Apostate prophet's recurrent nightmare; What happened to the Jews of Qurayza?

In answer to the video "The Banu Qurayza Massacre (TGP 2)"

The conflict with the Qurayza occured in the context of the momentous battle of the Trench, where Muslims were besieged by the greatest coalition of enemies they had faced until now. Qurayza were the only Jewish tribe still abiding by their covenant with the Muslims until they broke the treaty and joined the pagan ranks, the very people whom Moses and subsequent prophets fought.

This betrayal shook the Prophet greatly as well as the rest of the Muslims, so he sent his companion Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, leader of the Aws and close ally to Banu Qurayzah to confirm the bad news, which he did. With the last Jews joining the pagan ranks, cutting the food supply and threatening the Muslims from within the city, the pagan forces had their moral uplifted.

They prepared an invasion from 3 fronts and it was with reference to this deployment of enemy forces that the Quran said

33:10-13"When they came upon you from above you (the pagans) and from below you (the hypocrites and traitors), and when the eyes turned dull, and the hearts rose up to the throats, and you began to think diverse thoughts of Allah. There the believers were tried and they were shaken with severe shaking. And when the hypocrites and those in whose hearts was a disease began to say: Allah and His Messenger did not promise us (victory) but only to deceive. And when a party of them said: O people of Yathrib! there is no place to stand for you (here), therefore go back; and a party of them asked permission of the prophet, saying: 'Surely our houses are exposed; and they were not exposed.' they only desired to fly away".

The enemy managed to enter through a narrow breach in the trench, and engulfed their men inside but Ali managed to fend off the attack, forcing them to retreat.

The night came and the Prophet asked volunteers to go spy on the enemy and only one stood up, it was Hudhayfah. When he departed, the Prophet made a long cry and prayer to God to protect this man and bring victory over the unbelievers. Hudhayfah came back from the enemy camp unharmed and recounted what he had witnessed: a strong wind came out of nowhere, striking panic among them, blowing away their encampment. The pebbles carried by the wind, forced them to retreat for shelter

"and I heard the clatter of the pebbles against the shields. Abu Sufyan rushed up to his mount and cried out: 'Save yourselves, save yourselves!' Thus the Confederates went away".

This completely frustrated their plans, not only were they unable to pierce the Muslim defense, but in addition had to face a a bitterly-cold storm wind that raged for several days, making life unbearable even for hardened warriors

33:25"And Allah turned back the unbelievers in their rage"  

33:9"call to mind the favor of Allah to you when there came down upon you hosts, so We sent against them a strong wind and hosts, that you saw not, and Allah is Seeing what you do".

As happened before when the besieged and starved Israelites and their prophet Elisha, were rescued from the Syrians, by God who terrorized the hearts of their enemies, forcing them to retreat and break the siege, leaving their camps and all belongings intact and for the Israelites to plunder as spoils of war 2Kings6:24-33,7:1-20, the Muslims were freed by divine intervention. They went back next morning to Medina, baffled but joyful at what had happened.

The prophet did not have time to cheer, the angel Gabriel appeared to him telling him to pursue the retreating armies, including those among the People of the Book that supported them. Bani Qurayza were besieged for several war crimes, they did not abide by the Medina covenant saying they had to defend the city against foreign invasion, they in addition provided logistical support to the enemy, participating in the attack against the fortress where Muslim women and children were lodged for safety.

This time God did not side with them as He did in the times of Elisha, He did not break the siege of their enemies; the Muslim siege lasted 25 days without fighting until the Qurayza surrendered. They realized, just as they had deceived the Muslims, the pagans in turn deceived them by not coming to their rescue as promised. This means they didnt surrender out of any change of heart, but because they had no choice

3:111"They shall by no means harm you but with a slight evil; and if they fight with you they shall turn (their) backs to you, then shall they not be helped".

Thus the parable of the 2 sons of Adam was repeating itself 5:27-31. It was recited to the Children of Israel as a warning not to reject and kill their Ishmaelite brothers, out of jealousy that God has now chosen them instead. Just as happened to the one that murdered his brother, they would similarly be thrown into intense remorse and regret. The Israelites plotted against the Ishmaelite prophet for the same reason for which the erring son of Adam had slain his pious brother. They could not see the obvious fact that God withdrew His favor from them and bestowed it upon their more God-conscious brothers, just as Cain's offering was refused for lack of piety while that of the God-fearing Abel was accepted. Instead of considering the matter, and reforming their evil ways, they plotted to kill those whom God had blessed with His favors.

At that point, Ka'b, the leader of the Qurayza, sought the prophet for a lenient verdict. But the prophet refused giving him the benefit of the doubt as he had done with the Jews of the Banu Nadir who were freely left to relocate following their treacheries. The crime of the Qurayza was much more grievous.

He then turned to the tribe of Aws, the former allies of his tribe back in preislamic times. They intervened with the prophet before declaring his verdict, pleading for the lives of the combatants among the Qurayza..

The prophet of God, even though he knew that whatever punishment he would have requested be imposed upon the Qurayza, it would have been unquestionably executed, stepped down from his prerogative, telling the notables of Aws to have their leader issue his own verdict instead. Saad ibn Muaad, the leader of Aws, who was being treated for a severe battle injury, received the notables. They began telling him of their plea to the prophet, reminding him of the preislamic times when Aws and Qurayza were friends and allies, pressuring him for a lenient verdict.

Saad was on his deathbed and about to succumb to his wounds, which he had suffered during the battle against their alliance. He made at that point a decision that disregarded all political wisdom, one that could have otherwise secured his remembrance as a popular leader who heard his people's wishes before breathing his last. His judgement was directly related to the Jews' own ethics of war for national expansion.

That divinely sanctioned option stipulates, in their own scriptures, should a random nation be given the choice of a "peaceful" surrender to the Israelites army, and that this nation accepts, it would result in the enslavement and taxation of its population. Notice here it is speaking of purely arbitrary aggression, not a war in self-defense as was the case with the Muslims against whom the Qurayza had allied at the battle of the Trench earlier. Neither did the prophet arbitrarily choose to go and conquer them, neither did he propose any conditional peace offer. He was going after them to sanction them.

Anyway, Should the randomly chosen nation reject the appealing "peace offer" then it would result in military subjugation with the execution of all adult males, confiscation of all their belongings, as well as capture of their women, children, and livestock Deut20:10-14. 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".

This was the case that applied most to the current situation, even though the Qurayza werent a randomly chosen nation, they were a people living in complete and unrestricted freedom according to the "peace offer" that was agreed upon between them and the Muslims. This "peace offer" was not conditional on the enslavement and taxation of their population, as their scriptures allows them doing.

They nevertheless rejected peace, and even though, according to their own war ethics, the only fact of rejecting a non-appealing offer results in complete destruction, in this case they not only rejected a truly appealing peace offer but also fought with the purpose of exterminating those that lived in peace with them.

Even if we just consider these factors, we see that, per their own standards, the punishment to be inflicted should be much higher. But it wasnt. And we're not even getting into the indiscriminate disposessions and massacres of the Canaanites. We're not talking of Joshua and subsequent leaders, down to David who after beating the Moabites, measured them off

"with a line, making them lie down on the ground; and he measured two cord-lengths to put to death, and one full cord-length to keep alive"(2Sam8:2)

and enslaved the remaining population. The prophet did not go to these lowly "divine" standards.
As Saad announced the verdict, the prophet, who knew the divine standard of justice in such cases did not object and said

"You have given the judgement of Allah above the seven heavens".

All adult males suspected of being fighters among the Qurayza were executed. This concerned only those above the age of puberty, meaning  fighting children, if there were, could not be subject to law of equal retribution. Others came to the prophet and sought amnesty, which was granted to them based on the fact they hadnt participated in the treachery, had left their stronghold prior to the siege and hadnt fought the encircled Muslims at the trench battle. In some cases the individual amnesty was extended to the close family relations despite them having actively taken part in the anti-Muslim preparations and attacks. These men later converted.

The number of men executed on the other hand varies greatly from one source to another, despite these sources being unreliable to begin with. What is sure is that, there was no "genocide", and certainly not one on the scale of what their own people have done throughout their history. No such "massacre" is spoken of anywhere despite the Quran itself and the Muslim traditions reporting some of the silliest contentions the prophet's enemies had. No such news ever reached the Jewish diaspora with whom the Medina Jews had regular contacts, including those of Syria or Iraq which was the seat of their religious authority at the time.

The cutting down of some of their trees occured prior to the battle. The prophet ordered some of their palm-trees adjacent to their stronghold be felled to incite them to come out and confront the Muslims, seeing some of their most precious trees being destroyed. The Quran describes those trees as "linat" denoting that they were the choicest 59:5. But the treacherous cowards remained behind their fortress until they could not bare the siege anymore.

Saad imposed his judgement just before the wound which he had suffered in his arm during the battle suddenly opened and the blood continued to gush out until he died. The women and children that had now no fathers and husbands were taken as captives, which in Islam implies in no way oppressive slavery. The land was distributed to the Muslims immigrating to Medina, and their wealth shared among all Muslims with one-fifth for public purposes.

Bani Israel were thus once again destroyed through divine punishment for their treachery and transgression, as it happened to them twice before, and on a divinely sanctionned scale far surpassing their punishment at the hands of the Muslims 17:4-8. The Quran prophecises that this threat of destruction will remain hanging above them until the Day of Resurrection 7:167. This severe decree does not contravene God's attribute of forgiveness, since both His punishment and mercy are contingent on the people's behavior

"And when your Lord proclaimed that He would surely send against them, until the day of Resurrection, those who would inflict on them a terrible punishment. Indeed your Lord is swift in retribution, and indeed He is all forgiving, ever merciful".

Abasement and humiliation, as well as insecurity and vulnerability, were stamped upon them wherever they went. This was due to their ungratefulness, transgressions which they persistently and sometimes even provocatively committed throughout their history, from the time they were led out of bondage 2:16,3:112. They were once again engulfed by the divine curse and wrath and whenever they kindled a fire for war after that, Allah put it out

33:26-7"And He drove down those of the followers of the Book who backed them from their fortresses and He cast awe into their hearts; some you killed and you took captive another part. And He made you heirs to their land and their dwellings and their property".

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. History on the other hand says that Jews continued to live in that region. They should have all fled following the supposed massacres, but didnt. They were 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. 

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."

Umar was being lenient here, considering that their expulsion was due to them breaching a non-aggression treaty with the Muslims. 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 left over the Jewish temple mount. 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.

Here is a timeline of Jewish persecution https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/historyjewishpersecution/.

Jewish "persecution" began since before any Temple was standing, such as in ancient Egypt. As already pointed 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. 

As to recent times, the Arab nations had no "Jewish problem". They've been living side by side with them for centuries, even helped them escape the Nazis, especially in North Africa. Its not German antisemitic propaganda that turned the tide, causing Nazis and Arabs to ally, rather the shared hatred of the colonizers (British, French or Italian) and opposition to fascism and communism. It is known that the Arab elites did not endorse Nazism either, just as Hitler despised the Arabs. The Mufti of Jerusalem on the other hand had a "Jewish problem" (the massive influx of Jews into Palestine in the late 30s), combined with hatred of the British who opposed their nationalism. When Jews were targeted by Arabs in Arab lands, it was to prevent their emigration to Palestine, by sympathizers of the Mufti. There were no genocidal attacks/pogroms except for the event of Baghdad in '41, again in the backdrop of the politics of the time, blaming the Jews for the British invasion (they were seen as allies in relation to Palestine). But the scale of victims and damage to property is widely disputed, and some Iraqis risked their lives to hide Jewish neighbours. Although the authorities did not immediately intervene, they eventually conducted an investigation, even executed army officers. Sure, life for a Jew in Arab lands was sometimes far from perfect, just like Muslim life is far from perfect in Israel (killings, destruction of land and property etc). But how many antisemitic incidents throughout ancient history until the 20th century came from Muslims, and were actually ordered by the authorities (as is done today in Israel)? Compare it to the scale of antimuslim attacks in Israel's short history.

Islam critiqued exposes plagiarism; Jesus copies ancient wisdoms?

In answer to the video "Was Muhammad a False Prophet?"

And by the way, Christian critics often absurdly try discrediting the wisdom of the Quran by arguing that some of its principles were already uttered earlier, while completely forgetting that all of Jesus' wise humanist utterings reported in the NT were either stated long before in the Tanakh by the likes of Moses, or close to his time by Jewish thinkers, let alone those Pharisees whom Jesus regarded as "sons of satan", such as Hillel -one of the highest Pharisaic authority of his time- who is quoted in the Talmud saying almost word for word what Jesus would utter about a century later in

Matt7:12"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets".

The redaction of the Talmud began after Jesus but the oral tradition it contains, such as the one uttered by Hillel, existed long before. It was already in circulation before and after Jesus in Pharisaic tradition. This tradition considers the Talmud just as revealed as the written Torah is, probably even predating the events of Sinai. We can repeatedly read of Moses receiving Torah and Law before he ascended on the Mount to meet with God Ex12-18.

Even the concept of a kingdom of God soon to be established on earth appears in numerous Jewish documents that antedate Jesus.

When trying to discredit Islam to a Muslim audience, the poorest and most insignificant of all arguments consists in pointing to the moral truths it contains then arguing they were uttered long before, that the Quran merely copied them. The Quran itself recognizes it isnt uttering anything new in matters of morality and spirituality, but even upholds such principle as a tenet of faith, that divine guidance is a continuity that started long before the Torah, down to the Quran. By these same lowly standards, totally insignificant when debating a Muslim, Jesus and all prophets of the Bible were false prophets who merely copied from their predecessors and hardly uttered anything new. Hundreds of quotes, similarities and incidents can be shown attesting to this.

What cancels the Judeo-christian criticism further is that their religions contain very uncomfortable similarities with the pagan environments in which the successive books were authored. Contrary to Islam which has no problem with having similarities with pre-islamic practices, since it claims they are rooted in the Abrahamic legacy it came to revive, Judaism and Christianity have no common spiritual legacy with the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Canaanite or Greco-roman rituals and philosophies to help explain away the odd and uncomfortable similarities.

Here is a small example. In the Quran, the whole matter of Jesus' end in this world appeared as if the Jews had succeeded in their evil, murdering plots because, among other reasons, Jesus was missing, or as the Quran says God "tawaffa" him, purified him and made him ascend to Heaven. This instead prevented the humiliation that wouldve happened if his enemies got to the body. If they presented it to the people in a humiliated state, leading to a psychological victory for the Israelites 

4:158"Allah took him up to Himself". 

They couldnt even kill him, nor could they damage his body and God states He would raise him up to himself, meaning that not only his body wouldnt be humiliated but it would be honored by God instead.

God thus lifted Jesus up and did not leave a trace of him with them yet even without proof for their claims, the Israelites that wanted him dead managed to start a rumor that quickly spread and was believed. The resulting confusion was similar to that of the rumor of the prophet Muhammad's death during the battle of Uhud 3:144. Roman crucifixions occured daily and by the hundreds, of any agitators to the point that they would sometimes run out of wood for the crosses. The accusing Jews could easily pass off their boastful claims as fact in those circumstances, regardless of whether they truly believed their own claim or not. This rumor spread among both friends and foes. It is entirely possible at this point that not only the Jews were unaware of Jesus' true whereabouts, but neither were his followers. The confusing absence of a prophet has been a means of testing the followers left behind, whether they would remain on the clear path outlined by the prophet when he was in their midst, maintain his directives, or start innovating in the religion and go back to their sinful ways. This occured with Moses, as he retreated away from his people to receive revelation, just as it did with Muhammad when many fell into despair during the battle of Uhud, and later when he died 

3:144"And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels?" 

The Nazarenes, like the calf-worshiping Jews thus failed the test of steadfastness in the absence of their prophet. As the rumours of Jesus' death started by his enemies became widespread, his disillusioned followers retrospectively painted the whole thing as a divine masterplan, with all the Christologies that ensued. Those among them that maintained Jewish law were sidelined by Paul's movement very early on, and within just 2 generations the little remnant of Judaism within the Jesus sect was erased. It was supplanted by a wave of converts from the greco-roman world who found in this transformed and readapted original Jewish sect, a favorable echo for their own beliefs, naming this new religion, Christianity. 

It is thus meaningless to argue that because the corruptions the Quran denounces were introduced early on, then it follows that these were original teachings of Jesus. Had Moses and Aaron not quickly and violently corrected the corruptions to their teachings, executing the guilty by the thousands, nothing would have prevented the same kind of falsehood to be passed off as "genuine teachings" of Moses, as was done with Jesus 

5:117"I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness". 

Jesus did not have the occasion to do as Moses and Aaron did very early on so as to prevent the lies attributed to them from becoming "orthodoxy". However, if they escaped Jesus condemnation, it does not mean God was unaware of their evil doings.  

Isnt it surprising that the Lord's prayer taught by Jesus himself (as opposed to every other prayer that others taught to say in Jesus’ name), never mentioned Jesus, nor vicarious atonement, nor him as messiah, nor him as intermediary, nor any trinity, among anything else Christological? This foundational prayer is more anti-christian than any passage one may find in the entire Bible. 

We're not talking about the lack of Christological references in terms of labels, but in terms of concepts. The prayer is far removed from the ideas established by the Pauline movement, the creeds of the Church Fathers and later councils. Not only are those concepts absent but every sentence of the prayer clashes with mainstream Christian tenets. For example vicarious atonement, not only isnt it mentioned by name or implicitly as a concept, but in addition we have Jesus, who is supposed to be the embodiment of that notion, refuting it 

"forgive us our sins, as we have forgiven those who have sinned against us". 

No need for Jesus, forgiveness is attained through one's own efforts. The same is conveyed in the parable of the prodigal son Lk15. The unrighteous son is forgiven by his father simply for turning to God in sincere repentance. Not only is he forgiven but he is welcomed with a warm celebration. It is his state of contriteness that brought him back to life, not the blood on the cross "he was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found".

The idea of vicarious atonement stems from the notion of human depravity; none may claim righteousness on his own due to a sinful nature that pollutes every deed and thought. Yet Jesus undermines that notion too; temptation isnt the product of inherent human depravity and satanic influence. Rather it is God, who is perfectly righteous, whom the worshiper asks 

"not to lead us into temptation". 

Jesus teaches his followers to begin the prayer by calling upon "our" Father who is in heaven, not to the divine son who is on earth. Nothing distinguishes Jesus from a regular believer in terms of sonship to the Father. The same fatherhood that applies to him applies to the others. It is the Father's name only that is to be hallowed, His will is to be done, and He is the Sustainer of the devotees, including Jesus

 "Give us today our daily bread". 

These innovations might have initiated among Jesus' close circle, through re-interpretations of his teachings, or among the wave of new converts that supplanted them. To this new, outer circle, the claim that he was captured and killed resonated as closer to the truth and a more honest assessment of his disappearance. His gruesome death became an attractive narrative of heroism and martyrdom not only for the sake of his followers but for the entire human race. 

Jesus is portrayed as fearing death and wanting to avoid it Jn7:1,11:54,Luke 22:42. He begged God (himself) 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 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. Then, when on the cross Jesus 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 cross in fact 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?

The predictions Jesus makes as regards his impending death on the other hand are portrayed as willful self-sacrifice. In these versions, we see other inconsistencies. When he tells his disciples, several times and explicitly how he would die, they are taken by complete surprise when the events unfold Matt16,17,20,Mk8,9,10,Lk9,18. 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. Even when he appeals to prophecies at the third and last prediction of his death 

Lk18:34"The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about". 

Clearly, there was a general atmosphere of confusion as to Jesus' disappearance, a confusion which the writers could not deny as it corresponded to the reality they knew about and witnessed. But, because they were writing from the lens that he was crucified, they had to retrospectively paint this confusion as a misunderstanding by the disciples of Jesus' clear predictions. Between Jesus' desire to avoid death, his repeated predictions as to his willful execution, the misunderstandings of the disciples, the story line lacks consistency and seems muddled. We see the same pattern with other major themes retrospectively applied to Jesus, such as his messiahship, again painted as shrouded in obscurity due to the "misunderstanding" of his closest disciples. The simple reason is that the historical Jesus did not go around claiming to fulfil the messianic predictions of the HB. The claim was later made for him. If he did, people would have laughed their lungs off, including the Romans. The Gospel writers, writing at least 50 years after the events knew that what Jesus accomplished had nothing to do with the highly anticipated establishment of the kingdom of God. They were thus left with no option other than painting the whole matter as they did.

Prior to Jesus becoming God, the pagans scoffed at the notion of a human savior dying a cursed death then resurrecting. But the later introduction and spread of the deviant notion of Jesus' divinity made the Christian religion fit more easily into their paradigm. As the Quran says in the context of Jesus' supposed divine sonship 

9:30"they immitate the saying of those who disbelieved before".

Gentiles of the region believed in Mithraism, a religion already spread all throughout Europe and Asia minor centuries prior to the birth of Christianity. Among such beliefs is the death and resurrection of Osiris. Those ritually sharing in that death and resurrection through baptism had their sins remitted. The pagan Roman authorities thus welcomed the new religion seeing it was in congruence with centuries of tradition of dying and/or mutilated savior gods. 

As the early church father Justin Martyr conceded

"when  we say...Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified, died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you (ie the pagans) believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus".

Paul, who was at most a hellenezied Jew, was explaining Jesus teachings in ways that were unheard of by Jesus' disciples. Paul's letters were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until 60-90 meaning Paul's theories were already established before the unknown writers of the gospels started their works and earlier Christian thought was quickly branded heretical. The church was so weak that within the same generation of the disciples, this Jewish sect of the Nazarenes, whose distinction from mainstream Judaism was only in the belief that Jesus was the messiah, turned upon its heels, abandoned Jewish law, adopted concepts unheard of anywhere in Judaism. There is a reason why the Gospel writers including Paul do not quote the Hebrew Bible but the Greek Septuagint which was hated by the rabbis as it represented the Hellenization of many Jews of the time. The early church thus became irrelevant very early on following Jesus' departure, due to Paul's efforts at supplanting it, dismissing Jewish law as obsolete, reinterpreting core Semitic concepts of God so as to appeal to his pagan audience.

After Jesus' death, Paul's main problem was to convince his Jewish audience that the messiah's death, without accomplishing any of the messianic criteria, instead of being a failure was actually a necessity. He did so by introducing the doctrine of total depravity, making all humans de facto sinners and therefore in need of an atoning sacrifice Rom7:14-25,Rom3:10-11,5:13,8:7-8,1Cor2:14,Eph2:1-3,Titus3:3. His addressees however already believed in the resurrection of the dead, in a just God who forgave the sins of a penitent heart. Nothing was missing in their system that Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection could fix. Paul's redeeming hero was a redundancy to them, so he was obviously met with fierce resistance wherever he preached his unscriptural ideas. This led him to eventually turn to the gentiles among whom he found a much more favourable audience. All this is evident from a cursory reading of the NT and the writings of Paul. That is how Christianity was shaped, using its target audience's sensitivities all the while toning down to the maximum its Jewish heritage.

The sect that "won" and became "orthodoxy" achieved victory by political rather than epistemic means. The dominant branch was but one among many early, conflicting Christian sects, as even reflected in Paul's letters and the desperate struggles he had with them to maintain control of his own congregations. The process was not a difficult one considering Mithraism's tendency to accommodate with other rival cults, throughout its vast geographical spread, before and after Christianity. Christianity of course wasnt that accommodating, doing everything to supplant it due to the disturbing similarities. Many Church Fathers (Justin, Origen, Tertullian) attempted rationalizing Mithraism's similarities with their religion; "satanic imitations" being the standard explanation. The fine details of those similarities are now lost due to the Christian destructions of all "mithraes" they could put their hands on as well as persecute its followers. The task of reconstructing which themes Mithraism absorbed from Christianity so as to embellish its own narrative, versus what actually pre-dated Christianity, becomes a speculative task. But the presence of such vehement defenses by church authorities reveals their major embarrassment, their discomfort at their opponents' accusations of plagiarism. Instead of engaging their critics in debate, these church fathers and other Christian "orthodox" writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries slandered their opponents with exaggerated or even false charges, shunned them or socially intimidated them. This pattern of engaging their critics is in itself revealing of their own insecurities.

It was in the 4th century that Pope Damasus I introduced the 25th of december as the birthday of Jesus (Christmas). In a move to gain the hearts and minds of the Romans, he used the immensely popular  ancient mid-winter solstice festival, which lasted for several days and culminated in the feast of 'Brumalia' on December 25th. This major celebration among pagans caused agonies for the Church, and since the early Christians had absolutely no idea of the day, month or even year of Jesus' nativity, it was a relatively easy matter to superimpose a Christian festival on the pagan one.

Easter similarly has its origins in a pagan celebration of nature’s resurrection, with rabbit and eggs symbolizing fertility and renewal. In fact it is well known that pagan Europe, up to the middle ages was undergoing a Christianization of their old rites and customs.

This process facilitated European conversions. One can extend the comparison to some extent in regards to what is celebrated nowadays as the Jewish new year or Rosh Hashanah. Although, as described in Lev23:24 some rituals are to be performed on the first day of Tishrei (actual day of the Jewish new year), none are related to a new year festival. This began in the 2nd Temple period. We don’t know what the religious life of the Jews was like during the Babylonian exile. But we do know that by the time the Jews returned to Israel and marked the beginning of the 2nd Temple period in 516 BCE, Jewish religious practices had profoundly changed compared with the pre-exile era.
For one, the names of the months that Jews use to this very day are the Babylonian names. Tishrei for example is a Babylonian month whose name derives from the Akkadian word tishritu - “beginning.”
In addition, the Babylonians took their New Year’s Day celebrations very seriously. They called the holiday Akitu (from the Sumerian word for barley) and Resh Shattim, the Akkadian equivalent of the Hebrew Rosh Hashanah. This was celebrated twice a year, at the beginning of Tishrei and the beginning of Nisan, and lasted for 12 days.

Jews absorbed this veneration for the New Year from the Babylonian example. But it was not immediately apparent upon their return – the Jewish rituals, including the ones performed on Rosh Hashanah developed over centuries.

Islam critiqued wont listen to the same thing twice; Repeating the tales of the ancients?

In answer to the video "Was Muhammad a False Prophet?"

By the time of the prophet Muhammad, the assimilation of the Abrahamic legacy into the regional polytheistic systems was such that only a distant echo had remained in the minds of the Ishmaelites of Mecca, from their spiritual connection to Abraham. Just as happenned to the Temple of Jerusalem that slowly became transformed into a pagan shrine and idols were introduced in it 2kings21 the prime symbol of monotheism in Mecca became thus radically transformed through pagan influence.

As the Ishmaelites, like the Israelites throughout their history, drifted from the original path of monotheism, the Hajj pilgrimage became a celebratory occasion, and the Kaaba was stocked with idols and false deities supposed to bring the worshipers closer to the One God, Allah, whom they believed in. Men and women would run naked throughout the holy precinct. Merchants from all over would travel to the Kaaba and set up shop during the pilgrimage.

People and tribes from all over Arabia would make the journey to Mecca to take part in the festivities. But this annual pilgrimage was in greater parts disconnected from the Abrahamic practice 22:26-7. It was simply a time to make money instead of being charitable, drink alcohol, and commit immoral acts. The importance of the annual event perdured despite the corruption. It was maintained by those that settled in Mecca, and the Arabs of the entire peninsula that got attracted to it with time. These are the points brought to attention in 2:196-7. And then until v203 great stress is laid on the spiritual dimension, forgotten and neglected, of that occasion.

No other nation can be compared to the Ishmaelites' handling of their spiritual legacy and sacred shrine, than their own Israelite brothers. They could not maintain the way of their forefathers despite the constant sending of prophets to them to bring them back to the right path.

When the Arabs were admonished and urged to reform, they qualified the warnings as

16:24,27:68"stories of the ancients".

These Ishmaelites vaguely recalled the Abrahamic ways, but found no other constructive argument in their opposition but by denigrating it as old and useless stories, based on its ancienty and supposed obsolescence, inaplicability to the current circumstances. They never qualify these stories as "false". It was in fact one of the Quran's oft repeated functions, to "remind" the people of the truth they were still somewhat aware of but that had been supressed by falsehood.

The Quran openly states that

26:196"most surely the same is in the scriptures of the ancients".

It repeats, time and again, its role as the guardian and preserver of the truth present in the past scriptures. Along with Abrahamic and monotheistic practices known in pre-islamic days, going back to previous prophets, was the Zakat which the people knew they had to give away to the poor but rarely practiced or misused 19:30-31,54-55,70:24,Deut14:28-29,26:12-14, fasting 2:51,183-187,7:142,Deut9:9,Ex24:18,34:28,Matt4:2,Lk5:33-6 prayer that continued after Ibrahim established it in the settlement of the Kaaba 14:37,19:55,Dan6:10,Ps55:18,1Chr23:30 until it was disfigured 8:35, animal sacrifice, circumcision.

Other concepts propounded by previous prophets and which the Quran was reminding its addressees of, include the Resurrection, day of Judgement and accountability Matt13:24-43,1Kings17:17-24,2Kings4:17-37,13:20-1,1Sam2:6,Isa2:17,26:19,66:14,Ezek37:1-28,Ps71:20,Prov6:22,Prov31(see Rashi),Dan12:1-2,Quran29:36,54:36-9.

There are pre-islamic poems with clear eschatological connotation, some of them speaking of the resurrection of the soul, and Allah being the judge of mankind. One such poems is that of Zuhayr who wrote in his muallaqat

"Do not conceal from Allah what is in your souls, trying to hide it. Whatever is concealed from Allah, He knows. It is delayed and entered in a register and stored up for the day of reckoning, or it is brought forward and avenged".

Labid wrote

"every human will one day come to know his striving when it will be disclosed before the God what has been extracted".

See also the lines of al-A'sha evoking fear of the final accounting

"when the resurrected souls will shake of the dust".

The Quran and the traditions speak of the hanif remnants that tried preserving the monotheism of Ibrahim, and these lines of poetry might echo these marginal beliefs. The majority of the pre-islamic Arabs however rejected bodily resurrection and otherworldy accountability, the Quran repeatedly condemns this attitude.

This phenomenon is clearly seen with the "talbiya", the invocations the pilgrims coming from all over Arabia made during their rituals. Some of these have come down to us, referring to Allah as

"al wahid al qahhar rabb assamad",

while others clearly referred to the idols as subservient to him

"laa nabudul asnama hatta tajtahida li rabbiha wa tutabad"

or

"rabb al thalitha ukhra/Lord of the third goddess"

, and others spoke of the One Lord of the last hour

"rabba assa'a".

All of this shows the multifaceted shades of idolatry among the pilgrims, some of them praising Allah alone, others associating with Him while maintaining Him above the intercessors, and others still referring to the day of judgement.

This confirms the Quranic statement that the original religion established at the sanctuary was Abrahamic monotheism. It got disfigured with time, polluted with foreign concepts, although it maintained a recognizable foundation of truth, which the last prophet came to revive. Sura 87, after summing up the pillars of divine truth, such as monotheism, intelligent design, resurrection, God's all-encompassing, intricate knowledge and sway over His creatures' affairs, spiritual purification through prayer and constant remembrence of God as being the ways to success in the Hereafter, it says that these are all concepts known, written and transmitted by the prophets, from Ibrahim to Moses.

All of these things were known to the people whom Muhammad was addressing over 4000 years later but have been neglected for so long that only a dim remembrance of them remained

23:83"Certainly we are promised this, and (so were) our fathers aforetime; this is naught but stories of those of old".

Muhammad revived the corrupted, obscured and forgotten way of Ibrahim

6:161"Say: Surely, (as for) me, my Lord has guided me to the right path; (to) a most right religion, the faith of Ibrahim the upright one, and he was not of the polytheists".

The climax of that revival occured when he entered Mecca triumphantly, cleansed the Kaaba of its idols and rededicated it to its monotheistic purpose.

Islam critiqued seeks some prayer tips; The Lord that hastens in fulfulling His prophet's desires?

In answer to the video "Was Muhammad a False Prophet?"

The prophet Muhammad, like many eminent prophets of the past, had a large household towards the end of his life. With such a large household combined with his prophetic duties and the turmoil of these early days in which he was involved in on a daily basis, he could not be expected to divide his time so as to satisfy each of the wives and potential concubines equally.

But as the Islamic history books explicitly denote, he tried to observe equality among them as much as possible. He used to visit sometimes his 9 wives at once. In that report, the Arabic doesnt denote sexual intercourse, on the part of that humble man in his late 50s who had in addition to balance his household duties with his extraordinary responsibilities as a spiritual leader and statesman. Some of his male companions might have assumed so, but it did not have to be the case.

And to further corroborate that the prophet, despite visiting all his wives, would only have intercourse with the one whose turn had arrived

"Narrated ‘Urwah: ‘A’ishah said: “O nephew! The Messenger of Allah would not prefer any one of us to another with regards to spending time with us. Hardly a day would go by without him visiting all of us. He would come close to each woman, without touching her, until he reached the one whose turn it was, then he would spend the night with her".

The flexibility of the law as regards the division of time is of course not speaking of the sustenance and rightful material needs of every wife. In this area, the prophet had to divide his resources among every household, in addition to the financial burden of taking care of the indebted of the community and the incessant guests who would be received at all moments. He is known to have been left with very little to spend on himself and his wives, leading to them often complaining about the relative ease in which other companion's wives were living. And this at a time where the community had grown more prosperous in Medina, an ease which was not reflected in the prophet's household 

33:28-9"say to your wives: If you desire this world´s life and its adornment, then come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing".  

The prophet thus, despite being absolved from strict obligations towards his multiple wives would nevertheless feel saddened whenever he delayed his appointed time with one of his wives

33:51"You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you".

This ordinance made sure that no reproach would be cast upon him, and neither would he be hindered by social pressures or customs. 

So although he had the peace of mind from a spiritual viewpoint that he would never be blameworthy, he still felt uneasy emotionally towards his wives whom he loved. And he did his utmost to spend as much time as he could with them all equitably. Aisha would say to him 

"If I could deny you the permission (to go to your other wives) I would not allow your favor to be bestowed on any other person". 

This statement from the prophet's youngest wife, and thus logically the most physically attractive in comparison to his other wives, shows the prophet tried as best as he could not to favor one wife over another based on his personal preference. There is an instance where he refused letting Aisha replace another wife on a day that wasnt hers 

"O Aisha, keep away from me, it is not your day".

 The prophet maintained as best he could that considerate pattern of behavior throughout his life, as narrated by Aisha:

 "When the ailment of the Prophet became aggravated and his disease became severe, he asked his wives to permit him to be nursed (treated) in my house. So they gave him the permission. Then the Prophet came (to my house) with the support of two men, and his legs were dragging on the ground, between `Abbas, and another man". 

Besides absolving the prophet, the ordinance also put all the wives and potential concubines on the same level as it concerned them all from God's perspective. Through it, they find the inner peace that the emotional sacrifice they shall endure, and which they all were fully aware of before accepting to marry the prophet, is for the accomplishment of a higher objective. Their merit with God will naturally be higher given their worldly sacrifices 

"this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be pleased, all of them with what you give them".

The verse ends with an affectionate message to the prophet's household in general, stressing that God is aware of the difficulties in all levels of life that they must endure, and their toll on their feelings

"and Allah knows what is in your hearts; and Allah is Knowing, Forbearing."

Aisha is indirectly described as expressing her initial frustration and spousal jealousy, when she supposedly stated in relation to 33:51 that

“I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires".

It is remarkable that the prophet would always abide by the restrictions divinely imposed on him but not the relaxations, as described above. In Sura Ahzab, around the verse quoted in the hadith, there are seven rules about marriage peculiar to the Prophet. Four of these granted him relaxations and three put restrictions. The Prophet certainly abided by the restrictions, but yet, for someone whose "Lord hastens his desires" he did not opt to benefit from two of the relaxations.

Had the idea of ‘convenient revelations’ any basis in that report from Aisha as claimed by Islam's opponents, to start with, there wouldnt have been any restrictions on the Prophet neither in this sura or other suras, to the exclusion of the rest of the believers. And neither would he have failed to take benefit of every relaxation, without having any guilty conscience as he just happened to have. It is further worthy to note that, in those relaxations pertaining to marital affairs described in 33:50-1, the prophet is a passive agent; it is the women that are given the option of seeking him in marriage, not the other way around. The bottom line is that, whichever one looks at it, nothing in the pattern of the life of the prophet supports the malicious charges against him.

Islam critiqued exposes convenient verse; 33:53, no more relevant?

In answer to the video "Was Muhammad a False Prophet?"

The prophet used to answer the call of freeman, slave, maid servant and destitute alike, shortening his prayer anytime someone would visit his open house so much so that his opponents spread it as a form of weakness and credulity while the prophet knew very well who to trust 9:61.

They would literally reproach him of being

"an ear"

because of his empathy and readiness to patiently listen to what anyone had to say.

But although at first glance that seemingly gave the impression of being credulous it in fact reveals a great leadership quality of keeping cohesion within a group. He knows very well the liars or people with ill intentions but does not immidiately expose them to the rest of the community so as to leave them the chance to reform themselves, as is commanded within the Quran itself.

This passive attitude should however not leave any ambiguity as regards the prophet's intellectual and spiritual stance, as denoted in the rest of the verse. Sometimes as reflected in 33:53, his leniency, kindess and forbearance to his folks would often lead to abuse. People would enter his house at anytime, preventing him and his wives from their spiritual duties and basic privacy requirements.

This injunction taught them certain rules of behaviour bearing on the life of such particular society, based on a true feeling of brotherhood, mutual consideration, and respect for the sanctity of each other's personality and privacy. This is the timeless lesson, applicable for all times, and which is now enshrined in the Quran through incidents that concerned the prophet. A report suggests that this verse was first revealed in the context of the prophet's marriage ceremony with Zaynab. Some of the guests stayed long after the event was over, in the prophet's home. The verse, according to the report from Anas came down some time after the incident, thus thwarting any attempt by modern critics to try and use the story as evidence of "convenient revelations". Besides, the ahadith speak of other occasion of revelation than this particular incident. This is due to the traditions and Quran commentaries, typically retrospectively applying events in the life of the prophet and the community as asbab alnuzul/occasions of revelation.

The Quran is full of such moral lessons, although illustrated through temporal situations, some of them related and others unrelated to the prophet.

Here are a few other examples 

24:62-63"surely they who ask your permission are they who believe in Allah and His Apostle". 

In the prophet's time, the sincerity of a person's belief in God and the one representing His will on earth, was measured by their obedience to the prophet. None could dare claim to submit to Allah while rejecting the means by which He was actively comunicating with the people. They could obviously not communicate with God directly and had thus to seek the messenger's guidance to know the divine will. This guidance from the messenger is still found both in the Quran and the sunna he left behind. The timeless application of the verse is thus in consulting both sources of guidance. See also 4:64.

Islam critiqued loses patience; humbleness in curiosity?

In answer to the video "Was Muhammad a False Prophet?"

Besides the twofold message that there is wisdom in having some things not known to us, that one should not ask about minutiae related to the religion which may have the opposite effect of making it obsessive compulsive, hard to follow and the potential danger of falling out of religion, the verse 5:101 also carries a timeless import in regards to one's understanding of the Quran itself. It teaches one not to be hasty, but instead wait for the detail that will elaborate on a topic requiring further explanation.

This detail, present in the book, will not cause the religion to become a burden. It will eventually appear as one progresses through the Quran with an open heart, as it is being revealed to oneself. For these reasons, the Quran is to be approached with patience 75:16, one should ponder and meditate on its verse before forming any adverse opinion.  

God's law as originaly intended is meant at providing spiritual purification. It would then be contrary to that purpose for God to make it complicated. He has lightened our burdens through a simple and natural sharia

22:78"and has not laid upon you an hardship in religion".

Man, being a creature endowed with freewill, has a frail spirituality 4:28 that makes him lack resolve when a moral crisis arises. That spiritual weakness is only a natural outcome of an original, untrained spiritual state just as a newborn is physically weak. Only the appropriate training, spiritual or physical can make one overcome the challenges, abstract or concrete 70:19-35. Therefore to facilitate the attainement of that goal, the sharia has been made simple and appealing to man's nature

2:185,5:6"Allah does not desire to put on you any difficulty, but He wishes to purify you and that He may complete His favor on you, so that you may be grateful".

Had Allah wished

2:220"He would certainly have caused you to fall into a difficulty; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise".

Even after mentionning clear prohibitions, the Quran stresses the soulful nature of the Sharia by declaring lawful these same things whenever the circumstances make it too burdensome to abide by them 5:3. God's law is thus very close to human nature, it does not run contrary to it, rather it is the disobedience to the law of the Creator that is unnatural. Neither is a person expected to be over-zealous in his religious duties

24:53"reasonable obedience (is desired); surely Allah is aware of what you do".

Sincerity, not perfection is required and so if one stumbles during the pursuit of the right course, God is forgiving 4:17,53:32. One can therefore clearly see that this notion of the naturalness and simplicity of the divine law is not based on some whims by the Muslim scholars and jurists, but on Quranic indicants which occur so frequently that they cannot be mere metaphors. It is the principle of facilitation/taysir of the sharia as stated in

2:185“God wills that you shall have ease, and does not want you to suffer hardship”.

This verse is treated as belonging to the category of muhkam/decisive or explicit verses, corroborated by many others cited above. The traditions reflect that Quranic axiom

“I was sent to people with the lenient, tolerant, True Religion”  

or  

“Do [good] deeds that are within your capacity”  

or  

“This religion is very easy and entails no hardship".

The prophet instructed Muadh as he sent him to Yemen

“Facilitate things for the people and do not make things difficult for them. Be kind and lenient [both of you] with the people, and do not be hard on them and give the people good tidings and do not reject them,”.

Based on the traditions and the Quran, the scholars have thus asserted that making things easy/taysir is one of the higher objectives of the Sharia. It aims at protecting the life, property, and dignity of the whole community without causing inappropriate hardships.

Throughout the ages, despite the mindless islamophobic rant, nations have been receptive to the teachings of Islam without any difficulty or hardship.

This is evidenced by the transformation that Islam has brought about in the daily lives of the Arabs, the Persians, the Copts of Egypt, the Berbers, the Tartars, the people of India, the Chinese, and the Turks, without these peoples facing any difficulty in discarding their age-old bad habits, or being compelled to abandon their good customs.

Islam critiqued finds wisdom in silence; appropriateness of curiosity?

In answer to the video "Was Muhammad a False Prophet?"

With the overarching Quranic notion of keeping God's directives simple and not burdensome, one can appreciate why the Quran tells the audience not to insist on investigating the unimportant things or minute details of a story. It diverts not only oneself but also others from the moral and spiritual import of the narration 18:22.

Similarily the Quran warns the Muslims not to ask questions about the things regarding which the Sharia is purposely silent 5:101 because such questions call for answers that tighten the limits of a directive, and then people are not able to follow them and as a result invite the wrath of God, as what happened directly and indirectly with the ISraelites. God wants that a directive be followed the way it is given. Difficulties should not be created by asking to explain what is concise and by asking to limit and restrict what is absolute and in fact

5:102"A people before you indeed asked such questions, and then became disbelievers on account of them"  

2:108"Would you then ask your Prophet such questions as were asked of Moses in former times? and whoever adopts unbelief instead of faith, he indeed has lost the right direction of the way".

The simplification of the Sharia/Law leaves room for human common sense and judgement, allowing different nations and communities to frame laws for themselves to meet new and changed situations. The Quran has laid down a handful of laws as explicit, while most provide a foundation and philosophical framework by which things can be negotiated, as long as it is in accordance with the principles of morality and wisdom laid down in the Book. The Prophet is reported to have said:

“The most sinful person among the Muslims is the one who asked about something which had not been prohibited, but was prohibited because of his asking”.

He further said

“God has set boundaries, so do not transgress them; He kept silent on certain things out of mercy for you rather than forgetfulness, do not ask about them”.

As is clear, the Quran doesnt prevent the honest debate and search of knowledge. Many Quranic verses begin with questions that are stated very compactly and their real purport becomes evident through their answer

2:189"They ask you concerning..".

The verse 5:101 rather warns against questionning that could lead to unnecessary complications in religious laws. In addition, and as demonstrated through the Israelites' example, such questionning also stems for shallow belief and hypocrisy. Asking questions, politely humbly with pure intent is never disallowed. The angels were permitted to voice questions to God directly 2:30. No religion says, almost at the end of every argument for its truth, to reflect, ponder, think for themselves. It invites sceptics to bring forth any constructive criticism and argument.

As just stated, the epitome of that principle is the angels' questioning God's plan for creation, questioning God Himself and yet they arent condemned at anytime. Justified curiosity is not wrong but even encouraged

21:7,16:43"ask those who possess knowledge if you do not know”.

In 58:1 a reference is made to an incident in which a pious woman had to face a severe difficulty regarding a religious issue; instead of becoming frustrated and showing distrust in God, she presented her case before Him and His Prophet with purity of intentions. Her difficulty was resolved and her case set forth as an example in the Quran: that of a person who adopted the correct attitude when troubles came her way.

Islam critiqued is a zealous journalist; Ask as many questions as you like, but remain God-conscious?

In answer to the video "Was Muhammad a False Prophet?"

This favorite of the misinformed critics of Islam will be addressed shortly, but in introduction it would be appropriate to mention one particular story. The Jews, in their arrogance, lack of obedience and will to bend to God's will, ie "stiff-necked" as Moses and other prophets labelled them collectively in their scriptures is demonstrated in 2:67-73 with their offensive behavior towards their prophet.

They accused him of ridiculing them when he simply conveyed God's command to sacrifice any cow in a ritual that would provide the community with answers as to the confusing circumstances surrounding 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 which cow was 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. The truth is that they were trying to delay it through their hairsplitting demands because they sought to hide the truth about the crime. This command to sacrifice a cow comes in the context of manslaughter as described in Deut21, with the taking of oaths over the blood of the sacrificed cow.

The Quran gives details on the first time this command was issued to the Israelites and their reaction when they actually had to put it to practice, their final acceptance of the command without any intention and conviction despite their prophet answering all their objections. When it was performed for the first time, the ritual resulted in the resurrection to life of the victim.

This exposed what they were trying to hide as well as provided a living proof for the concept of bodily resurrection. The Jews disagreed on this issue for long and for centuries until the coming of Jesus and his own miraculous evidence for the resurrection. Because of the dramatic demonstration, the ritual remained inscribed in their justice code as a means of atonement for an unsolved murder. It is interesting to note that in the time of Moses, other similar miracles were performed, such as when

Numbers21:9"Moses made a copper snake and put it on a pole, and whenever a snake bit a man, he would gaze upon the copper snake and live".

Together with condemning them for their rebellious trend, the passage above hints at another reality. Through this Quran as was done with the sending of prophets among them, God is 2:72 mukhrijun/continuously unveiling their lies.

However their disobedient trend would continue after that, their 

2:74"hearts hardened after that, so that they were like rocks, rather worse in hardness; and surely there are some rocks from which streams burst forth, and surely there are some of them which split asunder so water issues out of them, and surely there are some of them which fall down for fear of Allah". 

The verse eloquently increases the effect of its simile on the audience. It first gives a recognizable, observable point of reference that is already strong in itself, a dry rock. It then carries its audience's imagination further by alluding to abstract imageries that are stronger in intensity. This gradual rethorical device achieves a stronger impact on the minds than immidiately jumping to the most intense simile. This simile was relevant to the historical context of the Israelites. When they needed water they had seen it gush forth from one solid rock. They had seen how a mountain crashed down, humbled by Allah's glory 7:143. But their hearts, devoid of faith and fear of God remained rigid despite the intensity of miracles and divine favors they witnessed.

Their hard heartedness is a recurrent theme and accusation in their own Books Ezek3:7,Jer5:3etc.

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 punishement, 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 remembrence of Egyptian bondage Deut5. This shows the confused manner in which tradition was transmitted prior to being written down.

In addition to the above example of divine stiffening of the law as a punishement, their scholars reached sometimes ridiculous heights of hairsplitting conjectures, which they obtained through subjective methods of deduction and then put forward as God's ordinances.

 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 fullfilled 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.

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 and warns Muslims not to fall into the error of those before them, namely the Jews, who neglected the spirit of the Sharia for soulless external rituals and exagerated legal hair-splittings, superstitious restrictions and regulations. The prophet Muhammad actually came as a mercy to them and to relieve them from these shackles 7:157.

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.