to a qisas situation, because the one of lesser status had committed a crime against the free person and was thus deserving of retaliation, the prophet still made the free person bear the consequences for his harshness, in addition making the state itself responsible for the slave. One can only wonder then, what would have been the prophet's reaction in an actual situation of qisas, ie where the slave committed no crime whatsoever and was unjustly harmed in the same manner by a free person? The prophet and the Quran's positions as regards the just and kind treatment of slaves are well known

"The Prophet Said: If anyone kills his slave, we shall kill him, and if anyone cuts off the nose of his slave, we shall cut off his nose" (graded unreliable by al-Albani although at-Tirmidhi and al-Hakim disagree by validating it). 

The same al-Hasan who transmitted the hadith later became forgetful according to the scholars, saying that "A free man should not be subjected to retaliation in return for a slave". The retaliation spoken of here being murder. It is to be noted that the jurists werent making their legal deductions in a vacuum. The society of the time was patriarchal, with the head of the household responsible for maintaining the direct and extended family, as well as possibly one or more servants under his care. So in terms of social repercussions, the death of the free had far more negative implications than the slave. It would lead to more harm in the long run, leaving the remaining household under the responsibility of the state. That is why the jurists who discriminated in qisas applied the same reasoning to dhimmis (non-Muslims citizen of the Islamic state) and their own slaves. It is to avoid reaching that difficult situation that while discussing the law of qisas even between people in general, the Quran favours pardon and reconciliation, while never taking away the victim's right to resort to equal retribution. In modern civil suits for homicide, compensation is most often calculated based upon the expected income that is now lost. Just as the Muslim jurists did when applying qisas, according to the economic realities of the time. The same considerations are taken into account in the laws of inheritance.

When Al-Mughirah murdered and took the wealth of idolaters before converting to Islam and pledging allegiance to the prophet, the latter accepted his pledge but rejected his wealth as unlawfully acquired, regardless of the victim's religion

"As for your Islam, we have accepted it. As for the property, it is the wealth of treachery and we have no need for it".

Islam critiqued finds a strange story; anti semitic rocks?

In answer to the video "YHWH, Allah and the Jews"

The Quran, almost every time it cites one of the past failures of the Jews as a nation tasked with guiding other nations to the truth, it demarcates between the transgressors and the upright among them so as to not condemn them collectively although they have failed collectively to uphold the covenant they were bound to with God as a community.

They are in contrast to those that remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability. 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.

That separation is done in the apocalyptic hadiths as well, where in a time where several supernatural events will occur, including inanimate objects and plants pointing to those among them that will side with the dajjal to murder innocents, they are said to be on both sides of the conflict between good and evil. Those on the wrong side (Muslim,B54,H99), in opposition to the returned prophet Jesus will be completely eliminated, together with their allies among all religious groups including Christians and deviant Muslims who will seek to kill other Muslims (Sunan Ibn Majah 179, Sahih Bukhari 1881, Musnad Ahmad 3546, al-Buhur al-Zakhirah 1/493). The same destruction will befall them as was done to previous nations that sought to destroy the messengers and their followers.

The Quran in 17:8 alludes to a future destruction of the mischief makers among them. They will not constitute the entire world Jewish population but a fraction of it that will believe in the dajjal as their promised messiah (Sahih Muslim 2944). The dajjal is thus the arch-deceiver, not an "anti-christ" although among his actions is that he will oppose the returned Jesus, besides opposing the Mahdi and all those that shall side with him.

Islam critiqued refuses paying for others' sins; Ransoming Muslims from hell?

In answer to the video "YHWH, Allah and the Jews"

For an understanding of that hadith, a few Quran principles need to be established. In 2:24 it states that the men themselves will be the fuel of Hell, to keep the fire burning, and to get themselves burned in that fire. This concept is alluded to repeatedly 21:98. That is because the energy a person expends in this world for any given action is converted to matter in the Hereafter. On the Day of Judgement

99:6"men will appear alone so that their deeds can be shown to them"  

19:59"so they shall soon meet (the result of their) sin". 

It is the manifestation of this esoteric aspect of one's actions that causes pain or pleasure in the Hereafter and the Quran often likens the sinful actions in this world to unconscious self-chastisement

"those who swallow the property of the orphans unjustly, surely they only swallow fire into their bellies and they shall enter burning fire"  

2:174-5"those who hide aught of the Scripture which Allah hath revealed and purchase a small gain therewith, they eat into their bellies nothing else than fire...Those are they who purchase error at the price of guidance, and torment at the price of pardon. How constant are they in their strife to reach the Fire!".

These verse speak for themselves, some people are already building their place in hell through their deeds in this world and already burning in it without knowing it.
Each person therefore perfects/worsens his abode in the Hereafter through his thoughts and actions in this world. That is why the Quran speaks of the dwellers of Heaven as having inherited it, they inherited the fruit of their own deeds

19:63,39:74,23:10-11,43:72"And this is the garden which you are given as an inheritance on account of what you did". 

This parallelism, actions in the material world simultaneously translated into matter in the spiritual world, finds echo in a few ahadith, where it is reported that

"When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire".

As understood by the earliest Muslim authorities in hadith, this report is connected to other similar ones saying

"There is not one among you who does not have two places, a place in Paradise and a place in Hell". 

The elaborated meaning is thus that, as noted by the scholars and in light of the aforementioned Quran passages, those Jews and Christians are not randomly chosen, but will be the sinful disbelievers among them. The Quran repeatedly distinguishes them from the righteous of their communities deserving of reward in the Hereafter 3:113-115,5:83. These sinful Jews and Christians will take the place a Muslim had fashioned for himself in hell through his worldy actions. Some Muslims, the Quran says, not all Muslims, on the Day of Judgement will be deemed worthy of Paradise and deserving of forgiveness despite their minor sins, in light of their overwhelming good actions.

Although that person's sins will have inevitably translated into matter in the afterlife, building him a place in hell, he will not enter it since he has been absolved from his sins. This in itself does not make that abode disappear. And this leaves a feeling of uneasiness, knowing that a place in hell marked with one's name still exists. That feeling will be ransomed through the sight of another person made to enter it due to his own sins. 

The Quran speaks of several levels to hellfire, depending on actions and choice of creed. After Muslims, those closer to divine truths are Jews and Christians and hence, depending on their worldly actions can be very similar in station than a sinful Muslim. That is why the sinflul among them, and not among the idolaters for example are mentionned as taking a forgiven Muslim's place in hell. Now the Quran makes it very clear, nobody in the Hereafter suffers more than his deserved punishment 2:261-274,28:84,6:160. Those taking other people's places in hell will not be downgraded and made to suffer more than what they deserve. Their total suffering, in both their own place in hell, as well as the place once reserved for a Muslim, will correspond exactly to what they deserve

"and they shall not be dealt with unjustly".

This could be achieved by removing the person from his own station of suffering, then upgrading him to a place of lighter punishment, the place once reserved to a Muslim. He will remain until the cleansing process is finished and the balance of justice is equalised. The Muslim, as already said, has avoided suffering on account of his overwhelming good deeds, not because someone has been designated to take his place in hell.

As a side note, the "ransoming" by God is not done by offering something from Himself to release the Muslims. God rather creates a situation where someone, by virtue of his own deeds, becomes another's ransom.

In a hadith, the prophet speaks of 3 types of reckoning upon the Muslims on the Day of Judgement

"One sort will enter Paradise without rendering an account. Another sort will be reckoned an easy account and admitted into Paradise. Yet another sort will come bearing on their backs heaps of sins like great mountains".

Regarding the last group the hadith continues that, as amply stated in the Quran, because of their wordly servitude and humility, their sins will be forgiven through their own good deeds 

"Allah will ask the angels though He knows best about them: Who are these people? They will reply: They are humble slaves of yours. He will say: Unload the sins from them..."

The hadith continues

"Unload the sins from them and put the same over the Jews and Christians"

As is clear, this unloading of the Muslims' sins is due to their own deeds, not because others were made to carry their burdens. The hadith authorities have understood the sins put on the Jews and Christians as other than those unloaded from the Muslims. It will be their own sins but same in nature as those the Muslims were carrying. 

These Jews and Christians are different than the righteous among them, whom the Quran repeatedly stresses will be forgiven and rewarded in the hereafter.

The prophet might have mentionned Muslims, Jews and Christians specifically because of the question/remark he was reacting to. Someone might have commented on the fate of the sinners among these 3 groups; the Muslims, if they were righteous enough will have their sins removed from them, while the Jews and Christians will carry their own sins that are similar in nature to those the Muslims were carrying. This hadith as a side note is often brought up by Christian missionaries who try to project unto Islam their own unease in regards to their illogical concepts. If, for argument's sake, the concept of ransoming someone for another's sins seems like a perverted, unjust system then what to say of God's ransoming mankind's sins through the blood of a completely sinless, innocent human being as they believe in regards to Jesus?

Islam critiqued prefers Biblical eschatology; bombing love and freedom to the world?

In answer to the video "YHWH, Allah and the Jews"

Biblical eschatology is one where all nations will be forcefully bowing at the Jews' feet. Prior to the messiah's arrival and universal recognition Isa59:19-20, there will be mass slaughter of those that do not believe in the Jewish God. None will be required to "believe" in the Jewish Messiah because his universal rule will be an undeniable fact that will usher an utopian era -that is, for the Jews- where only one truth reigns supreme, that of the Hebrew Bible, after every other belief system is abolished and erased, its people destroyed. This will happen by natural calamity or others means like God's jealous and furious fire of destruction, a process often likened to that of a smith selecting through fire the trash from the precious metal, concretely resulting in "purifying" the people's hearts and lips. Once the cleansing process is over, all will prostrate to the One true God

Zeph3:8-9,Zech14:9-17"And the Lord shall become King over all the earth; on that day shall the Lord be one, and His name one". 

Some modern apologists have attempted to negate that idea of universal forceful conversion using Micah4:5. It is ironic that this same verse is used in rabbinic comentaries to prove the opposite. The context itself speaks of the streaming of nations into Jerusalem to learn Judaism, God's judgement of nations afar, in a time where

"all peoples shall go, each one in the name of his god, but we will go in the name of the Lord, our God, forever and ever".

The non-Jews "going" to their false gods implies "going for destruction" in contrast to the Jews who will go on "forever". This will usher a time not only of religious monopoly but of forcible, physical subjugation of all non-Jewish peoples, made to crawl like abject creatures to the Jews' feet, in fear of Micah7:17"our God", transfering in addition all their riches to their new masters

Isa66:12"like a flooding stream",

or be destroyed

Zech14,Isa45:22"Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth, for I am God, and there is no other"  

Isa49:23"And kings shall be your nursing fathers and their princesses your wet nurses; they shall prostrate themselves to you with their face on the ground, and they shall lick the dust of your feet, and you shall know that I am the Lord, for those who wait for Me shall not be ashamed" 

Isa60:"..And foreigners shall build your walls, and their kings shall serve you..For the nation and the kingdom that shall not serve you shall perish, and the nations shall be destroyed...And the children of your oppressors shall go to you bent over, and those who despised you shall prostrate themselves at the soles of your feet..". 

The end of the book of Isaiah is repleat with such references of "glad-tidings" to the Jews towards the end of times, the messianic era, a time where

Isa66:23"all flesh shall come to prostrate themselves before Me"

and where the remaining lucky survivors will see all around them

"the corpses of the people who rebelled against Me, for their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring for all flesh".

This represents, according to Zech13:8-9 roughly 2/3 of the world population, exterminated, with 1/3 remaining for having converted to Judaism. Following their subjugation and destruction, the wicked will be sentenced to gehinnom (see Rashi on Ps6:11).

Islam critiqued discusses Quran 5:82; a historical anti Muslim event?

In answer to the video "YHWH, Allah and the Jews"

The Quran isnt the Greek Testament to have well established antisemitic rant in it. Historically, Jewish animosity against Muhammad was such in Medina that they turned against their own religion and their own Semite brethren's pure call to monotheism, preferring to ally with the paganism which Moses and other biblical prophets fought. Their prophets in addition warned them not to ever ally and coexist with pagans ever. They were again going through the same spiritual failures, as their forefathers did when they were influenced by the pagan people's religions although they were supposed to guide the nations

5:80"You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide".

The Quran relates how they openly favoured polytheism to Islamic monotheism in order to appease the Meccans. This is unsurprising to anyone familiar with their history as described on their own books, treacherously allying with one another's pagan enemies for the fleeting benefits of this world. The traditions give the reason for that political move, the Meccans were hesitant to form an alliance with the Jews on account of their obvious closeness to Islam. The traditions speak of a delegation of Medinite Jews sent to Mecca after the battle of Uhud and publicly bowed to the Meccan idols in order to comfort them in their position against the Muslims and appease their reluctance 

2:109,4:51"Have you not seen those to whom a portion of the Book has been given? They believe in idols and false deities and say of those who disbelieve: These are better guided in the path than those who believe".

This attitude of the Jews toward Quraysh and their favoring of the latter's paganism over the monotheism of Muhammad was in sharp contrast with the attitude of the Christian Negus of Abyssinia who sheltered and protected the early days persecuted Muslims of Mecca. This is the proper, historically accurate context of

5:82"Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly".

Christians in addition, contrary to the Jews, do not hold the arrogant belief of a special relation with God; their "priests and monks" teach them humility. Christians also reject the Jewish notion of unconditional, everlasting chosenness as the leading spiritual nation to mankind, drawing them closer to the Muslim understanding of religion from that aspect.

It is to be noted that in pre-islamic times when the Medinite Arabs of Aws and Khazraj were permanently in a state of war, the Jews of Bani Qaynuqa and Nadir were allied with Khazraj, while the Bani Qurayzah was allied with Al-Aws. Thus, in the course of their warfare, Jews would kill, expell or ransom Jews in alliance with pagans

2:84-85"And when We made a covenant with you: You shall not shed your blood and you shall not turn your people out of your cities; then you gave a promise while you witnessed. Yet you it is who slay your people and turn a party from among you out of their homes, backing each other up against them unlawfully and exceeding the limits; and if they should come to you, as captives you would ransom them-- while their very turning out was unlawful for you".

This attitude was a twofold crime from the viewpoint of Mosaic Law and had already occurred in the course of their history. During the revolt of the Maccabees and Jews had joined the pagan enemy ranks, fighting their own people. Even prior, when they were divided, a party joined the Phillistines and fought their fellow brethren, but changed sides when the situation turned to the other Jews' advantage 1Sam13:21. So lacking in faith had they become towards the end of Solomon's reign and after him, and neglectful of what was once their holiest site that under Jehoash the king of Israel, they invaded and plundered their own temple, taking even hostages among the rival kingdom of Judah, the king included 2Kings14:13-14.

Again later on the king Pekah of Israel would ally himself to Rezin king of Syria to attack and subdue the Judeans of king Ahaz, killing tens of thousands, taking many more captives among their women and children, as well as loots and plunders. They eventually gave up these loots following a severe rebuke from a prophet among them. King Ahaz of Judah in turn allied with the Assyrians to fight back the Israel-Syrian alliance, which proved to be a double edged sword since he became completely subdued to the Assyrian king, paying him from the Temple's riches 2Kings15,2Chron29.

Even while Jeremiah's prophecy of destruction by the Babylonians was being inflicted, when the king of Judah called for the release of all Jewish slaves, including those held by their priests, they reluctantly abided by the command. Their reluctance to free their own brethren was such that moments later they turned back upon their word and forcibly recaptured those freed Jewish slaves Jer34:7-11. Even in such eye opening moments, they still remained obdurate in their disbelief. In the times of Moses, and just as they came out of their Egyptian bondage, they showed similar disdain in freeing their own enslaved brethren Jer34:13-14.

So corrupt and greedy the majority of the elite has always been that, just following the nation's release from the Babylonian captivity, the wealthy would force their poor brethren to sell their own sons and daughters to repay their loans, and would then resell them to the heathen, those pagans whom Moses was instructed to wipe out the face of the earth. The prophet Nehemiah heavily condemned their behavior and urged them to return the children to their families ans cancel the loans they had given to the poor Neh5.

This pattern reveals a deep defect in their outlook on life, summed up in the Quran as such

59:13"You are certainly greater in being feared in their hearts than Allah; that is because they are a people who do not understand".

The Medina Jews feared more the prophet's retaliation for their mischievous activities, instead of fearing God. A sensible person knows where ultimate authority comes from. He will avoid every such thing as may call for God's punishment, even if he has to confront enmity along the way. On the other hand, he will come out to accomplish any duty which Allah has enjoined on him, whether he is opposed and hindered by all the powers of the world. But a senseless man, devoid of spirituality thinks strictly in wordly terms, without any higher perspective in mind. To him, divine power is an abstract concept while human power is all that matters. They would thus, shortly before the advent of Islam, ransom their mutual captives in obedience to that very same Law and it is this glaring inconsistency to which the Quran alludes next

"..and if they should come to you, as captives you would ransom them, while their very turning out was unlawful for you. Do you then believe in a part of the Book and disbelieve in the other?"

Islam critiqued needs elaboration; the Jews in pre-islamic times?

In answer to the video "YHWH, Allah and the Jews"

The historicity of the Jews of Yathrib can be divided into 2 main categories, those that arrived much before the common era into the lands of those whom they viewed as their cousins, and those that joined later following the 2nd destruction of the Temple. The community, although split into about 20 tribes with the most prominent being the Qurayza, Nadir and Qaynuqa, was very well established both politicaly and economicaly in the fertile areas of Yathrib. They had built fortresses there, in anticipation of possible invasion by neighboring Arab tribes. This was before the Aws and Khazraj reached and settled in the centre of Yathrib. Through a game of alliances, the Jewish tribes tried their best to remain as the main source of power in Yathrib.

At one point, Aws and Khazraj asked the Jews for an agreement of peaceful business cooperation, which was accepted as it did not compromise their political and economical ascendant. They in addition benefited from the expertise of the Arabs in the areas of agriculture and business.  

Soon later, however, a shift in power occurred in Yathrib, due to demographics, with the Arabs starting to seriously outnumber the Jews. They therefore broke their agreement a number of times and attacked some of Aws and Khazraj which prompted these latter 2 to unite, and in addition to ask for the help of Abu Jubayla the king of Qassan, in modern day Syria. With the help of his army they defeated the Jews of Yathrib and from that point on the tribes of Aws and Khazraj remained in power in Yathrib and the Jews continued to live with them in a powerless position. This is when the enmity between Aws and Khazraj started.

According to some historians, aiming to reclaim their power, the Jews of Yathrib were the main cause of this enmity between the two tribes. The Jews had not only become disunited, but through a game of alliance and incitements among the Aws and Khazraj, they were competing with one another to regain dominion over the city, which led to the previously mentionned wars among Jews. This enmity and the fights that were caused by it continued till when Aws and Khazraj decided to invite the Prophet of Islam to their city. The migration of the Prophet changed the whole scenario in Yathrib which then was renamed Medina.

This self-contradiction, this favoring of idolatry over monotheism and the encouragement of pagan forces to rise against the monotheistic forces would reach its peak in the Month of Shawwal 5/626 when the Jewish leaders of Bani Nadir and Qaynuqa who were mercifully left to migrate with their wealth and families after their defeat in battle, and settle in Khaybar, covenanted with the leaders of Quraysh (promising them a whole year's crop from their Jewish settlement of Khaybar in case of victory), Kinanah and Ghatafan tribes among others to unite as one front against the Muslims. It is to be noted, the Jews of Khaybar did not show any hostility toward the Muslims until the leaders of Banu Nadir -Salam ibn Abu al Haqiq, Kinanah ibn Abu al Haqiq/Huqayq (also named ibn al Rabi'), and Huyayy ibn Akhtab- settled among them. The Muslims were struck with panic when news of the huge coalition of almost all tribes of the Arabian Peninsula (enemies and allies alike) were preparing to attack Medina.

The Prophet consulted with Salman the Persian, and decided to dig a trench in preparation. All Muslims were put at at task, including the Prophet who worked with his hands alongside his companions lifting the dirt, encouraging the Muslim workers, and exhorting everyone to multiply his effort. The women and children were removed to the interior and placed within fortified walls. The battle known as Battle of the Trench/Ditch/Confederates or al-Khandaq/Ahzab started.

Islam critiqued finds merciful Quran; historical Jewish failures?

In answer to the video "YHWH, Allah and the Jews"

The Quran speaks of their failures and rebellions under various prophets, as well as their multiple divine destructions, in a passing manner without delving much over the details, as if it is seeking to spare them some dignity, just as it does not report the scale of their prophets' loathing of them. This is among the facets of divine mercy, the like of which was inculcated to the prophet Yusuf/Joseph.

When his brothers and former persecutors were within his powerful grasp, as he had all authority and right to exert justice and revenge, he instead, in his legendary patience, dignity and magnanimity with which God had established him since his youngest years, he still gave them the benefit of the doubt

"Do you remember what you did with Yusuf and his brother while you were jahill?"

Yusuf's tact and mercy manifest in that opening statement by saying, in an investigating, ambiguous tone that what they did was in a time where they were ignorant, meaning that they are expected to know better by now and not repeat the misdeed he passingly alludes to. Second, he doesnt even make it personal by speaking in the first person "me" but instead by alluding to himself in the third person.

Then when they recognize him, instead of making them feel the lowest by boasting of how life has vindicated him so that now he is the highest, he immediately attributes his status to God, it is a favor which isnt on account of any personal achievements, he is no different than them. In addition God's favor, he says, is within anybody's reach, not just himself

"surely he who guards (against evil) and is patient (is rewarded) for surely Allah does not waste the reward of those who do good".

One can hardly think of a more intricately humble, merciful address than this, given the circumstances. And the rest of the dialogue, which is more akin to Yusuf giving moral lessons to his brothers without demeaning them, is full of similar wording. When he declared that Allah forgives them, again avoiding to make it personal "I forgive you", and that no blame will henceforth be attached to them, Yusuf remained consistent and respected that declaration a little later on when he saw his childhood vision unfolding, he only mentioned God's favor in protecting him during his years of imprisonment, without saying anything of his much more dangerous ordeal of being thrown in a well by his brothers. Whatever evil had occured between he and his brothers -he is wording the statement so as to leave open the possibility that he might be equally blameable although he never did anything wrong to warrant the cruelty with which his older brothers treated him in his childhood- was because

"Shaitan had sown dissensions between me and my brothers".

Not only he puts himself as potentially having equal share of responsibility for the conflict, he attributes the source of evil to Shaytan, not even his brothers who stand blame free just as he had previously pledged. These kind of intricacies as are contained in just a few verses among many other verses within that specific story of the prophet Yusuf's life, clearly cannot have been devised by any human being orally and publicly transmitting an account without any chance at going back to a previous statement to correct and edit himself to improve his overall eloquence and coherence

"this is of the announcements relating to the unseen (which) We reveal to you, and you were not with them when they resolved upon their affair, and they were devising plans".

This is the kind of divine mercy with which the Quran treats them. When it points out some of the dark periods of their history, it isnt done wantonly or inappropriately but always in a specific context and to draw a moral lesson, both for them as a nation and anyone hearing and reading it. A parallel reading of the list of incidents starting from 2:40, with the same ones related in their books reveals the mild manner in which God has spared them further humiliation by not detailing their dark past.

This past the Quran says was "thrown behind the backs" of their educated elite, unknown to the majority of the Quran's addressees, even among the Jewish laymen of the time. Even if we taken into account the loathsome words that later Muslim scholars, the likes of ibn Qayyim, describe them with; tricksters, conspiracists, liars, slanderers, consumers of usury and bribe, killers and rejecters of prophets etc. every single one of those accusations and more, are directed at them collectively in their own sacred writings.

The Quran also, almost every time it cites one of those past failures, demarcates between the transgressors and the upright among them so as to not condemn them collectively although they have failed collectively to uphold the covenant they were bound to with God as a community. 

Throughout time, they were a fringe among the masses, and remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability. Their sincerity, unprejudiced reading and understanding of their books led some of them, from the times of the prophet where they “recognized him like their sons” to our own times, to inevitably believe and enter the fold of Islam 2:121,83,3:113-115,199,4:162,5:13,66,69,83,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4.

 That separation is done in the apocalyptic hadiths as well, where in a time where several supernatural events will occur, including inanimate objects and plants pointing to those among them that will side with the dajjal to murder innocents, they are said to be on both sides of the conflict between good and evil. Those on the wrong side (Muslim,B54,H99), in opposition to the returned prophet Jesus will be completely eliminated, together with their allies among all religious groups including Christians and deviant Muslims who will seek to kill other Muslims (Sunan Ibn Majah 179, Sahih Bukhari 1881, Musnad Ahmad 3546, al-Buhur al-Zakhirah 1/493). The same destruction will befall them as was done to previous nations that sought to destroy the messengers and their followers. The Quran in 17:8 alludes to a future destruction of the mischief makers among them. They will not constitute the entire world Jewish population but a fraction of it that will believe in the dajjal as their promised messiah (Sahih Muslim 2944). The dajjal is thus the arch-deceiver, not an "anti-christ" although among his actions is that he will oppose the returned Jesus, besides opposing the Mahdi and all those that shall side with him.

Their biblical history speaks at length of the wrongdoings of the majority of them, despite the presence of a few righteous among them, and how those sins have often plunged most of their community into suffering, and for several generations, as pledged by God in their scriptures Ex20 and later observed in Jeremiah for instance when the nation was decimated by the sword and famine, from the youngest to the oldest, men and women, if not taken captives.

The principle that God judges men individually, and not in groups does not negate the infliction of collective suffering even because of the misdeeds of a few, and this is an objective reality.  Such reality may repeat itself with any community, including the Muslims 8:25 which is why believers of all times have been urged by their prophets to purge evil from their communities, hasten each other to good deeds and guard one another from evil. Muslims are warned, through examples of the past, to choose very carefully their leaders because when such elite and rulers begin their mischief, they drag most of the community with them in corruption and lead it to destruction

17:16"And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction".

As happened in the past, the Almighty may punish a whole nation for the crime of a single individual if that whole nation sanctions it, directly or passively. As stated by Ezekiel in his warnings to Israel, the righteousness of the few will not deliver the guilty when the time comes Ezek14:20, although it may delay it Prov28:2. If the efforts of those few righteous remnants fall on deaf ear and that the decreed punishment is if such a scale that even the righteous cannot escape it, their reckoning will be with God, as the prophet stated 

"If Allah sends punishment upon a nation then it befalls upon the whole population indiscriminately and then they will be resurrected (and judged) according to their deeds. "

Islam critiqued fights discrimination; Anti-semitic Quran?

In answer to the video "YHWH, Allah and the Jews"

The reason why Jews are addressed as monolith, whether in the Quran or their own books and prophets following Moses is that because from all people, and up to this day, no community claims continuity to their ancestors and the rights and obligations placed on them than the Israelites. They were bound as a nation by a covenant in which they entered while being persuaded, one can even say compelled, by the sight of miracles.

The terms of the covenant were that should they breach it, then it would result in their rejection from God's grace as a whole, even if not all of them transgress. However this prided covenant was, and still is, in great majority and even sometimes entirely disregarded, with them only laying claim to the favors which were in fact conditional to obedience  (land grant, divine protection from enemies, light unto the nations etc). This is actually one other reason to call them out for their sins as a single unit, to show them that if they want to lay claim on the favors conditionaly bestowed upon their ancestors, then they should equally recognize as a nation the less glorious parts of their history.

Another thing to consider is that the Quran, which is often accused of being anti-Jewish or antisemitic actually spares the Israelites and is much more tempered and balanced in its description of their early history than their own scriptures, down to the Christian writings and Jesus' outright insults towards them. Jesus himself was no antisemite, but his followers, the descendants of Greek and Roman pagans, certainly were and gladly used the crude depictions and insults that Jesus reportedly makes of his fellow "vipers" and "sons of satan". Jesus' racial slur is so intense, the general feel of the Gospels so anti-semitic that one can only conclude they had been written by Gentiles.

CIRA International ask their Muslim friends; bring a 7th century Quran!

In answer to the video "The Unknown History of Islam 09 - Racism and the Islamic Slave Trade"

Authenticity of the Quran isnt contingent on whether we have in our hands manuscripts written or approved by Uthman. The authentification and transmission of the Quran was always, since the time of the prophet, primarily oral. The strong oral tradition is the reason why we find reports stating that the process of compilation was never a priority until memorizers started dying out in battles. The priority given to oral transmission is a phenomenon ongoing today and will remain so. It is irrelevant to Muslims whether we have many or few manuscripts attesting to our Quran, even if those few are found to be filled with errors and differences in comparison to what we have today. Neither would the availability of early manuscripts confirming the written text we have today, constitue strong proof for the Quran's authenticity.

Someone with enough power and authority could have decided to write the first Quran compilation and disseminate it as the original left by the prophet. This however would have only been possible if the Muslim tradition, like the Judeo-Christian one, had neglected its strong oral tradition. So what would really challenge the Quran's authenticity is whether we have a variety of conflicting and competing traditions, primarily oral. Assuming for argument's sake that there are textual variations among manuscripts, or that we have no manuscripts belonging to Uthman, who by the way wasnt the first but the second compiler of the Quran into book form, is irrelevant, even laughable to a Muslim audience when trying to undermine the Quran's preservation. Because again, that preservation was, is and always will be, primarily oral.

Trying to criticize the Quran from that angle is thus a fruitless effort, especially when the critic is coming from a background whose religious texts have a known history of neglectfulness or total loss of textual tradition. Such criticism only is valid from the view point of these critics because in the transmission process of their own tradition, they have entirely disregarded the oral aspect.

Written texts and manuscripts thus become crucial to them in order to validate and authenticate their current scriptures and beliefs, even though such attestation in and of itself isnt strong proof of authenticity.

So, coming from such a poor background in terms of oral tradition, it is thus but natural for these critics to boast of their numerous manuscripts in comparison to the Quran, even though these early manuscripts of theirs contradict one another and sometimes are very damaging to their current pillars of faith. To this we may add the revisions and corruptions of the text, unknown or confused authorship, broken transmission chain, or even loss of the language of the person to whom the text is ascribed.

All these, and other issues are problems that plagued the Biblical traditions, even to the point that the majoritarily accepted canons was different throughout the ages, even today with different Judeo-christian traditions having their own canon as God's word. Nothing even remotely similar happened to the Quran.

Again, we are comparing an oral society that made the progressive transition towards written with its first ever book, the Quran, of which we have abounding 1st and 2nd century Hijra manuscripts, comparing it with a well established written society. This Graeco-Roman written civilization is expected to have abounding written evidence for its central scriptures. Yet its manuscript attestation, the earlier we go back to the source, the more scant, obscure and inconsistent it becomes. The theory of late (post 200AH) composition of the Quran has been discarded even among the most hardened revisionists and orientalists, in light of the substantial and constantly increasing discoveries of 1st century hijri (622-719CE) Quranic manuscripts. The total texts extracted from these early manuscripts amount for over 90% of the current Quranic text. Contrast this with the single credit card size manuscript remnant of the NT whose dating is disputed somewhere along the 1st century CE. The issue of individual scribal errors is natural, to anyone who knows the various difficulties of copying a lengthy text prior to the printing era. The more essential question would be whether these individual errors were reproduced on a large enough scale so as to corrupt the majority of the transmitted text. This of course never occurred with the Quran, due to its dual, oral/written, mode of transmission. Even the variant readings, approved by the prophet, recorded and attested in books of tafsir, even those readings that change the skeletal Uthmanic text (a tiny minority of all variants and which are not contradictory), were never scripturally transmitted on a scale that would alter the majority of manuscripts throughout time. This again, attests to the well known and established phenomenon of mass oral transmission, as is done to this very day. These textual variations were for the most part restricted to companion codices, meant for the companions' personal use, hence their label by the scholars as companios' readings.

The script chosen for the Uthman compilation was Kufic, a script still readable today thanks to the dual preservation and transmission of the Quran, textual and oral. Some misinformed and misleading critics have tried arguing that the Kufic script did not appear until the late 8th century in an effort to push forth the dating of the Uthman codices exposed at Samarkand and Topkapi. That assertion is totally devoid of any historical basis since it is known that Kufic is the earliest script from which the others developed. That assertion is mainly based on a misquote of Martin Lings who was actually referring to the calligraphic perfection of the script, not its genesis.

The Kufic script was known in Mesapotamia at least 100 years before Kufa was even founded, which was during the period of Umar in the 17th year of hijra/638CE. The reason for the layman confusion is because the script is named after the city of Kufa, though it did not originate there. The Kufic script in fact originated in the town of Hira and the Kufans inherited and took on that script that later became known as Kufic, the adopted script of the major learning center of the Islamic world. Several rock inscriptions, as well as coinage, scattered throughout Egypt, Syria, Iraq or the Hijaz attest to the prominence of the Kufic script in Muslim lands already in the 1st century AH.

To further corraborate the point, the manuscripts found in Sanaa were Kufan manuscript, and those are dated the first century hijra.

It is also well known that early Quran manuscripts are present in museums worldwide, besides those that are in private collections in the west and those that were lost or destroyed. A huge collection was kept in Germany, but destroyed during the Second World War. Even the manuscripts present in Muslim museums are available as copies in the non-Muslim countries, such as the Uthman Samarkand codex that has numerous copies disseminated wordlwide in private and public hands. There are countless 1st century Hijra (622-719CE) Quran fragments, as well as a 99% complete manuscript of that period, the Huseini mosque Cairo manuscript.


Other Kufic Quranic manuscripts from 1st and early 2nd century hijra are found in museums today, like the ones of Austria and Bahrein. In fact even the style of the script of the Samarkand codex which the missionaries want to push the dating as far as the late 8th century, this same style is found in inscriptions from the 1st century of hijra in the form of dated Kufic inscriptions, predating Uthman's collection of the Quran.

CIRA International seek concrete examples; why wasnt the Bible divinely protected?

In answer to the video "The Unknown History of Islam 09 - Racism and the Islamic Slave Trade"

The discontinuation of the line of prophethood is among the reasons that necessitated the protection of the final revelation to mankind, a revelation containing all previous books 98:2-3 as here reflected in the declaration of faith

2:177"believe in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets".

3:23,5:44,4:44,51"Have you not considered those to whom a portion of the Book has been given? They buy error and desire that you should go astray from the way".

This indicates that the Torah and Injil were not the final words of God, but portions of one Book 6:156. The Quran in fact uses that established pattern of continuous revelation, to comfort the prophet, telling him that should his adressees disbelieve in that same pattern that is now bestowed upon him, then let him now, people preceded him that wholeheartedly believed in it. Further, their rejection does not compromise the honor and credibility of that lofty institution of prophethood. Instead of grieving, or even doubting, the prophet should follow the guidance of his predecessors who held fast by the revelation that came to them 6:84-90. All previous revelations are part of one Book called the Mother of the Book/umm al kitab which the Quran is also part of

43:4,13:39,2:236"and remember Allah's favour to you, and that which He has revealed to you of the Book".

The previous revelations forecasted the final revelation in the form of the Quran 4:47. This draws attention to an important truth: all the revealed scriptures contain the same spiritual and moral principles. They cannot contradict eachother and their only differences reside in that they were made to conform to the language of the addressees

26:192-6"And most surely this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. The Faithful Spirit has descended with it, Upon your heart that you may be of the warners, In plain Arabic language. And most surely the same is in the scriptures of the ancients".

The Quran then verifies the truth of these divine portions of the one Book and offers a clear global explanation of it

10:37,20:133"Has not there come to them a clear evidence of what is in the previous books?".

This is why it is said to be the Guardian and Arbitrer/Muhaymin and a clear explanation of THE Book (singular) of which past scriptures including the Quran are part of 5:48-9,10:37. This single scripture containing all past revelations as well as the Quran is said to be highly secure, purified and preserved, exalted and honored, inaccessible to evil interference and only between the hands of the most honourable custodians 26:193,56:77-80,80:13-16,81:19-21,88:22. It has been engraved in the lawh mahfuz/the preserved tablet 85:21-2, hence it being referred to in the opening verses of sura baqara as it is dhaalika al kitab/that book or writing, denoting distance through the pronoun, because its katb/writing is done in a far heavenly place. In contrast the Quran speaks of this/hadha al Quran denoting closeness because its recitation is being done in this world.

Another instance of the Quran's surgical use of words.

The Quran, being from the same God and containing the same basic wisdom and truths of ancient scriptures 6:91,26:196,29:46 speaks highly about the Torah and Injeel. They are referred to as sources of mercy, wisdom, guidance and light 5:43,44,46,7:154,11:17,28:43,46:12 as well as criterions of truth and falsehood (furqan) clarifying all things 2:53,21:48,28:43,37:117. It even cites them sometimes as sources of guidance hand in hand with the Quran 28:48-9. Because again, they are never said to be totally corrupted.

Read with the knowledge of the Quran, whose function is to be the muhaymin/protector and arbitrer, one can discern the guiding parts of previous oral and written traditions from the portion that were corrupted, either purposefully or through neglect.

In 46:12 it says the Torah came prior to the Quran, as a guide and mercy. It is this guiding and merciful aspect of the Torah that the statement musaddiqan/declaring true, refers to, not simply the Torah. It doesnt say declaring "it" true. This is seen by the rest of the verse, paralelling the guidance and mercy of the Torah with the Quran being a warner and giver of glad tidings. Again we see, the Quran only confirms the truthful aspects of past oral and written traditions, which the Quran never claims were entirely blotted out.

This restricted aspect of the Quran's confirmation of the Torah is made clear in 6:154-7. The passage starts again with a praise of the Torah as being a book of mercy and guidance, followed by a parallel statement about the Quran, echoing stricly the merciful and guiding aspect of the Torah

"And this is a Book We have revealed, blessed; therefore follow it and be God-conscious that mercy may be shown to you".

The Torah contains many things that are neither guiding, nor sources of mercy, and other things that erroneous or even outright blasphemous about God and His prophets. The Quran does not confirm these things, and sometimes openly rejects them.