Acts17apologetics feel pity; Paul persecuted and martyred?

In answer to the video "Paul Died as a Martyr; Muhammad Died as a False Prophet (PvM 21)"

His preaching in synagogues was met with fierce resistance due to his bad mouthing the Law, and not even in a clever way. For instance contrary to repeated descriptions made of the law in the HB as "life giving" in places like Ezekiel20:11,33:14-15 or Nehemiah9:26-29 as well as spiritually preserving, a purifying delight to observe Ps119, a sentiment clearly reflected in James' writings, Paul sees the law as "stirring" into sin and death. Without it, one

Rom7"would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."

As if non religious people cannot discern basic moral principles such as these? Paul's inspired "reasoning" leads him to the conclusion that without law there is no transgression Rom4:14. It is better to leave man without moral restrictions, so that he is only justified and judged according to faith in Jesus, something Jesus himself never taught.

But what this hateful perception of the Law shows, is that divine revelation has diametrically opposed effects on individuals depending on their own inner spiritual disposition. It is certainly repulsing to the depraved to have to abide by moral restrictions, while the God-conscious delights in serving the Creator according to His own terms, as amply stated in the HB. Paul saw himself as part of the first group, as he describes himself relentlessly tortured by a messenger from Satan 2Cor12:7.

Paul was disparaging the Law yet the agreement between him and the apostles was that he should seek non-Jews, while they went to the Jews Gal2:9.

He consequently escapes murderous Jews in most of his stops along his missionary journeys Acts14:19. In Jerusalem, the Roman commander saves him from the Sanhedrin's grip and the Jews apparently were so eager in their murderous intents that they werent deterred from planning an assault on his Roman prison. A cohort of 500 Roman soldiers and imperial guards had to leave Jerusalem to be dispatched to this helpless fellow. They protected and escorted him by night for a "proper" trial in Caesarea Acts21-24.

Amazingly, Luke who is alleged to have authored Acts, reproduces the letter written by the Roman commander to his superior in Caesarea Acts23:26-30. The letter doesnt mention Paul and makes a chronological mistake. It says the commander rescued him because he knew Paul was a Roman citizen. He obviously had to, the probability of a Roman commander turning out to rescue a Jew from his brethren is very slim. Yet we read in Acts22:23-29 that the commander rescued Paul from the Jews before he had learnt this information, after which he was given to the Sanhedrin for questionning. Besides that slip, did Luke have access to Roman archives to reproduce the letter? But then Luke also knows what was said in Antipas' apartments when he questioned Jesus Lk23:7-11, as well as what Festus and Agrippa said to each other in private concerning Paul Acts25:13-22. Probably all "God-breathed" details as noted by 2Tim3:16.

And why didnt James, the elders, or the "thousands" of Jesus converts, say a word in Paul's defense? Instead we have Roman troops rushing to his rescue to avoid hateful Jewish mobs murdering him. In Caesarea, he is presented before the Roman governor Felix. He served from the year 52 until the year 60. The head of the Sanhedrin was the Jewish high priest Ananias the son of Nebedeus. Historical records show instead that before Felix's appointment as governor, the high priest Ananias had been arrested and sent to Rome to plead his case, in the year 52. Josephus names the high priests during Felix's governorship, and says nothing about Ananias son of Nebedeus.
Anyhow, Felix, one of the richest and most powerful man in the province, will keep Paul jailed for 2 years, hoping for a "bribe". As if none of the murderous Jewish leaders could have bribed him if the detention was simply about money. Strangely no angry Jew even as much as pleaded that he be handled to them, until Felix's replacement with Festus. Festus eventually dismissed their request but nevertheless wants to "please" them by suggesting a trial in Jerusalem Acts25.

Compare this to the apostles' delivrance from jail through divine intervention Acts5:17-20 and yet no miraculous appearance to save Paul to whom Jesus himself appeared.

But persecuted Paul had his own type of luck.

The charges against him were relegated to mere religious matters Acts23:29,25:19,25:26-27 and consequently dismissed by both Festus and the Jewish king Herod Agrippa who just so happenned to be in town Acts26:32. All this happened before even the hearing of his case in Jerusalem.

Follows a bizarre twist, with persecuted Paul given another escort, this time to Rome and to present his case to none other than Caesar himself. This wasnt event needed, persecuted Paul himself made the request despite all local authorities clearing him from any charges. There was never such an instance in the Roman judicial system of overruling local authorities' decisions simply by "appeal to Caesar" Acts26:32. And we're not even talking of an unfavorable ruling but one that had just aqcuited him!

The high priest Jonathan was put to death by the procurator Felix just a few years earlier, surely he could have made the same appeal as Paul did? Whoever was writing the plot of Acts surely did a lousy job until now at defending Paul's case of unjust persecution. At approximately the same time of Paul's appeal, another appeal was made to the Caesar Nero, by the Jewish High Priest Ismael. Nero agreed influenced by his own Jewish wife. However, Ismael was held imprisonned in Rome. The author of Acts had a clear political and theological motive in mind, supposedly endorsed by Jesus Acts23:11 through inspiration: to move his story on towards a necessary climax in Rome.
Upon his arrival to Rome, he was allowed to live in a house, summon Jews and other visitors to preach to them freely, protected by a soldier Acts28:16-31.

The so-called "prison letters" – Philippians, Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians are traditionally ascribed to Paul in his Roman captivity despite recent Biblical scholarship opinion to the contrary. Nothing evokes imprisonnement in these writings except for the vague and isolated references "prisoner in Jesus Christ" and "bonds" to endorse that claim. Pauline vocabulary is full of such words evoking servitude, suffering and "imprisonment", all of which to convey the idea of his metaphorical servitude to Jesus. "Rome" is nowhere mentioned in any of the prison letters. The whole claim rests on the single reference to "Caesar's household" of Phil4:22, and the use of "palace" in

Phil1:13"My bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places".

It is said he was finally acquitted of the charges against him and therefore started travelling around Europe and the Mediterranean coasts to spread his teachings to the gentiles.

It is hard therefore to imagine how he would be arrested again by the same Nero then executed, as tradition alledges. The Church needed the fabrication of that itinery in order to render authentic 1 and 2 Timothy, as well as Titus since in the latter, Paul anticipates his soon reunion with other Christians in Greece Titus3:12,13.

Acts17apologetics death wish; the prophet survives the poison and lives on?

In answer to the video "Paul Died as a Martyr; Muhammad Died as a False Prophet (PvM 21)"

The poison story, assuming it happenned, is actually just 1 of the many attempts at the life of God's prophet, keeping also in mind all the battles in which he himself took part against the rejecters, but never did God allow his messenger to die before the end of his mission, like Moses wasnt allowed to die through all his jihad battles until his mission was fulfilled.

The poison certainly did injure him and cause him sustained pain, but nowhere does it say or hint that it was the direct cause of death. The poison damage on his body was just one of many scars the prophet carried with him until his deathbed, whether due to the years of hardship, starvation and persecution or the years of battle. Despite all that, he still lived beyond the average life expectancy of his common folk and only once his mission was completed. He saw with his very eyes every single prophecy made in the earliest years of prophethood fulfilled, cleansed God's chosen and blessed land of Mecca and restaured it to its original Abrahamic purpose.

Neither Moses nor Aaron, according to the convoluted HB, even get to fulfill their life mission of entering the promised land, despite the battles they led. They are suddenly dispatched from the narrative for the most ridiculous reasons. Moses was condemned by God for some misdeed and put to death while his

"eyes were not weak nor his strength gone".

His heartfelt prayer was denied

Deut3"Let me, I pray, cross over and see the good land on the other side of the Jordan..But YHWH was furious with me on your behalf and would not listen to me. YHWH said to me, “Enough! Never speak to Me of this matter again!"

If anything, the argument of sudden death as a sign of divine disapproval, a charge misapplied to the prophet Muhammad in relation to the poison story, fits instead the biblical Moses, put to death at the highlight of his prophetic career and while he was in full health.

Even if, in the worst case, Muhammad's death is directly correlated to the Quranic warning in 69:45-47 not to falsely attribute a statement to God, then it still means the prophecy came true, that Muhammad was physically prevented from altering it and that the Quran is the authentic, preserved and protected word of the Creator. The verse says his hand will be seized the moment he tries doing so, then killed. The words imply even a minuscule uttering in God's name. It would be impossible for him to walk around making lengthy speeches up. That is why the verse comes in a passage where Allah stresses the divine origin of the Quran, and then states the hypothetical scenario, following by a reiteration of its veracity. But assuming for argument's sake Muhammad at some point lied and was killed by God, this must then mean that all he previously spoke in God's name, was true revelation uttered by a true prophet.

Just for arguments' sake, even if the prophet Muhammad had died from the delayed effects of the poison, this is certainly not an argument against his prophethood, not according to Zaynab bint al harith's own HB criteria for the identification of prophets as outlined in Deut18, nor in light of the Bible's own reports of the constant assaults, some succesful and others not, against true prophets' lives.

As a final note it is ironic that those trying to cast doubts on the truthfulness of Muhammad's prophethood by misrepresenting this story are mainly if not only Christians, who firmly believe in the Greek Testament and its depiction of Jesus' ignoble, humiliating and accursed end which probably no true prophet, even those murdered by the sinful Israelites, ever were inflicted with. What does that do to Jesus' credibility as a man sent by God, judging by those critics' own standards?

Acts17apologetics venomous attack; Prophet discredited by the poison story?

In answer to the video "Paul Died as a Martyr; Muhammad Died as a False Prophet (PvM 21)"

Assuming the poison story to be true, why didnt God's prophet die on the spot with those who ate the poisonned meal.

Our opponents will keep on scratching their heads about this. Instead he lived on for years, fasted every year in the scorching desert heat, fulfilled all his duties of statesman, army commander, husband, counselor and friend, and conquered Mecca. He destroyed the idols with his own hands and fulfilled every prophecy made at the beginning of his call.

What the opponents need to realize is that the reason he did not die then, is because God didnt allow the prophet to die until his mission was accomplished.

5:67"O Apostle, deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people"

Muhammad died a natural death and he didnt even need to appeal to Christ in order to neutralize any type of injested poison as embarrassingly proposed by the Greek writers of the Gospels Mk16:18. After all Christians do believe in their potential in performing even greater miracles (Greek "erga") than Jesus Jn14:12.

God was definitely supporting His prophet after he ate the poisoned meal, just as He supported him before despite the difficulties and attempts at his life. He was not immidiately put to death or disallowed to continue his mission and transmitting his message after injesting the poison. The opposite would have been the case had he been a false prophet or had done something at that point heavily disapproved of by God, as forcefully warned in the Quran would instantly, not progressively, happen to him 69:45-47. This defeated the "test" that the Jewess desired to make the prophet go through, as it says in one version of the report that she wanted to kill him with the poison

"Thereupon he said: Allah will never give you the power to do it".

The effect of poison as intended by the one using it is immidiate or very short term death of the victim, as happenned to one companion that ate the meal at that occasion with the prophet. The objective however of immidiate death or harm was defeated in regards the prophet.

It isnt uncommon in Jewish history to attempt poisoning a prophet sent to them. That is what they did to the prophet Jeremiah's food. In Jer11:19 it lit. says

"Let us destroy his food with wood"

ie Let us put poison into his food. This Jewish woman that poisoned the prophet's meal and his companion wanted to see

"if you were a Prophet, then Allaah would tell you about it, and if you were not a Prophet the people would be rid of you".

This as a side note bellies the unfounded allegation in anti-Islamic circles that the woman offered the poisonned meal in revenge for the killing of her family. She was testing his prophethood. So the prophet took a bite and sensed the poison, and immidiately said to all those taking part in the meal to withdraw their hands from it, although most had already eaten from it at that point. It was unfortunately too late for one of his companions who died from it. Miraculously, that companion was the only casualty of the incident, and this allowed the unveiling of an intricate outcome and lesson from the event. The prophet then confronted the culprit.

This woman thought that a prophet claimant dying in such circumstances would expose him as a liar but the opposite happenned: his companion died and Muhammad lived on until

"This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion".

The JEwess Zaynab bint al harith was later forgiven by the prophet. Other versions state that when Bishr ibn al-Bara’ ibn Ma’roor died as a result of the effects of this food, then the prophet executed her as a qisaas punishment, while others yet like ibn Kathir maintain that she even converted to Islam, seeing that the prophet passed her "falsification" test and was thus left alone. She initially approached the prophet with the meal after the treaty negotiations with the Jewish leadership of Khaybar had ended.

In such circumstances it would have been against decorum and basic sensitivity to refuse it based on suspicion. In ancient times, especially in rural cultures till this day, refusal to share a meal when the host clearly displays his peaceful intentions is a sign of treachery and mistrust. The Quran relates how Abraham was fearful of his guests that refused the food he offered them despite his clear hospitality 11:69-70. There were no means to the prophet Muhammad by which to chemically test the meal and verify his suspicion. His detractors wouldnt have missed this opportunity to charge him with accusing an innocent woman without proof. Neither did he behave like the kings and leaders of times past by having someone taste the food before he ate nor would it have ever been in his thought and character to have forced the woman to eat it herself or forced any of the Jews to eat it to prove that it was not poisoned.

In accordance with his lofty character and prophetic status, he wanted to show that he was willing to trust the Jews, hoping that, perhaps, they will be guided. He did not yield to suspicion, even with the enemy. Yet, by eating, he did not show any lack of wisdom because showing suspicions without proof is not the way to build a relationship. And the prophet, in accordance with the Quran's commands was never one to be inconsiderate of others or sceptical of their inner condition.  Especially in the context of warfare, the good treatment of captives, as the prophet was here exemplifying, is expected to soften their hearts towards Islam. But if they act treacherously despite the Muslims' honourability, they will be overpowered just as they had been 8:70-71.

What is interesting with Bishr is that he was the only one, together with the prophet, that sensed the poison during the meal. Although the prophet spat out the morsel in his mouth after briefly chewing on it, Bishr, seeing him beginning to eat, trusted his judgement and swallowed his bite prior to the prophet's reaction. The remaining Muslims did not sense the poison and started eating, just like Bishr, trusting the prophet's judgement, until everyone was told to stop. This is where something strange occurs. Bishr, according to most reports dies instantly, as well as a dog that ate a morsel of the poisonned meal. The prophet lives on but suffers occasionally from the effects of the poison while it had no consequence on the remaining Muslims. Bishr's martyrdom revealed the deadly nature of the poison. The prophet's sickness proved the entire meal was toxic, not just Bishr's portion. The remaining Muslims' immunity was miraculous, given that the whole meal was poisoned. Had only Bishr or only the prophet been afflicted, one could have argued that a specific part of the meal was poisoned or that a specific individual was particularly sensitive to the poison. If the prophet was safeguarded and that someone else, together with Bishr were afflicted, someone could have said the prophet was simply lucky. The Prophet's sickness was necessary to prove that no human being will be allowed to put an end to his life, despite being clearly poisoned, until his mission is accomplished. The manner in which these events unfolded show that God was in full control.

Apostate prophet defends corruption; Jewish scribes changing the text?

In answer to the video "Walking Away From Islam"

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. Aaron yielded to the people's demand for an idol to be built, so many were put to death. Sometimes in 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...".

These corruptions were first transmitted oraly, as would any lie be repeated and exagerated, until the matter was obscured beyond recognition as the generations passed and tried surviving in the harshest situations of their successive periods of enslavement and destruction. Although they succeeded in establishing a blatant falsehood, they could certainly not blot out all related signs that attest to their carelessness in the transmission of religious knowledge, if not, and most probably, their deliberate distortions fueled by their prejudices and own sense of shame.

These disfigured versions were eventually put in writing when the Torah was composed by priests and scribes in the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah, during the First Temple period and the Babylonian Exile. This occured very far removed in time, space, culture (Persian and Hellenistic) and social conditions than the time of Moses, let alone the events that are being narrated. Scholars place that first redaction anywhere from the 9th to 6th centuries BCE, most probably the 7th which happens to coincide with the discovery of a scroll which nobody knew what it was until it was ascertained that it was the forgotten Torah 2kings22,23.

How uncanny. Most of these parts were stitched together by Ezra the Scribe to create a single historic narrative and legal code for the returning exiles. These authors were not writing from historical sources but were reflecting their own ideas, ideologies and rampant prejudices, as well as obviously their historical context.

Apostate prophet reading skills; unstructured Quran hard to understand?

In answer to the video "Walking Away From Islam"

The idea of the Quran being a dull, boring or incomprehensible repetitive book is a discredited proposition, not only by the scholars of Islam all throughout their exegetical works spanning centuries, but also more recently by non-Muslims who have been doing, and keep on doing, a remarkable job at unveiling the intricate connections of the text, from verse to another, paragraph to paragraph and sura to sura. See Norman Brown's work on sura 18 for instance.

That weak assertion is only still circulating among uneducated critics of Islam, and missionaries. For most of modern Islamicists, the Quran has to be approached as a text on its own, with its own internal coherence to be properly understood. So long as explanations to its passages are sought from the perspective of its alleged, ellusive and countless proposed sources, the Quran will remain an obscure book for those approaching it. There is a vast field nowadays of Quranic studies, with many sub-branches, studied by both Muslims and non-Muslim scholars; the interconnection between suras, passages, verses, words and even letters and how the whole thing remarkably fits together.

In the Quran when it comes to reminding of past narratives and anectodes, the objective isnt dry storytelling and genealogies as in most of the Bible where one can easily and quickly lose track of names, places and other details. These little details, if omitted wouldn't make humanity miss out on anything in terms of guidance, and in fact confuse the reader and distract his attention to trivial matters.

The Quran is not a historical record or dry, impartial document: it is argumentative and impactful to get people to believe and actively reform themselves and their environement. Its powerful statements are in an intellectual, spiritual and emotional language that every culture accross time and space can appreciate. The Quran's objective isnt story telling, but "message telling" and maximizing its audience's attention to the precept(s) of the story. Muslims will not be asked on the Day of Judgment the details of the people of the cave or how Noah's flood occured, how many generations passed between a person and another, the names in a genealogy or whether they memorized the names of people in the Quran. They will be questioned as to how they responded to the lessons from the different incidents and stories related in the Quran.

Thus to focus on the message, the Quran injects the passage of a well-known story, whenever the larger context a sura requires it. And when it does so, it only puts the details of that story that are relevant to that specific context. That is why one sees variations in repetitions, but never contradictions. The only exception to that style of narrative is the story of the prophet Joseph/Yusuf which takes the form of a beginning to end narrative in one place, and a highly eloquent, intricate one at that.

Apostate prophet the lost poet; Rhyming in the Quran?

In answer to the video "Walking Away From Islam"

What was being recited by Muhammad, the illiterate man living among them for 40 years without them ever noticing any poetry skills, did not use confounding words or phrases neither did it employ strange Arabic dialects. Its choice of words produced the maximum impact in the hearts and intellects of those that heard it.

Its content was far from the decadent depictions of various common themes of Preislamic poetry.

Arab poetry varied from vivid lustful language, to history, soothsaying, propaganda, incitements against other tribes, to epic tales of honor, mentions of Abraham and the sacrifice, praise of the holy sanctuary etc. Yet when the Quran addressed each of those themes, it did so with refinement and a meaningful choice of words and structure that gave a multifaceted, intricate moral and spiritual dimension to the issue.

The masters of eloquence of the time could not classify it in any genre due to many factors, including contents and form. The many intricate types and subtypes of the Jahiliyya poetry are well known, and it is the Quran's particular structure, not belonging to any of the established pattern, that made them unable to counter it. This baffled its audience, compelling the opponents to find nothing better to say than to call it magic, inspired by demons and so forth.

Thomas Bauer "There is yet another reason why scholars of the Quran are deterred from looking more closely at contemporary literature  even the briefest of examinations of the two bodies of texts reveals that they share little in common  so different are the Quran and contemporary poetic literature that one can hardly come up with a better example of difference if one tried  From their different ways of using language to their notable differences in content, hardly any similarities are to be found  This distinction is so marked that it might well seem virtually pointless to claim that Arabic poetry can make any serious contribution to an understanding of the Quran".

Ibn Ishaq recorded al-Walid bin Mugira's reaction to the Quran:

"They said, "He is a kahin." He said, "By God, he is not that, for we have seen the kahins, and his (speech) is not unintelligible murmuring (zamzama) and rhymed prose (sajc) of a kahin." "Then he is possessed (majnun)," they said. "No, he is not that," he said. "We have seen and known the possessed state, and here is no choking, spasmodic movements, and whispering." "Then he is a poet," they said. "He is not that," he replied. "We have known poetry in all its forms and meters, and this is not poetry." "Then he is a sorcerer," they said. "No, he is not that," he said, "for we have seen sorcerers and their sorcery, and here is no spitting and no knots."

Rhymes do appear in the Quran, but the establishment of a rhyming scheme is absolutely not the objective nor one of the purposes of Quran syntax. There are reports even of the prophet warning against the attitude of being concerned in trying to make one's prayers and supplications fit a certain rhythmic or rhyming pattern.

As a quick side note, some critics have asserted that the Quran in places, in order to preserve a rhyming pattern, has sometimes spelled the same word differently. For example the prophet Elias that becomes Ilyasin 6:86,37:130 or Mt Sinai/sayna that becomes sinin 23:20,95:2, or the Arabicized names Harun and Qarun (Aaron/Korah). A simple observation however will demonstrate that this isnt necessarily the case for in the Quran itself people and places have been given different names regardless of the rhyming pattern. The prophet Yunus is also called dhunnun and even Mt sinai is sometimes just referred as Tur or Tur sayna.

It isnt uncommon in any language or culture for people or places to be known by several names. Ilyasin has in addition been said to be the name given to the followers of the prophet Ilyas. A peculiarity of Elijah in the HB is that he had a following of prophets 2Kings2. 

There is no sensible reason for a text to introduce a new, unknown name and confuse the audience for the sake of prose, while it would be easier to make an already well established name rhyme with a convenient word instead. Also if one looks at the verses in question, they are surrounded by verses unconcerned with establishing a rhyming scheme, even when ending with a prophet's name.

The poets of Quraysh thus agreed on calling him a magician whose craft was eloquence that by means of eloquent words he was capable of dividing the man against his father, his brother, his spouse and his own tribe 46:7,21:3,34:43,54:2,74:24,10:76,11:7,37:15. The fact is that truth always causes a seperation ultimately as seen in the nations and families of the prophets of old, from Nuh who had to abandon his own disbelieving son to be taken by the deluge, to Ibrahim who left his disbelieveing father, Lut who left his wife behind him as the town was about to be destroyed etc, and the same is related in the scriptures of old, from the HB to the NT

Micah7:6,Matt30:21-36"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved..Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law a man's enemies will be the members of his own household".

Just as the moral reforms brought by Jesus and Muhammad were met with the staunchet opposition, so was the Book given to Musa

11:110-112"And certainly We gave the book to Musa, but it was gone against; and had not a word gone forth from your Lord, the matter would surely have been decided between them; and surely they are in a disquieting doubt about it. And your Lord will most surely pay back to all their deeds in full; surely He is aware of what they do. Continue then in the right way as you are commanded.."

Reciting and listening to the Quran became forbiden but nonetheless, many Quraysh would listen to it in secret, captured by the vivid imagery, metaphores, parables and appeal to the emotions which rendered the realm of the Unseen such as the Hereafter or the Resurrection recognizable to the senses, something which had a profound impact on their psyche and some converted. This growing popularity would add to the deeply rooted sentiment of jealousy so common among the desert Arabs of the time.

Apostate prophet war ethics; Why Fight in Allah's name?

In answer to the video "Walking Away From Islam"

Because God commands to fight for justice. Any other reason to fight is oppression and fighting

"in the way of the devil" 4:76.

The Quran would therefore stir up the believers for battle based on the reality of their physical and spiritual opression, whether men, women, old and young alike 2:217,4:75,8:26,22:39-40,28:57,60:1,85:8-10,96:9-10. This was an undeniable reality and necessity. They had to overcome any fear and trust that Allah's help will come at the battlfield. He will weaken the struggle of the oppressors no mater the forces they can muster 4:84.

Even when this was established, the prophet still did not expect the Muslims to shed their blood for a decision from which they were excluded. Consensual agreement always preceded the final decision to go to war, as here stated in the context of the battle of Uhud

3:159"and seek their advise in all matters of public policy".

Once the decision is attained by common agreement, the plan must be launched with an absolute trust in God

3:159"then when you have decided upon a course of action, trust in Allah; for surely Allah loves those who place their trust in Him".

Even the prophet after that point may not revoke the covenant and act according to his whims 3:161-4. It is to be noted that in that particular context of Uhud, the prophet was the minority opinion. He advised confronting the Meccan alliance within Medina, instead of meeting them at Uhud. Yet he never protested the decision once it was mutually agreed upon, nor did he blame the majority once the battle was over and the Muslims were defeated. No matter how supreme the wisdom of the Muslim community's ruler is, in this case a prophet of God, the right of the remaining members of society to be consulted can never be waved off. We see here that in this defeat of the Muslims at Uhud, an important lesson was implemented as to the conduct of a Muslim leader.

Once everybody is set to leave with a full trust in their decision and the will of God, then their physical, mental, financial capacities as compared to their enemies only become secondary issues. Only if these conditions would result in overburdening and harming the person and the people depending on him, even before engaging in fighting, then such person is justified in holding back from fighting 9:91,48:17. The others rely on Allah, who knows their material and physical limits, and will assist them 8:66. They are fully justified in fighting back, and will be helped in the process

22:38"Surely Allah will defend those who believe; surely Allah does not love any one who is unfaithful, ungrateful".

Part of the 613 Jewish commandments is to similarily be fearless in battle and fully trust in God Deut3:22,7:21,20:3. It was their failure to trust in God's capacity to defeat, through a weak army, a much stronger adversary that caused their 40 years desert wandering prior to entering the land promised to Abraham. God calls mankind to fight in His way first to solve the wordly obstacles to which a particular people is confronted, but these worldly obstacles are connected to the spiritual aspect of man's existence.

This means that fighting in God's way liberates man from both physical and spiritual obstacles. That is why those who fear wordly losses in the process, are told that this world is ultimately ephemeral whether in case of victory or loss. They would thus have certainly reason to fear should their battle be solely aimed at achieving wordly objectives.

But since fighting in God's way includes spiritual objectives, then one has no reason to fear because the Hereafter in which the benefits of that struggle will be certainly found, is everlasting 4:74. Choosing to serve God in this way, putting one's own life on the line to defend the oppressed and advance the cause of truth is the most selfless material and spiritual sacrifice one can do. Every culture and civilization in history has owed its survival in the face of oppression to these types of honored individuals.

But even then, as in any army, there are degrees among soldiers, hence the prophet saying that military participation is ranked 3rd in terms of divine appreciation. Those among the volontaries going to such extent in their selfless sacrifice that they are martyred, the prophetic sayings describe them as meriting the highest reward. Wordly gains follow as a collateral result of wars, and although are certainly the just compensation of those sacrificing their wealth and resources on the way, the Quran stresses that these wordly gains must never be the motive.  In a hadith the prophet even answered about someone fighting in God's cause but also seeking material reward, that in the herafter "He would receive no reward" (sunan Abu Dawud).

Accepting to fight in Allah's way results in reward in this world as well as the next 48:18-21, but turning one's back to the enemy and refusing to shoulder that duty makes a person

48:16,8:16"deserving of Allah's wrath"

in this world as well as the next. Here are the prophet Jeremiah's words

Jer48:10"A curse on anyone who is lax in doing the Lord’s work! A curse on anyone who keeps their sword from bloodshed".

As already pointed, history bares testimony to this fact with the example of the Israelites who had refused to put their trust in the prophet Musa to go forth and fight in Allah's way. Their wordly reward was consequently taken away and they were forbidden entry into the blessed land and sent to wander 40 years in the desert until the last one of those who had shown cowardice was dead. A new generation was then raised instead, one that would willingly take up arms, fight and conquer as divinely ordained. See the Quran in 2:243,5:21-26 as well as the Hebrew Bible in Numbers13:28-33,14:1-35,21:14-35,26:64-65 and Deut2:7,14-19,Josh5:6.

The Muslims are warned that the very same fate awaits those who turn their backs to the prophet when they are called to struggle in Allah's way

9:38-39"If you do not go forth, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you, and you will do Him no harm; and Allah has power over all things".

True Believers rejoice at any opportunity of serving God's cause, like Joshua and Caleb who rent their clothes telling the remaining cowards among the Israelites to stand up for battle. In the end, what God wishes to accomplish is independant of the direct addressees of a prophet. As demonstrated with Musa and the Israelites, He could easily uproot them in case of disobedience and rise another people instead. However, those who followed the prophet Muhammad in times of peace and war are the opposite example.

Contrary to the majority of Israelites in Moses' time who refused to march forth despite witnessing all kinds of divine miracles, the majority of Muhammad's followers fought when ordered to. This is corroborative of their desperate situation, leaving them no choice but to fight for their survival, the survival of their families and their rights to worship Allah. Because of all their sacrifices and because they went forth when they were commanded to, they were made successors in the land 6:133-134 and they earned Allah's rewards in this world as well as, God wills, in the next.

In addition, the Muslims are commanded not to neglect the obligatory prayers, even when facing the enemy at the battlefield 4:101-3. This shows the true objective of these warriors fighting to free themselves and their people from religious bondage; fighting was not their primary occupation for when the time of holding the timed and ordained communion with their Lord arrived, they performed their spiritual obligations despite the imminent danger.

For all the above mentionned noble reasons, the oppressed believers are urged and compelled, despite the natural fear of having to confront a superior enemy, to stand for war 2:216,8:65 if they are fit physically, mentally and financially 9:91,48:17 while relying on Allah; He knows their material and physical weakness and will assist them 8:66.

Jihad, in all of its aspects, whether for the establishment of God's will in a specific land, as was the case in Mecca with Muhammad or Moses in Canaan, whether for the punishment of rejecters in the prophetic era, as was the case with the Ishmaelites and the Israelites, or the timeless right to self defence, is always limited to the principle of

"and do not exceed the limit. Verily, Allah loves not those who exceed the limit". 

Among these limits not to trespass, the Muslims, even though oppressed should not seek blind revenge at all costs, rather they should try engaging in peaceful negotiations before 8:39-40. In a dominant position, Muslims must remain concious of their past weakness before Allah strenghtened them and not refuse the hand of peace from non-muslims 4:94. In all cases retaliation must be

22:60"with the like of that with which he has been afflicted and he has been oppressed".  

2:194"Thus, if anyone commits aggression against you, attack him just as he has attacked you - but remain conscious of God".

This means that even while seeking just and equal retribution, one must remain conscious of God's limits. The Quran's supreme realism reflects even in such situations, telling those whose spirituality is of a high degree, that if they are able to be patient and forgive for Allah's sake, instead of exercising their legitimate right to retaliation when they have taken the upper hand then Allah will compensate them for their magnanimity

42:39-43,16:126-8"but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient..Surely Allah is with those who guard (against evil) and those who do good (to others)". 

The sensitivity of the issue is pictured in God's address to David, the prophet-king 34:10-11. As he was given mastery over a crucial component in warfare -iron-, he and all those after him are told that in their use of that martial technology, God is ever seeing of what they do, indicating that they should use this means in the path of righteous deed, not in the way of oppression, cruelty, and sin.

Apostate prophet attacks the early caliphs; wars of conquest?

In answer to the video "Walking Away From Islam"

The early caliphate was actually a war of liberation of the oppressed people of the Roman, Persian and Egyptian nations from centuries of tyranny.

There is a reason why the early Islamic state expanded with such speed, the local people did not resist and instead embraced the Muslim liberators that brought positive change in all aspects of their lives, whether they decided to convert or keep their own belief system.

For example the Judeo-Christian population of Syria preferred Muslim rule to that of the Christian Byzantine empire. Seeing this phenomenon occuring all throughout the Muslims territories is what made some medieval jurists argue that the Islamic System is a much better one than any man-made law as it opposed oppression. The purpose of waging Islamic war, became in their eyes to spread the sharia, which includes laws accomodating non-Muslim communities.

This supremacist view of the Islamic system is what made Ibn Khaldun argue that Islam had to ultimately spread globally, even by coercion. Throughout time, dominant powers viewed and still do, their societal order as superior, seeking to spread it by all means so as to safeguard their geopolitical interests. It is to be noted that Ibn khaldun maintained that warfare is intrinsic to human history, since immemorial times. He did not argue that cessation of warfare was something unthinkable to Islam. Prior to ibn Khaldun, other Muslim scholars the likes of  al-Turtushi described wars as “social anomalies”. Al-Hasan ibn ‛Abd Allah compared wars “to diseases of society”. The vast majority of Muslim scholars past and present, view war as a necessary remedy against aggression. Going back to ibn Rushd/Averoes, he reported the controversies of his time as to whether an enemy should be killed because of his hostility or solely for his religious difference and refusal to accept Islam.

As one goes through the various legal opinions of the Muslim scholars throughout time and up until the modern era, what transpires is that their understanding of what is required of the Quran and the prophet in terms of warfare reflects the political and ideological environements in which they formulated their ideas.

But the historical facts are clear; none of the wars in the times of the prophet and the early caliphs were done against a people solely because of their religious differences. The massive, but progressive conversions, as will be shown later, could by no means be due to the fear of being enslaved by the Arab Muslims during the early Islamic conquests. Otherwise, we should expect many people to have renounced Islam following the military and political decline of Muslim power in the world.

The fulgurant expansion of the Muslim empire and Islam itself as a religion, a mere century following the prophet's death, from modern-day Spain in the west to India in the east, the vast numbers of conquered people that eventually converted to Islam in the process has confounded observers for centuries, more particularily European Christendom. Islam, to these people was an inferior religion. The myth of forced conversions meant avoiding the difficult idea that Islam was the true religion and that God was on the side of the Muslims. The earliest Christian polemics against Islam cleverly twisted the idea. The Muslim invaders were indeed divinely sent, but not for their own righteousness, rather as a rod of punishment against sinful Christians and their leaders. John bar Penkaye writes in the 680s

"We should not think of their advent (of the sons of Hagar) as something ordinary, but as due to divine working:" When these people came, at God's command, and took over as it were both kingdoms ... , God put victory into their hands in such a way that the words written concerning them might be fulfilled, namely: "One man chased a thousand and two men routed ten thousand" (Deut32). How otherwise could naked men riding without armour or shield have been able to win, apart from divine aid, God having called them from the ends of the earth so as to destroy by them "a sinful kingdom" (Amos9) and to bring low through them the proud spirit of the Persians?"

Similarily to other 7th century texts, the Chronicler of Khuzistan says that

"the victory of the sons of Ishmael who subdued and enslaved these two strong empires was from God".

Ironically in the Chronicle of Fredegar, the Muslims are "the sword of God".

One overarching theme in 7th-8th century polemics against Islam is Christian crisis of faith and fear of apostasy. Christians of all spheres of life were rejecting their religion and converting Islam. We read in an apocalypse of the early 8th century

"many people who were members of the church will deny the true faith of the Christians, along with the holy cross and the awesome Mysteries, without being subjected to any compulsion, lashing or blows".

The same is bitterly confirmed by a monk in Mesopotamia, in the Zuqnin Chronicle

"For without blows or torture they slid down in great eagerness toward denial. Forming groups of twenty, thirty and a hundred men, two and three hundred, without any kind of compulsion to this, they went down to Harran to the governors and became Muslims (mhaggnn) So acted numerous people from the regions of Edessa, Harran, Telia, Resh'aina, Dara, Nisibis, Shengar and Callinicum, and from these places both error and the devil gained immeasurable strength among them".

Until now, western scholars and historians are making blunt observations such as "the success of the conquests is virtually beyond plausible historical explanation" (Webb) or "the dynamism of Islam’s expansion defies explanation in ordinary human terms" (Donner) or that we should “dissuade historians from striving vainly to explain the almost inexplicable in normal historical terms” (James Howard-Johnston). Christians also projected onto this phenomenon their own experience of ruthless conquests, looting, destructions and forced conversion and so Islam became a religion “spread by the sword”.

This medieval myth, picked up in the late 19th- early 20th centuries by Orientalist like William Muir, many actually being colonial officials and/or active Christian missionaries that benefited from the vilification of Islam to non-Muslim audiences, is a myth that finds echo in today's Islamophobia industry. Muslim behavior is presented as the latest episode of Islam being spread “by the sword".

Seeing a big part of the Muslim conquests assimilating Christian territories and peoples, this spiritual, political, social, economic defeat resonated hard in the heart of the Christian elites, and still does today. As they tried throughout the centuries to roll back that humiliation through military and spiritual warfare, they only gained success in the former. Christianity, to Muslims, from the scholar to the layman, boiled down to worshiping a human being and God dying, both non appealing alternatives to the instinctive, natural, reasonable message of Islam. As time passed, Christian missionary strategy changed, from comforting the emotionally unstable in the name of the loving God of the Bible, to giving up mentioning Christianity alltogether; Islam is the religion of the devil and its prophet an anti-christ. If Christians cant have Muslims entering their fold, having them at the very least rejecting Islam is a satisfactory alternative. The reality of the matter however is that even if that strategy is far more successful in making Muslims abandon their religion instead of preaching Christianity directly, the desired results remain poor. The demographics remain from the short to long term heavily in favor of Islam, due firstly to Christianity dying out in the hearts, minds, practices of their societies, but also because the little number of apostates impressed by that demonizing effort, is offset by a radicalising effect; when insulted to his core, ancestral beliefs, the natural reaction of even the least traditional will be spiritual and intellectual "self-defence", seeking deeper knowledge and strengthening of his religious identity. That missionary tactic is also very unpopular among the Christian public, repulsed by the highly antagonizing rhetoric and painted as the aggressing party. Such Christians very often begin investigating Islam and end up finding it appealing. These factors, and others, pile up. The return on investment for those types of missionaries is negative if one weights the time, money, but especially emotional and spiritual degradation for having to dwell in dark pursuits. The best course of actions to the missionaries of that trend is to work on the betterment of their own souls first and foremost, then to strengthen their own communities' loss of faith in their ancestral beliefs.

As to Muslim interaction with the conquered peoples, there have been of course certain instances in history of Muslims disregarding Islamic teachings and behaving cruelly toward non-Muslims, including cases of forced conversion. Allthough the state and church sanctioned evil throughout Christian history, ie the background of the very people levelling these claims so as to demonize Islam, make these cases pale in comparison. This method of cherry picking incidents and leaping to the broad-sweeping, reductionist conclusion that Islam was “spread by the sword” is intellectually dishonest and doesnt stand the test of scrutiny. Practically, such a phenomenal endeavor would have been impossible to achieve for the Muslim conquerers.

During the early Muslim conquests, Muslims were a small minority in newly-conquered areas, around 10% in Egypt or 20% in Iraq. That is why for at least two centuries the majority of the inhabitants of the Islamic empire were non-Muslims. The regions conquered up to a century after the prophet didnt become majoritarily Muslims until 850-1050. For example although Iran was entirely under Muslim dominion in 705, its Muslim population hadnt reached 50% prior to the mid 9th century, then 75% a century later. One of the reasons for that miserable failure of Islam's "spreading by the sword" was that Muslim rulers actually preferred collecting Jizya which they could use at their discretion, than zakat which, although higher, had to be redistributed locally in the provinces and could only be used in certain ways.

To corroborate, the Umayyad general al Hakami was removed from his post because of having prevented the local population of Khurasan from converting to Islam so that he could keep on collecting jizya. There were other such cases such as the Abasside general ibn Kawus who forbade Muslim proselytizing in his jurisdiction.

As stated above there were certainly cases of forced conversions, but these were far more nuanced than the willfully misleading “spread-by-the-sword” narrative makes it seem. The first case mostly picked up by the misleaders is that of south Asia. The notion of millions of Indians forcefully converted is bellied on several levels. Firstly, Islam counted much more adherents in the Indian areas where the Islamic state had less power, than in the heartland of India where Muslim control and dominion was strongest (70-90% in Punjab and Bengal vs 10-15% in the Gangetic Plain). Those who level that charge of forced Indian conversions mostly base their accusations on ambiguous reports from historical sources the likes of “They submitted to Islam” for example. This could refer to Islam the religion, the Muslim state, or the “army of Islam” and a contextual reading usually supports one of the latter two interpretations.

The devshirme system in the Ottoman empire, which consisted in systematically taking young Christian boys, raising them as Muslims then training them to serve in the empire’s bureaucracy or in the sultan’s personal military force, cannot be considered a valid argument for the spread by the sword theory. The system, although obviously condemnable and without any basis in the Quran nor the practices of the prophet, actually many times benefited the religious minorities of the empire from whence these boys were taken, giving them access to high government positions. An example is that of Sokullu Mehmet Pasha, a Slav from Bosnia who rose through the bureaucracy to become the empire’s grand vizier, a position from which he was able to support Bosnia’s Christian community, though he himself remained Muslim.

Another case of forced conversion in Islamic history is that of Yemen's Orphans’ Decree issued by Imam Yahya al-Mutawakkil in the early 20th century. Again, a fringe phenomenon, without any basis in Islam but rather a Zaydi law requiring the forcible conversion of orphaned Jewish children to Islam. However what transpires from history is that, al-Mutawakkil, who was more interested in asserting his authority by adopting his subjects' customs, applied the rule selectively. In many cases he helped Jewish children escape Yemen to avoid conversions. Seeing this, the guardians of many Jewish children actually fled to Imam Yahya’s jurisdiction rather than from it.

In short this islamophobic boogeyman of "spread by the sword" theory has no legs to stand on and the reality of the matter is that theologically, Islam either explained away by the strength of its arguments, or absorbed the other religions and competing theologies about God, consolidating all into one coherent monotheistic worldview. This was the power of Islam which gave it great intellectual appeal: its ability to satisfy all the existential questions about God and creation, a message of profound substance that remained flexible enough that it would remain forever relevant, and never become obsolete.

As rightly stated by the British historian Hugh Kennedy 

"Islam did not spread by the sword but without the sword it would not have spread". 

This distinction between the spread of the Muslim empire and the Muslim religion highlights the fact that, as with many new things, whether abstract or concrete, Islam as a religion spread as it engaged with the conquered people. This interraction played out differently  throughout the empire, and beyond the empire, including one of, or a combination of factors such as trade, intermarriages, the general appearance of success and prestige of the Muslim conquerors, the appeal of the Islamic social system, local charismatic converts, migrations.

Apostate prophet sees blood; Islam spread by the sword?

In answer to the video "Walking Away From Islam"

There is no basis for the caliphate with an ideology for territorial expansion in either the Quran or in prophetic traditions. These wars did not happen under the prophet's authority. Neither the prophet nor the Quran approve of unprovoked aggression. The life and wars of the prophet testify to this. 

"`Abdullah bin `Umar came to us and we hoped that he would narrate to us a good Hadith. But before we asked him, a man got up and said to him, "O Abu `Abdur-Rahman! Narrate to us about the battles during the time of the afflictions, as Allah says:-- 'And fight them until there is no more afflictions (i.e. no more worshipping of others besides Allah).'" (2.193) Ibn `Umar said (to the man), "Do you know what is meant by afflictions? Let your mother bereave you! Muhammad used to fight against the pagans, for a Muslim was put to trial in his religion (The pagans will either kill him or chain him as a captive). His fighting was not like your fighting which is carried on for the sake of ruling".

  During the Prophet's lifetime, while the Quran was being revealed, no act of hostility was initiated by him against an enemy because of his religion. For instance, the Jews of Qaynuqa fought alongside Muslim ranks after Badr, a Jewish Rabbi fought and called upon his fellow Jews to fight alongside the Prophet against the Quraysh at Uhud, even many idolaters fought on the Prophet's side at Hunayn and al-Ta’if. The confusion about the tradition of war in Islam arises from the fact that the decision to join in these wars was given religious justification. However, the Quran does so because it is a God-given right that mankind should be free to worship Him in security. Confusion is also due to the Muslims's enemies being identified by their religious beliefs in relation to Islam; kuffar, mushrikun and ahl al-kitab.

There is no compulsion in religion, and until the end of days, ironically the same day which, those who deceptively level these false accusations against the prophet, think that all races and nations will be forcefully bowing to their God Zech14.

The notion of divinely sanctioned conquests and subjugation, decimation of foreign population is purely a Judeo-Christian one. In the HB and as corroborated by Jesus in the NT when he said to abide by it to the minute details, several types of wars are promulgated. There is the compulsory command/mitzva among the 613 revealed at Sinai, binding on Jews of all times to destroy Amalek's seed Deut25:19 without showing any pity whenever the opportunity is there, and exterminate the remaining Canaanite nations from the land of Israel whenever any of them or their descendants are identified Deut20:16. This is a timeless ordinance, as already said, part of the 613 binding commandments, and is thus an explicit order to genetically exterminate a certain people. Every command within the Torah is understood as eternally binding and those that are inapplicable today due to the absence of a Temple will be reinstated in the utopian messianic era, where every nation will be forcefully subdued to the Jewish God. The eternally binding command to blot out Amalek's seed and other Canaanites, if one fails acting upon this law anytime a descendant of such tribes is genetically identified, then one becomes subject to divine anger as what happened to king Saul 1Sam28:18,1Chr10. Saul suffered a violent and dishonourable death. His household was decimated at the hands of the Philistines who also dispossessed his community. The same happened prior to the entire Israelite community that was sent for a 40 years desert wandering for their refusal to engage the promised land's natives in battle.

Along with those known, compulsory genocidal warfare as described earlier, during which no atrocities towards men, women, children, cattle and plants may be spared, there are laws relating to optional warfare, for the sole purpose of Israel's "national glory" as labelled by their rabbis. In such cases any random nation the Israelites arbitrarily choose, and set themselves out to conquer can either be "peacefully" submitted, resulting in the enslavement and taxation of its population, or in case of their rejection of the "peace offer", a military subjugation resulting with the execution of all adult males, the capture as spoils of war of their women, children, and livestock

Deut20:10-14"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby".

In addition, should it be necessary to completely subdue that nation

2Kings3:19"you shall fell every good tree, and you shall stop up all springs of water, and you shall clutter every good field with stones".

In the land of Canaan, those natives that werent driven out or exterminated as per the Torah's injunctions during the invasion, were subdued into slavery Josh17:13. Their descendants suffered the same fate under Solomon's rule 1Kings9:20-1. After all and as stated in both the HB and the Talmudic writings, the purpose of creation and the reason why the heavens and earth are maintained is for the chosen race to observe Torah.

All these citations werent made to disparage the Bible, rather at pointing what would have been the outcome had the Quran been the product of human base desires, whims, greed and lust. The fact is the Ishmaelites went through almost identical situations as the Israelites in their confrontations with opposing tribes and nations, and yet we do not find anything remotely similar in terms of abuse and excess as is seen throughout the Hebrew writings, and by the hands of true prophets of God.

It is to be further noted that the Quran does allude to some episodes where the Israelites were confronted to, or were about to engage the Canaanites. Everytime, it refrains from mentioning the shocking acts which the Israelites have committed. The Quran could have used these incidents as divinely sanctioned precedents allowing unrestricted bloodshed and abuses. Yet we keep on reading in the context of warfare, verses stressing self-restraint in retaliation, or the non-materialistic goals of fighting in Allah's way.

Apostate prophet is envious; Why Quran revealed in Arabic and not Mandarin?

In answer to the video "Walking Away From Islam"

In the ancient world, populations were most often scattered in clusters of clans and small villages with a main town close by. When warners were sent, they concentrated their efforts in the mother town so as to reach the surrounding populations more effectively 28:59. When time came for the final message to be sent to mankind, Arabia was most suited to be the place from whence the final expression of the truth would emanate from. It enjoyed a central geostrategic position with regard to the known world at that time. It had been surrounded for long by a belt of ancient civilizations; the Egyptian civilization in the west, the Phoenicians and Assyrians in the north, the Babylonians, Persians and the Indus Valley civilizations in the north-east and east. Further in that direction laid the Chinese civilization. Arabia in ancient times was thus very much in the middle of the then “civilized” world.

Only in that obscure and unbothered land of Arabia could a new state-community with a fresh ideology arise and establish itself, before the intervention of the neighboring superpowers. At the time of Islam's advent, they were the Christian Roman empire of Heraclius I and the Zoroastrian Persian empire of Chosroe II.

In 1350, the estimated population of the earth was 370 million. We are now in the 7 billion, meaning the dramatic growth of mankind has essentially occurred 600 plus years after the death of the Prophet. 4 billion+ of that population exists in Asia alone, meaning right by the Middle East. The major influx of the population of humanity has been in contact with the Abrahamic movement since the time of the Prophet and even before, through the Israelites. Through these growing demographics and population movements, Africa and Europe were also exposed, with South America coming fourth when its population started swelling in the 1500s through European influx.

So when it comes to being a region to remind men of the final reckoning there can be no better place than the Middle East.

Interestingly, when the first human civilization appeared, God sent in it His first messenger with a global mission. Mesopotamia, the nation from which Abraham came, is really considered one of, if not the first civilization of mankind and the Hammurabi codes, which is considered the first real legal document, arose from this nation.

The point is, when civilization reached a stage where it was set to become a global culture, the prophetic mission turned global. This is why Abraham became the spiritual imam for all of humanity 2:124. The prophetic mission then took on a collective capacity with the Israelites first and, after their divine destruction and removal from the covenant, the Ishmaelites took on this mission. This is precisely why, when Abraham fulfilled the vision of sacrifice, God promised to bless his descendants as nations.

The language itself of Arabia was most suited for the transmission of the Quranic message

12:2,41:3,26:191-196"The Faithful Spirit has descended with it, Upon your heart that you may be of the warners. In plain Arabic language. And most surely the same is in the scriptures of the ancients".

Past Revelations sent to different locations and cultures always conformed to the language of the primary addressees

41:44,43:3,14:4"And We did not send any messenger but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly"  

Ezek3:4-5"And He said to me; "Son of man, go, come to the house of Israel and speak to them with My words. For it is not to a people of an unfathomable language and a heavy tongue that you are sent, [but] to the house of Israel".

Every messenger only spoke to his people with their own language, not a foreign one otherwise they might misunderstand

"so that he might explain to them clearly".

This doesnt exclude that the messenger might speak the language of another people or that he might be sent to a foreign nation. This was Yunus/Jonah's case, an Israelite who went to the neighboring Assyrian kingdom as very briefly related in Jonah1-4 but also prophecied among his own people 2Kings14:25.

The Quran doesnt say the knowledge of Arabic is a prerequisite to understand it. It says it had to be sent in Arabic because its primary addressees spoke Arabic 26:198-9,42:7,41:44. A non-Arab approaching the Quran in another language than Arabic is perfectly able to understand it, depending on the quality of the translation. The one approaching the Arabic text obviously needs to master Arabic to understand it and translate it. He must be careful in his choice of words so as to try and catch a succinctly as possible the semantic nuances of a word without upsetting any theological concept. This is no different for a Biblical scholar mastering the intricacies of Greek to aid a study of the Septuagint or learning Latin to grasp later Latin vulgates. Revelation is not the prerogative of any race, culture or language.

All languages are a blessing from God and He has dispersed His creation throughout the planet by equipping them with the use of varying tongues 30:22. The Quran appeals in most of its themes to human emotions because it is the most universal of languages. One of the main reasons the Quran has such an appeal across linguistic, cultural, and temporal divides precisely is because it conveys its message in a way that people can relate to on a basic, universal level. Its message resonates in the emotions and inner genetic spiritual fabric of mankind and that is why it keeps making sense to people from so many different cultures, across time. Translation captures the WHAT but not the HOW of a statement. It may give a sense of what is being said but not how the Speaker conveyed the speech. And it is precisely the eloquence of the Quran that mostly impacted the Arabs. This aspect will forever remain lost in translation, locked in the original language.

Besides the language, there are other things people need to become acquainted with when approaching any ancient writing, so as to avoid any misunderstandings and be able to appreciate the intent behind the words and references. The Quran for instance uses references relevant to the people of the location in which it was revealed. These references might not be necessarily known or experienced by all people of the world but their implicit meanings can still be appreciated if one studies how the primary addressees experienced these references.

For example sometimes in the context of provoking gratefulness, it turns the attention to the availability of all kinds of fruits. The ones it names were typically appreciated by the Arabs of the Hijaz, like olives, dates and grapes 16:11. A foreign reader, as he gets acquainted with the culture of those first addressed by the Quran, can still appreciate the verse's portents by transposing his own taste of fruits with their tastes. There are several other examples, as in 16:81 saying how garments may be used to protect from the heat, and this is because the verse's primary addressees were desert dwellers.

The description again, is not absolute; it doesnt mean garments cannot be used for warmth, since the Arabs also experienced the harsh cold of the night and used these garments for warmth.

As regards the Arabic language, it had several advantages as opposed to the dominant languages of commerce and intellectual discourse of the time; Latin, Greek, Persian, Hebrew. These were so interwoven as media for the communication of various thought systems that they became unsuitable for the transmission of Islamic concepts. The Abrahamic legacy prior to Islam was polluted by the integration of such languages in the course of its transmission. Only a language free from false theological notions could bring back the Abrahamic legacy to its original intent. It is known and argued by the masters of the language since al Farabi that the Qurayshi dialect, due to its centralizing position in Arabia, had reached the peak of eloquence by acquiring the best of other tribes' speech patterns and poems. The Quraysh used to deny the inclusion into their dialect, of expressions found among tribes bordering non-Arabic lands. Arabic in the time of the prophet counted many dialects, with the most dominant being his own language, that of the Quraysh. The Quran states about itself, over and over that it is in a clear Arabic language, devoid of any crookedness. It does not specify which Arabic. A study clearly reveals that it possesses mainly the features of the Qurayshi dialect, in addition to several others spoken in the Hijaz and Najd. It is this characteristic, the fact that it was expressed in the centralizing dialect of the most influencing tribe, but allowed enough flexibility so as to integrate other dialects, that made the Quran understandable to all tribes; clear Arabic. 

The Arabic of the Quraysh in particular had developed to such a level that it could transmit any verbalized message, no matter how abstract the idea.

The Quran therefore was in no need to borrow any word or concept to convey any of its themes.  That notion is in fact rejected, when it points in derogatory manner to the foreign tongue of one man who was at some point suspected of being the prophet's teacher 16:103. Not only was the accusation faulty from a linguistic perspective, his foreign tongue could never have inspired the matchless Arabic of the Quran, which the Arab masters of the language themselves recognized could not equal in eloquence, but was also faulty from a deeper cultural and theological viewpoint. None of the words and concepts conveyed in the Quran can be said to have been influenced by the ideological currents of the region. Even the foreign theologies and philosophies to the Arabs, those now deemed closest to Islam and that penetrated deep inside the peninsula, from Judaism's monolatry to Christianity's dying god incarnate, have no effect from near or far, to any of the tenets of the Quran.

Also, the accusation as quoted in the Quran is that this foreign person was actively interacting with the prophet, communicating and teaching him yet he was a non Arabic speaker so how could the two have such elaborate exchanges, in addition without ever being noticed? The Quran answers that accusation in a very appropriate way; given that the person they were pointing to spoke unintelligibly (aajami is used buy the Arabs for a language they could not understand) how could the prophet learn any of the stories found in the Quran from him, then reproduce that information accurately in a language they can understand? It is the same as saying that Einstein heard a toddler explaining the theory of relativity, then reproduced that information correctly in a language any physicist would recognize. This calumny was not grounded in any reality, like many other contradictory claims the prophet's opponents used in order to tarnish his well established integrity, in the same manner as prophets before him were unjustly targeted.