Islam critiqued not interested in Islamic justice; adoption in the Quran?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

Another crucial component of that marriage relates to the pre-Islamic perspective on adopted children. At the time, Arab custom considered adopted children as blood children. Besides being against nature, they would pass onto them the adopter's genealogy and name, thus confusing their identity. The overarching Quranic principle of preserving the adopted's true identity, as will be shown later, negates any practice that compromises this issue. This includes the modern practice of 'closed adoption' which usually conceals any disclosure of information such as the identities of the biological kin. Even if for some other reason the biological father is unknown it is still not a reason to confuse their identity by giving them the adoptive family's name because it neither corresponds to truth nor reality. In all cases, adopted persons can be addressed as brethren in religion or friends and there is no blame if they are sometimes referred to as sons metaphorically, out of affection, just as one would do with any person regardless of there existing blood relations or not 2:220,33:4-5. 

What the Quran does is abolishing the unnatural, unpractical, and even dangerous implications of treating non-relatives as blood relations while counterbalancing with an emphasis on practicality and moral duties towards the adopted. In Islam, the relation with an adopted person is that of guardianship, tutelage, training, protection, until he/she is mentally and physically able to enter into society, possibly using his/her own inheritance to live their life independently 4:2-7. It is not a father/mother - child relationship. 

Keeping the adopted's original identity secures his specific rights, and inherited wealth that are in the adoptive father's responsibility. This wealth is forbidden to be approached or released 6:152, until the child is fully grown and mature, having reached a mariageable age and intellectual maturity/rushd. After repeated testing by the guardian and once he is reasonably convinced of them having reached maturity, he may allow them to start up their own life anew 4:2,6,8,10. The property will be returned in the presence of witnesses in order to make sure that the guardian's judgement in the matter was sound.

Before that time, the guardian is warned not to consume with extravagance and hastiness the orphan's wealth and if he is a rich man then he should abstain altogether from even touching the property. The purpose of the Quran, again, as is the case with safeguarding their identity, is so that orphans are given the best chance to kick start their own life when they are able to.

However, the Quran adds its usual pragmatic instruction that if the guardian is poor then "let him eat reasonably" "out of" the profits of the orphan's capital, not "from" the capital itself lest it is eaten up completely 4:5. Then the Quran reminds again the God-fearing people, the spiritual aware, not to fall back to the previous unjust systems of share and swallowing the weak orphans' property because their offspring could very well be in the same situation 4:9.

This particular verse does not tell the people to show mercy and compassion, they are told to fear Allah as He is quick in requiting evil. It is a threat that whatever they swallow unjustly by usurping orphan's rights, is equal to swallowing fire into their bellies 4:10. Their soul is already burning for their deeds. In pre-Islamic times, orphans were abused by men who would take them under their wing only to take advantage of them not having any close relatives for protection and dispossessed them of their property which they rightfully inherited, replacing it with worthless belongings 4:1-2. The Quran, like past scriptures Prov23:10-11, strongly reprimanded this type of injustice as already shown. It laid stress on the relation between good care, kindness and compassion, as well as respect and honor towards the orphans with success in the Hereafter 107:1-3,93:9-10,89:17.

The HB echoes that notion Prov14:13. The emphasis of the Quran is such that even the sincere believers became afraid of taking orphans under their care lest they would act unjustly towards them. But they were reassured that Allah knows the sincere welldoers. They should mingle with the orphans as they do with any of their Muslim brethren, with sincerity of heart 2:220 caring for them patiently and compassionately 4:36,90:11-17, considering their needs whenever giving for charity 2:177,215. This is what qualifies one as among

90:18"the people of the right hand". 

Preserving the adopted's identity opens the possibility for inheritence rights besides those of the natural heirs 4:8,33. If the adoptive parents had no children or desire to give a specific portion of the inheritence to the adoptive child or else, they can do it in writing or even before their death 4:11-12.

It also prevents compromising the legitimate inheritence of biological offspring, even in some cases in Western societies making the adopted the complete heir in lieu of the blood children. Preserving the adopted's identity avoids the risk of accidental incest.

Another obvious problem is the lack of medical advantages of not knowing one's biological family. 

Islam does its utmost to guarantee the well being of the weak people of society, including the orphans, while at the same time making it clear they need to preserve their real identify and not be confused with one's own children.

This isnt a negation of adoption but rather of the practice of joining their name to one's own name and compromising their and the biological offspring's rights 33:4-5. This was the opportunity to erase these customs unfortunately still existing nowadays among non Muslims. Such a behavior is nothing short of identify theft, in addition making someone believe they are real children of the household in which they grow up. When such children realize the truth they suffer much disappointment and grief.

It is the responsibility of the entire community to help children in need. They should be taken in and nurtured but again, not confused with one's own children. Adoption in the Quran is thus more of a long term foster care which while offering guardianship for the individual, does not legally assume any biological kinship and rights. The Quran's stance therefore isnt against adoption, which is never banned, but against confusing the adopted person's identity.

All these crucial societal reforms are first introduced through admonishment in sura Ahzab 33:4-5 and then with the practical example of the prophet's marriage proposal to Zaynab, now ex-wife of an adopted son. This clearly drew a distinct line from any biological connection with the adoptive family. Nothing could strike harder and clearer at the root of that deeply ingrained belief other than a union one would consider incestuous precisely due to that notion. And none other than the most eminent member of a community, one whom an entire nation looks up to as the epitome of morality could do a better job at setting the example.

The point of the marriage of the prophet and Zaynab was therefore to implement a social reform, and the prophet, being the moral authority of his community as well as last transmitter of divine law 33:40, was the most apt in enforcing it. It is in that reform of principles that Muslims are obliged and commanded to follow the prophet's example. Marrying the ex-wives of their adoptive sons is neither a command nor necessity since the reform was already implemented by the prophet. But it should however never be hindered by all the false notions spoken of earlier and which the Quran came to reform, hence the statement that

"there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them".

Islam critiqued follows the path of the opponents; Zaynab bint Jahsh, who was she?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

The eighth wife of the Prophet was Zaynab bint Jahsh of the Asad tribe. This particular marriage had multiple aims. Zaynab was the Prophet's first cousin, from a noble lineage and at first, the prophet arranged for her to unite with Zayd ibn Haritha, a slave he had freed from his guardians, and whom he then adopted.

It was unthinkable at the time for such unions to happen between the daughters of the aristocracy and a slave even if he was freed. This was a radical step taken by the Prophet in order to bring down the sense of superiority the Arabs had over slaves. The process had already started through the countless verses of the Quran speaking of dealing with the weak people of society including slaves as one would deal with his own family 4:36 that it is allowed to marry from among them 4:3,25,24:32,33:50 since the primary criteria distinguishing the people including for marriage, is piety 25:77,34:7,49:13.

By persuading both Zayd himself who was hesitant and Zaynab along with her family who were skeptical as well, the marriage did finally happen and the Quran alludes to the context of skepticism as regards the prophet's decision in introduction to the story 33:36. But Zaynab could not overcome the deeply ingrained social class system she was brought up with. That she had personal tastes and requirements (unrelated to religion) that werent met in the person of Zayd (social status), doesnt make her sinful. It just exposes her limits in terms of self-sacrifice as regards her materialistic outlook of life. She would have been praiseworthy had she been able to restrain that aspect of her personality but she certainly isnt condemned for failing to do so. Even the prophets' wives are told to kindly divorce him and go live their own life as they please, without any disapproval put on them, if they cannot handle the humble lifestyle inside his household 33:28-29.

Zayd complained many times to the Prophet and wanted to divorce her at one point but the prophet would keep telling him to be patient and keep his own wife, for the command was meant at accomplishing a higher and beneficial objective

33:37"And when you said to him to whom Allah had shown favor and to whom you had shown a favor: Keep your wife to yourself and be careful of (your duty to) Allah".

Taqul, when used in the simple present in classical Arabic conveys the notion of persistence and continuity of a state, ie the repeated attempts of the prophet at hindering the seperation. Nothing less could have been expected from the noble prophet who many times is depicted as a fatherly figure to his people, providing them with sincere and pragmatic advises in their private lives

"Anyone who incites a woman against her husband or a slave against his master is not one of us".

But the situation did not improve and Zayd finally divorced her, about a year after they united and he had no more desire for her of any sort

"when Zaid had accomplished his want of her".

The marriage thus ultimately failed. Both sides couldnt surmount their differences and reform themselves. But this failure did not mean that the objective of the ordinance failed. This prejudiced society that was gradually being reformed was shown, through the union of people originating from both extremities of society and under a messenger of God's blessing, that the oft repeated Quranic principle that a person's merit should only be measured by his righteousness and God-consciousness, as strongly stressed just 2 verses prior 33:35, is a reality all members of the Muslim community must learn to deal with, even in such intimate areas as marriage.

Critics argue that the union's failure did not help to bring about the reform that the command was supposed to bring, but the object of the command was not to make a union work after several years of marriage, despite the parties' freewill so the objection is irrelevant. The object was to show in what a person's true merit lies in and this was succesfully established since the taboo surrounding the union of 2 persons from different social origins was broken.

Islam critiqued questions divine motive; why obedience to prophets?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

Let us now set the record straight by finding guidance in the uncorrupted word of God. God does not interact directly with the people and even when He spoke to the Israelites, He did not manifest Himself physically. He bestows the light of inspiration and prophethood on an individual -human or else 6:9,130,11:69,17:95,22:75,35:1- from any nation to lead it to the straight path 3:73-4,179,6:88,17:65,28:68,40:15,42:13,14:11,16:93.

It is so because not all people are fit to receive Revelation 2:118-9,6:124,74:52 just like not any type of electrical cable can absorb high voltage directly from the energy source. In the HB we read how the Israelites made that experience when revelation descended on them collectively, and consequently requested the experience to stop, fearing they would die. They then appointed Musa as their sole intermediary with God.

His guidance is not restricted 2:89-90,142,26:28,55:17,37:5,73:9 and sends it to all indiscriminately, like water from the clouds to answer the human need for spiritual guidance.

Among the major tenets that came with every prophet was unconditional obedience to them in the sphere of the religion. God's infaillible representatives, who selflessly spend every drop of their energy, night and day, for the purpose of causing spiritual awakening in their nation, are to be obeyed

5:12,3:50,71:3,26:106-108,124-126,142-144,161-163,177-179,4:64"And We did not send any messenger but that he should be obeyed by Allah's permission".

This obedience must be without hesitation 4:65 because their qualities of wisdom and authority were granted by God

6:84-90"These are they whom Allah guided, therefore follow their guidance".

The most glaring example of retribution and evil to befall a people who are hesitant to obey their prophet is that of the Israelites who were sent to wander 40 years in the desert and prevented entry to the promised land for having shown distrust in their prophet. Obeying the prophets in the sphere of religion and divine instructions is therefore tantamount to obeying the One who sent them

3:31,4:80"Whoever obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys Allah, and whoever turns back, so We have not sent you as a keeper over them".

In that area, a prophet's will is one that stems from God's will 53:3-4. It is natural then that it overrules someone's own will whether public or private 33:6. We thus find that the closest followers of the prophets, the most sincere and devout, were ready to give up everything, including their lives as instructed by these messengers of God 

"Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah said, “The wealth of no one has benefited me as much as the wealth of Abu Bakr.” Abu Bakr wept and he said, “My life and my wealth are only for you, O Messenger of Allah."" 

These followers understood very well that the will of a prophet stems directly from Allah's will and thus sacrificing their lives as commanded by these prophets was synonymous to laying down their lives to the One that sent them 

6:162"Say, "Indeed, my prayer, my rites of sacrifice, my living and my dying are for Allah, Lord of the worlds".

As Jesus said

Jn14:6"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

This obedience to prophets is reflected in the Torah that lists among the 613 commandements revealed at Sinai, the obligation to obey the prophet's instructions, and not doubt or test his promises and warnings Deut6:16,18:15. Belief in God and His prophets are inseparable to fulfill the conditions of correct faith. Here in the words of the righteous king Jehoshaphat

2Chr20:20"Hear me, O Judeans and inhabitants of Jerusalem. Believe in the Lord your God, and you will be believed; believe in His prophets, and you will prosper". 

Rejecting any of God's messengers is equal to rejecting God

6:33,2:98,59:4"they acted in opposition to Allah and His Messenger, and whoever acts in opposition to Allah, then surely Allah is severe in retributing (evil)".

See the Hebrew Bible in Ps2:12 speaking of accepting David with sincerity of heart as God's anointed or incur God's anger.

Obedience is the one and only area in which God and His prophets are one in principle. It just is a practical reality, which is why we have many verses speaking in one breath of obedience to Allah and His messengers. Allah is the issuing Authority and the messenger is the means by which divine authority is implemented. There are no ambiguities between the role and position of each, just as no confusion exists when verses lump in one group God, the messenger and the believers 

63:8"And to Allah belongs [all] honor, and to His Messenger, and to the believers, but the hypocrites do not know". 

This required obedience is why prophets and messengers, even prior to their calling, had to be unique examples of moral qualities and worthiness, virtue among their nations 3:161,164,33:21,68:4,21:51,74-90 recognized as such and chosen for that 6:87. They already possess a heightened sensitivity to spirituality.

During their mission, their high morality became a means by which their addressees were purified

3:164"Certainly Allah conferred a benefit upon the believers when He raised among them a Messenger from among themselves, reciting to them His communications and purifying them, and teaching them the Book and the wisdom, although before that they were surely in manifest error".

This is reflected in the rabbinical writings on Prov13:17 which they believe is in reference to Moses

"A wicked messenger falls into evil, but a faithful emissary brings healing". 

Muhammad for example was notoriously known as al-amin (the trustworthy). He carried that principle so firmly in his life that later on during prophethood someone asked him,

‘Is it possible that a Muslim may be a coward?’ He replied, ‘Yes.’ They asked, ‘Is it possible that a Muslim may commit adultery?’ He replied, ‘Yes.’ They asked him, ‘What is it that a Muslim cannot possibly do?’ He replied, ‘A Muslim cannot tell a lie".

When the Meccan pagans were busy renovating the Kaaba, the black stone had to be removed from its socle and when the work was finished each tribe and clan wanted the exclusive privilege of placing it back on its socle. The verbal dispute almost turned to a civil war until Muhammad, prior to his prophetic call, intervened and was directly accepted as mediator and was unanimously given the much sought after responsibility to place the black stone in its place.

His integrity was such that when he migrated from Mecca, and because even at that advanced stage of antagonism between him and the polytheists he was still trusted with his own persecutors’ belongings with him for safekeeping, he instructed Ali to stay behind in Mecca, in order to return all these people's trusts. Ali stayed back for three days and three nights to complete his task and then migrated in turn. Contrast this behavior with the supposed divine order to the Israelites, according to the Biblical narrative, to take all of their previous masters' belongings in their escape. The prophet Muhammad had a pattern of high conduct which he maintained throughout his life, especially in regards to trusts. When he was asked about the picking up of a "Luqata" (fallen lost thing) he replied,

 "Recognize and remember its tying material and its container, and make public announcement (about it) for one year, then utilize it but give it to its owner if he comes".

 The Quran, which the messenger embodied, stresses the importance of maintaining justice indiscriminately, upholding covenants and trusts, respecting one's word.

Prophets such as Noah, Salih and Shuayb are also given as examples of refined souls 11:28,63,88. This particularity put aside, they remain human beings, open to comitting mistakes outside the religious sphere in which they are divinely protected, as amply reminded in the Quran.

All these qualities do no bring on prophecy but make one worthy to be its recipient. Once selected, they are granted wisdom to be able to judge rationally between the people and apply God's laws revealed to them as well as the instinctive knowledge of good and evil 28:14,12:22,2:213. The granting of revelation is in fact a continuous reward that they experience 6:154. The prophets in the Quran are treated as the embodiment of God's Mercy to His creatures 21:107, they can never be cursed, loathful sinners as slandered in other writings. That is why they are to be obeyed, unflinchingly by those who come to believe in them.

It is important to distinguish, that blind obedience isnt required from the get go, but only once one has been reasonably convinced of the truth they are carrying, through pondering on all the signs and arguments presented in their message. Also, that blind obedience isnt required in everyday affairs, areas in which the prophets werent divinely protected, could and did commit mistakes, but in matters of religion. By the message they are worthy of carrying and their sublime morality, prophets are distinguishers of truth and falsehood, bearers of good tidings and warners; they bring the good news of paradise to the righteous believers, and warn of Allah's chastisment to those who reject the truth and commit sins, disrupting the natural law of justice in this world whether on a spiritual or social, human level 57:25.

The parallel is made in that verse with iron which Allah has sent down in order to emphasize the firmness and strength of this divine justice that, if needs be, should forcefully be applied

"Truly we sent our prophets with clear proofs and with them we sent the Book and true measure, so that the people rise in justice, and we sent iron in which there is great firmness and benefits for people, surely Allah is Strong, Mighty".

By these functions, and their successful completion of their tasks, the prophets in themselves will be a proof which shall be presented on the day of gathering and judgement against those seeking vain excuses 7:164,77:5-6. Each prophet, or a rightly-guided person from among the followers of the prophets who had performed the duty of preaching the Truth in the community, or any means through which the message of the Truth had reached the community, will testify that the warning was duly transmitted to its respective nation 28:75.

Islam critiqued inadvertently exposes Bible; reason for attacking the prophets?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

One of the basic themes of the Bible is the Israelites trying to justify their sins by blaming others. They were chastised for sins they comitted because they were "misled" by their leaders. At one point for example they chose Jeroboam over Solomon's son thus causing God to reveal their eminent uprooting and scattering

1Kings13:15-16"..because of the sins of Jeroboam that he sinned and that he has caused Israel to sin".

In other cases they attacked the prophets, a few examples were given earlier. It was because Aaron yielded to the people's demand for an idol to be built, that many were put to death. Sometimes it is the prophets' own sins that caused the community to be chastised. In 2Sam24,1Chron21 God gives David 3 options to forgive a deed inexplicably considered as a sin; the census of his population. Yet a previous census had been conducted in Israelite history, as far back as Moses without any reproof Ex30. So the 3 options for that terrible sin of David was to punish the Israelites with famine, or with a plague or at the hands of their ennemies. David chose the plague which resulted in 70'000 deaths.

Tens of thousands of them were massacred by the Philistines under divine decree, because of Eli's 2 sons' unrighteousness and corruption of the priesthood. The sin of these 2 sons also brought about a divine curse upon Eli's lineage, with the death of all young men raised in his household for having failed to prevent the wickedness of his 2 sons despite the warnings 1Sam2-4. Similarily in 2Sam21 God tells David that the Israelites' famine was because of what Saul and his household had done to the Gibeonites, so David turned over seven of Saul's progeny to the Gibeonites, who promptly executed them thus satisfying their desire for revenge. Later, king Jehoram is condemned for misguiding the Israelites into idol worship, a crime for which God would deliver them to be plundered and destroyed at the hand of their pagan neighbors 2Chr21:12-20.

As regards their sins and atrocities they commited as they invaded foreign lands, they are depicted as "divine decrees". The kingdom of Israel was torn appart and divided due to Solomon's sins of polytheism, in turn blamed on his numerous wives. Yet this punishment for Solomon's own sin, was inflicted later, in the reign of his son Rehoboam. Solomon was spared this sorrow in his lifetime because of his father David's righteousness.

Other major themes and causes for scriptural corruptions are the rampant tribal prejudices. Abraham's "only son" suddenly becomes the second born son Isaac, rather than firstborn Ishmael. God rewards Jacob's deception of Esau to be the covenant's upholder. God curses one line (Jeconiah) in favor of another (Solomon) for the Messiah's lineage. YHWH takes sides among their internal tribal conflicts as in Judges20,21 with the massacre of the Benjamites by the remaining Israelites or in 2Chron13 with YHWH's blessing of Abijah, king of Judah (southern kingdom) to wage war against Israel (northern kingdom) ruled by Jeroboam (not from the line of Solomon) that resulted in no less than 500.000 deaths among His "chosen people".

When the whole community in general, and the religious scholars and priests in particular, became involved in deviations and immoralities, their guilty consciences impelled them to invent excuses for justifying their own bad conduct.

As they committed heinous sins like shirk, sorcery, adultery, treachery, falsehood and the like, they blemished the pure characters of their own Prophets by ascribing such sins to them as were most shameful even for an ordinary good man, not to speak of a prophet so that they could justify their own wicked deeds. They didnt even spare God Himself in the process Who openly takes sides with the sinful, issues cruel and unwarranted punishments, allows His chosen race to be abusive and ungodly in their wars.

As a final note, the hatemongerers among the Jews and Christians attribute to the last prophet, the prophet Muhammad, without any basis, all the slanders and calumnies which their scribes had imputed to their prophets and eminent leaders. Although, much to their dismay, the sins that they have assigned to the prophet Muhammad do not even come close in scale and scope of what their predecessors attributed to the previous prophets.

What bellies the position of these misleading critics is that the prophet Muhammad could have repeated in this final revelation all the charges against the Biblical prophets so as to justify his own alleged slip into idolatry, his greed, lust and love for blood. He could have easily picked up countless examples of men who comitted sins far greater than what is being accused of and pointed that despite their sins, these men's claim to prophethood remained unshaken. But the Quran consistently and repeatedly absolves the previous prophets of these malicious charges and places their standard of morality on such a high level that the prophet Muhammad would many times feel humbled by the description that the Quran makes of them. For example he once said he would not have had Yusuf's strength of character when he provided the interpretation of the king's dream while unjustly imprisoned

"I would not have done so until I put a condition on them that they let me out...May Allah have mercy on Yusuf.  May Allah bless him for his patience, and Allah will forgive him.  I could not have done that...".

Why obedience to the prophets, who needs them anyway?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

It is normal for someone coming from a Judeo-Christian background to question the idea of unconditional obedience to the prophets. It is in fact expected that someone whose tradition depicts its prophets, religious leaders and eminent personalities in the worst possible manner to be suspicious of these supposedly righteous men of God. Anyone familiar with these man-made scriptures shouldnt be surprised at seeing sins like idolatry, adultery, murder and the like being attributed to the Biblical prophets.

It is a common theme in the Bible that the many divine chastisements that befell the Israelites were due to sins which they were mislead into commiting by their own prophets, leaders, kings. This is besides the rampant tribal prejudice running allthrought their history, the puerile villification of characters and the internal conflicts.

 Here it should be quickly worthwile mentioning the tribal tension surrounding the Davidic line. After Solomon's death, his kingdom was divided, allegedly as a divine punishement for his sins, including the sin of idolatry which eventually dragged the entire nation. We see here how the divine justice plays out, punishing others for someone else's crime. Most certainly, far from that noble prophet being the instigator of this greatest sin and the cause of its re-introduction into the Israelites' lives, this yet again confirms the nation's constant and stubborn ingratitude. Moses had foreseen their turning away from the straight path into the sin of idolatry. Virtually all prophets that followed him kept on condemning them for that constant fall out into the ways of the pagan nations.

This lack of faith resulted in them majoritarily defecting from the house of David and the divine covenant itself. The nation sceeded in 2; the kingdom of Israel to the north with Samaria for capital and the rebellious and polytheist Jeroboam as its king, and the tiny kingdom of Judah, comprised of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, who had remained faithful to David and Solomon's royal line, with Jerusalem as capital to the south and Solomon's son Rehoboam as king

Hos12:1"Ephraim has surrounded me with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit, but Judah still rules with God, and with the Holy One he is faithful". 

Both kingdoms remained at war with one another throughout their respective leaders' reigns.
It certainly isnt difficult to imagine how this inter tribal hatred can result in the kind of insiduous accusations as David, Solomon and other prophets were victims of. The Hebrew Bible is literaly filled with such examples.

Lot whom Judaism does not consider a prophet but was certainly among the most God-fearing in his nation, had incest with his daughters who begat his children Gen19:30. Yet this only righteous man among his decadent and sinful people was just extracted from a nation destroyed because of sex related crimes. What is more intriguing is that according to the Hebrew text, once his eldest daughter got him drunk and finished the sexual act with him, he realized what had happened but nevertheless got drunk again the same night and had incest with his second daughter. That is besides the issue of God not preventing the misdeed of those He had just saved. He could have simply told them that there were other men in the town of Zoar they had just reached. The reason given by the scribes that the daughters worried about the extinction of the human race, thinking no men were left upon the earth, is further discredited considering the simple fact that they certainly interracted with the people of Zoar to get the alcohol that got their father drunk with, or the nearby settlement of Abraham Gen19:28. 

Regardless, this surreal tale has the 2 daughters eventually begetting 2 boys, Moab, and Ben-ammi. Moab is the ancestor of the Moabites and Ben-ammi the father of the Ammonites who just so happen to be the competing kingdoms to the west of Judah. Thus is explained the origin and inferiority of non-Jewish neighbours. Thats another instance in the HB where the sins of others explain God's disapproval, cursing or punishing of others. Instead of being Abrahamic tribes and thus equally entitled to the land as the Israelites, the Moabites and Ammonites became foreign invaders with no rights to the land. That the whole tale is a retrospective account aimed at portraying negatively a certain people, is seen from the anachronism of having Moabites or Ammonites in the patriarchal period, while there were none.

As to David, the great prophet, he brings Batsheba to him and has sex with her after he saw her bathing from his roof top. But he had first to plot for her husband's murder 2Sam11. This is because once the woman got pregnant through this sin punishable by death Lev20:10, David could not get her brave husband, Uriah, to leave the battlefront and have him sleep with his wife to hide the sin.. The brave soldier refused the comfort of his home while his commander was at the battlefield. David tried getting him drunk and leave the warfront but he still refused. Time was running out and the sin was going to become apparent. David then arranged for Uriah to be put at the front line  where the fighting was fiercest, then have the army retreat and let him be killed. The plan succeeded and Batsheba became David's wife.

In the Quran on the other hand, in sura Saad/38 David is given ghafr/covering/protection in authority and judgement. He is reminded of his eminent status in the world as well as the qualities expected from one who has been drawn near to God; wisdom in judgement between men, steadfastness in God's way and rejection of all falsehood, whether coming from inside or outside one's self. The slanderous scribes of the Bible however still found a way to disparage him and his household despite his lofty character, blindly passing off his enemies' malicious talk as facts, probably even contributing to it. The death of Batsheba's husband and subsequent marriage to David was too much of a coincidence for their lowly mentality and thus accused David of adultery and murder. They constantly needed to shift the blame for their own sins and subsequent destructions, on their leaders' "misguidance".

The true God does not let the names of his noble servants, the prophets and their households to be dishonored in this manner

24:23-5"Surely those who accuse chaste believing women, unaware (of the evil), are cursed in this world and the hereafter, and they shall have a grievous chastisement. On the day when their tongues and their hands and their feet shall bear witness against them as to what they did. On that day Allah will pay back to them in full their just reward, and they shall know that Allah is the evident Truth".

Despite reproaching him of his evil act through the prophet Nathan Ps51, the divine biblical justice played out, not by punishing David himself who had commited the sin but by promising bloodshed within his household, which almost resulted in civil war and even the destrucion of all his followers 2Sam19, the hatred and attempted overturn of his rule coming from among his own sons. Sure David the sinner was at one point forced to flee Jerusalem during the revolt of one of his sons Absalom and the social chaos his father's sin had created. But what is it compared to having his wives taken from him and lying with others in front of all of Israel like worhtless prostitutes 2Sam12?

Solomon broke God's covenant, and at the instigation of his hundreds of foreign polytheistic wives (700) and concubines (300)

1Kings11"went after Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. And Solomon did what was displeasing to the Lord, and he was not completely devoted to the Lord as was David his father. Then did Solomon build a high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab on the mountain that is before Jerusalem and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon".

His multiple marriages were also a transgression of the Torah Deut17:17,Neh13:26. Contrary to the lowly depiction that is made of him by the scribes of the Bible, instead of his posessions and power leading him to excess and sin, the Quran depicts him as increasing in gratitude and never faltering from God's remembrance despite these favors

38:30"And to David We gave, Solomon. Excellent was the servant; indeed, he was (always) returning (to Allah)".

Noah was a drunkard who laid naked in his intoxication Gen9:18-25 and the talmudic scholars assert that he was either castrated or sodomized (they're not really sure which of the two) by his 4th son Cham/Ham while unconscious (Rashi; Sanhedrin 70a). These are the descriptions they give of a man whom they traditionaly do not view as a prophet yet he not only received comunications from God, but was also one whom the Torah says was

Gen6:9"a righteous man he was perfect in his generations; Noah walked with God".

Their tradition also contradictorily speaks of him having had in possession the staff of Adam, that would later be owned by Moses, which only the righteous may manipulate.
Still in the Talmudic accounts, as a result of not being able to have more children, Noah cursed Cham's innocent 4th child (Canaan), turning him black and exiling him to Africa, thereafter condemning Cham and his descendants to be his brethren's slaves. This apparently seems to be the justification for black slavery. Still among the list of Talmudic "anecdotes", Ham's descendants would be led out of Egyptian captivity "with bare buttocks" as a retribution because of Ham who saw his father’s nakedness and did not cover it Isa20:4.

Sucking the tongue of your grandchild to relieve him

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

Not every saying and action of the prophet is meant to be emulated. One doesnt need, in all cases, to apply saliva or suck on a child's tongue to relieve him from thirst as the prophet and desert Arabs did when in the absence of water in the extreme conditions of their environment. 

"The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, heard Hasan and Hussein crying while they were with their mother, so he hurried to them and he said: What is the matter with my boys? Their mother said: It is thirst". As the water source had dried out, the Prophet called out: "Does anyone have any water?" As nobody answered, he asked for one of his grandchildren be brought to him "He massaged his tongue and moistened it until he calmed down".

This obviously is a practical solution to a specific situation. We arent talking here of rubbing adult tongues and ears with one's saliva as some are depicted in the NT Mk7:33,Jn9:6.

Islam critiqued exposes double standards; weak hadiths depict true Muhammad?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

Thats a very naive picture of what Muslims believe. First of all It is very compelling to read how the Quran says that it is itself the best hadith.

39:23"Allah has revealed the best HADITH, a book conformable in its various parts, repeating, whereat do shudder the skins of those who fear their Lord, then their skins and their hearts become pliant to the remembrance of Allah; this is Allah's guidance, He guides with it whom He pleases; and (as for) him whom Allah makes err, there is no guide for him"  

45:6"These are the communications of Allah which We recite to you with truth; then in what HADITH would they believe after Allah and His communications".

Anything besides that best hadith, Allah tells us that the rightly guided are those people who use their brains and reflect over them, following only the best and discarding what is inapplicable or that contradicts the Quran

39:18"Those who listen to the word (qawl or saying), then follow the best of it; those are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men of understanding".

The Quran contains such warning because

31:6"of men is he who takes instead frivolous hadith to lead astray from Allah's path without knowledge, and to take it for a mockery".

These verses warning to keep the best hadith and discard all frivolous and counterproductive talks, useless and misleading narratives, provide clear evidence that idle tales were even being disseminated at the Prophet's time. If this was then already a problem reaching such levels that the Quran had to correct it, then how much worse did the problem potentially manifest after the prophet's death? It further tells us to investigate thoroughly any information of importance related by an untrustworthy source 49:6.

Muslims are not required to accept whatever rumor and report is disseminated about their prophet or on his behalf, no matter who the narrator is. If the Quran itself plainly corrects its messenger in every day life, besides the prophet himself admitting to making mistakes in common affairs, how much so should one be prudent when deciding on the truthfulness of a story? Neither does the Quran request the outright dismissal of the report based on the unreliability of the source. It simply advises caution in the authentication process of the narration itself which doesnt only include reliability of the transmitor but also of the information in light of certain established facts.

For example all ahadith on a particular subject should be gathered together to form a better picture and establish a pattern, which will then become a criterion of authenticity. That is just common sense for anyone with a slightest spark of intellectual honesty, seeking to interject into a discussion occuring centuries ago, reported differently, through various angles and people in each repetition within a vast corpus.

This opens the way to the possibility that the source might be telling the truth despite its untrustworthiness. Hadith scholars mostly stress on scrutinizing the narrator and do not give much importance to scrutinizing the content of the report. It should also be noted, a few verses down in 49:12 it warns not to harbour ill thoughts of others who have not shown through their words or deeds any misapropriateness or imorality. People should first and foremost think well of one another, abandon the kind of outright suspicion and ill founded inquisitiveness (with harmful objectives).

Here are some major defects leading hadith scholars to either discard or view with caution certain reports, which happen to be mostly valued by the ignorant critics of Islam. The biggest red flag is when some of the numerous Muslim hypocrites (munafiqeen) whom the Quran repeatedly condemns and warns the true Muslims against 63:1-2, are detected in a chain of transmission. They were the ones who murdered the prophet's progeny shortly after his death. Another major source of corruption came from the early generations of Muslims themselves who in their zeal would embelish and exagerate reports in the prophet's favor. There is also manipulation from Islamic sects seeking to produce documentary evidence in favour of their views, forgeries by people with good intentions in order to admonish sinners and promote piety. Others narrators were motivated by tribal and regional prejudices, succession rivalries following the prophet's death.

Some had personal ambition such as pleasing a ruler by condoning certain acts of theirs through a supposed similar action by the prophet. It is interesting to read in a non-Muslim writing of the early 9th century, which is a little before the main hadith books were compiled, the Zuqnin Chronicle says of his contemporary Muslims

"They are a very covetous and carnal people, and any law, whether prescribed by Muhammad or another God-fearing person, that is not set in accord with their desire, they neglect and abandon. But what is in accord with their will and complements their desires, though it be instituted by one contemptible among them, they hold to it, saying: "This was appointed by the prophet and messenger of God, and moreover it was charged to him thus by God".

These same ones would attempt suppressing a potential spirit of revolt among the people by promoting the notions of determinism and predetermination. Some would lie on the spur of the moment to fit the forgery in a discussion and increase one's credibility. Differences among jurists prompted some scholars to fabricate traditions to support their own legal positions. Together with forgeries, there were omission and supression of true ahadith sometimes imposed through death threats by the rulers.

There were also Jewish myths, used by story-tellers, who would include them in their narrations. They wanted to answer the popular sense of curiosity in trivial, spiritualy inconsequential details in the lives and times of former prophets. These israeliyyat were mainly written by the early converts from the people of the book. Under Abubakr's caliphate for instance, Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin ‘Aas, an ex-Jew took possession of many books gathered by the Byzantine Christians following the battle of Yarmouk, and he would use the informatiom therein to comment on certain Quran passages and disseminated many of the stories among the Muslims, which would be used by later comentators. The technical term itself was not used systematicaly before Ibn Kathir. Although before him, the Andalusian exegete, Abu bakr Ibn al-Arabi mentionned it. Ibn Taymiyya, the mentor of Ibn Kathir, and Ibn Taymiyya's contemporary al-Tufi discussed israeliyyat before Ibn Kathir. Keeping in mind the existence of so many published and unpublished tafsirs, it is virtually impossible to identify the commentator who was the first user of the term israeliyyat in a technical sense. These reports have been always understood as an amalgam of truth and falsehood. The Muslim story tellers would take for basis the Quranic text, then add the Jewish traditions from the converts where they deemed it most fit, resulting in a commentary that is neither Quranic nor Jewish. Some other Muslims became influenced by non-Muslims and their scriptures, implementing non-Muslim standards and customs as Islamic traditions with no relation to the Quran, true traditions of the Prophet or Islamic philosophy.

One other thing to be kept in mind is that many of the early writers, particularily the seera writers such as Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Al Waqidi, Ibn Saad were concerned by amassing and compiling all the material available or what was being talked about, surrounding any historical event or in comment to a verse, fearing they could be lost, without authenticating them. This shows the integrity of the Muslim tradition that did not seek to supress any information related to the life of the prophet and the early Muslims, nor invent things so as to advance their agenda. Such an endeavour would have been close to impossible to achieve anyway. There never was a centralized system of collecting information. Each narrator and historian took whatever was available to him, in his time and place. These historians, after gathering all that was floating around in oral tradition in regards an event of interest, would in the same time write down as many names among the chain of narrators as they could, so as to leave time and room for the specialists whose life was dedicated to sifting through the reliable and unreliable reports. They did not even attempt to examine the various reports in order to inform the reader of what they considered to be the reasons for various incidents. The biographers this way avoided taking responsibility for adopting a particular account when conflicting reports existed. Adopting specific accounts would mean discrediting the authenticity of other reporters and their accounts. And since was not their expertize, they preferred leaving it to the muhaddithun. When the experts finished selecting the authentic reports, the remainders were neither physically destroyed nor erased. They were instead kept as examples of what constitutes a weak narration, for future references and studies. That is the difference between the Muslim tradition and the Judeo-Christian one that shamelessly accepts within its authentic collection of writings the most ridiculous and insulting things about God and the prophetic history, without any critical consideration for either the chain of transmission or the soundness of the content of a tradition. Neither do the Muslims take at face value the reports that over exalt the prophet and the early Muslims. If after deliberation they were deemed weak or unreliable, they were kept nevertheless if there was any moral lesson to derive from them. These weak and rejected narrations are well known to the Muslims, although the misinformed, unqualified critics of Islam make ample use of them to serve their anti Islamic propaganda machine.

These historians thus left the authentication process to the following generations in search of the truth. The famous historian Tabari for instance says in introduction to his work that his primary duty was to faithfully transmit whatever information he could gather, the responsibility is then on the reader or listener to verify not only the authenticity of the reports based on the transmitters' reliability, but also based on reason. As a case in point, the statement 'za'ama or za'amu often precedes Ibn Ishaq's reports implying the inherent caution of something being 'alleged'. This should make it clear for any sincere enquirer that there is more than a hint of a caution that the veracity of the statement he compiles is not necessarily determined as fact. Many narratives are this way injected with Arabic terms by the historians transmitting them, suggesting caution for the reader to undertake. Technically speaking, a seera book is a collection of reports about the prophet and his companions arranged in a chronoligical order with little attention given to reliability. The goal being to have as little gaps in time as possible. 

CIRA international miss the point; reason for Ishmael's sacrifice?

In answer to the video "The Crucifixion 03 - The Crucifixion is Historical"

In a dream Allah

2:124"tried Ibrahim with certain words".

Ibrahim had formerly shown great spiritual resolve by steadfastly opposing the religious practices of his people and relatives, even when they attempted murdering him. He turned away from his nation and migrated. He made the painful step of leaving, by Allah's command, his wife and infant son in an area of dry land, where no food and water or any inhabitants could be found. He was now being tested a step further as an upholder of God's way and will. The aim was this time, through his attachement to that progeny he had so long desired and prayed for, to make him reach the climax of prophethood by becoming the universal leader (Imam) of monotheism 2:124. 

This was another step in Ibrahim's journey, freeing himself from desires of prestige, wealth, women and children and turning with total surrender and progressing with complete devotion to the Lord

37:99"Surely I fly to my lord; He will guide me".

Ibrahim was put through this difficult trial when he was already a great Prophet and Messenger of Allah. When he sacrificed his connection to his homeland and idolatrous father, God re-established these broken connections. Ibrahim, the prototype of the religious outcast, was saved from his polytheistic environment, resettled in a better place and granted a righteous offspring. No sooner was all this achieved that once more, all is compromised through a new test of obedience. Would Abraham fall into complacency or be prepared to repeat his former sacrifice of social belonging for the sake of God? 

Abraham demonstrated again his unshakeable obedience to God, giving it precedence over human loyalties under all circumstances, just as the subsequent prophets would teach their followers, including Jesus and Muhammad.

Neither he nor his son failed the test of their trust in God; they both willingly set the stage for the sacrifice. Ismail, aware of the hardship ahead humbled himself to God, does not give himself any credit in the matter, instead asked to be increased in patience 37:102. Contrast this attitude of Ismail with the Biblical account where the son of the sacrifice is a passive participant. Up to the last moment when Abraham was about to slit his throat, he is unaware of the divine command and of his father's intentions towards him Gen22.

Ibrahim then placed his only beloved son, raised his hand with the knife but was stopped from going further

37:105"you have made the vision true..Most surely this is a manifest trial".

This shows that the reality of Ibrahim's vision was that he was GOING to sacrifice his son and not that he had sacrificed him. The act of slaughtering was therefore not part of the divine vision since it was not needed for its fulfilment, rather the preparedness to do it amounted to its fulfilment. God did not want him to sacrifice his son, but wanted to detach his heart fully, test his trust for a higher objective that included the dedication of Ismail (and his descendants through him) to the worship of Allah.This is Islam's essence, God wants nothing from His servants other than that they submit themselves to Him totally, with nothing too precious to be given up, including life itself. When both Ibrahim and Ismail demonstrated their Islam, what was left was flesh and blood, which the Quran says is secondary compared to submission 22:37 and which was thus substituted by another type of flesh and blood. 

Again, the Quran never says that Allah ordered Ibrahim to sacrifice his son, but speaks of Ibrahim being tried with "certain words" like Adam received 2:37"some words" that taught him how to perform repentance. The dream was symbolic and its fulfilment consisted in the preparedness in sacrificing his son, just like the fulfilment of the prophet Joseph/Yusuf's symbolic dream of celestial bodies bowing before him consisted in having his close family members prostrating to him

12:4,100"When Yusuf said to his father: O my father! Indeed, I saw eleven planets and the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating to me...And he raised his parents upon the throne and they fell down in prostration before him, and he said: O my father! this is the significance of my vision of old; my Lord has indeed made it to be true".   

Ishmael was ransomed with a great sacrifice 37:107. The text does not say what that sacrifice was and what is it that made it great but as we continue reading, we see a clear correlation with the great institution of yearly sacrifice at the hajj and this heavenly ransom. It is the prime symbol by which Abraham is commemorated, as stated in the next verse

37:108"and we left for him a good name among the succeeding generations".

Until now and throughout the Muslim world, the courage and trust of Ibrahim in his Lord, his complete detachment from all worldly benefits, including the most precious gifts for God's sake, are remembered through the day of sacrifice ('id al adha). The theological significance of both the near sacrifice and the settlement of Ishmael away from Canaan had the clear purpose of making Abraham the leader(imam) of mankind and the establishment of a monotheistic sanctuary that would eventually guide mankind to the Abrahamic path.

So the whole thing had nothing to do with sin atonement, as retrospectively claimed by the NT writers that applied the incident to Jesus' death. This selective application, considering that Abraham's son was never sacrificed but rather saved by God, also ignores the unequivocal mosaic prohibition of human sacrifices of any kind Deut12:30-31,18:9-12,Jer19:4-6. It is an act of abomination and among the explicit examples given is that of the sacrifice of a son by his father, which eerly resembles the trinitarian idea. God's anger towards this action 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, just as He did not command the sacrifice of Ishmael in the Quran. 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. 

Neither did the sacrifice have for purpose to establishment a covenant. This had occurred prior, and included Ishmael. Isaac's particularity from a covenantal perspective is the land grant to his descendants, of which Ishmael wasnt part of. This, even the Quran agrees with; the Israelites, because of Abraham's obedience, were promised to be settled in the holy land, as a matter of test, whether they would remain on the straight spiritual path or not. Further, following the near-sacrifice, Abraham is told

 Gen22:16-18"I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me". 

None of those divine blessings apply to the Israelites, while all can easily reflect the trajectory of the Ishmaelites, and the climax being the revival of the Abrahamic way with the rise of the last Ishmaelite prophet.

To further elaborate on the incompetence of the transmitters of biblical tradition prior to it having been put unto writing, in Gen17:1-19 after announcing Isaac's futur birth, God promises to establish through his line

"an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him".

How could God then demand Isaac's sacrifice while Abraham knew Isaac would live and have many descendants? Why would God change his name from Avram/exalted father to Avraham/father of nations, in connection to that promise and then almost immediately after request him to sacrifice his "only son"? It would render the whole goal of the sacrifice as a test of his loyalty to God meaningless. Because of this absurdity, the Talmud presents different opinions with some suggesting that it was actually Abraham that was testing God and not the other way around, since Abraham was already aware that God had made a promise to him through Isaac. This is because a valid test is when one isnt sure of the outcome.

That difficulty in the text reflects down to the NT in Hebrews 11 which attempts to explain a contradiction. If God himself promises Abraham a covenant through Isaac, there is no reason for him to think God is a liar. Abraham will simply go on with the command all the while knowing the outcome (Isaac will live and fulfill the covenant). That is in fact exactly what Hebrews11 suggests, postulating that Abraham even thought beforehand that God would raise Isaac back from the dead after the sacrifice in order that the covenant be fulfilled through his line, just as He had promised prior to the test.

It may be argued that this objection applies to Ismail too as he was also promised many children but the difference is that Isaac's promise of many descendants was made BEFORE his birth, whereas Ismail was already born and THEN the promise was made, meaning it happened AFTER the event of the sacrifice. 

CIRA international accuse Abraham; sending Hagar and Ishmael to die?

In answer to the video "The Crucifixion 03 - The Crucifixion is Historical"

The claim that Ishmael and Hagar were cast into Paran as a result of some wife jealousy is patently false, and as the Quran states, Ishmael was re-located by the command of God for a particular purpose, by Abraham, and neither were there conflicts between the wives or the brothers who are even depicted as attending their father's funeral together in the HB itself Gen25:9.

This means, and just as the Quran states, there were frequent trips throughout the years between the 2 locations, where both Abraham and Ishmael resided, involving at least Abraham as per the Quran, and implicitly Ishmael as per the HB since he was aware of his father's condition.

Abraham in addition, would never commit an act so be-smearing of any sensitive person. People dont just send their other wife and child into the midst of the wilderness to end the bickering of their wives. If this was the case, Abraham would have simply let Hagar and Ishmael reside in some tent in a nice place and not the desert wilderness, where they were to suffer from extreme thirst to the point the infant child, in addition ill on account of Sarah's evil eye, was on the verge of death.

But the scribes needed to depict Abraham as giving the "final order" as it would be tantamount to declaring Ishmael not a legitimate heir. Abraham was this way openly dissatisfied with Ishmael's actions and behavior, and all this with God in the background giving the directive

Gen21:12"in all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall seed be called to thee".

As a side note, although some progressive religious feminist Jews like presenting this verse as if women should sometimes be listened to and highly regarded, it isnt so in their own Talmudic writings, where there "sages" depict them as secondary to men and should be especially disregarded in spiritual matters (Bava Metzia 59a). One can only wonder why would God depose Ishmael from his birthright due to some mistreatment of his younger brother but on the other hand maintain the favors bestowed upon Isaac and subsequent Israelite prophets despite their reported treacheries and evil deeds.

Anyway, now that it has been established that Ishmael isnt part of any inheritence, cast away geographically and stripped from his birthrights by his own father, the scribes, obviously writing long after the events could not but mention his being made into a seperate nation Gen21:13.

And Abraham is not a typical human being, in the Quran's words

11:75"forbearing, tender-hearted, oft-returning to Allah".

He is a prophet, known for his empathy, piety and obedience to God, as well as notorious in the Bible for his arguing with YHWH himself to spare the lives of innocent strangers Gen18 and yet here he is suddenly incapable of pleading with a wife for his own beloved, and sick son. To claim he would place his wife and child in the desert for the sake of the petty jealousy of Sarah is a smearing campaign. It isnt normal behavior, let alone behavior for a Prophet of God. The scribes knew this so although they speak of Abraham's reluctancy Gen21:9-11, he nevertheless submits to his wife's alleged request and casts his beloved firstborn -heavily ill on top of that if one is to believe the Jewish tradition quoted earlier- into the wilderness. And as is often the case in the Hebrew Bible, God Himself is taking sides in those tribal conflicts

"Be not displeased concerning the lad and concerning your handmaid; whatever Sarah tells you, hearken to her voice, for in Isaac will be called your seed".

The Quran and the traditions state that it was for a clearer plan of which we see evidence today in the manifestation of the altar in Mecca known as the Kaaba. It is the prime symbol of the oneness of God throughout the whole world and will forever be, until the Day of Judgement.

Abraham's divine blessings indiscriminately extending to the righteous among his offspring, Ishmael's vital role in making this possible through his willing submission during the test of the sacrifice, all this clearly was against the scribes' tribal prejudice and notion of exclusive, unconditional choseness.

CIRA international find Islamic blessings: Abraham dedicating Ishmael to YHWH?

In answer to the video "The Crucifixion 03 - The Crucifixion is Historical"

Abraham asking God that

"Ishmael might live before thee"

has a specific meaning, besides the affectionate connotation. Being "before the Lord" or "in His presence" applies in Hebrew bible terminology to anything OFFERED to God or anyone DEDICATED to His service Gen17:1,Deut10:8,Exod28:35,29:11,42,23,26,1Sam2:30,2Chron7:17 and throughout Leviticus.

Accordingly, the firstborn and "only son" Ismail was prepared for sacrifice then settled and resided beside the altar of Mecca, dedicated to the One God's service. Every Jewish translation and rabbinic comentary agrees with the fact that in Gen17:19 God accepted Abraham's request that Ishmael be dedicated to serve the Lord.

 The way this promise manifested itself obviously is a mystery to Jewish scriptures but not to the Quran 2:123-9,14:35-41 and Muslim tradition. The promise came true with the establishement of the Kaaba by both Ibrahim and Ismail, and the latter's settlement at the temple.

Per the Torah, it is Sarah who in the first place got Abraham to marry Hagar in order for him to bear a child Gen16. Upon her pregnancy, it is reported that Hagar started despising Sarah, so she complained to Abraham who replied

Gen16:6"Your servant is in your hands, Do with her whatever you think best".

So she was sent away in the wilderness but came back shortly after, when God told her to

Gen16:9"Go back to your mistress and submit to her".

After Isaac's birth, the situation became unbearable between the two sons because of Ishmael's misbehavior towards his brother. At that point the Talmudic smearing campaign against Ishmael becomes humorous, he is then not only a "young" idolater but also an adulterer (Rashi on Prov19:26). Seeing this situation, Sarah asked Abraham to

Gen21:10"Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac".

Abraham accepted her request and sent Hagar with his firstborn Ishmael, food and water all on her shoulders

"and he took bread and a leather pouch of water, and he gave [them] to Hagar, he placed [them] on her shoulder, and the child, and he sent her away; and she went and wandered in the desert of Beer sheba".

As is clear in the wording of the verse and as understood in traditional Jewish interpretation, all elements mentionned are placed upon Hagar. This includes Ishmael who is now around 15years old!

The Jewish traditions state that Hagar's carrying of her child along with her food and water reserves was due to Ishmael being incapacitated by Sarah's evil eye cast upon him Gen. Rabbah 53:13. Just as with the invented dialogue between Abraham and God regarding which "only son" was meant, this obviously is an attempt at explaining away the absurdity of having a woman wandering in the dry desert heat, carrying her 15year old grown up boy and her meager provisions. When the meager means of subsistence tarried, and because of the debilitating sickness, Hagar

"cast the child under one of the bushes".

She couldnt bare to

"see the death of the child".

There is obviously no reason to assume that a healthy supposedly 16 year old teenager's life would be threatened by lethal dehydration that fast, faster than his mother. Unable to weave out from the inconsistencies of their corrupt story, the rabbinic commentators painted themselves into a corner, forced to cast even Sarah whom they revere as superior to Abraham in terms of revelational experience (exod. rabb. 1:1 tan. shem. 1) into a bad light. Sarah is the one who invoked some evil occult science that caused Ishmael to become severely ill and unable to walk.

Eventually

"God heard the voice of the lad" and told Hagar to "Rise, pick up the lad and grasp your hand upon him". 

All these are obviously not the description of a 15-16 year old teenager but of an INFANT, as attested by the numerous Islamic traditions,

"Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: The Prophet said, “May Allah bestow His Mercy on the mother of Ishmael! Had she not hastened (to fill her water-skin with water from the Zam-zam well), Zam-zam would have been a stream flowing on the surface of the earth.” Ibn ‘Abbas further added, “(The Prophet) Abraham brought Ishmael and his mother (to Mecca) and she was suckling Ishmael and she had a water-skin with her.’".

The Hebrew hay-ye-led used to describe young Ishmael in that passage Gen21:14-19 is the same as the one used for Isaac when he was 2 years old as well as Moses when he was placed upon the river as an infant Ex2:3.

Another interesting observation is that Jewish tradition, firmly based on calculation from the HB, state that Rebecca was married to Isaac when she was 3 and he was 40. Isaac was 37 at the event of the near-sacrifice. Rebecca was born straight after that. Isaac was married to Rebecca when he was 40 Gen25:20 meaning 3 or 4 years after her birth.

And yet these calculations, despite their accuracy do not agree with the descriptions that are made of her prior to her marriage, which clearly denotes physical and mental maturity Gen24. This is the kind of internal inconsistency that happens when tradition is neglected, partially forgotten, inappropriately handled and transmitted, let alone purposefully tampered with.

The whole story is that of Hagar desperately fearing that her infant baby would die. Isaac wouldn't even have been born at the time for the incident that is alleged to have happened in verse 12.

If the incident was related to Isaac being born, Ishmael would NOT have been an infant at the time he was cast out.

It should also be noted that Beersheba was a place well known to Hagar, Ibrahim having lived there with her for long. Waterwells were dug all throughout the region and even by Ibrahim. All these could not have been unknown to Hagar. She could therefore have obtained further water, after a little search, from any of the many wells in the area, some of them she was very familiar with. And yet she is depicted as desperately wandering in search of water to no avail, to the point she cast the child under one of the shrubs until

"God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water".

It is worthwhile noting here yet another attempt at character assassination by the scribes, in their comentaries and oral tradition as quoted by Rashi, in order to minimize to the utmost any positive reference to Ishmael. In relation to that divine inspiration to Hagar, they quote the angels themselves protesting God's revealing of the well's location to Hagar Gen.rabbah

53:14"O Lord of the universe, for one who is destined to kill your children with thirst, You are binding up a well?! And He answered them "What is he now, righteous or wicked?" They replied "Righteous" He said according to his present deeds i judge him".

This other ridiculous "divine dialogue" also bellies the notion in their own traditions, cited earlier, that Ishmael at the time was an idolatrous adulterer.

Further, the essence of the order to banish Ishmael, per the Torah was to have only Isaac as Abraham's heir, while Ismail and his descendants should settle in and populate another land. How then could they have been settled in Beersheba which was then within the sphere of Ibrahim’s and Sarah’s activities? Hagar and Ismail could only have been, and were indeed consigned to an unknown, far-away and unsettled land. The Paran mentioned in the Genesis as the place where they finally settled could not simply have been any Paran in and around Beerseba and Sinai.