Islam critiqued questions Quranic style; contradictory repetitions?

In answer to the video "Corruption: Third Response and "Misquoting Allah"

The harmonious, consistent repetitions of various topics in the Quran are primarly meant to stress some important pillars of belief

25:50"And certainly We have repeated this to them that they may be mindful, but the greater number of men do not consent to aught except denying".

The first objective of that literary feature is thus enhancing man's remembrance of Allah 39:23. It also is a way of explaining itself

17:41"We have explained (things) in various (ways) in this Quran".

According to the Quran therefore, its master exegetist is none but the Book itself, explaining itself 75:19,16:89. The Prophet is its second exegetist and interpreter 3:164,16:44,62:2. The Quran being primarily self-explanatory establishes from the onset 2 conditions for its proper understanding; the importance of considering the context of a verse and the fact that the Book is one integral whole; every verse and sentence has an intimate bearing on other verses and sentences, all of them clarifying and amplifying one another. Consequently, its real meaning can be grasped only if we correlate every one of its statements with what has been stated elsewhere in a different context. A full picture of its ideas can be appreciated by means of cross-references.

Allah warns the prophet, in the context of exposing the followers of previous scriptures for their transgressions, not to withhold anything of what he is commanded to convey, or else it would be as if he did not convey the entirety of the message from beginning to end 

5:67"O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people". 

This holistic approach was considered by the earliest Quran scholars, down to the contemporary ones. This means the Quran and its meaning isnt locked to the common man's comprehension, provided it is effectively pondered upon. 

Al-Tabari for example states that the Quran has 3 kinds of material: that which is only known to God, but irrelevant to hermeneutics, that which only the Prophet could explain, but extremely marginal, and that which any knowledgeable person of Arabic language can explain, practically all of the Quran. Al-Tabari included a chapter even refuting the position of those who claimed that only the Prophet can interpret the Quran. As a side note, the tafsir section in Bukhari includes many interpretations without isnad, and that are not even those of Muhammad, his Companions, or his Followers.

Some Quranic passages are repeated word for word, in the case of prayers or general pillars of faith but in story telling, the repetitions are rarely if ever the same. This is because 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 across 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. 

Those unable to apreciate that Quranic style speak of contradictory, or incomplete repetitions. This is because first and foremost they approach the Quranic text with the above Biblical paradigm in mind; the Quran, instead of being read on its own is seen as a garbled version of multiple Judeo-Christian sources. If, however, the text is approached according to its own thematic unities, its lack of historical detail and absence of chronological order become unproblematic. And this is the prevalent approach among western scholarship nowadays. The second common problem for those reading the text occurs when they are unable to connect the different repetitions properly among one another and fail to grasp the manner in which each repetition fits in the context of a particular sura. This a side note isnt circular reasoning as it doesnt presume the notion of textual coherence. It is textual coherence that objectively establishes itself, through consistent repetitions, recurrence of similar themes and notions in different contexts. These repetitions always retain a core meaning, and are always thematically correlated with similar passages in other suras, like conversations and dialogues between the suras.

The brilliant pakistani scholar Islahi called the recurrence of themes in several suras "complementarity".

A topic which appears at a place reappears in another background and context where the initially hidden meaning becomes quite apparent because the meaning is suited to be developped in that particular context. Teachings, precepts, stories or anecdotes are mentioned in various styles and with different aspects in different contexts and in numerous backgrounds so that if at one place a reader is not fully able to understand something, he can grasp it fully at another place, and if at one place an argument is not fully appreciated, he can comprehend it in the background of a different context. If an element within a story is only meaningful in a specific context, and that in the course of revelation, that specific context does not reappear in a manner so as to necessitate the repetition of that element from within the story, then the element or detail is omitted. 

Sometimes an incident is repeated tersely or partly in order to remind the audience and reader of the overall message that is relevant to a particular context, without recalling it of every precise details. Sometimes an incident is repeated tersely or partly in order to remind the audience and/or reader of the overall message that is relevant to a particular context, without recalling it of every precise details. 

Sometimes a story is repeated by omitting some previously mentionned details in order to reveal some new elements, this way keeping the story brief and to the point, without communicating too much information at once. When it relates the same event at different places it sometimes quotes different dialogues between different protagonists hence the variation in wordings. As also said, this variation is also due to the importance of giving different angles to the same dialogue or incident that is relevant to the context within the sura. Sometimes the characters might also repeat themselves slightly differently from amazement or in the case of messengers quoted with variations it is because during their career they repeated themselves obviously differently at different times.

The Quran, using these literary devices and many others, explains itself

7:58"As such we manage the signs to people who are grateful"  

54:22"And certainly We have made the Quran easy for remembrance, but is there anyone who will mind?".

Another purpose of this style being to strengthen the Prophet in the face of various forms of denial and obstinacy from his opponents at different times. The form of the story would echo a situation similar to that which the Prophet was facing.

Some truths are repeated to emphasize their importance and fix them in the minds of the believers. Things such as the oneness of God, repeated more than 10 times in certain pages, or the unavoidable day of resurrection etc. These are things that even if repeated a million times, it still would not be a waste of time or words. The Quran constantly draws attention to those matters both explicitly or allusively because they are realities like the air we breath, which we always need and that require renewal, this way their reiterations becomes a Quranic grace.

What is remarkable from a linguistic perspective is that the Quran was uttered publicly, live and as a speech, which prevents any type of editing and yet it forms one incredibly well knit whole, from verse to verse, paragraph to pararaph, sura to sura. If we take the example of sura baqara, the longest of all and revealed over the course of 10 years while other suras were being simultaneously revealed, it is structured in an interconnected manner allowing it to be thematically structured in many different ways. 

This is a vast field 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. 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, elusive and countless proposed sources, the Quran will remain an obscure book for those approaching it.

Here is just one of the thematical structuring of sura Baqara, in a symetrical construction called ring structure;

- 1st subject from v1-20 faith vs unbelief/Last subject v285-6 dua about belief-hypocrisy-disbelief.

- 2nd subject from v21-39 God's creation and knowledge/2nd subject from down God's creation and knowledge v254-284

- 3rd topic v40-103 the Israelites receive the law/3rd subject from down from down about the laws given to Muslims v178-253

- 4th subject Ibrahim faces tests v104-141/4th one from down Ibrahim's nation, the Ishmaelites are tested v153-177

- middle section culminates with the new direction of prayer, the Kaaba symbolizing that new nation and its new law

And all this symetrical ring structure leads to the statement of the Muslims having been made the ummatan wasata/balanced nation, a statement located in the center of a sura composed of 286 verses, at exactly verse 143. 

Every single Quranic sura on its own forms, like baqara, a cohesive argument.

Also, because many of its passages can be read through the lens of another passage from within the sura, other analysts have approached its structuring in a pericope. For example, the story of Adam in sura Baqara pericopes throughout the sura. The Israelites were told to enter a town and enjoy its sustenance v58 similarily to the instructions previously given to Adam and his spouse upon entering the garden v35. But just as Adam and his spouse werent content with what they were given, the Israelites began grumbling for the sustenance they had in captivity v61. And just as Adam and his spouse found their Lord forgiving once they repented, some of the Israelites were eventually forgiven for their worshipping the calf and desisting prior to Moses' return v54.

Islam critiqued explores an old incident; Allah confronts Iblis?

In answer to the video "Corruption: Third Response and "Misquoting Allah"

As said above, the repetitions in the Quran do not contradict one another, but instead complement and elaborate on different facets that are relevant to the direct context in which the story is recounted. If we merge the different accounts of Iblis for example, we get a complete picture of what occured. As he was about to leave, in his hatred for the human race that caused his loss of glory, he requested a time of respite until the day of resurrection to show God that He was mistaken in honoring this new creation, and the request was granted

7:14-15,38:79-81,15:36-8,17:62"Tell me, is this he whom Thou hast honored above me? If Thou shouldst respite me to the day of resurrection, I will most certainly cause his progeny to perish except a few".

Seeing that his demand was accepted, Iblis now laid out his detailed plan. He will lie in wait on the straight path, ensnaring those upon it from every possible angle, making their evil deeds alluring to them, all of them except God's purified servants 7:16-17,15:39-40,38:82-3. When he had finished stating his intentions, God, Who had previously demonstrated mankind's potential and Who created it with the inner ability to rise spiritualy, accepted, stating that his authority will be limited to those who follow him of the deviators, not His servants, and that hell will be his abode and that of those who follow him while those that remain God-conscious will enter the secure and pleasurable dwelling place for eternity 38:84-5,15:41-8.

The matter was now closed, God definately marked Iblis as one of lowly character and ordered him out once more and violently, augmenting the tone of His address while summing up the area of authority granted to him, the consequences for those he might succesfully deceive, and restricted means at his disposal for doing so

7:18"Get out of her, despised, driven away; whoever of them will follow you, I will certainly fill hell with you all"  

17:63-5"And beguile whomsoever of them you can with your voice, and collect against them your forces riding and on foot, and share with them in wealth and children, and hold out promises to them; and the Shaitan makes not promises to them but to deceive. Surely (as for) My servants, you have no authority over them; and your Lord is sufficient as a Protector".

On the day of Judgement, Iblis will recognize exactly that, he had no autority other than within the area granted to him by God, ie whispering, as a means of attracting into him the deviators

14:22"Surely Allah promised you the promise of truth, and I gave you promises, then failed to keep them to you, and I had no authority over you, except that I called you and you obeyed me, therefore do not blame me but blame yourselves: I cannot be your aider (now) nor can you be my aiders; surely I disbelieved in your associating me with Allah before; surely it is the unjust that shall have the painful punishment."

CIRA international find odditiy; why Quran speaks of one Gospel?

In answer to the video "Defending the Bible, Part 5 - Using the Quran: Between the time of Christ & before Muhammad"

Injil, usually render Gospel, is what is called in Arabic Taarib. This is a phenomenon common to all languages, when a foreign word is converted and adopted, without necessarily retaining the original meaning. Injil is thus the Arabized form of the Syro-Aramaeic ewwangelion which is itself borrowed from the Greek evangelion/good news. Koin Greek was the lingua franca around Jesus' time and thus many words crossed from it, into local languages including Syriac, Aramaic, Hebrew. Although, like his contemporaries Jesus could certainly speak the Koine Greek, his language according to scholarship was one of the aforementioned 3.

The Quran only recognizes one among several -canonical or not- gospels as it speaks of "Injil" in the singular. It is described as a revelation stamped into Jesus's heart since his infancy 3:3,48,19:30 a source of guidance, admonition, light and wisdom 3:48,5:44,46 verifying the Torah that precedes it 3:50,5:46 while abolishing to the Jews the self imposed restrictions of their man-made soulless traditions, as well as giving glad tidings of a prophet to come after Jesus 61:6.

Jesus either put himself into writing or asked his followers to eventually write down what was revealed to him since infancy of wisdom, teachings, prophecies, warnings and admonitions 7:157. This writing process was most probably done in his lifetime. As stated earlier, Koine Greek was the language of education. The Septuagint Greek translation of the Torah was more popular among Jews than the Hebrew text. It would have taken someone highly literate in Greek to write down Jesus' teachings. Jesus himself preached his revelation in Aramaic and/or Hebrew. These teachings were translated into Greek and written, as confirmed in standard scholarship. This original compilation was named ewangelion/Injil. The process was done under Jesus' watch as the Quran says he was given and taught this singular Injil. Greek however wasn't Jesus' language so it was necessary to ensure he would not overlook a mistake in the translation process. Hence Allah's repeated statements that He will teach Jesus the Injil. Interestingly, when Jesus speaks as an infant about the revelation he was inspired with, he called it scripture 19:30. This is because the Greek Injil was still not compiled. Jesus therefore was taught the scripture and its wisdom, which he preached in the language of his people, as well as taught the Torah, and the Injil compiled in Greek 

3:48"And He will teach him the Book, and [the] wisdom, and the Taurat, and the Injeel".

The previous Israelite prophets followed the same pattern of committing the revelation to writing, including Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel or Habakkuk, Iddo and others 2Chr11:2,12:5,15,13:22. Solomon had his wise utterings, that were either put into writing in his lifetime or later, compiled from scattered supports under the reign of Hezekiah Prov25:1.

It thus certainly is an established trend within the line of the prophets of Israel, of which Jesus fully adhered to, to commit to writing, whether themselves or by others, in their lifetime or later, the revelation bestowed upon them. That reality hasnt escaped the rabbinical commentaries, see for example Rashi on Iddo.

While part of Jesus' scripture, or what his first followers remembered and compiled, made it in its uncorrupted form into the current Greek compilation of writings called in English the "New Testament", another part did not make it. This could have either been due to negligence, forgetfulness, or some was discarded and worse yet obscured and tampered with as it did not fit the message, ideas and bias of the unknown Greek writers and later compilers and editors

5:14-15"..those who say, We are Christians, We made a covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of..".  

That corruption occurred very early on following Jesus' departure, with a big part of his close disciples failing the test of remaining steadfast on the path prescribed by a prophet, similarly to what happened to Moses' 40 days absence. Part of that inner circle, together with the new converts of the pagan Roman world, retrospectively painted their own interpretations and biases into Jesus' original teachings which could have been available to them in written and/or oral form. Textual criticism has generally accepted the existence of texts predating the current gospels and which inspired the anonymous evangelists

"In the interval between the death of Jesus (c. 30 CE) and the composition of the first gospel (Mark, around 70 CE), the sayings of Jesus, like those of other holy men and philosophers, were remembered, rendered into Greek retold, revised and recast in such common forms as chreiai (also termed aphorism, pronouncement stories, and apophthegmata,), parables, logia (sayings), apokalypseis (revelations), prophecies, macarisms and woes and gnomai (maxims).  A similar process took place with narratives about Jesus, including stories of controversy with his contemporaries (now told in the light of the early church’s own contentious encounters with its neighbors) and accounts of miracle working." (Margaret M. Mitchell – Professor Birmingham).

The current NT is in great majority a compilation of writings about Jesus, not of Jesus, and while containing some elements of what was revealed to him, the Injil, is in great majority a combination of texts compiled during great political and religious turmoil, reflecting the bias of its writers. The victorious sect, among many other early conflicting christian sects, that thus became "orthodoxy" did not let any competing texts it could lay hands on to survive, either by physically destroying it or discrediting it and leaving it to disappear with time. During this gradual process, what was viewed as authoritative was separated from a much larger body of early Christian literature.

This period was most important in shaping and spreading official Christian thought, yet almost nothing is known as to how, when, and by whom this process was brought about. The result is that although early Christianity was composed of various sects in Paul's days, we have not a single text from them. Instead, the vast bulk of surviving material is solely what was approved by the victorious "orthodoxy" who did not win because of being more truthful or closer to Jesus' teachings, but their more effective convincing capacity especially among the gentile elite.

Thus in the earliest centuries after Jesus’ death it was possible for any Christian group to produce its own gospel, which it deemed represented a more accurate understanding of Jesus and his life.

That is why the Quran refers to the Book in the hands of its Christian addressees as Injil in the singular; it only recognizes whatever remains from Jesus' revelation among other multiple canonized scriptures in Christian hands, as true. And for Christians to know which part of this compilation of books in their hands is the pristine truth, they have to discard any aspect of it that disagrees with what the Quran teaches concerning Jesus.

The Quran similarly alludes to the suhuf/pages of Abraham and to some of the divine verities they contain and share with both the Quran and the Torah 53:36-38,87:18-19. It is also interesting to note that rabbinical tradition attributes the authorship of the book of Psalms to 9 different others besides David, including Adam (Although not a prophet in Judaism), Malchizedek and Abraham. For the guidance of all mankind, God sent down revelation to chosen individuals who put into writing -not necessarily in the form of a book- the teachings, wisdom and principles revealed to them. Some of these writings are explicitly mentioned in the Quran, like the aforementioned Suhuf/pages of Nuh and Ibrahim, or the Torah as well as the writings of Moses. The Torah is a revelation 5:44 but is not explicitly named in the Quran as given to Moses. This is because the Torah is in reality a compilation of writings and traditions, some revealed to Moses, some to other prophets. The writing given to Moses is distinctively referred to as a set of tablets, in which the necessary religious instructions were inscribed

 7:145"And We ordained for him in the tablets admonition of every kind and clear explanation of all things; so take hold of them with firmness and enjoin your people to take hold of what is best thereof".

This is well established in modern academia that Moses could not have authored the totality of the 5 books that currently constitute the Torah. The Quran describes the Torah as a scripture containing guidance and spiritual light, as well as laws for the prophets of Israel to judge by 5:43-44. Moses or someone after him, a prophet or pious individual, compiled both the revelation to Moses and the revelations that preceded him, as the Torah. There is indication that what the Quran refers to as Torah/Tawrat excludes the writings and traditions of the prophets that came after Moses. The Torah came after Abraham and Jacob 3:65,93 and the prophets of Israel were bound by it as stated earlier. The only scripture that the Quran mentions after these prophets, is the Injil given to Jesus 5:46.

The Quran further speaks of the Zabur (psalms, az‑Zabur from the root al‑mazbur means 'the written') of David, the aforementioned Injil of Jesus, and the Quran of Muhammad. Not all revealed books are listed in the Quran just as it makes it clear that there are many more prophets than those it chose to highlight. The Quran does explain that the writings of the Muslims and the people of the book are portions of the complete book that is with Allah.

CIRA international find Quran prophecy; destruction of Jesus' rejecters?

In answer to the video "Defending the Bible, Part 5 - Using the Quran: Between the time of Christ & before Muhammad"

Physical destruction and abasement came on Jesus' rejecters soon after his departure. In the years 69-73, the Temple of Jerusalem was razed to the ground as Jesus predicted in Matt23,24,Mk13,Lk23 (Quran 17:7,3:56), their priesthood was destroyed, the Israelites were slaughtered in large numbers women and children included, by the Romans.

Many more were enslaved and sold in the markets, as Jesus prophesied lk21:24, deported throughout the Roman empire and colonies for hard labor. Some were boarded on prison ships and sent to Corinth for the digging of an isthmus. Soonafter in the years 114-135 they suffered further destruction and enslavement by the tens of thousands, impovrishment and scattering throughout the earth.

The greatest abasement was that for the next 1900 years they would have no authority in this land that was divinely granted to them. Following Jesus, Judea would be wrecked and destroyed several times by pagan forces, in accordance with Jesus' prophecy that not a stone would be left standing on another, for the Israelites' rejection of him Luke21.

The predictions as reported in the NT however seem to be retrospectively written. The Temple was destroyed in 70CE. The Gospels were written after that time. If the Prophecy of the Temple's destruction was made by Jesus in the 30s as is suggested in the Gospels, then one needs to explain why earlier NT books seem uninformed of it. We're not talking about the tearing down of a place of worship in some remote location, but of Jerusalem's Temple, known throughout the empire and beyond, a place of particular significance to the authors' own religion. Yet the book of Hebrews, written in the 60s describes it as a reality which is in competition with the nascent Jesus sect because it epitomises rabbinic Judaism.

Previous prophecies, in their own books warned them that should they turn away from the commands of God, as was the case with their rejection of Jesus, God Himself will uproot them from the land they were settled in. They were not settled in it to enjoy it as an unrestricted holiday resort but to assert therein true faith and righteousness.

Failure to do so would instead turn their sacred shrine into an object of ridicule among the nations 2Chronicles7:19-22. Eusebius the early church father notes that

"stones from the Temple itself, and from its ancient sanctuary and holy place, were used for the building of idol temples, and of theatres for the populace".

The Romans, led by Hadrian sought to build upon its ruins their new city "Aelia Capitolina". To achieve that vast project, the erasure of the previous city of the Jews had to be complete. In the process, their oppression was so intense, their expulsion so effective following their repeated rebellions and the 3 years of vicious warfare led by their messiah Simon bar Kochba, that by the 4th century the exact location of the temple edifice was beyond recall

"Rabbi Yermiah, son of Babylonia came to the Land of Israel and could not find the site of the Temple" (Tractate Shevuot 1 4b).

If 4th century Christian historian Eusebius is to be believed, the new city that Emperor Hadrian built upon the ruins of Jerusalem was colonized by a

"new race of Gentiles"

after

"a total destruction of its ancient inhabitants".

The whole province of Judea was even renamed Philisti as a further humiliation, after the ancient inhabitants of the land and bitterest enemies of the Israelites, the Philistines.

The new laws forbid Jews to live in the city or anywhere between Jerusalem and Hebron. Capital punishment faced any Jew who so much as stepped foot in the city. The harshness went so far as imposing penalties on any Jews caught laying eyes on the city on their "day of mourning". A day of mourning is one where they would remember the calamities that befell them. In Josephus' words

"Jerusalem ..was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited".

The scarcity of achaeological evidences for the biblical stories attests to this.

As 4th century churchman Jerome tells us, a statue of Hadrian, seated on horseback, was erected on the levelled platform of Jerusalem's Temple Mount after the crushing of the bar Kochba revolt in 135 AD. The Roman Emperor despised the Jews for their insularity and arrogant claims for a single concept of the divine. Just as Hadrian had erected a Temple to Zeus on the top of Mt Gerizim close to which the Samaritan Temple stood, it isnt inconceivable that he had erected a similar temple in Jerusalem, more precisely a temple dedicated to Jupiter, next to his imperial statue, as some scholars suggest.

It was not until the Christianization of the Roman empire late in the 4th century that these pagan "abominations" were eventually torn down. Stones from the ruined sanctuary were looted for use in later Christian structures. On the neglected esplanade the Byzantine emperor Justinian built a church to Mary Mother of God but little else.

When Jerusalem became Christianity's holy city, the Christian authorities would allow entry to some exiled Jews once a year to mourn the destruction of their Temple. One cannot but notice the cynicism of the Christians who viewed in the desecrated ruins, the triumph of their religion, the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy and thus satisfactorily left it as it is. In the Quran, besides them being subdued up to this day to the Christians, God warns them of further chastisement 17:8 whenever they return or persist in their wrong ways. Their known long and painful history in Christian lands bears testimony to this. The Quran further condemned them to have their security fully in the hands of others

3:112"Abasement is made to cleave to them wherever they are found, except under a covenant with Allah and a covenant with men".

It isnt God Himself who would repel their numerous enemies and Who would give them the upper hand on more powerful foes as he did in the times of Moses. Such security could either come from some Muslim states (of the past and today) in the name of Allah or from some non-Muslim states for other reasons. This is because

3:112"they have become deserving of wrath from Allah, and humiliation is made to cleave to them; this is because they disbelieved in the communications of Allah and slew the prophets unjustly; this is because they disobeyed and exceeded the limits".

Here the Quran plays on the concept of shade, the comfort provided by the pillars of clouds during their lengthy exodus, telling them they are now under the shadow of humiliation and oppression instead of the shadow of peace, comfort, protection, sustenance. 

In its usual pattern of drawing a line and not generalizing, the Noble Quran continues

3:113"They are not all alike; of the followers of the Book there is an upright party.."

Their own books speak of their cursed state, made to hang upon them, and destined to expire only at what they call "the end of days", which in their terminology refers to the Messianic era of bliss and utopia

Zech8:13"And it shall come to pass that [just] as you were a curse among the nations, O house of Judah and house of Israel, so will I save you-and you shall be a blessing. Fear not; may your hands be strengthened".

By the year 638, Muslim troops led by the Caliph Umar entered Jerusalem and as they cleared the garbage on the Temple mount and uncovered scattered jumble of architectural elements, they identified the ruins as those of Solomon's Temple, instead of Hadrian's, and decided to clear an area of around 35 acres. It was covered in garbage and debris of all sorts that were cynically left to be accumulated by the Christians as a reminder of Jesus' vindication, then a small prayer house was built on the site. The whole area of the mount that was cleared is what is known today as Masjid Al-Aqsa, sometimes also referred to as Haram Al-Sharif.

Umar also uncovered what is suspected to be the Foundation Stone; the Rock from where it is speculated the prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven on the Night Journey 17:1, and which is believed by the Jews to be the first part of the Earth to come into existence and from where Adam, Cain, Abel, and Noah offered sacrifices to God. Umar, contrary to the islamophobic rant, did not steal temple mount, he restored this area that was abandoned by both Jews and Christians, to its purpose, dignifying and honoring it.

It would be interesting to mention here the passage of Genesis 49. The writer promises that rulership over Israel will stay in the house of Judah and that the law will remain studied and kept. Historically neither were fulfilled. Then it mentions shiloh and how nations will gather around that figure, followed by metaphors of abundance. This isnt the concept of an end times figure that shall reestablish Jewish glory and law. As assumed earlier by the author, both are supposed to remain uninterrupted, up to the point of the arrival of "shiloh". Christians claim Jesus is this shiloh.

But assuming Jesus is traced to Judah, despite it being a violation of Jewish law due to him not having a biological father, how can he be the shiloh when it says the scepter shall not depart from Judah UNTIL shiloh comes? It implies that kingship rights will be removed from Judah at some future point and then given to shiloh (which etymologically means "the one to whom it belongs"). For Jesus to be shiloh in that sentence, he needs to be from other than Judah, which doesnt fit the Christian position. Further, neither shiloh nor Jesus appeared when Jewish self-government was over with the capture of the last king from the tribe of Judah, Zedekiah, in about 586 B.C.E. And even when Jesus did appear, he did not do so as a ruler over the Jews. To preserve the integrity of their text, the rabbis are now forced to reinterpret the promise and project it to the long haul, as Christians do with Jesus' second coming as ruler. To the rabbis, "the scepter not departing from Judah" became an allusion to right of governance instead of actual rulership and "the one to whom it belongs" (shiloh) a future ruler who shall establish it. Yet this still doesn't solve the problem of the removal of Judah when shiloh appears. The solution for them is elsewhere. Up to the arrival of the Ishmaelite prophet and the establishment of the Muslim nation as the new torch bearers of the truth to the world, the Jews could have potentially returned to their former glory, provided they repented and returned to the straight path; abiding by their covenant and accepting the last messenger sent to them, Jesus. When shiloh "the one to whom it belongs" appeared, that door was shut and will remain so until the day of resurrection 

Ps132:12"If your sons keep My covenant, and this, My testimony, which I shall teach them, also their sons will sit on your throne forever".

The current state of Israel is illegitimate, ethically, legally, let alone scripturally. That is why it is a deeply fractured, majoritarly secular society and that despite the apparent independence, is actually living under humiliating subjugation to other nations on whose support its survival depends, as the Quran even tells them (as referenced earlier).

The Jews, until now and as corroborated by their rabbis and their books, have still not been given the divine authority to rebuild their destroyed temple on its previous location, in order to re-dedicate it to their religious rituals. Per the Torah it is God that must give them the right to do so, when a Jewish king and prophet is among them, to indicate the now lost original dimensions, the location of the altar, let alone get the Jews out of several insurmountable ritualistic difficulties such as sacrificing a red heifer, complicated purity requirements, identifying the priests, the specificities of their clothings. Jews cannot just decide to go and build the temple arbitrarily.

So they're waiting, and will keep on waiting, for their promised messiah to come and do the job. In the meantime, another nation has been raised in their stead as the torch bearers of the truth among the nations, with its own divinely restored Temple and its altar.

Some 50 years later, the Caliph Abdul Malik ibn Marwan constructed within this area of masjid al aqsa, the Dome of the Rock (with the golden roof) or Masjid As-Sakhrah, covering the Foundation Stone much to the Jews' dismay who find it difficult to believe that non-Jews could effectively build a place of worship on the spot of the "Holy of Holies". So they attempt to find other possible locations to the historic foundation stone (Even haShetiya).

CIRA international find approval; Quran confirms Christian missionary power?

In answer to the video "Defending the Bible, Part 5 - Using the Quran: Between the time of Christ & before Muhammad"

After Jesus' salvation from his enemies, the Quran outlined the punishment to his rejectors, in line with the sunna of Allah on the destruction of the rejectors of His messengers sent with clear signs. A similar hypothetical scenario is given in 43:41 where the prophet is told that should he be taken away or even eventually martyred as happened to previous prophets 36:26-32 the divine law of retribution against a rejecting nation will still be applied, however Allah has desired otherwise with the prophet Muhammad

43:42"We will certainly show you that which We have promised them; for surely We are the possessors of full power over them".

Among the punishments the Israelites had to face in this very world 3:56, they were subdued to the followers of Jesus until the Day of Resurrection

61:14,3:55"and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection".

Allah is addressing Jesus and is speaking of the dominion of those who follow him over his enemies. It isnt speaking in terms of proselytising success, as is alluded to in Acts with Jesus posthumously telling his missionaries they will have the power to disseminate Christianity in all corners of the world. The early gentile converts from around the region had no enmity towards Jesus nor his followers. The verse is speaking in terms of dominion of one group above another, through subduing them, not assimilation

"So a party of the children of Israel believed and another party disbelieved; then We aided those who believed against their enemy, and they became uppermost".

This dominance is granted to all those who claim to be his followers, whether they are from those who call themselves Christians, or from those ascribing to the beliefs of the earlier sects that believed in Jesus. The common denominator between all of them being, believing in Jesus and in Allah. Besides prevailing in a worldly sense, the followers of Jesus have also been granted spiritual victory. His teachings, despite the very few original adherents to them, regardless of the amount of falsehood that later were grafted unto them, were successfully disseminated, against the will of Jesus' enemies, whether contemporaries to him or those that still hate him today.

This favor of God is an obvious reality of our times. The Israelites are condemned to the humiliating reality of being entirely dependant on Christian whims for their survival, reluctantly accepting "bribe" money and deceitful "love" from the followers of the one they bitterly rejected. All this for the sake of maintaining a state that is the shadow of what was once God's conditional favor upon them.

Today, the evangelical zionist movement that finds its inspiration in Paul deceptive missionary methods, masks its real intentions towards the Jewish people by corrupting their audience with money. Probably no nation needs this money more than Israel for its survival, exactly as God prophecised when He stated in the Quran that the Israelites, those who were Jesus' enemies, will be under the Christians' dominion until the Resurrection. This bribe money serves the purpose of gathering Jews from all over the world so that a massive slaughter begins.

Christian eschatology reveals the anti semitism of its gentile Greek writers to the fullest. Towards the end of days, 2/3 of Israel will be destroyed and damned for rejecting the man/god of the trinity. Their Armageddon theology is detailed in the book of Revelation -a Book not even considered God inspired until very late in Church history-.

Those damned Jews, the Jews of the "flesh", labelled as such because of lacking spirituality and rejecting Jesus Rom2:28-9, those sons of Satan Jn8:44, worshipping in their satanic synagogues Rev2:9 will be made to bow down at the feet of the true Jews, meaning the Christians Rev3:9. This way Jesus’ beloved church is vindicated. After that humiliation they will be sent for eternal damnation.

It is these kinds of satanic association that helped produce a portrait for faithful Christians throughout the centuries of the “evil” Jew representing satan on earth. By persecuting those satanic Jews, the church and its faithful followers were in a way hastening the day when Jesus would fulfill his promise to

“make them [the synagogue of Satan] come and bow down at your feet”.

What is ironic is that the contrary is depicted in the HB, with the non-Jews, including Christians, coming at the Jews' feet. Although the messianic prophecies in the HB agree that there will be mass slaughter of those that do not believe in the Jewish God, this war shall occur prior to the messiah's arrival and universal recognition Isa59:19-20. None will be required to "believe" in the Jewish messiah because his universal rule will be an undeniable fact.

An utopic era will be ushered, where only one truth reigns supreme, that of the Hebrew Bible. Every other belief system will be abolished and erased, its people destroyed, by natural calamity or others means like God's jealous and furious fire of destruction. God is often likened in the HB as a smith selecting through fire the trash from the precious metal, concretely resulting in "purifying" the people's hearts and lips. Once purified, all those surviving non-Jews will prostrate to the One true God

Zeph3:8-9,Zech14:9-17"And the Lord shall become King over all the earth; on that day shall the Lord be one, and His name one". 

Some modern apologists have attempted to negate that idea of universal forceful conversion using Micah4:5. It is ironic that this same verse is used in rabbinic commentaries to prove the opposite. The context itself speaks of the streaming of nations into Jerusalem to learn Judaism, God's judgement of nations afar, in a time where

"all peoples shall go, each one in the name of his god, but we will go in the name of the Lord, our God, forever and ever".

The non-Jews "going" to their false gods implies "going for destruction" in contrast to the Jews who will go on "forever". This will usher a time not only of religious monopoly but of forcible, physical subjugation of all non-Jewish peoples, made to crawl like abject creatures to the Jews' feet, in fear of

Micah7:17"our God",

transferring in addition all their riches to their new masters

Isa66:12"like a flooding stream",

or be destroyed

Zech14,Isa45:22"Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth, for I am God, and there is no other"  

Isa49:23"And kings shall be your nursing fathers and their princesses your wet nurses; they shall prostrate themselves to you with their face on the ground, and they shall lick the dust of your feet, and you shall know that I am the Lord, for those who wait for Me shall not be ashamed"  

Isa60:"..And foreigners shall build your walls, and their kings shall serve you..For the nation and the kingdom that shall not serve you shall perish, and the nations shall be destroyed...And the children of your oppressors shall go to you bent over, and those who despised you shall prostrate themselves at the soles of your feet..".

The end of the book of Isaiah is replete with such references of "glad-tidings" to the Jews towards the end of times, the messianic era, a time where

Isa66:23"all flesh shall come to prostrate themselves before Me"

and where the remaining lucky survivors will see all around them

"the corpses of the people who rebelled against Me, for their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring for all flesh".

This represents, according to Zech13:8-9 roughly 2/3 of the world population, exterminated, with 1/3 remaining for having converted to Judaism. Following their subjugation and destruction, the wicked will be sentenced to gehinnom (see Rashi on Ps6:11).

But God's favoring of the current Christians above the disbelieving Jews does not mean they are absolved of their deviations in faith. It is for this reason that the very next verse addresses those same favored Christians, telling them

3:57"And as to those who believe and do good deeds, He will pay them fully their rewards; and Allah does not love the unjust".

It firstly clarifies that correct belief, joined with good deeds, are the only means for salvation in the hereafter. It separates between

"those who follow you"

and

"those who believe and do good deeds",

emphasizing that among Jesus' followers from his contemporaries to present-day christians, Allah will pay fully their reward only to those of them who hold the correct belief and do good deeds. The unusual ending of this type of verse with

"Allah does not love the unjust"

is clearly directed at those followers of Jesus who strayed from the correct belief of their ancestors

5:77"O followers of the Book, be not unduly immoderate in your religion, and do not follow the low desires of people who went astray before and led many astray and went astray from the right path".

Verses with promises of mercy and paradise usually end with Divine Names of mercy and forgiveness, or on praises of those addressed in the verse but in this case it ends with a stern warning to the followers of Jesus who have deviated, they are being unjust to their own souls.

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.