In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"
Matt26:20-30,Mark14:17-25,Luke22:14-23 all agree that the Last Supper was a Passover Seder, a set of rituals occuring on the first night of Passover Lev23:5-8. Jewish days begin at sunset (not at midnight or even at dawn) and end at sunset. Thus anyone "preparing" for Passover during daylight would celebrate it from sunset.
Jesus was crucified on the next day of the Passover Seder. This would have to be the 15th day of Nissan. John's unknown author contradicts this by stating Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover, or the 14th day of Nissan Jn19:14-16. He terms it “preperation day” in Koine Greek, an expression alien to Jewish scriptures. No preparation work may be performed on a Festival day. If a Festival falls on a Friday for example, any preparations for Shabbat must be made earlier than friday, before the Festival begins. Thus, the Thursday would have to be what the Greek author refers to as "preperation day" for BOTH the passover seder AND for Shabbat.
But the passover never begins on a Thursday night in recent times, and hardly ever did, even in Talmudic times. Neither did Passover begin on thursday night etween 26 CE and 40 CE, the various times thought to surround Jesus' death.
As a side note these variations are due to the NT confusing Jesus' basic timeline. For example Jesus is said to have been born when Herod was King of Judea Lk1:5, Quirinius was Governor of Syria Lk2:2 and Caesar Augustus was the emperor of Rome Lk2:1. Yet those three occurrences never overlap historically so it is impossible to say if Jesus supposedly died in the 20s or 30s of the 1st century.
Anyway, the reason for passover not occuring on Thursdays is that the Rabbis who originally constructed the calendar deemed it an unacceptable burden on the community for there to be two consecutive days on which any food preparation is forbidden.
This important discrepency of the so called 2Tim3:16"God-breathed" scriptures, cannot be explained throught the typical "different perspectives of the Gospel writers" argument. Jesus simply could not have been crucified on both days. John's account of the Last Supper, in accordance with the rabbinical perspective stated earlier, in Jn13 does not include the rites of a Passover Seder as the drinking of wine, or eating matzo/unleavened bread and herbs as we find in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John's author was aware that the passover lamb had to be sacrificed on the afternoon on Nisan 14, so that it could be eaten after sunset (now Nisan 15), along with the matzo, herbs etc. Lev23:5-8.
The author of John had good reason to change the crucifixion day from the 15th of Nisan to the 14th of Nisan. Also, this Gospel was one of the last books written in the NT, around the 2nd century CE when the church had already become predominantly Gentile, so the author of John was appealing to their pagan influences, hence the "lamb". This animal is exclusively used in John, the pagan notion that a lamb was to be worshipped as a god, something that was widely practiced in the Roman Empire. He integrated that idea with elements of Judaism - in this case, the command in the Torah to slaughter the Paschal lamb on the eve of Passover or on the 14th day of Nissan Ex12:6,Lev23:6. As an interesting side note, Matt26:17,Mk14:1,12,Lk22:1,7,Acts12:3,20:6,1Cor5:7,8 all quote Jesus in the last supper using "artos" for bread, meaning leavened bread (unless it has the azumos in front of it). In Judaism this is a sin because it is UNleavened bread/azumos artos (or matzo in Hebrew) that must be eaten on a Seder.
Also, according to John, when Judas Iscariot leaves the Last Supper with the moneybag, the disciples immediately presume that he is taking money to purchase food for the festival meal Jn13:29. In the other Gospels, they had just eaten it. Again in Jn18:28 the Jews who were handing Jesus over to Pontius Pilate to be crucified on the morning of the crucifixion did not enter the headquarter
"so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover".
Yet in the 3 other Gospels they had already eaten it because the Passover Seder took place the previous night. This is why Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not mention the fear the Jews had of entering the home of Pilate.
In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"
Besides failing on a historical level for lack of external evidence, the crucifixion story as depicted in the Greek Christian writings fails on an internal, theological level. According to habakkuk1, the everlasting God "will never die". The Quran equally states
25:58"And rely upon the Ever-Living who does not die, and exalt [Allah] with His praise".
Humans have a dual nature, the body and the spirit. Lets call that human being John. John has thus a human body and a spiritual essence. John gets nailed on a cross and dies. His body expires while his spirit transitions to the hereafter. To say that John did not die on the cross because his spiritual essence survived would be false. Similarily God, according to the trinity doctrine has both a human body and a spiritual essence. God gets nailed on a cross and dies. His human nature expires while his spiritual essence transitions. To say that God did not die because his spiritual essence survived would then be as false as in John's case.
Yet even from a materialistic standpoint, death is the end of life. In religion, death ends life in the present world and begins life in the hereafter. How does the ever-living, eternal God cease living in anyway shape or form? Assuming God did not die when he was crucified. This would then undermine the notion of atoning sacrifice. Death and loss is what validates the atonement. If God did not die, losing nothing in the process, then what did He sacrifice on the cross? Habakkuk1 is a general statement. It excludes death in any way. It doesnt say God's spirit cannot die while his body can. This is an example of what an explicit statement, closed to any misinterpretations, is. It is what is referred to in religious terminology, a firm verse, or as the Quran says, muhkam. A religion based on solid explicit tenets, does not seek ambiguous verses and try to derive isolated meanings upon which to build an entire belief system. Whenever confronted to ambiguous verses, that are open to several contradicting interpretations, we consider the context, the words used and cross reference them with other similar verses. More importantly, whatever the conclusion we come up with, the interpretation may never contradict the explicit, firm, decisive verses. But that is not how Pauline christianity works. In order to circumvent the statement that God "will never die" and make it fit the belief of divine sacrifice, it is said that this sacrificing Christian god didnt really die. Assuming God did not die when he was crucified. This would then undermine the notion of atoning sacrifice. Death and loss is what validates the atonement. If God did not die, losing nothing in the process, then what did He sacrifice on the cross?
Further, why would God go as far as killing his son (or self) to prove his trustworthiness and capacity to truly forgive, and how is it a proof of love? Only an unjust, deluded criminal, unworthy to be the judge of mankind would think that murder is a proof of love. Why would anyone trust an entity, divine or else, willing to commit suicide (or even worse, kill its own progeny) to prove its love? One would instead try helping such entity out of its delusion. One would not want in anyway to be associated with such demonstration of "passionate love".
God, since times immemorial has been demonstrating His love through the prophets, sending promises of mercy and forgiveness before that mythological Greek drama was invented. Believers have always known and trusted this fact attested in scriptures over and over again, which God made contingent on repentance and obedience to His commandements. Nobody thought God would fail His promise, or was incapable of forgiving the servants that wholeheartedly turn to Him. The Quran treats such hopelessness in God as a mark of disbelief
39:53-4"Say, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning], do not despair of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful. And return [in repentance] to your Lord and submit to Him before the punishment comes upon you; then you will not be helped" 15:56"And who despairs of the mercy of his Lord except for those astray?".
That attribute of mercy is in fact the only one described in the Quran as "written upon" God 6:12,54. Christians on the other hand do not expect God to be merciful, to the point they need him to prove his capacity to forgive by murdering his own self/son. Furthermore, a judge that forgives someone because of the actions of another, Jesus' sacrifice in this case, isnt a merciful judge. Forgiveness wasnt triggered by the mercy of the judge, rather by the price paid by another. So although Christians do believe in their God's absolute mercy, in reality their concept of the divine is far removed from it. The profound difference in relation to that theological aspect between Islam and Christianity goes back to the story of the garden. While in the Quran, the story ends with hope and forgiveness, in Christianity it is misconstrued in a way the Jews who read the same scriptures before them, vehemently dispute.
In the Quran Adam is sent away from the garden with the message that whenever guidance is recognized and acted upon, then mankind "shall not go astray nor be unhappy". There is therefore in the Quranic account of creation no place for unconditional, senseless and indiscriminate condemnation. On the contrary, the incident is concluded with forgiveness and spiritual guidance. The Christian belief on the other hand is that there was no forgiveness, sin became ingrained in human nature and transmitted to Adam's progeny. On top of that, God, instead of sending the solution to that "problem" in the shape of Christ's atoning death, establishes a long line of prophethood and laws to be followed. This divinely decreed deceptive crooked system was bound to fail in the face of human depravity, for several thousands of years, until the issue of salvation was finally resolved with the crucifixion. This theology appeals to people who have despaired of life, themselves and God. It is toxic, as it crushes the person's self esteem, making him yield to dark thoughts of hopelessness in oneself, and it is satanic as it discourages the building of a relationship with a merciless, unloving God. Hope is therefore found elsewhere, neither in God nor man, but in an intercessor that fixes the defects of both so as to reconcile them. He is a sinless man and a merciful, loving God, both in one since the divine cancels sinfulness and the human cancels mercilessness and unlovingness. His divine nature makes this man capable of perfect deeds thus pleasing God and restoring His (God's) hope in man, while his human nature makes this God capable of dying, and through this self-sacrifice, capable of showing love and mercy, thus pleasing man and restoring his hope in God.
That is why the Quran quotes Jesus himself, emphatically denying the man-made, unscriptural notion of sin atonement as understood by those that deified him
5:72"and the messiah said; ...serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates with Him, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the Fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust".
In this short statement, Jesus nullifies everything Trinitarian Christianity stands for, the idea of a divine entity other than God being the means by which one's eternal felicity and freedom from sins depends.
In another place, Jesus, instead of taking upon himself the sins of mankind, denies even the sins of his own followers that began deifying him. He washes his hands from their deviations and submits to God's justice, leaving the entire prerogative of salvation in God's hands
5:116-118"If You should chastise them, then surely they are Your servants; and if You Should forgive them, then surely You are the Mighty, the Wise".
In the monotheistic faith, the prominence of God's attribute of mercy does not mean it comes freely. It is earned, through concrete, repeated, steadfast actions proving one's sincere penitent resolve. This however is only beneficial in relation to God's rights. But if a sin includes infringing on other people's rights then the divine law has declared it an injustice to deprive a victim of its due rights. In that case it is upon the victim to either benevolently forgive and turn away, or demand restitution for the harm done. No human sacrifice was needed before Jesus for people to known and trust in those things which the prophets said. It is ironic that in the book of Isaiah, the one most appealed to and distorted to prove the abhorrent notion of human sacrifice as the only prerequisite for sin atonement, God says
Isa55"my ways are different from yours".
This comes right after the reassuring statement that God is near and hearer of prayers so
"Let the wicked leave their way of life and change their way of thinking. Let them turn to the LORD, our God; He is merciful and quick to forgive".
God's nature is contrary to human's who need and ask their debt to be settled in case of foul play. There are no debts between men and God, He doesnt lose anything from people transgressing His commands neither does He gain from their worship. His glory remains unchanged in both cases. That is why he does not need to be propitiated.
For His mercy to be released, the sinner does not need to act in relation to God but to his own self, through repentance and mending of ways. This deed is one that has no effect on God but on the sinner, cleansing his own soul. It is as a result of the person taking action to cleanse his self, that God releases His mercy, blotting out the sin completely and forgives Isa43. This is the main, among many other avenues for forgiveness which the HB gives besides blood atonement.
The concept of atoning sacrifice is nowhere to be found in Jesus' words anyway. He nowhere speaks of his own death as an atonement for sin. He is instead depicted as talking of his life as being a ransom Mk10:45, but in a clear context of dedication and humility. He is dedicating his life for the sake of others, like all selfless people should. It is Paul who connected these words with expiation for sins in 1Tim2. This spin caused intense debates and disagreements throughout the ages among all branches of Christianity; ranging from the notion of Jesus' life being the ransom paid back to Satan who held humanity in hostage, to the idea that God the Father was the one to receive the payment, and many other nuances in between. The inherent problems to every proposition, the contradictions each of them create with various Christian doctrines such as God literally ransoming himself to himself, is what led the Roman Catholic Church to describe the ransom theory as a "mystery of universal redemption".
In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"
1Jn4"do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God..Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. This is how we recognize the spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood".
This means that anyone recognizing Jesus as a human being sent by God can be said to have "the spirit of truth" in him such as Muhammad, and by extension the Muslims, as opposed to the spirit of falsehood dwelling in the world that rejects Jesus as God's human envoy. This paints trinitarians as spirits of the antichrist since they do not recognize that "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" but that "God has come in the flesh".
Jesus' mission and message wasnt complicated at all.
Jesus did not proclaim anything dissimilar to what his contemporaries expected from an Israelite prophet. Jesus was the final prophet in a series of prophets sent to the Bani Israel exclusively Matt10:5-6,15:24-26,21,Quran3:49, to warn them of their constant betrayal of their covenant with God, including their hiding and distortion of the true expression of the Torah, just like Moses foresaw Deut31:25-29 and Jeremiah confirmed Jer2:8,7:21,8:8,23:9-36.
Being the last one in the line of Israelite prophets, Jesus had to prophecy the coming of the final prophet who would be sent to all of mankind and he did so through his prophecies of the paraclete, as echoed in the Quran 61:6. It is this distinction between the prophet Muhammad and the other prophets that makes his prediction a necessity, by his predecessors from among the Israelites, Moses and Jesus included 6:20,7:157,61:6. Muhammad is the only prophet whom the Quran says was announced by previous prophets.
As to Jesus, one can clearly see from his few reported NT sayings that he did not come to establish a new religion. That is why the earliest Christian creed was simple and concise as compared to the one grossly inflated centuries later at Nicea then Constantinople so as to integrate new theological notions. Although speculations were rife about Jesus' nature and relationship with God the Father, prior to the 4th century, the authorities of the church did not view the persons of the trinity as equal in divinity. The Father was understood as the supreme God and the Son came second in worship, subordinate in knowledge and power, followed by the Holy Ghost as third in rank.
Jesus, per the Quran, came to verify the truth remaining in the Torah
3:50,5:46,61:6"verifying what is between my hands MIN/OF the Torah".
Just as the prophet Muhammad was tasked in doing with the Quran, Jesus wasnt going around listing every single error and absurdity of the scriptures and traditions that preceded him. His words and deeds testified to the truth and falsehood in them. Most of those words and deeds have been forgotten, misinterpreted or purposefully put aside by the gospels writer's own admission. These writers reported what was transmitted to them with their heavy pagan Hellenistic perspective, if not outright fabricated events that do not stand the test of internal and external scrutiny. Their sole purpose was to advance the notion of Jesus being "the messiah, the son of God" as candidly admitted in Jn20:31.
The Quran gives several examples of how his words and deeds testified to some of the corruptions of the HB. For example when Jesus, with God's leave, creates life from inanimate material and resurrects the dead, these were meant to demonstrate to an audience highly skeptical of the concept of resurrection how life can be gathered from dust and how a lifeless body can be risen back. During the volatile transmission process of the HB, such concepts, like the concept of an afterlife were almost entirely blotted out from their books. These actions from Jesus acted as a criterion of what is true and false in the HB, confirming the very few passages vaguely attesting to resurrection. The near scriptural absence of those concepts was an obvious manipulation. Because of their sins for which they were successively destroyed and humiliated during their tumultuous history, the Israelites became averse at the notion of an afterlife in which one is resurrected and held accountable for his worldly deeds. And so they progressively denied the concept, leading to the polemics within their sects during Jesus' time. The Pharisees forcefully argued in favor of the concept, using scattered biblical references including 1Kings17:17-24,2Kings4:17-37,13:20-1,1Sam2:6,Isa2:17,26:19,66:14,Ezek37:1-28,Ps71:20,Prov6:22,Prov31(see Rashi),Dan12:1-2 while their main opponents, the Sadducees strongly denied that basic monotheistic tenet.
Jesus' purpose was in addition to allow some of the things that were forbidden to them through the traditions of men (NT Matt15,23). He was the most qualified to do so, through his inspired knowledge
3:48"And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel".
That is why he is depicted in the NT as turning the people's attention away from their oral man-made traditions, and focus instead on the true divine source which he claimed to fulfill to the letter Matt5:17-20. In that passage, the "Law and the Prophets" was a regular expression Jews of Jesus' day used in reference to the entire HB Matt7:12,22:40,Acts24:14,28:23,Rom3:21. The fulfillment of the Torah refers to the revival of its spirit, which the Jews had neglected by focusing more on baseless rituals, and issuing ever new conjectured complications to those rituals, attributing their origins to the revealed Oral Torah/Talmud. These additions had distorted Moses' religion beyond recognition Mk7:7.
Humans, because of their very nature as volitional creatures are bound to differ in almost every aspect of life, as stated elsewhere in the Quran. This isnt necessarily an evil, however the only sphere in which they should not contend but rather unite are the original and clear tenets of the religion. The innovations of the Jews in that area inevitably caused dissension among them and Jesus came to unite them by clarifying their misunderstandings and/or deliberate distortions
43:63"And when Isa came with clear arguments he said: I have come to you indeed with wisdom, and that I may make clear to you part of what you differ in; so be careful of (your duty to) Allah and obey me".
Jesus wasnt an all-knowing being charged with resolving every conflict, his function wasnt to unify them in every aspect of life, but only in the relevant religious matters hence the statement in the verse "part of what you differ in". The Quran here again, as it does in countless places, demonstrates its surgical precision in its meaningful choice of every word. To further corroborate, when God the all-knowing best of judges swift in reckoning will resurrect and gather the people, He shall judge between them in all that which they differed
39:46"Say: O Allah, Originator of the heavens and the earth, Knower of the unseen and the seen! Thou (only) judgest between Thy servants as to that wherein they differ".
Perfect judgement and final resolution of conflicts is only possible in the hereafter, at God's court of justice.
What is very revealing and that most Christians are oblivious of, is that after the councils of Hippo and Cartage in the end of the 4th century where 27 books were finally canonized as NT scriptures, one would expect the Church to want its adherents to get to know the official books of the Church. Especially when there were many non-canonical books in circulation, competing sects and heresies. And yet this is absolutely not what happened. Not only were the people discouraged from reading the Bible on their own, but translations into native languages were prohibited (Council of Toulouse 1229, Tarragona 1234, Constance 1415), forcing translation efforts to go underground. Some were burned for doing so (Tyndale 1536). With the proliferation of unreliable versions, the church authorities had no choice but to begin an effort of official translations, especially done in the monasteries. Two main reasons motivated this concealment by the Church. First to maintain their own aura of elitism. Among the reasons Martin Luther was persecuted in the 1500s was because of his translation, giving the lowly folk access to the "lofty" Bible.
Compare this to the early efforts of the Quran compilers just 10 years following the prophet Muhammad's death, to spread copies of the book in scripts that would unlock the primitive consonantal structure of the text.
The second and most important reason for the Church's reluctance to make its canon accessible to the commoner, was to prevent Christians from finding out about Jesus' purely Jewish environment, teachings, legacy, as well as the Jewishness of his followers, prior to Paul's appearance on the scene. Despite all of Paul's missionary activities, early Jewish converts to Christianity still worshiped in synagogues until the late 4th century (Homilies against Jews by Chrysostom). The dominant Pauline Church wanted and needed to break with Jesus and his early followers' Jewish heritage. Something that would have been impossible to do as early on in the history of Christianity where the traditions transmitted by the original cluster of Jewish sects claiming descendency from Jesus and his followers, were still known. Instead the church presented limited editions to the people, they could not show the full version because the Gospel writers didnt and couldnt erase Judaism from Jesus' ministry. They couldnt do it, because it would have made Jesus contextually irrelevant, as if appearing in a vacuum.
Through a concise statement, the Quran explains the mutual relationship between the Torah and the Gospel; they complete one another by centering the attention on the wisdom and spirit of every aspect of God's Laws so that they do not end up as something lifeless and burdensome for the people
3:48-50"And He will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Tawrat and the Injeel..And a verifier of that which is before me of the Taurat and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord therefore be careful of (your duty to) Allah and obey me".
By the beginning of the 1st century Judaism was a sterile, lifeless organism, waiting to be infused with a spirituality that only Jesus could provide.
Jesus repeatedly condemned those traditions in the NT, denounced the Jews and their leaders as "hypocrites" and told the people to beware of these "teachers of law" for their soulless traditions, and "children of the Devil" because of their claim of inherited righteousness through their affiliation to Abraham Jn8:37-44.
Not in one single instance within the whole NT is it reported that Jesus said that the law of Moses needs to be abandoned, contrary to Paul who besides stating it was a curse Gal3:13 given not by God but by angels Gal3:19-25,Heb2:2 declared it obsolete Rom3:20,7:4,10:4,Heb8:13,Gal2:21,3:23-25,4:21-31,5:1,Eph2:15 even describing his former Jewish beliefs as worthless, rejecting his former Jewishness by warning of Jewish dogs saying in the original Greek
Phil3:2-8"I consider them excrement".
He told people he was seeking to convert that they were now under the vague 'law of Christ'. Jesus himself never alludes to such law, hence it being unknown to any of those who met and followed him and respected all Jewish laws to the letter as per his actual instructions. That law of christ, tailored so as to appeal to Paul's mainly pagan audience, has removed the old burden from mankind 1Corin9:21,Gal6:2. He sometimes paid lip service to the Law if the situation or audience required a show of obedience to the law Acts21:20-26 but immediately denounced the likes of James and Peter for telling the Gentiles to follow the law Gal2, evidently because it attracted less converts.
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/
