Apostate prophet demands answers; what is Islamic polygamy?

In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"

4:3"And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry from the women that seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice between them, then marry only one or what your right hands possess; this is closer that you be just".

Contrary to popular opinion, the verse is not addressing the issue of polygamy in a general sense, a pre-existing practice, but that of polygamy in a narrowed down context, that of safeguaup andrding the orphans' rights. The reason the Quran only speaks of and limits polygamy in that context, is because these types of relationships hardly if ever run smoothly and therefore should be reserved for the achievement of higher objectives. It is clear from the opening statement, positing the situation of one with orphans under care, fearing for the just management of their rights

4:3"And IF you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, THEN marry..."

The verse is therefore silent on polygamy in a general sense, neither allowing nor forbidding it, but by only mentionning one case to which it applies, clearly hints to the prefered way to apply the practice, moralizing it, laying down the basis for the intricate perspective that must be considered if a man wishes to marry more than one woman.  However it is to be noted, this doesnt mean that polygamy outside the context of caring for orphans, which is the subject of the verse, is useless. Outside caring for orphans, polygamy can potentially be an answer to many problems one can think of, so to outright ban it would deprive the believers from a solution to potential social difficulties.

Women around the world, not necessarily in Muslim societies are confronted to situations where they are left to fend for themselves and their children without the help of the family or the support of a father. But because polygamy is regulated and moralized in the Quran, by mentioning only one case to which it applies, along with its conditions, the Quran is explaining to the God-conscious that this familial configuration is not to be abused for selfish motives, the gratification of sexual desires.

 There will always be people that will take advantage of the system, just as there are Muslims that will disregard that limitation to make it subservient to their own whims. Polygamy is thus not the norm but the exception in Islamic societies. It is a license granted to men to alleviate problems that have existed and will keep on existing in human societies.

From a modernist perspective, feminists often denounce the practice as legalized cheating. 2 things dont become the same because of superficial similarities. Is a regular marriage legalized prostitution because a man gains sexual access conditionally to spending from his resources? In a marriage, there are many more implications, rights and obligations beyond sex which is just one of the rights of both parties on another. A feminist may now be tempted to say that a wife is just a long term prostitute with more rights and duties. But then is any unmarried woman that has sex with a man prostituting herself because, besides money, there always exists an exchange without which the man would not have sexual access, including emotional, physical, intellectual etc. attractiveness? This extends to lesbianism and on a deeper level, even to self-sex where a woman is essentially a prostitute to her desire. 

Feminists see genders as conflicting opposites rather than completing one another. This is why they loath systems that bind genders together whether monogamous or polygamous. They will prefer situations that paradoxically oppress them, like prostitution and adultery, because of the limited rights the opposite gender has on them in these cases.

Yateem, (plur. yatama) is derived from Y-T-M meaning alone. It is used for a child who lost one or both parents, or for a widow.

The verse answers the guardian's fear with a solution; marrying up to four women, not any, but specific ones preceded by the definite article

"..marry from THE women...".

Which specific women are best suited to share that burden of responsibility? The mother of the orphan first and foremost. By taking them in his household, the husband is bound to provide for them as he would do with a regular wife and children, as well as giving them increased advantages, which includes, possible inheritence in case the adoptive father dies and leaves a will for them, in addition to what must be given to the orphan even if there is no will 4:8. The mother of the orphan could also use her dower for the orphan's wellbeing, if she wishes. Marrying the mother of an orphan taken under care, may also fill the emotional gap of a child with no father. Marrying these widows, or taking another woman or maiden (whose job included raising the chidlren of a household) in case the orphan's mother is dead with the purpose of caring for one's orphan, solves the conditional clause of fear not to

"act equitably towards orphans".

The difficult responsibility of sustaining the orphan physically and emotionnaly, protecting his/her rights, wealth and property is this way shared by both parents. Something to keep in mind is that Muslims are urged and obligated, per the divine law, to help the weak in society, including widows and orphans. Marriage isnt and never was a precondition to get the needed help. The verse is addressing a group among those that already have orphans under their wing, those who fear for the slightest inadvertent injustice towards them. These highly pious guardians are given a solution, in the form of a recommendation to help solve that fear. One can always involve himself further in a charitable endeavor and this can be argued to be amongst the most advanced manners of doing so.
Another thing to keep in mind while trying to understand the verse, simply is the context. 4:3 is speaking of orphans in general, not gender specific, and is a continuation of

4:2"And give to the orphans their property, and do not substitute worthless (things) for (their) good (ones), and do not devour their property (as an addition) to your own property; this is surely a great crime".

Therefore the next verse must be at least talking about the same orphans, whom one fears not to act fairly towards and the solution to that problem is given in the same verse "marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four". The whole passage until v6 is speaking of orphaned children and how the trustee is to manage their lives and property the best possible way. Should these instructions not be enough to satisfy a believer's fear of not being fair towards orphans under his care, then as proposed in 4:3 one may marry women who would share the burden of responsibility, these women being first and foremost the widowed mothers of these orphans.

In the verse 4:3, orphans is in the plural, that is because a Muslim guardian could take multiple orphans under his care, especially during times of war as in the context of revelation, or any other situation where the number of men is largely reduced. The Quran has stated that the limitation of this permission is left to a maximum of four women because

"this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course".

A person may come under the impression that he can marry however many of these women he wants, in order to take care of orphans, but the Quran states that the very purpose of the injunction can be compromised the more woman that are married. Quantity isnt always the best, and people need to take into account their own abilities when trying to help other people. Another important statement in the verse, in connection to determining the number of wives, is the phrase

"Ma Taba Lakum".

TABA is related to goodness, rather than liking. So the guardian's decision cannot be dictated by mere desire/liking, but for what brings more goodness to the person and what brings more goodness is what brings the person closer to God, in this case, reinforcing the idea that the wife must be most suited in securing the orphan's rights, and this primarily means the orphan's mother.

Because of these very reasons, that they were marriages with a moral reason, more so compatibility or personal liking, it often led to situations where the husband would leave this new wife in a state as if she wasnt necessarily wanted.

The Quran warns the man not to do this a little later on in 4:127. He must do his best to give her rights, material, physical, emotional, as a married woman. All married women deserve such rights, not only mothers of orphans, as stated earlier in the sura. 4:127 reminds the men of these things, while refocusing them on equity towards the orphans of those very women, so as to restress the sensitivity of the issue

"And they ask you a decision about women. Say: Allah makes known to you His decision concerning them AND that which is recited to you in the Book concerning yatama annisa'/the orphans of "the women whom you do not give what is appointed for them while you desire to marry them", and concerning the weak among children, and that you should deal towards orphans with equity; and whatever good you do, Allah surely knows it".

It isnt because he has done her a favor by improving her socio-economical situation, that the guardian is to forgo the marital rights of the orphans' mother. It is a marriage contract like with any other woman and her subsequent treatment must be just and fair like with a regular wife. And if the situation results in injustice to another party, then it should not be resorted to

"but if you fear that you will not do justice between them, then marry only one or what your right hands possess; this is closer that you be just".

One might ask, why would it be allowed to marry more than one with the condition to deal equitably with all wives when the Quran itself states in 4:129 that such condition cannot be fulfilled even if one sincerely tries?

The fact is the two verses together 4:3,129 are addressing that conditional clause of equity towards wives from two perspectives to create mutual understanding from all parties involved:

- the perspective of the women, by saying in 4:3 that they have the right to equitable treatement and the man must be aware of that right regardless of his will to care for the orphans

- the perspective of the man, by saying in 4:129 that he will not be able to be perfectly just with all wives no matter how hard he sincerely tries. The women should be aware of the husband's sincere will to be just between them even he fails. They should keep in mind that the true objective of such unions is caring for the orphans. Allah is this way absolving the husband's shortcomings who is sincerely trying to be just with his wives for the sake of orphans and at the same time creating an understanding from the part of the wives, again for the sake of orphans. Although the verse absolves the husband from shortcomings, and the wives implicitly asked to be understanding, the husband then is explicitly warned he may not abuse of that forbearance to the point of injuring emotionally the wife he is less inclined to

"but be not disinclined (from one) with total disinclination, so that you leave her as it were in suspense".

This shows that the conditional clause of equity between wives in 4:3 covers the obvious and basic rights, not the shortcomings of a man sincerely trying to make a complex union work for the sake of orphans. From the point of view of the woman who fears she might be disdained, left aside, then there is the option of finding an arrangement, with one party compromising on its position so as to maintain the marriage ties 4:128. If none are willing to compromise then a divorce procedure is initiated.

Apostate prophet agrees with Quran; domestic abuse is haram!

In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"

Beating is not promoted nor did the Quran invent domestic violence. The Quran canalizes such behavior by preventing an immediate jump to beating, by giving a very stringent procedure to prevent reaching to that point. Men, if they beat their wives, they do so out of anger, and afterwards try and justify it by saying religion allows it. What the Quran is doing is preventing this impulse, and it does so in a context where it reforms women status and appeals to men's taqwa, their God consciousness, with verses setting the natural order of Men-Women relationships. Verses such as 30:21 and others

"And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect".

Men and women naturally deal in terms of love and compassion, meaning domestic violence is against the natural order of things.

In 4:34 the Quran uses the word qawwam, from Q-W-M and it means standing upright. It covers the meaning that the entity stands upright and that it helps others stand upright. Man is referred to as being qawwam over the woman by means of the bounties which he has been bestowed with, the bounties which he must use responsibly in the maintenance of his household. In other words, man cannot stand upright over the woman if he does not care and maintain his base, his wife.

Qawwam in addition is in a grammatical form of siratul mubalagha, denoting a pattern of behavior. In this case, the verse's opening is stating the husband is one behaving with a pattern of care towards his wife. The word carries also the notion of qima/value, making the qawwam the one who gives value ie to his wife, which negates emotional abuse, a domestic issue often addressed in the Quran. As is obvious, domestic violence has nothing to do with the notion of qawwam, meaning the verse itself stipulates that proper treatment of a woman is exactly the opposite of hurting a women. This is why the Quran then goes on to provide an exhaustive means to prevent hitting in the first place, and even when one reaches the point where striking becomes a valid option, it must be done in a way that encourages a change of course and can never contradict the fundamental notion of man being qawwam over the woman.

This will be shown a little later.

This passage, like many others where the divine law is expounded, the Quran wraps the passage with a message that connects the divine law with spiritual awareness. This is done so that man never loses sight of the spirit of the law. In this case, the passage ends with a mention of certain attributes of God; He is the High and Mighty. There is a greater Being, with more authority than man and he should therefore not abuse of his position. The attribute of Might is also well suited to the context; men may be stronger than woman, but there is One stronger than man. And if men abuse their power, then let them know that they will have to face the Almighty. This style is used in other instances, such as when a man is told of his superiority over a wife in certain aspects of divorce procedures but reminded that this superiority is based on absolute wisdom and should that superiority be misused outside the bounds of wisdom, then there is One mightier than all

2:228"and the men are a degree above them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise".

Prior to the "beating" portion, first, the verse urges admonishement. This reveals the Quran engages the situation rationally, appealing to the intellect of the woman which was considered lower than a man's.

"those on whose part you fear nushuz"

KHAWF means fear of credible danger, as is consistent with all its occurrences in the Quran. So, it is not fear as in suspicion/Dhann. Dhann is to hold an opinion upon uncertain evidence. KHAWF is a fear about probable significant danger but it still does not refer to something obvious/blatant, and there is an element of relativity/subjectivity to it which is why the Quran tells to ITHOOHUNNA/advise them. Even though the reasons for fear are credible, they can still be incorrect. This advising will not be in a harsh manner, as can be seen by its occurrences in the Quran, for example 31:13-19. When you give advice, you give the advice and listen to what they have to say. Therefore if the reason for the fear is diffused, then the problem is diffused.

Another thing worth mentioning is that the word khawf denotes a significant threat in terms of marriage ties, it cannot be speaking of normal disagreements and disputes. This is corroborated by the life of the one that embodied the Quran, the prophet had many reported disputes with his wives but always kept his composure and patience, remaining of gentle character, neither did he qualify their behavior as nushuz. Nushuz from the root N-SH-Z means elevated. It is used, among other things, for when a person elevates themselves above others, as in rebellion or arrogance or disdaining others.

This isnt about typical disagreements that arise normally during a marriage. One isnt disdainfully arrogant and disrespectful during such disputes. That is why the verse then says that if the wife desists from her nushuz

"do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great".

Further, this kind of attitude is one that threatens the preservation of the private, ie the intimate conjugal matters which the verse states should never be compromised, hence the parallel made between the preservation of these issues with the manner in which Allah preserves the unseen, a realm and knowledge which is shared only partially and with a select few

"the righteous women (are) dedicated, preservers of the private, by what Allah preserved".

If that first step, of engaging the situation rationally doesnt work, the Quran tells the husband to resort to step 2, distance himself physicaly. This can be done by not sharing the bed for example which is an appeal to the emotion of the woman.

Most men, the vast majority, will not even think of beating their wife even after these 2 steps, rational, then emotional, aiming at stoping her nushuz have failed. 99% of couples will simply divorce at that point. However, the verse has specifically mentionned the option of beating in order to address 3 extreme situations.

First, as said in introduction, the issue of men who become violent due to impulsive anger. The verse offers them the option of beating, but after a gradual procedures precisely aimed at smoothly blocking their impulse and ultimately prevent beating. This is much more efficient than telling them from the get go that they cannot hit at all. One cannot expect a person behaving irrationaly and emotionally to want to listen to a forceful instruction. It is well known that the best manner to deal with impulsive behavior is through mindful and calming steps. In a situation where a husband fears nushuz from his wife in matters of transgression of the bounds of "guarding the unseen" which is a grave situation for any man of any culture, equal to backstabbing, an impulsive husband will immidiately want to beat his wife, but the verse prevents that impulse, telling him to engage the situation rationaly by first reasoning with his wife then refrain from physical contact

"admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places".

These 2 successive steps are crucial and effective at curbing a violent man's impulses and give him, as well as his wife, the time to cool-down and think.

At that point, the wife who stubbornly wants to keep going with her highly injurous attitude towards her husband knows that she just waisted 2 chances at solving the situation peacefully and rationaly and that now, if she wants to stay in the same household she has no choice but to mend her ways or face corrective physical punishement.

So even before resorting to beating, the wife with whom the appeal to her intellect and emotion through steps 1 and 2 did not work, who wants to stay in the same household and knows that her attitude was highly injurious will refrain by herself, thus settling the dispute.

This is the second objective to allow beating, it serves as a deterrent to that type of woman.

But if at that point, the woman genuinely did nothing wrong, decides not to change anything from her attitude while staying in the same household then she still knows that her husband, who believes to have been morally injured can resort to beating her. So what will she do at that point and what option does the Sharia give her? Will she let her husband beat her while she thinks she has done nothing wrong? The Quran says

4:35"And if you fear a breech between the two, then appoint a judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they BOTH desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".

The words are clear and give her the right to appeal to a judge who will in turn designate an arbitrer from her side and her husband's, to settle the dispute and prove her right, or if she is proven wrong then she either mends her way and returns to the same household or simply divorce

"if they BOTH desire agreement".

The verse however clearly prefers reconciliation, as pointed in the words

"Allah will effect harmony between them; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".

This is reiterated in 4:128 which states that in case a wife fears nushuz from her husband, the same word used previously for a rebellious, disdaining wife, then

"there is no blame on them, if they effect a reconciliation between them, and reconciliation is better".

4:128 also stresses that attempts at reconciliation should be undertaken as soon as signs of nushuz appear, not when the wife is already abused

"And if a woman FEARS nushuz".

Another thing worth noting is that nushuz, the attitude of disrespectful disdain and arrogance, when used in the context of marriage, applies to both men and women, with a tendency for adultery. The word is used in that connotation in pre- as well as post Islamic texts. For instance when a case of domestic dispute was brought to the prophet, the husband claimed that his wife 

"is nashiz and wants to go back to Rifa`a (another man)". 

In a report believed to have been uttered towards the end of the prophet's life, he emphasized that the option of striking is in the context of sexual transgression, thus further pointing that nushuz, the action which allows several punitive measures including striking, is related to adultery 

"Surely, I enjoin you to treat women well, for they are like your captives. You do not have any right to treat them otherwise, unless they commit a clear obscenity/fahisha. If they do so, you may forsake their beds and then strike them without violence".

A woman isnt required to go through successive corrective steps to reform her husband, even if she only fears that her husband might become disrespectful, disdainful and arrogant. As soon as she sees the signs, she may appeal to a judge and only if she accepts reconciling, then the relationship may resume. Here is the verse again

"if they BOTH desire agreement".

We have seen until now how the Quran, contrary to any other religious scripture, deals with the issue of domestic violence in such a way that impulsive men cannot reach the point where they will use force. Secondly, it is a deterrant to an emotionally abusive woman willing to live in a household and be maintained by a man while being inclined to backstab him.

The 3rd purpose for allowing a husband to beat his wife is to address the issue of passionate, toxic relationships. In these types of unions, common to any time and culture, both may separate at any time, but instead, the abusive wife chooses to remain despite knowing the husband is about to resort to physical punitive measures and the husband chooses to remain despite having tried reforming an emotionally abusive wife.

None can be forced to divorce and only one option remains to reform the abusive party, physical punishment. This, again is an extreme case of passionate love where an abused husband wants to make his wife come back to her senses after having tried all peaceful avenues. Neither he wants to let go of her nor she wants to leave him despite both having the right to do so.

The word used is IDRIBOOHUNNA, derived from the root Dhad-R-B and it means hitting of the limbs to serve a function. That function in this case is not only striking, but striking to encourage change of attitude and that cannot happen by a severe beating. It is a kind of physical action that brings back the person to the senses and causes a change of behavior. This is how all the commentators understand the striking that is meant, as a noninjurious form of physical force.

This verse was revealed in ancient Arabia, in a time when the world as a whole viewed beating one’s wife as a right in the male dominated patriarchal society. If it reflected the mentality of its contemporaries then it wouldnt have addressed the issue from such an intricately psychological perspective. 

In terms of misogyny, nothing in Islam remotely resembles what is found in Judeo-Christian texts and traditions, whose background is, the events of the garden painting Eve as the first to sin, then leading Adam to sin, and because of that was condemned to be "restrained" through subjection to the rule of her husband forever Gen3. Prior to the modern era, that notion was interpreted as warranting physical punishment for marital disobedience, in both Jewish and Christian traditions. In Christian texts, through the writings attributed to Paul, male rulership is associated with physical coercion in case of disobedience. This includes disobedience of subjects to their ruler, slaves to their masters, children to their fathers, and by obvious analogy, wives to their husbands. Rom13:1-5,Titus2:9-10,Eph6:5,Heb12:5-11,1Tim3:4,Ex21:20-21,Prov23:13-14,20:30,13:24 etc.

The prophet himself never beat his wives, abusive or not. Had it been his habit or had the Quran condoned domestic abuse, we would have seen a pattern in the prophet's life. In fact his wives had the option to divorce him anytime they wished and be graciously helped so as to start their new life unbothered. Not only was this pattern absent from his life, but we even see one of his wives, Umm Habiba asking him to marry her own sister so she can "share with her of the prophet's goodness", which he declined. 

The prophet approved of a woman's divorce request following physical and verbal domestic abuse from her husband. It was only expected by him given that he would not tolerate even the beating of women maid-servants

"one of us slapped her and Allah's messenger ordered us to set her free".

In fact it is said that this wife beating verse 4:34 was revealed in relation to the case of a woman that came complaining to the prophet that her husband had hit her. The prophet disliked that behavior, he was known for his good treatment of his wives. He was about to punish the perpetrator based on the law of retaliation then the verse came to educate husbands and wives on the matter. The prophet said

"I wanted one thing and God wanted another".

This is because, as shown earlier, there is wisdom in allowing corrective physical punishement in the intricate way that the Quran does.

4:19"..Nor should ye treat them with harshness..on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity.." 

30:21"And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect"

Apostate prophet protests; why an Islamic dresscode?

In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"

The issue of women covering up is present in both the Quran and Christian scriptures

1Cor11:6"For if a woman will not veil herself then she should cut off her hair, but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil...for man was not created from woman but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man".

The HB states in addition, an indiscrete woman, regardless of her physical beauty and attire is as disfigured as a swine with a golden ring around its snout Prov11:22.

The code of interaction between opposite genders in the Quran isnt meant at discouraging or prohibiting it at all. The prophet's own wives interacted with visitors on a daily basis seeking their religious counsel. What the Quran does, as with every aspect of human life, is to infuse it with God-consciousness so as to elevate the human being above the mere animalistic, material aspect of his existence.

The Quran injects intergender interaction with modesty, chastity pragmatic caution that is beneficial both for the person itself and society at large. For example it is disallowed to greet the opposite gender through physical contact (handshake or kiss) instead of reciprocal smiles, good words and courteous gestures. This is clear through the wording

24:30-31"yaghuddun min absarihim/to cast down of/from their look".

Its not saying to avoid looking altogether but to avoid staring, men and women alike. Looking at oneanother for a legitimate need like communication or identification does not constitute unhealthy staring with lustful motives. Neither is physical contact forbidden in the absolute sense, as the prophet would not take his hand away from a slave girl seeking his help and comfort 

"Any of the female slaves of Medina could take hold of the hand of Allah's Messenger and take him wherever she wished".

As can be seen, the Quran in intergender relationships focuses on self-restraint. This is not an unrealistic demand that suppresses or prevents social development. On the contrary it gives it a healthy turn, reducing the chance for misplaced thoughts and misunderstandings, as is so common in any culture when opposite genders interact.

The verse sets a standard for Muslim men and women, starting from the first contact which is visual, telling them both to approach the opposite gender with the correct mindframe, regardless of the person's suggestive or explicit behavior towards them. This not only helps the person itself to keep his morality in check, but also sends the right signal to the other person who is in turn morally stimulated in case of misbehavior. The Islamic dresscode has the same twofold purpose, it conditions the person wearing modest clothing to adopt a healthy attitude when about to go in public, as well as sends a healthy signal to other people who are in turn influenced to modify their own behavior when interacting with the opposite gender. Women in addition, because they tend to wear ornaments, are told to put an additional level of caution

“They should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments”24:31.

The dangers to the general atmosphere of chastity in any society, in any culture, are very real and observable nowadays as it was case throughout times past, whenever these elementary rules of opposite gender interaction are neglected. The prophet even refered to as devils those women who arouse sexual attraction through their misbehavior

"Allah’s Messenger – may peace be upon him – saw a woman, then he came to his wife, Zainab, who was tanning leather, and fulfilled his desire, then he went out to his Companions and said: “A woman comes in the form of a devil and goes in the form of a devil. If one of you sees a woman, let him go to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart".

In Arabic the word for devil can be used for any entity that causes evil. As noted by the scholars of hadith, this narration is speaking of women dressed inappropriately in the public space. During the advent of Islam, more specifically in Medina where the hadith is supposed to have been spoken, sexual promiscuity and prostitution were known features of that society.

It is ironic, as a side note, that Christians "haters of the flesh" and anything sexual, often raise the aforementioned hadith to undermine the prophet's credibility.  As if the embodiment of piety, as reflected by their priests who cannot marry, is the one who denies himself the pleasures of the flesh, regardless of it being legitimate or not. They forget what is stated in their own books as regards the 50 year old prophet David who murders a brave soldier to satisfy his uncontrollable lust towards the married Batsheba (younger than 10 in Jewish tradition). The incident did not reduce an iota of his truthfulness as a prophet of YHWH. Far from behaving in such a shameful manner as described by the lying pens of Israel, the prophet Muhammad provides the most rational and upright manner to satisfy one's natural urges. Not through murders, rape or adultery but by coming together with one's own wife. Notice also the contrast between David's incident and the one in the hadith; Batsheba did not purposefully provoke David's lust but was simply making her toilet in her private area while the hadith talks of unchaste women in public provoking men.

Returning to the issue of Islamic modesty, the dress code isnt only meant for women, but both men and women whenever opposite sexes outside the familiar circle interact 24:30-31. The Quran uses Khumur and Julbab, a kind of head covering, for the woman's clothing 33:59. Far from being a form of subjugation rather it is the degradation of women judged on their looks and overexposed physically, in the Western media which is a form of subordination to the lust of men, and insulting to women.

As said earlier, the hijab conditions both men and women to adopt a proper inter gender attitude, leading even those that tend to be abusive among the men, those who do not, as per the passage's instruction, lower FROM their gaze, to regard women in a dignified manner and value them for their character, intelligence, moral qualities

“That they should be known as such and not molested”33:59.

For the woman, and the men too whom the Quran commands to dress with modesty, the adoption of such a dress code leads to more positive body image, less reliance on media messages about beauty ideals, and appearance than those who do not. Again, to emphasize the fact women, regardless of their suggestive or explicit behavior, their respect or not of the Islamic dress code, are not to be looked at in a lustful manner, men are to

24:30"cast down from their looks"

as well as

"guard their modesty".

This injunction comes before addressing even the issue of wearing the hijab. This puts first the responsibility on men and how they must behave towards women

 "The Prophet said, 'Beware! Avoid sitting on the roads." They (the people) said, "O Allah s Apostle! We can't help sitting (on the roads) as these are (our places) here we have talks." The Prophet said, ' l f you refuse but to sit, then pay the road its right ' They said, "What is the right of the road, O Allah's Apostle?" He said, 'Lowering your gaze, refraining from harming others, returning greeting, and enjoining what is good, and forbidding what is evil".

Notice once more the realism of the  Quran; it emphasizes lowering the gaze when addressing men, regardless of what the woman is wearing, because naturally, a woman's attractiveness is primarily in her physical features. But of course, not all men abide by this ordinance and thus to further protect women in the public sphere, it tells them to observe a modest and covered dresscode. Men too should dress modestly, but men do not need to go to the extent of wearing a head cover so as to avoid lecherous staring. Contrary to women, male attractiveness is not primarily in his physical features, but in his status, wealth, ambition, capacity to provide protection etc. 

There is a reason why even modern secular societies, which do not impose modesty and censorship in interaction between the genders and who in consequence experience tension, including harassments, as well as clashes between sexes are resorting more and more to physical separations between the 2 in the public sphere.  These rules of modesty apply across the social spectrum, to both free people and slaves who adopt Islam as their religion, and who, through their code of living signal to the outside world that they are not open to indecency. Nothing in the Quran's wording indicates an exemption of the rules of modesty for any member of the Muslim community, men or women. In the prophet's time, war prisoners, including women were non-Muslims in the vast majority of cases and so were not required to wear and follow the Islamic code against their will. There were also Muslim servants of course who, of convenience were exempt from covering their head as they went about doing their work in and out of the house, which obviously entailed being frequently seen by men. This however left them vulnerable to molestation by the hypocrites and the non-Muslims of Medina who didnt abide by the rules of lowering their gaze and avoiding unnecessary gender interaction. Regular Muslim women were obligated to observe the dresscode, screening their appearance. This constitutes an advantage in such mischievous atmosphere, as it dissuades lechery but at the end, regardless of a woman's attire, if a man is bent on acting inappropriately towards women and disregard the prescribed code of conduct, he will still abuse any type of woman he comes across. When commentators spoke of the female dresscode as a means by which free and slave women were separated, they were stating a fact related to how such society worked as described earlier. None of them said that Muslim slave women were generally forbidden or exempt from the same dresscode as regular Muslim women. Commenting on 33:59 ibn Hazm writes 

"The nakedness of a woman is her entire body excluding the face and palms only. The free man and male servant, the free woman and maidservant are equal in this respect; there is no difference… As for differentiating between the free woman and maidservant, then the religion of Allah Almighty is one, creation and nature are one. All of that in respect to free women and maidservants is the same, unless there is an explicit text to distinguish between them in any way such that it can be applied". 

This view is the default one in accordance with the wording of the Quran. Later jurists, to accommodate their leaders and environments used precedents from the time of the prophet and the companions to allow more flexibility in regards the dresscode of the servants. The accommodation most in line with the prophet's time was to allow women servants to unveil their hair and other minor body parts during their household activities. Just as mistresses are allowed, in the Quran itself 24:31 and for convenient reasons to unveil in front of their male servants 

"The Prophet brought Fatimah a slave which he donated to her. Fatimah wore a garment which, when she covered her head, did not reach her feet, and when she covered her feet by it, that garment did not reach her head. When the Prophet saw her struggle, he said: There is no harm to you: Here is only your father and slave". 

No prophetic precedent exists however for the practice of letting slaves show their naked breasts, chests, or backs in public. And this, despite the prophet having several of those servant girls helping around his wives, just as many Muslim households had. Had there been a clear precedent, or that the Quran allowed it, Imam Malik ibn Anas wouldnt have publicly revolted against the practice in Medina to the point he asked the caliph to prevent it. As other schools of law had already allowed it, the caliph did not go against it. The jurists that came after the time of the companions, pushed these rulings of convenience to unhealthy extents, as seen with imam Malik's disapproval. But it seems the jurists themselves felt the need to introduce a caveat, as noted by ibn Taymiyya 

"Slave women during the Prophet’s time didn't use to cover themselves like free women, while their chances of spreading Fitna were less, and their ruling was like of the old women who didn’t need to take Hijab as Quran said in verse 60 of Surah Noor. But as far as the beautiful Turkish slave women of today are concerned, then they could not be compared with the slave women of the time of prophet Muhammad. These beautiful Turkish slave women should thus cover whole of their bodies and to safeguard themselves from the eyes of men".

Ibn Umar's "inspection" of slave girls at the market, as he put his hand in between their breasts and the area of their lower hips, was done above their clothes. Although this practice, which never occurred in the prophet's time or that of the companions is certainly questionable, it was obviously not done with sexual motive; it was done over the clothes and not directly on the breasts themselves. Slaves were seen as a commodity which had to be physically inspected by the buyer. As stated by ibn Taymiyyah 

"The default position is that the nakedness of a maidservant is like a free woman, just as the nakedness of a male servant is like a free man. When she takes on an occupation and duties, her prohibitions are reduced in comparison to a free woman, as a concession to her in showing only what needs to be shown… As for the back and chest, it remains in the default position". 

The misunderstood notion that slave girls were totally exempt from wearing the veil, and even forbidden from doing so is unfounded in the Quran, in the practice of the prophet and his companions. What one may find at most is a disputed statement showing Umar, during his caliphate, forbidding a slave girl from covering her head. This could have been to differentiate her as a servant inside the household, in which the incident occurred and where guests were received. Due to a servant's function of attending the guests and household chores, the ample Julbab would have been inconvenient, and hence the exemption from wearing it. This means the servants were now wearing clothes more revealing of their body features, not because these features were openly exposed but because their clothes were closer to the body to allow better movements 

"Anas bin Malik said: “The servants of Umar, may God be pleased with him, served us, revealing their hair, and their breasts were moving". 

A point to note is that Umar only requested his servant woman's head be uncovered and no other body part, neither did he make a general statement about slave women. Also, having female servants dressed for their work does not entail the Muslim guests are allowed to transgress the command of lowering their gaze,ie looking beyond what is necessary, which applies to all situations beyond their wives and own servants. Ibn Taymiyyah continues elsewhere 

"As for attractive Turkish maidservants, this cannot possibly be as it was in the time of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. It is an obligation for them to cover their whole bodies from being looked at".

Apostate prophet chews more than he can swallow; invalidity of Jesus' sacrifice in Jewish law?

In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"

But the true failure of the Greek writers rests in their misunderstanding of the Hebrew sacrificial system, leading to a convoluted combination of the Jewish scriptures with their Hellenistic theological background of God incarnate and human sacrifice:

-Jesus wasnt perfect, unblemished as required for an offering Lev1:3,4:3,22:18-25,Deut17:1. He was beaten, scourged before his sacrifice Matt26:67,27:26,30-31,Mk14:65,15:15-20,Lk22:63,Jn18:22,19:1,3. How could God accept an offering that was beaten and humiliated, most of all "offered" by pagans. Animals do not sin. When the HB speaks of an animal without blemish, it is from a physical aspect, not metaphorical, ie sin blemishes. Also Jesus was circumcised, which is according to the NT itself, a mutilation Phil3:2,Gal5:12 (where did the foreskin of the everlasting God go to by the way?). Paul's priority was gentile, and more particularily Greek and Helenized people's conversions, hence that depiction of circumcision. The Greeks abhorred, and eventually outlawed it, which helped cause the Bar Kokhba revolt. Some Jews fearing persecution began calling for the removal of only a part of the prepuce, and some Hellenized Jews attempted to look uncircumcised by stretching the extant parts of their foreskins.

Continuing with what constitutes a valid offering in Jewish law, in case of mammal offerings (bulls, lambs, etc.) the offering must be less than one year old, having cloven hooves and chew cud and death must be caused by a sharp, perfect blade cutting across the neck, resulting in blood loss and swift death. Lev4:27-29 also states that, logically, sin offering must be brought forth by the person seeking atonement, and slaughtered either by the sinner or by the (Aaronic) priest. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah.

All sacrifices, logicaly are offered by man to God, and never the other way around, by God to man. It is mankind that needs sacrifices to understand the value of life, giving up something of value for the betterment of our spiritual selves. That is the essence of why sacrifices were instituted, not to appease a vengeful deity whose anger towards His creatures' sins can only be abated with blood. A physically blemished animal isnt difficult for its owner to sacrifice, because it has lost its value to the farmer, becoming among his least valuable assets. God points that reality to the half-hearted priests who offered their worthless animals in sacrifice

Mal1:8-14"When you offer a blind [animal] for a sacrifice, is there nothing wrong? And when you offer a lame or a sick one, is there nothing wrong? Were you to offer it to your governor, would he accept you or would he favor you? says the Lord of Hosts..And you brought that which was taken by violence, and the lame and the sick. And you bring an offering-will I accept it from your hand? says the Lord. And cursed is he who deals craftily; although there is a ram in his flock, he vows and sacrifices a blemished one. For I am a great King, says the Lord of Hosts, and My Name is feared among the nations".

Definately, YHWH lays great stress on the quality of the offering to Him. And yet, assuming for argument's sake that God making an offering to the humans is a valid concept, He is not capable to reciprocate and instead offers a badly damaged sacrifice?

The strength of an animal, one that can be used for multiple tasks, relies on it being 'unblemished'. As the Torah states in regards to the firstborn, which is offered for sacrifice, he is the strength of the family. An elder son carried on the family tradition and assisted the father in his tasks, which parallels with Abraham's binding of his firstborn Ishmael, not Isaac. The near human sacrifice was stopped, substituted by a ram. It was a test of Abraham's trust in God and had nothing to do with sin atonement, as retrospectively claimed by the NT writers that applied the incident to Jesus' death.

Where, as a side note, in Torah does God prescribe humans as appropriate for sin sacrifice? Instead we read that human sacrifices of any kind is a forbidden abomination Deut12:30-31,18:9-12,Jer19:4-6. God's anger in those verses is because He never commanded such a thing, not because they were made to another deity. God did not command Abraham to sacrifice his son in Genesis. It says, to "take him up", using ambiguous words as a means by which Abraham's trust in God is tested. The purpose was for Abraham to understand God's will based on His former promises.

- Another major inconsistency of the crucifixion as a sin offering, is that, Jewish law states it must be brought forth for unintentional sins Lev4,Num15:27-31. There are a few precise exceptions Lev5:1-6,6:1-7 but the overarching principle is that it should be a means of motivating individuals to true repentance. This undermines the notion of "once and for all sin sacrifice". Also, sin offerings did not apply to all offences, specific penalties are prescribed for many types of offence. For example, certain type of theft as described in Ex21:37 are only "forgiven" after payment of a fine, without requiring animal sacrifice. Numerous passages similarily explain how to expiate for sins in the absence of blood offerings.

- the notion of a "passover lamb" atoning for the sins of mankind Rom6:10,Heb9:12,10:10,18 misrepresents HB teachings on several levels.
Firstly, the passover sacrifice is an individual offering, not communal Numb28:22 and according to Ex12, the Passover lamb was NOT a sin or even an atonement sacrifice but was meant to commemorate the Israelites' salvation from Egyptian bondage. Passover has thus nothing to do with repentance, but thanks-giving. Further, the Hebrew "seh" used in Ex12:3 doesnt mean a lamb as seen from

V5"you can take the seh either from the lambs or from the goats".

The "paschal lamb" didnt therefore even have to be a lamb as proposed in John who was obviously writing to a pagan audience who was familiar with lambs in their mythologies. Other instances of thanks-giving animal sacrifices are Noah's offerings following the flood. Historically, as reported in the HB, the blood of the paschal lambs marked the door frames of houses of the ISraelites to spare their firstborn males once the plague of death is delivered to the land of Egypt. The lambs were also to be roasted and eaten. Jesus was neither roasted nor eaten, and, once more, the Passover lamb was in actuality many lambs, not one, which were NOT atonement sacrifices but thanksgiving offerings.

- Another issue is Paul's peculiar idea that blood sacrifice freed mankind from the bondage of the divine law. Deut30:10-14 describes this same Law as being at anyone's reach meaning it cannot be a means by which God has binded mankind. Further, passover sacrifices did not free the ISraelites from bondage, contrary to the parallel Paul tries making with Jesus' sacrifice being what freed mankind from the Law.

- Other blunders by the NT writers due to their unfamiliarities with Jewish laws, is that an offering can only be done in a place designated by God Deut12:13-14,16:1-6,Ex28:35,Gen22:2. Animal sacrifices brought as sin offerings may only occur in the Temple precinct as stressed in Lev17:8-9. When God built the Temple through Solomon, all sacrifices at other altars ceased. All the major Biblical figures, from Abraham down to Solomon followed the practice of erecting, anointing and sacrificing at altars Gen12:7-8,28:18-9,Ex24:3-4,Joshua4:20,1Kings3:4etc. Jesus was nailed on a pagan symbol, by pagans Jn19:23 and Lev17:8-9 further states that anyone bringing an offering outside the Temple is to be "cut off".

Jesus offerred himself according to Heb9:14 yet he wasnt even an Aaronic priest. It is the height of idiocy to argue God chose a pagan-run altar (the cross) for his place of sacrifice and choose idol-worshippers to perform an offering for Him. The very reason the altars were chosen by God was to avoid any tinge of idolatry. That is why the Israelites were instructed, upon their entry in Canaan they couldn't simply replace the existing altars of Canaan with their own, but they were ordered to smash them completely and leave not a trace of them Ex34:13, although they many times succombed to polytheism and worshiped at the pagan altars they were supposed to destroy 2Kings12:3,18:4,21:3.

- Jesus was tried on Passover night, or on the preceding night, in the palace of the high priest Mk14:53,Jn18:13. Yet the Sanhedrin in the time of Jesus was situated in the Chamber of Hewn Stone in the Temple. It was assembled daily, only in daytime between the hours of the two daily sacrifices (approximately 7:30 A.M.–3:30 P.M.). Assemblies never occured at night as the NT depict, on the Sabbaths or festivals, or on their eves.

The closest parallel one can make between Jesus' sin sacrifice and the HB is the scapegoat sacrifice Lev16 on a day called The Day of Atonement/Yom kippur done each year. Levitical, Aaronic priests must preside Ex29:9, not pagans as what happened to Jesus. Neither was Jesus an Aaronic priest, since he was from Judah. The apologetic counter argument that Jesus had the Melchizedek priesthood and thereby could offer up himself as a sacrifice is useless in this case. A non-Aaronic order of priesthood, regardless of its tribal origin has no relevancy to the requirements. Melchi-tzedek by the way is a description, not a name. It means "righteous king".

Although individual offerings were brought for the expiation of specific, unintentional sins on Yom kippur, the offer brought on Yom Kippur that cleansed all sins (as in what Jesus is supposed to have accomplished) is the offer where the scapegoat was sent ALIVE into the wilderness, symbolicaly carrying away the sins. Even in that case, somewhat close to Jesus' sacrifice, the shedding of blood is not even an obligation for sin atonement. And even then, this applies only if one repents. If one does not repent, the goat atones only for the light sins.

Apostate prophet reveals inner inconsistencies; Jesus refuses to die for people's sins?

In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"

Jesus feared death and tried to avoid it Jn7:1,11:54,Luke 22:42. He begged God 3 times, putting his forehead to the ground, to take his soul before experiencing suffering and death in Matt26:38. He does not want to experience what he was about to go through but nevertheless submits his will to that of the father, whether he decides to make him bear the cup of suffering or not "Yet not My will, but Yours be done". Clearly, had he been given the choice, he would have refused "dying for the sins of mankind" despite having supposed foreknowledge of the divine plan of salvation since the beginning of creation, a plan which he himself sketched together with his divine partners. 

It also shows one of the so called co-equal partners submitting his will to another. Yet we never see the reverse, with the Father obediently submitting his will to the Son or the Holyspirit. That "hesitation" from Jesus cannot be attributed to his human nature as he himself states that it is his soul that feared and doubted Matt26:38. If that werent enough, when on the cross he grieves for God's abandoning him. Even Revelations5 which is sometimes quoted to defend the notion of a predetermined divine masterplan of salvation through Jesus, is in fact speaking in eschatological terms, just as the whole book does. It speaks of the salvation of some people after events of great tribulation, ie the end of times. 

Then we have Heb5:7 throwing in the ambiguous statement that Jesus' prayers were heard and accepted by God, and this includes the desperate cry to "let this cup pass from" him. The realization of his prayer, his inability to take on the full brunt of the "sins of mankind" came in the form of Simon of Cyrene who relieved Jesus from his cross and carried it half way till Golgotha Matt27:31-33. This embarrassing change to the divine master plan of salvation forced another author in Jn19:17-18 to have Jesus carrying his own cross, the symbol of mankind's sins, all the way until he reached Golgotha where he was crucified. 

The predictions Jesus makes as regards his impending death, similarily reveal the clumsiness of the Greek scribes trying to retrospectively enforce their theological agenda anyway they could, just as they did with their inapropriate linking of HB passages to Jesus. When Jesus supposedly tells his disciples, several times and in the most explicit of ways, how he would die, they are taken by complete surprise when the events allegedly unfold. Not once are they depicted, following his supposed death, as patiently waiting his predicted resurrection after just 3 days. Neither are they depicted recalling the secret miracle once it unfolds. 

These writers werent even able to maintain a consistent story line from chapter to chapter, why would anyone take any of their reports at face value? As a side note the cross was not a Christian symbol  until the 6th century. Could the whole "Simon of Cyrene" tale be orthodoxy's early response to a story popularised by certain gnostics that it was not Jesus but Simon who had been nailed to the cross? We will leave that to Christians to ponder upon.

The "via dolorosa" as a side note, does not pass anywhere near this path, but follows the line of the town built on the ruins of old Jerusalem by the Roman Emperor Hadrian after 135, long after Jesus. The later embellishments along that route such as Jesus' encounters with Mary or Veronica or his falling three times, are also alien to even the Gospel accounts. The original holy walk had no "devotional halts" and went from the Mount of Olives southwest via Mount Sion before entering the city. But by the Middle Ages Christendom was divided by schisms, triggered less by theological and doctrinal subtleties than by power struggles and rivalry for converts in central Europe and the Balkans. The rancour and hostility between the Roman and Greek churches led each to scramble for the more impressive array of icons, relics and sanctuaries. In Jerusalem, opposing Christian groups established rival routes to Calvary (Latin for Golgotha), each route acquiring sacred stops along the way to add to their appeal and holiness. The Latins were even divided among themselves. An informed Christian would doubtless argue that the Via Dolorosa and its way stations are no longer understood as historically accurate, that they are symbolic.

Apostate prophet is an atheist afterall; historical evidence for crucifixion?

In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"

The non-Christian sources Christians reference for Jesus' crucifixion arent by contemporary historians aside from a disputed Roman passage which will be discussed shortly, or the few forged lines awkwardly inserted in between 2 flowing sections in Josephus' voluminous works.

These writings have pages and chapters devoted to petty personalities such as robbers or simple kings, yet Josephus, this devout and zealous orthodox Jew, and who remained so until his death, ie the last person to accept Jesus as a god or as the Jewish King-messiah is said to have given a short comment in the middle of an account on another character (Pilate) about how Jesus was indeed the wonderful, divine, and prophecied Jewish King-Messiah. Just a short passage about the long awaited Jewish King and yet he reports in much more details about John the Baptist and other self-proclaimed messiahs like Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, the "Egyptian Jew" messiah?

The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian.

There is a reason why none of the early Church fathers up to the 3rd century never quoted this most-appropriate passage in their controversies with the Jews and other works despite their familiarity with Josephus' writings; it is a late forgery. For example Origen the Church Father who spent most of his life contending with the pagan writer Celsus, and using Josephus' works failed to mention this "ultimate rebuttal". Origen even condemns Josephus for not having accepted Jesus as the messiah in his writings.

It isnt until Eusebius the official propagandist for Emperor Constantine, who judged that

"it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived",

the Church father notorious for his deception and distortions of evidence to advance the cause of the church, described by St Jerome himself who thought of him as well as other Church Fathers such as Origen as sometimes

"compelled to say not what they think but what is useful",

that we see a mention of the passage. The first ever mention of the passage unsurprisingly comes at a time where Christianity monopolised what should be the truth, torching whole libraries, yet keeping Josephus' histories which they needed to advance their cause, turning the leading Jewish historian of his day into a witness for Jesus Christ.

In fact the Latin version of Josephus' work translated by Jerome is very similar to the quote Eusebius attributes to Josephus, except of course for the crucial parts about Jesus. Even later Christian apologists and open deciever such as Chrysostom who judged that

"often it is necessary to deceive",

and Photius both rejected this passage in their works yet they needed evidence such as this in their writings. Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defenses against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words.

Because of the overwhelming evidence against its authenticity, Christian apologists try turning to another much briefer reference in "Book 20" Yet Josephus's second reference falls both because it is dependent upon the earlier (false) reference for explanation – and because it actually refers to "Jesus, the son of Damneus" who was made "high priest by king Agrippa". 

Finally, even though Josephus is the only non-Christian source that mentions John the Baptist, yet he presents a different picture of him than the NT portrayal, and makes no reference to him proclaiming anything about Jesus.

No contemporary writing or immidiately following his time mention a thing about the extraordinary events surrounding his life or alleged crucifixion. Yet we have archeological and historical proof for the existance of Bar Kochba, another messianic claimant who came just a few years after Jesus, performed no spectacular wonders. In short, none of the sources Christians bring up, religious or else, amount to more than circular reasoning in regards to determining the historical Jesus. The earliest sources are Christian, meaning the NT itself, written 30-70 years after the supposed events, by non eye witnesses. Up to 70 years is a huge time gap where legends, conjectures and deliberate lies could have been grafted into a historical core. The NT itself has no currently existing 1st century witnesses, either as manuscripts or as writings of Christians. We do not have an unbroken chain linking the Apostolic Fathers to the gospel writers to Jesus. So yes, relying on the NT is circular reasoning, besides the fact we are talking of grandiose events that could not have been missed by independent witnesses who were active and writing in that time and place. What secular historians will attest to, is not that a miracle worker named Jesus did and said what is narrated about him in the NT, but that an early 1st century community existed that believed what is said in the NT about someone called Jesus. Historians will then conclude that  the existence of such community attests to a true core regarding a historical person named Jesus who could have said some of what was attributed to him. Each historian will then work out what that true core was, based on textual criticism, archaeology, independent sources and conjecture.

Muslims got their answer to this through revelation 

"That is Jesus, the son of Mary - the word of truth about which they are in dispute". 

Of course, this description of what every prophet and slave of God was, doesnt line up well with those that raised a particular prophet to divine status.

Tacitus was a Roman historian born a good 20 years after Jesus' death. He started writing some 60 years later, meaning 80 years after Jesus. He was by no means a historical witness and only relied on hearsay if we were to accept the passage attributed to him as authentic. That passage talks of the persecutions of early Christians, mentions how the founder of this religion

"was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was punished, as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate".

None of the Church fathers nor any Christian writer prior to the 15th century mention that passage, despite their familiarity with Tacitus' works and their need for such weighty evidence by a renouned historian. Not even Eusebius who in the 4th century cites all sources available from Jewish and pagan sources. What is even more troubling is that the note on Jesus is part of a passage relating the mass persecution and killing of Christians under Nero. Yet for 3 centuries, in discussions of the Christian history of martyrdom, no appeal is ever made to Tacitus’ account of the dramatic and horrifying Neronian persecution. Only 1 surviving copy of this writing exists, supposedly "copied" in the 8th century CE (700 years after it was supposedly written) by Christian hands. As is the case with the Josephus passage which is universally recognized as interpolated, if not entirely forged, interpolation at least, cannot be ruled out in Tacitus' case. Although mainstream scholarship accepts the passage as authentic, even James Rives, prominent scholars of the Roman world,  recognizes there are plenty of disputes over Tacitus’ precise meaning, the source of his information, and the nature of the historical events that lie behind his report.

There exist no Roman records of Jesus' execution by Pontius Pilate . The opposite would have been extraordinary anyway, as such executions occurred by the 100s and the authorities did not bother archiving each case. But here we have the most renowned of Roman historians citing the alleged event, and yet he is ignored by Christian apologists up to the 15th century. In fact the reference to Jesus is absent from a 5th century Christian writer Sulpicius Severus who quotes the passage attributed to Tacitus in nearly the same words.

Concerning the Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata (125-180 CE), what Christian apologists assume as a reference to Jesus, since he never names Jesus, keeping in mind that crucifixions occured by the 100s sometimes daily around Jesus' time, these references of Lucian were written near the end of the 2nd century. Even if one were to assume that the reference is to Jesus it does nothing to establish the historicity of the crucifixion as neither Lucian (nor Tacitus as is explained above) quote their sources. Of course that by their time the Jesus legend had already spread among early Christians. Lucian, like Tacitus, is simply repeating Christian beliefs mockingly. The Quran exposes those who started the rumors of the crucifixion. The same claim which Christians proudly laud as their pillar of belief, is one which the rest of the world sees as the epitome of ridicule. Paul alludes to these mockeries when he says "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles". This verse further belies the idea that the spread and acceptance of a claim proves its truthfulness somehow. Christians were the ones busy propagating the false news of Jesus' crucifixion, once his Jewish enemies succesfully initiated and passed on the rumor. It is thus expected for any external observer of the Christian movement, to simply reiterate what they claim about themselves, especially if such a claim undermines them in the eyes of that observer.

It was thus certainly appropriate for both Tacitus and Lucian to allude to the execution of the leader of Christianity. Not as a way to validate their claim or to represent historical reality, but rather to further deride the movement. Finally, having a narrative account about someone doesn't make the person historical. That is a basic premise of historical research. The work of a historian is to determine whether the account is relating myths or facts. The sources of these 2 non-Christian authors are unknown, neither are they witnesses to the events. This makes it impossible to discern myths from facts from their writings about Jesus, especially considering their bias against Christians, leading them to repeat the denigrating information being circulated about their leading figure.

Apostate prophet finds supernatural events; miracles at Jesus' death?

In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"

The death and birth of great personalities was meant to be accompanied by great signs, in the minds of ancient people. The gospel writers were no exception. However the over dramatization surrounding Jesus' death found in Matt27:45-52, which clearly was an effort by that unknown writer to connect Jesus to the prophecies of Zech14, isnt reported in other Gospels let alone contemporary historical writings, with the eclipse, earthquake and deads coming back to life to be seen by many (where did they all go by the way, did they just keep wandering around for some time like zombies in the streets of Jerusalem?).

That is besides the other spectacular events such as Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, his witnessed ascencion to heaven and other various wonderful displays allegedly seen by many. None of all this is reported in history including the works of Josephus or Philo who lived very close to the time and at the place where all these things supposedly happenned and wrote profusely about every noted personage of Palestine, describing every important event which occurred there during the first seventy years of the Christian era, even Galilee natives historians such as Tiberias who wrote detailed accounts of the period and of the Jews covering the entire time Jesus existed.

Same deafening silence regarding other contemporaries of Jesus such as the Roman aristocrat and prodigious writer Seneca, and Pliny the Elder or other historians of the time who failed to mention these amazing events yet their works covered vast subjects relevant to their period. Seneca's silence was such an embarrasement even to early Christians that in the late 4th century forgeries were made in the shape of an exchange of letters between him and none other than the apostle Paul.

Romans were renouned record keepers and they recorded earthquakes which they called prodigies yet the only ones spoken about around Jesus' era happenned in 37 BCE (too early to fit the NT tale) and again in 110 CE (too late).

Partly for this reason, even many biblical scholars doubt that these cataclysms surrounding the alleged crucifixion really happened.

Even Peter who was giving his speech in Acts 2 only 50 days after the alleged event along with Paul who in 1Cor15 was trying to convince the people on Jesus' resurection never mentionned these extraordinary, corroborating events in front of an audience that badly needed it. When Paul was made to face the Sanhedrin, instead of appealing to all the miracles witnessed by the multitudes, the supernatural events seen by many and all testifying to what he was preaching, simply claims innocence of the charges against him based on scriptures. Not only does he omit these miracles, but he doesnt even speak of the crucifixion, nor of the resurrection. Yet these events were attested by the 500 who saw the resurrected Jesus, many of whom, supposedly still alive. Nor does he request the testimony of any of the apostles, still actively working miracles, as Paul himself amply did on his missionary trip and could therefore have easily done now. It is important to add that in Acts2, Peter, speaking to the disbelieving audience mocking the erratic drunk-like behavior of some Christians, does appeal to the miracles Jesus performed in his lifetime so as to strengthen his arguments. These miracles were, according to Peter done by God through Jesus (ie with God's authority as the Quran states) and were all witnessed by that audience "as you yourselves know". So to Peter, it certainly was necessary to remind his skeptical audience of the miracles that marked Jesus' life, even though they had witnessed them and knew about them. Yet when Peter alludes to the crucifixion and resurrection, he says nothing of the supernatural and cataclysmic events they had supposedly previously witnessed, so as to enhance his claims for the divine necessity of Jesus' suicide. He instead refers back to prophecies of the HB. Peter, just like Paul and all of contemporary secular historical records ommit those events because they never occured.

Although Christian apologists choose to ignore Matthew's account and his miracles -for obvious reasons- when trying to prove the historicity of the crucifixion, they do try to find some basis for the eclipse by refering to an obscure pagan personality of whom next to nothing is known about; Thallus. He is mentionned in a 9th century work that relies on a 3rd century Christian writer called Julius Africanus who himself paraphrases -not quotes- Thallus about a solar eclipse none knows when and where it happenned exactly and neither does Thallus link it to Jesus. As a side note the only recorded eclipse closest to Jesus' location and time of death occured in the year 29 in the Persian Gulf which doesnt fit the Jesus chronology and would have been of negligible impact in Jerusalem, 100s of miles away.

Apostate prophet investigates further; Jews arresting Jesus?

In answer to the video "Top 5 Misconceptions About Islam - Debunked (Merciful Servant)"

Here are some other interesting facts pointing to the fictional nature of most of the Gospel account, especially in relation to Jesus' last moments;

-the NT says that the high priest headed up the trial. The high priest never headed the Sanhedrin, that role fell to Nasi and the Av Bet Din, neither of whom are mentioned in the NT.

-To pass a death penalty a Jewish Sanhedrin had to meet in the Chamber of Hewn Stones in the Temple, but in 28CE which is prior to Jesus' supposed execution, the Chamber was destroyed so the Sanhedrin moved to another room on the Temple Mount, and then into the city itself (Talmud, Shabbat 15a, Rosh haShanah 31a).

Deut17:8-13"go up to the place that G-d your L-rd shall choose"

means the chamber of carved/hewn stone. Just as the Tabernacle was the only place in which to bring animal offerings until the final place was identified as the Temple, so to was the place for the court identified as the chamber in the Temple. Also, the Romans had removed the right to pass the death penalty according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 17:13). Around the year 6 CE, Herod Archelaus, was dethroned and banished to Vienna. He was replaced, not by a Jewish king, but by a Roman Procurator named Caponius. The legal power of the Sanhedrin was then immediately restricted.  When Archelaus was banished the Sanhedrin lost the ability to try death penalty cases in favor of the Roman procurator (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20:19). So right there we have two impediments to the Jews passing a death sentence.

-The Sanhedrin never met at night Matt26:57,Mk14:53 or in secret, on Shabbat or any holy day -- or even on the day BEFORE. Misnah (Sanhedrin IV:1) and Maimonides (Hilkot Sanhedrin XI:2).

- A death penalty case required two eye witnesses to the crime even when the Jews had the authority. When a death sentence was passed a minimum of 24 hours was given before it was carried out, giving time for witnesses to come forth on behalf of the condemned 

-Jewish trials were never held in anyone's house, only in the Temple 

So, in addition to the many legal proceedings which would have had to be broken for such trial to have taken place as is depicted in the Gospels, something that never happened in Jewish history, the Jews, living under Roman dominion, didn't have any authority to try Jesus for a death penalty. Why would they even make such effort, organizing this secret meeting just prior to the Passover festival, a time of religious preparations, breaking a long list of mosaic commandements along the way, yet knowing that their endeavor would be fruitless and their judgement would bear no legal weight? When in Jn18 the Pharisees take him to the Romans, they do not bring up their irrelevant blasphemy charge against him. They in fact bring no accusation at all. They leave it to Pilate to start guessing what crime Jesus is guilty of. What then was the necessity of that "pre-trial"? Why did they not just hand him to Pilate? They would have saved precious time on passover eve, an important time of religious dedication and preparation. 

The whole story is fiction, meant at demonizing the Jews so that the blame is not shouldered by the Roman executioners, when they reluctantly put Jesus to death. The gentile authorities, painted as borderline Christians, were this way appeased and could be targeted for missionary activity, as occured soon after. Consequently, we never see in history Christians blaming, oppressing and mass murdering Italians in retaliation for Jesus' death, but rather Jews, despite them being in fact the necessary tools in the cosmic scheme of salvation through God's suicide..