In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"
It is important to note here that the core tenets of religion have always remained unchanged and shall remain so; however, as far as the rituals and customs are concerned, God has prescribed them separately and differently in the course of human history. They are trials to determine who turns away from the truth by showing bias and prejudice to these rituals and customs and who becomes the real seeker of the truth and accepts them in every form that they come to them from God and His prophets. This is precisely why the Quran often states that the people, regardless of their chosen spiritual ways will be judged according to their faithfulness in abiding by these core tenets
22:17,5:48"and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed".
That 16:101 is speaking of the previous scriptures can also be inferred from 16:103 where the person pointed to as the probable secret teacher of the prophet was suspected of teaching him the stories of the Bible as reported in the traditions.
It would be appropriate here to further elaborate on 3:93, which addresses the issue of negation of abrogation by the Jews. The Torah is in fact an example of abrogation in and of itself, forbidding certain foods that were allowed before, placing restrictions in situations where there were none. The verse states that among the Israelite prophets that preceded Moses and the Torah, only Jacob/Israel had forbidden to himself certain foods.
Tradition tells us it was the choicest of meats for an Egyptian, that of camels, as a testimony of his gratitude to God for having healed his sickness. It could also be referring to other kinds of food for health or personal taste reasons. Although it wasnt requested from them, the Israelites, who wanted to emulate the prophet Jacob kept on forbidding themselves these foods. But every other food was allowed to them, including the very ones Jacob had disallowed for himself, before the revelation of the Torah.
When Revelation later came to Moses, God abrogated this principle. Certain foods were forbidden, either as a burden placed on them specifically because of their sins as already stated above, or as an everlasting ordinance, as in the case of pork meat for instance 6:146. This reality strikes at the heart of a matter which the followers of previous scriptures, more specifically the Jews during the advent of Islam and even up to this day, could not admit; the issue of abrogation of a previous divine system by the very One who first decreed it. That is why they are then told to bring the scriptural proof for their claim that the dietary requirements of the Mosaic law preceded the Torah, and since they obviously couldnt, then it means God did in fact, through the Torah, abolish a previous system He had validated for them and their forefather Abraham whose way was now being restored in front of their eyes
3:93-5"All food was lawful to the children of Israel except that which Israel had forbidden to himself, before the Taurat was revealed. Say: Bring then the Taurat and read it, if you are truthful. Then whoever fabricates a lie against Allah after this, these it is that are the unjust. Say: Allah has spoken the truth, therefore follow the religion of Ibrahim, the upright one; and he was not one of the polytheists".
This is part of a wider passage similarly admonishing the Jews for their blind dogmatism and stubborn denial of various aspects of the truth, despite the clear arguments and signs presented to them.
In 2:106 the Quran adresses the followers of previous scriptures, summing up this principle of superseding divine revelations, making it clear to them that
13:38"For every term there is a book"
5:48"for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way"
22:67"therefore they should not dispute with you about the matter and call to your Lord; most surely you are on a right way"
and that
13:39"Allah makes to pass away and establishes what He pleases"
and all is done according to established heavenly and unchanging principles present with God
"and with Him is the basis of the Book"
Who did not create the universe but
46:3"with truth and (for) an appointed term".
2:106 comes in a context where they are being admonished for their history of carelesness towards their revealed Books and their refusal to accept a new revelation. Their refusal being primarily rooted in it being bestowed on someone outside of their fold. It tells them the Quran has now superseded the previous revelations by abrogating them in part through the modification of previous laws that were either meant as a punishement for their transgressions, or were more applicable for the age. In the words of the Quran "better", and as for those that were just as applicable for the age, but forgotten by the People of the Book, God introduced something similar, or in the words of the Quran, "or the like thereof".
The act of forgetfulness is attributed to God in the same way is the "sealing of the hearts". God has allowed it to happen as a result of the carelessness of the People of the Book who besides their going astray into the ways of polytheism as attested in their scriptures, had grown so indifferent to the Torah that we read various incidents in their history and recorded in their books that attest to them having lost knowledge not only of the contents of their books, but also of their whereabouts. This is not to speak even of the complete erasure of their memory of the location of the mountain where they had collectively witnessed the most extraordinary miracles and were collectively made to live the prophetic experience.
What this means is that one is not losing anything from following the new revelation of God, contrary to the mindless ranting of the People of the Book. In fact, God has granted something better and revived what has been forgotten through the Quran.
In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"
The restrictions of the mosaic law, as stated earlier, either came either in direct consequence of their sins, so they could not have been intended for a righteous community, or were self-imposed meaning against the original intent. That is why it was one of the prophet's mission with the Quran to promulgate laws adapted to a new, upright nation that would be a torch bearer of the truth to the world. This is the Quran, making
7:157"lawful to them the good things and makes unlawful to them impure things, and removes from them their burden and the shackles which were upon them".
Now that God's Law has achieved its final and universal character, it has been restored to its original simplicity, as close as it had ever been to the way of Abraham who was neither Jew nor Christian nor a polytheist. God does not burden an obedient people with difficulties they cannot bear
2:286,23:62"And we do not lay on any soul a burden except to the extent of its ability, and with Us is a book which speaks the Truth, and they shall not be dealt with unjustly".
This covers that the divine law cannot be burdensome in and of itself, but also that it may not make the particular circumstances of an individual even harsher and unbearable than they already are. For example forcing a sick person to fast for a month. The religion of Allah is not a burden, and neither is the set of ethical discipline it imposes upon man meant at narrowing down his feel of life 20:2, it rather is meant at enhancing it by deepening his consciousness of right and wrong. It is a blessing meant at purifying mankind or as the Quran says when speaking of the objective of religion being for spiritual tazkiya/purging. Allah calls it His favor and grace
4:113,5:3,2:231"and remember the favor of Allah upon you, and that which He has revealed to you of the Book and the Wisdom".
Here, this favor is described as being in the Book and the Wisdom refering to the body and soul of the Sharia respectively, to its commandments and their philosophy. This phrase is often used to connote the fact that God's guidance is perfectly balanced between both these aspects.
Allah has not ordained a soulless sharia concerned only with the body of deeds. The Quran constantly parallels internal with external purity, discussing issues of social laws side by side with laws of worship. Muslims are warned not to fall into the error of those before them, who neglected the spirit of the Sharia for soulless external rituals and subjective legal hair-splittings.
Allah has restored the Sharia to its original simplicity in order to lighten our burdens 2:286,4:27-8 because
"man is created weak".
This means man's weakness is due to the fact that he cannot by himself find the true path, he is in need of Allah's guidance. That is why the preceding verses speak of Allah's will to guide mankind, turn to us mercifully and lighten our burdens. 2:286 also implies that Allah could burden mankind with a difficult Sharia as a form of punishment as was done with the Israelites and as plainly stated in the book of Ezekiel quoted above. When we create an innovation and complicate the Sharia on ourselves, then we will charge ourselves with greater burdens than God asked of us. God allows this to happen as a form of punishment.
What Allah demands from us is not unreachable and He does not impose what is beyond our power and understanding. This is why Allah expects us to answer the call of religion with
2:285"We hear and obey".
It is an unconditional declaration of faith and obedience to a system which is not meant, as already said, at narrowing down man's feel of life through ethical discipline and other teachings of the Quran but on the contrary, to enhance it by deepening his consciousness of right and wrong 20:2.
In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"
Does this youtuber mean that the mosaic law existed in the times of Adam, Noah or Abraham? What about the evolution and re-adaptation of the law in post temple era? Besides most of the mosaic laws were either self imposed restrictions due to their well known hairsplitting of the law, or punishments for their disobedience. Islam is the path of Ibrahim, who was neither a Jew, a Christian, nor a polytheist, but one who submitted unto Allah. The Quran never tells the prophet and the Muslims to follow the ways of Moses, Solomon, or Jesus, as they were bound by a law meant for a different people. The whole passage speaking of replacement of an aya with another stresses that the prophethood of Muhammad supersedes the previous systems, including dietary and ritualistic with the example of the sabbath 16:124 and returns the divine system to its original simplicity as was taught to Abraham. The Quran confirming the Torah doesnt entail being bound by its law. Rather it confirms all its truthful statements, including what is found in the Torah itself about the Mosaic law being meant for the Jewish people only, as part of a conditional covenant. This covenant was eventually revoked.
The verse 16:101 reports the people's opposition to changes made by the prophet. The people who are objecting in 16:101 must have precise reference points to know that a newly revealed verse changed a previous one. The type of objection quoted in the verse, open and public negation of prophethood, cannot be referring to Muslims, who would never think their prophet was the Quran's author, nor to the pagans who, despite being convinced he authored it, either through sorcery, jinn possession or with the help of informants, only had a generic knowledge of the Quran's contents. They could not have precise reference points so as to detect a change. This leaves those among the people of the book who both rejected Muhammad's prophethood openly, and had precise reference points so as to detect the changes brought about by new verses. Their reference point was not the Quran which they didnt give much attention to besides for the gist of the prophet's message. The reference was their own scripture. They knew that verses from the Quran, when they heard them, replaced some of those in their hands. This was the main contention they had towards the prophet, the superseding of their scriptures with the Quran, as they still object to this day, in light of the warning in their books that they should Deut13"keep the commandments" if they are told to do otherwise.
A few verses down after mentioning the very basic dietary laws, the Quran refers to the more complex dietary laws of the people of the Book. This anticipates the objection about God's revealing different sets of dietary laws at different times 16:114-124.
So the Quran specifies that these prohibitions, whether the dietary ones or others pertaining to different aspects of their lives, were either the result of divine chastisement for their rebellion, or because of self-imposed restrictions 3:93,4:160-1,6:146,16:118. The words THULM and BAGHI used in 4:160,6:146 convey the sense of foolish actions, as in transgressions, while thulm has the wider meaning of "misplacing right and wrong". This may happen through direct rebellion or by making things forbidden on oneself by neglecting some teachings and stressing other, hairsplitting conjecture or irrational requests for clarifications to broad and simple directives. The Quran relates an occasion where, due to their arrogance the religion became a burden on them. Their lack of obedience and will to bend to God's will, or "stiff-necked" as Moses and other prophets labelled them collectively in their scriptures, is demonstrated in 2:67-73. During the incident, they were offensive towards their prophet, accusing him of ridiculing them when he simply conveyed God's command. They had to sacrifice any cow in a ritual that would clarify the confusing circumstances of a murder. They went on asking Moses that he might ask "his lord" as though He was not their Lord, for more and more particulars regarding cow to be sacrificed. After ridiculing their prophet, discrediting God's answers to their demands as unclear because "to us the cows are all alike", they finally reluctantly agreed to perform the ritual.
This attitude of obscuring a simple religious directive is not restricted to this particular ordinance. They have done the same in other circumstances and for different reasons, and so God gave them free rein in forging their own laws. This resulted in them following their base desires and idolatrous tendencies
Ezek20:25-26: “Moreover, I gave them laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live. When they passed every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very gifts — that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am the Lord”.
God therefore shackled the rebellious souls of this "stiffed necked" nation with a law, the Torah, that would illuminate their way and lead them to the straight path. Their rebellious nature however took the upper hand, as it did even while Moses was among them performing miracles for all to see. Instead of humbling their selves, gratefully abiding by these directives meant for their own good, as David understood and did Ps19, they progressively took control of the laws, making their application only secondary to the man made practices that "validate them". Their ritualistic obsessions and hairsplitting conjectures basically turned the Divine law into a man made one. And this is another form of idolatry and God let them follow that path as a punishment, as He is described doing in Ezekiel, even letting them enshrine some of those laws in the written Torah. Divine law should instead be agreeable to the human soul, and if its recipients are mature and obedient, which was overwhelmingly not the case of the Israelites in their history, then it should make room for the evolving circumstances of the world. This adaptability however can never compromise the original spiritual principle and intent. This nature and purpose of the Mosaic law was rightly observed since the earliest days of Judeo-christian internal debates. In his dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr cites every aspect of the law, including the institution of sacrifice and observance of Sabbath, as burdens forced upon the Jews to contain their tendency to disobedience
"Wherefore, God, adapting His laws to that weak people, ordered you to offer sacrifices to His name, in order to save you from idolatry, but you did not obey even then, for you did not hesitate to sacrifice your children to the demons. Moreover, the observance of the sabbaths was imposed upon you by God so that you would be forced to remember Him, as He Himself said, ‘That you may know that I am God your Savior’ [Ezk 20.20]".
The Mosaic law in most part did not originate at Sinai but progressively came on the Israelites to contain their repeated disobedience and punish their endless conjectures on clear instructions. Many were then retrospectively painted as revealed to Moses since the beginning, and for different reasons. The Sabbath became a day of rest that mimics God's resting from creation Gen2,Ex20,31. Another passage gives a profoundly different reason for Sabbath. It is a remembrance of Egyptian bondage Deut5. This shows the confused manner in which tradition was transmitted prior to being written down.
The conjectures of their law books, obtained through subjective methods of deduction and then put forward as God's ordinances, reached such proportions that in the words of Rashi the famous rabbi and Torah exegete, in reference to the rabbinic disagreements during the era of Hillel and Shammai
“Since the students of Hillel and Shammai fought, there have been many disagreements about Torah to the point that it has become as two separate teachings for all the burdens of subjugation to the Heavens and edicts which they placed upon the Torah” (Bava Metzia 33b).
Put briefly, the creators of the Oral Torah (the sages of the Mishnah and the Talmud) completely ignored the laws of the (Written) Torah, only using them as a convenient framework within which to legislate laws adapted to their own time. These ideas are expressed in the Talmud/Oral Torah, considered as God-given and revealed as the written Torah of Moses is. Their known soulless interpretations and conjectures caused them to create insurmountable legal criteria. For example some purity rituals must be fulfilled before or just at the start of the Messianic era, but the preconditions are impossible to achieve due to the supposed impurity of the entire community. There is also the sacrifice of a "red heifer" whom none has been able to breed and raise yet, despite the continuous attempts up to this day.
It is said that even Solomon, the wisest of all men, tried throughout his life to understand the matter of the red heifer and did not succeed. Despite God punishing them in this manner, letting them complicate the law further upon themselves, so as to wake them up to their degenerate condition, they instead remained stiff necked and disobedient. They are still nowadays elaborating further upon these legal conjectures of their forefathers. Consequently, the Quran alludes to the spiritual barrenness of their hearts through the simile of dry rocks and even harder because
2:74"there are some rocks from which streams burst forth".
Their hard heartedness is a recurrent theme and accusation in their own Books Ezek3:7,Jer5:3etc.
In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"
The early caliphate was actually a war of liberation of the oppressed people of the Roman, Persian and Egyptian nations from centuries of tyranny. There is a reason why the early Islamic state expanded with such speed, the local people did not resist and instead embraced the Muslim liberators that brought positive change in all aspects of their lives, whether they decided to convert or keep their own belief system. For example the Judeo-Christian population of Syria preferred Muslim rule to that of the Christian Byzantine empire.
Seeing this phenomenon occuring all throughout the Muslims territories is what made some medieval jurists argue that the Islamic System is a much better one than any man-made law as it opposed oppression. The purpose of waging Islamic war, became in their eyes to spread the sharia, which includes laws accomodating non-Muslim communities.
This supremacist view of the Islamic system is what made Ibn Khaldun argue that Islam had to ultimately spread globally, even by coercion. Throughout time, dominant powers viewed and still do, their societal order as superior, seeking to spread it by all means so as to safeguard their geopolitical interests. It is to be noted that Ibn khaldun maintained that warfare is intrinsic to human history, since immemorial times. He did not argue that cessation of warfare was something unthinkable to Islam. Prior to ibn Khaldun, other Muslim scholars the likes of al-Turtushi described wars as “social anomalies”. Al-Hasan ibn ‛Abd Allah compared wars “to diseases of society”. The vast majority of Muslim scholars past and present, view war as a necessary remedy against aggression. Going back to ibn Rushd/Averoes, he reported the controversies of his time as to whether an enemy should be killed because of his hostility or solely for his religious difference and refusal to accept Islam.
As one goes through the various legal opinions of the Muslim scholars throughout time and up until the modern era, what transpires is that their understanding of what is required of the Quran and the prophet in terms of warfare reflects the political and ideological environements in which they formulated their ideas. But the historical facts are clear; none of the wars in the times of the prophet and the early caliphs were done against a people solely because of their religious differences.
The massive, but progressive conversions, as will be shown later, could by no means be due to the fear of being enslaved by the Arab Muslims during the early Islamic conquests. Otherwise, we should expect many people to have renounced Islam following the military and political decline of Muslim power in the world.
The fulgurant expansion of the Muslim empire and Islam itself as a religion, a mere century following the prophet's death, from modern-day Spain in the west to India in the east, the vast numbers of conquered people that eventually converted to Islam in the process has confounded observers for centuries, more particularily European Christendom. Islam, to these people was an inferior religion. The myth of forced conversions meant avoiding the difficult idea that Islam was the true religion and that God was on the side of the Muslims. The earliest Christian polemics against Islam cleverly twisted the idea. The Muslim invaders were indeed divinely sent, but not for their own righteousness, rather as a rod of punishment against sinful Christians and their leaders. John bar Penkaye writes in the 680s
"We should not think of their advent (of the sons of Hagar) as something ordinary, but as due to divine working:" When these people came, at God's command, and took over as it were both kingdoms ... , God put victory into their hands in such a way that the words written concerning them might be fulfilled, namely: "One man chased a thousand and two men routed ten thousand" (Deut32). How otherwise could naked men riding without armour or shield have been able to win, apart from divine aid, God having called them from the ends of the earth so as to destroy by them "a sinful kingdom" (Amos9) and to bring low through them the proud spirit of the Persians?"
Similarily to other 7th century texts, the Chronicler of Khuzistan says that
"the victory of the sons of Ishmael who subdued and enslaved these two strong empires was from God".
Ironically in the Chronicle of Fredegar, the Muslims are "the sword of God". One overarching theme in 7th-8th century polemics against Islam is Christian crisis of faith and fear of apostasy. Christians of all spheres of life were rejecting their religion and converting Islam. We read in an apocalypse of the early 8th century
"many people who were members of the church will deny the true faith of the Christians, along with the holy cross and the awesome Mysteries, without being subjected to any compulsion, lashing or blows".
The same is bitterly confirmed by a monk in Mesopotamia, in the Zuqnin Chronicle
"For without blows or torture they slid down in great eagerness toward denial. Forming groups of twenty, thirty and a hundred men, two and three hundred, without any kind of compulsion to this, they went down to Harran to the governors and became Muslims (mhaggnn) So acted numerous people from the regions of Edessa, Harran, Telia, Resh'aina, Dara, Nisibis, Shengar and Callinicum, and from these places both error and the devil gained immeasurable strength among them".
Until now, western scholars and historians are making blunt observations such as "the success of the conquests is virtually beyond plausible historical explanation" (Webb) or "the dynamism of Islam’s expansion defies explanation in ordinary human terms" (Donner) or that we should “dissuade historians from striving vainly to explain the almost inexplicable in normal historical terms” (James Howard-Johnston). Christians also projected onto this phenomenon their own experience of ruthless conquests, looting, destructions and forced conversion and so Islam became a religion “spread by the sword”. This medieval myth, picked up in the late 19th- early 20th centuries by Orientalist like William Muir, many actually being colonial officials and/or active Christian missionaries that benefited from the vilification of Islam to non-Muslim audiences, is a myth that finds echo in today's Islamophobia industry. Muslim behavior is presented as the latest episode of Islam being spread “by the sword".
Seeing a big part of the Muslim conquests assimilating Christian territories and peoples, this spiritual, political, social, economic defeat resonated hard in the heart of the Christian elites, and still does today. As they tried throughout the centuries to roll back that humiliation through military and spiritual warfare, they only gained success in the former. Christianity, to Muslims, from the scholar to the layman, boiled down to worshiping a human being and God dying, both non appealing alternatives to the instinctive, natural, reasonable message of Islam. As time passed, Christian missionary strategy changed, from comforting the emotionally unstable in the name of the loving God of the Bible, to giving up mentioning Christianity alltogether; Islam is the religion of the devil and its prophet an anti-christ. If Christians cant have Muslims entering their fold, having them at the very least rejecting Islam is a satisfactory alternative. The reality of the matter however is that even if that strategy is far more successful in making Muslims abandon their religion instead of preaching Christianity directly, the desired results remain poor. The demographics remain from the short to long term heavily in favor of Islam, due firstly to Christianity dying out in the hearts, minds, practices of their societies, but also because the little number of apostates impressed by that demonizing effort, is offset by a radicalising effect; when insulted to his core, ancestral beliefs, the natural reaction of even the least traditional will be spiritual and intellectual "self-defence", seeking deeper knowledge and strengthening of his religious identity. That missionary tactic is also very unpopular among the Christian public, repulsed by the highly antagonizing rhetoric and painted as the aggressing party. Such Christians very often begin investigating Islam and end up finding it appealing. These factors, and others, pile up. The return on investment for those types of missionaries is negative if one weights the time, money, but especially emotional and spiritual degradation for having to dwell in dark pursuits. The best course of actions to the missionaries of that trend is to work on the betterment of their own souls first and foremost, then to strengthen their own communities' loss of faith in their ancestral beliefs.
As to Muslim interaction with the conquered peoples, there have been of course certain instances in history of Muslims disregarding Islamic teachings and behaving cruelly toward non-Muslims, including cases of forced conversion. Allthough the state and church sanctioned evil throughout Christian history, ie the background of the very people levelling these claims so as to demonize Islam, make these cases pale in comparison. This method of cherry picking incidents and leaping to the broad-sweeping, reductionist conclusion that Islam was “spread by the sword” is intellectually dishonest and doesnt stand the test of scrutiny. Practically, such a phenomenal endeavor would have been impossible to achieve for the Muslim conquerers.
During the early Muslim conquests, Muslims were a small minority in newly-conquered areas, around 10% in Egypt or 20% in Iraq. That is why for at least two centuries the majority of the inhabitants of the Islamic empire were non-Muslims. The regions conquered up to a century after the prophet didnt become majoritarily Muslims until 850-1050. For example although Iran was entirely under Muslim dominion in 705, its Muslim population hadnt reached 50% prior to the mid 9th century, then 75% a century later.
One of the reasons for that miserable failure of Islam's "spreading by the sword" was that Muslim rulers actually preferred collecting Jizya which they could use at their discretion, than zakat which, although higher, had to be redistributed locally in the provinces and could only be used in certain ways. To corroborate, the Umayyad general al Hakami was removed from his post because of having prevented the local population of Khurasan from converting to Islam so that he could keep on collecting jizya. There were other such cases such as the Abasside general ibn Kawus who forbade Muslim proselytizing in his jurisdiction.
As stated above there were certainly cases of forced conversions, but these were far more nuanced than the willfully misleading “spread-by-the-sword” narrative makes it seem. The first case mostly picked up by the misleaders is that of south Asia. The notion of millions of Indians forcefully converted is bellied on several levels. Firstly, Islam counted much more adherents in the Indian areas where the Islamic state had less power, than in the heartland of India where Muslim control and dominion was strongest (70-90% in Punjab and Bengal vs 10-15% in the Gangetic Plain). Those who level that charge of forced Indian conversions mostly base their accusations on ambiguous reports from historical sources the likes of “They submitted to Islam” for example. This could refer to Islam the religion, the Muslim state, or the “army of Islam” and a contextual reading usually supports one of the latter two interpretations.
The devshirme system in the Ottoman empire, which consisted in systematically taking young Christian boys, raising them as Muslims then training them to serve in the empire’s bureaucracy or in the sultan’s personal military force, cannot be considered a valid argument for the spread by the sword theory. The system, although obviously condemnable and without any basis in the Quran nor the practices of the prophet, actually many times benefited the religious minorities of the empire from whence these boys were taken, giving them access to high government positions. An example is that of Sokullu Mehmet Pasha, a Slav from Bosnia who rose through the bureaucracy to become the empire’s grand vizier, a position from which he was able to support Bosnia’s Christian community, though he himself remained Muslim.
Another case of forced conversion in Islamic history is that of Yemen's Orphans’ Decree issued by Imam Yahya al-Mutawakkil in the early 20th century. Again, a fringe phenomenon, without any basis in Islam but rather a Zaydi law requiring the forcible conversion of orphaned Jewish children to Islam. However what transpires from history is that, al-Mutawakkil, who was more interested in asserting his authority by adopting his subjects' customs, applied the rule selectively. In many cases he helped Jewish children escape Yemen to avoid conversions. Seeing this, the guardians of many Jewish children actually fled to Imam Yahya’s jurisdiction rather than from it.
In short this islamophobic boogeyman of "spread by the sword" theory has no legs to stand on and the reality of the matter is that theologically, Islam either explained away by the strength of its arguments, or absorbed the other religions and competing theologies about God, consolidating all into one coherent monotheistic worldview. This was the power of Islam which gave it great intellectual appeal: its ability to satisfy all the existential questions about God and creation, a message of profound substance that remained flexible enough that it would remain forever relevant, and never become obsolete.
As rightly stated by the British historian Hugh Kennedy
"Islam did not spread by the sword but without the sword it would not have spread".
This distinction between the spread of the Muslim empire and the Muslim religion highlights the fact that, as with many new things, whether abstract or concrete, Islam as a religion spread as it engaged with the conquered people. This interraction played out differently throughout the empire, and beyond the empire, including one of, or a combination of factors such as trade, intermarriages, the general appearance of success and prestige of the Muslim conquerors, the appeal of the Islamic social system, local charismatic converts, migrations.
In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"
There is no basis for the caliphate with an ideology for territorial expansion in either the Quran or in prophetic traditions. These wars did not happen under the prophet's authority. Neither the prophet nor the Quran approve of unprovoked aggression. The life and wars of the prophet testify to this.
"`Abdullah bin `Umar came to us and we hoped that he would narrate to us a good Hadith. But before we asked him, a man got up and said to him, "O Abu `Abdur-Rahman! Narrate to us about the battles during the time of the afflictions, as Allah says:-- 'And fight them until there is no more afflictions (i.e. no more worshipping of others besides Allah).'" (2.193) Ibn `Umar said (to the man), "Do you know what is meant by afflictions? Let your mother bereave you! Muhammad used to fight against the pagans, for a Muslim was put to trial in his religion (The pagans will either kill him or chain him as a captive). His fighting was not like your fighting which is carried on for the sake of ruling".
During the Prophet's lifetime, while the Quran was being revealed, no act of hostility was initiated by him against an enemy because of his religion. For instance, the Jews of Qaynuqa fought alongside Muslim ranks after Badr, a Jewish Rabbi fought and called upon his fellow Jews to fight alongside the Prophet against the Quraysh at Uhud, even many idolaters fought on the Prophet's side at Hunayn and al-Ta’if. The confusion about the tradition of war in Islam arises from the fact that the decision to join in these wars was given religious justification. However, the Quran does so because it is a God-given right that mankind should be free to worship Him in security. Confusion is also due to the Muslims's enemies being identified by their religious beliefs in relation to Islam; kuffar, mushrikun and ahl al-kitab.
There is no compulsion in religion, and until the end of days, ironically the same day which, those who deceptively level these false accusations against the prophet, think that all races and nations will be forcefully bowing to their God Zech14. The notion of divinely sanctioned conquests and subjugation, decimation of foreign population is purely a Judeo-Christian one. In the HB and as corroborated by Jesus in the NT when he said to abide by it to the minute details, several types of wars are promulgated. There is the compulsory command/mitzva among the 613 revealed at Sinai, binding on Jews of all times to destroy Amalek's seed Deut25:19 without showing any pity whenever the opportunity is there, and exterminate the remaining Canaanite nations from the land of Israel whenever any of them or their descendants are identified Deut20:16. This is a timeless ordinance, as already said, part of the 613 binding commandments, and is thus an explicit order to genetically exterminate a certain people. Every command within the Torah is understood as eternally binding and those that are inapplicable today due to the absence of a Temple will be reinstated in the utopian messianic era, where every nation will be forcefully subdued to the Jewish God. The eternally binding command to blot out Amalek's seed and other Canaanites, if one fails acting upon this law anytime a descendant of such tribes is genetically identified, then one becomes subject to divine anger as what happened to king Saul 1Sam28:18,1Chr10. Saul suffered a violent and dishonourable death. His household was decimated at the hands of the Philistines who also dispossessed his community.
The same happened prior to the entire Israelite community that was sent for a 40 years desert wandering for their refusal to engage the promised land's natives in battle.
Along with those known, compulsory genocidal warfare as described earlier, during which no atrocities towards men, women, children, cattle and plants may be spared, there are laws relating to optional warfare, for the sole purpose of Israel's "national glory" as labelled by their rabbis. In such cases any random nation the Israelites arbitrarily choose, and set themselves out to conquer can either be "peacefully" submitted, resulting in the enslavement and taxation of its population, or in case of their rejection of the "peace offer", a military subjugation resulting with the execution of all adult males, the capture as spoils of war of their women, children, and livestock
Deut20:10-14"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby".
In addition, should it be necessary to completely subdue that nation
2Kings3:19"you shall fell every good tree, and you shall stop up all springs of water, and you shall clutter every good field with stones".
In the land of Canaan, those natives that werent driven out or exterminated as per the Torah's injunctions during the invasion, were subdued into slavery Josh17:13. Their descendants suffered the same fate under Solomon's rule 1Kings9:20-1. After all and as stated in both the HB and the Talmudic writings, the purpose of creation and the reason why the heavens and earth are maintained is for the chosen race to observe Torah. All these citations werent made to disparage the Bible, rather at pointing what would have been the outcome had the Quran been the product of human base desires, whims, greed and lust.
The fact is the Ishmaelites went through almost identical situations as the Israelites in their confrontations with opposing tribes and nations, and yet we do not find anything remotely similar in terms of abuse and excess as is seen throughout the Hebrew writings, and by the hands of true prophets of God.
It is to be further noted that the Quran does allude to some episodes where the Israelites were confronted to, or were about to engage the Canaanites. Everytime, it refrains from mentioning the shocking acts which the Israelites have committed. The Quran could have used these incidents as divinely sanctioned precedents allowing unrestricted bloodshed and abuses. Yet we keep on reading in the context of warfare, verses stressing self-restraint in retaliation, or the non-materialistic goals of fighting in Allah's way.
The prophet was at war for over 13 years with various tribes, including other Jews than Bani Qurayza. If he was a war lord that loved blood as the critics claim by raising this incident, then it would be easy to provide evidence for this lust for be-heading and decapitating to establish a precedent. Banu Quayza wasn't the only tribe nor did Kinan represent all the Jews.
In fact, it is well documented that Jews continued to live in that region, while common sense dictates they should have all fled following the supposed massacre, only to be expelled many years after the Prophet died, by Umar. They were shifted to other regions within the Peninsula, Tayma and Ariha, and given paid settlements, even though the reason for the expulsion was their breach of non-aggression treaty with the Muslims. The Jews of Khaybar for example, after they had violently attacked a Muslim were exiled and compensated for their lands
"When the people of Khaibar dislocated `Abdullah bin `Umar's hands and feet, `Umar got up delivering a sermon saying, "No doubt, Allah's Messenger made a contract with the Jews concerning their properties, and said to them, 'We allow you (to stand in your land) as long as Allah allows you.' Now `Abdullah bin `Umar went to his land and was attacked at night, and his hands and feet were dislocated, and as we have no enemies there except those Jews, they are our enemies and the only people whom we suspect, I have made up my mind to exile them." When `Umar decided to carry out his decision, a son of Abu Al-Haqiq's came and addressed `Umar, "O chief of the believers, will you exile us although Muhammad allowed us to stay at our places, and made a contract with us about our properties, and accepted the condition of our residence in our land?" `Umar said, "Do you think that I have forgotten the statement of Allah's Messenger, i.e.: What will your condition be when you are expelled from Khaibar and your camel will be carrying you night after night?" The Jew replied, "That was joke from Abul-Qasim." `Umar said, "O the enemy of Allah! You are telling a lie." `Umar then drove them out and paid them the price of their properties in the form of fruits, money, camel saddles and ropes, etc."
The prophet therefore could not have ordered their expulsion from the entire peninsula when he said
"I will certainly expel the Jews and Christians from the peninsula until I leave none but Muslims".
That is why the medieval scholars argued that by Arabia, what was meant was the area of the Hijaz. It is well established that when the ancients referred to Arabia, it did not necessarily mean what is understood today as the Arabian Peninsula. The order was specific to the Hijaz, more specifically the southern portion, to secure the establishment of Islam from their proven, unabated hostilities even after the prophet's death. The prophet's foresight proved to be true when he said
"Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula".
Clearly the prophet's conflict with his Israelites brethren was neither arbitrary or prejudiced. It is also to be noted it is Umar who, upon Jerusalem's conquest, cleaned the garbage dump which Christians purposefully made of the Jewish temple mount, following their destruction and expulsion. It is Umar who invited 70 Jewish families of a nearby refugee village back into Jerusalem giving them the right to return after centuries of banishment by successive Christian leadership. Many attempts were made to reason and coexist with them. This is nothing like the 2000 years of humiliating abasement, mass expulsions, rounding up, forced conversions, false accusations and calumnies, extortions and indiscriminate mass killings of Jewish "Christ-killers" by Christians.
What is even more disturbing is that this type of behavior was viewed as theologically and eschatologically justified and positive, in the sense that Christians were being "loving" and "charitable" by inciting Jews to be healed from their cursed and harmful faith.
As to the issue of Jewish persecution throughout history, many things need to be brought into attention, including the facts that "persecution" began since before any Temple was standing, such as in ancient Egypt, that 99% of such persecution as well as the killings from that time till now come from non-Muslims. But what is most important to note is the Jewish persecution and genocides of other people, through divinely ordained commands still applicable and compulsory to this day, as well as the persecution and killing of Jews by Jews throughout their biblical history. Here is a timeline of Jewish persecution https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/historyjewishpersecution/
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".
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.
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?
