Apostate prophet inadvertently explores higher realities; opposites attract?

In answer to the video "43 Scientific Mistakes in the Quran"

The more profound message of the verses speaking of the "azwaj" in creation is understood by their context, which is always that of divine justice and providing proof for the resurrection of the dead and judgement in the next life.

The Quran is essentially saying that everything in this varied nature has a complement, without which it is incomplete. If such a thing is the case and that all things have a complement, then how can one deny that this world has its complement in the next life?

In this world, the believers may suffer harm and hardship for adhering to the call of their morality, while the disbelievers profit. That reality can not always last, otherwise this world would be incomplete. Such verses pointing to the universal notion of inter-dependancy also make the believers heed to their own needs and vulnerabilities, whether from a physical/material sense or a spiritual sense, and how Allah alone is independent, self-sufficient 35:15,6:14. Everything is in need of Allah, the Qayyum (Self-subsisting) standing by Himself, the Hayy (Everliving) and all the universe stands because of His eternal endurance, maintainance of life in each instant 2:255,3:2. 

The prophet Daniel states in the Aramaic in which the text was recorded 

Dan6:26"elaha hayya qayyam". 

The words carry several implications, including the pervasive pattern throughout the Quran of God being the sole self-sufficient, uncreated, independant entity. He relies on none other than Himself to subsit and will perdure even when all things perish 55:26-7,28:88. Al hayy/the ever living is also a description meant at distinguishing Allah from false deities, as is done in the HB Joshua3:10,1Sam17:26,1Sam17:36,Jer10:9-10,etc., whether they be inanimate entities or living creatures that made themselves or were made into objects of worship 16:20-1. They are neither alive nor are able to keep others alive, they do not exist of their own accord nor can keep others into existence. Their existence depends at all times on the self-sustaining source of all life, Allah.

This divine unity, self-sufficiency and uniqueness from the point of view of his attributes, is captured in sura ikhlas

112:1-4"He is Allah, AHAD/One".

HE is ahad (or echad as the HB says) in the midst of diversity 30:22, complementarity, and polarity amongst the various kinds in the universe that work in interconnection. It is one of the major signs man is asked to ponder upon

51:49"And of everything We have created azwaj (different kinds) that you may be mindful"  

2:164,89:3"Consider the multiple and the One". 

These verses speaking of things made in "azwaj" end with "there are signs in this for a people who understand". Only those devoid of the correct mindframe; intellectual observation through spiritual insight, are unable to appreciate the portent of the signs which the verses direct them to, unable to see the singularity and unity of the Creator opposite the interdependant diversity of creation.

The Quran uses simple logical deductions based on the signs in the heavens and earth testifying to the unity of a Single, uncreated and independent Cause. On a philosophical level, the implication from the observance of the universe is that there must have been a single, uncaused cause of all things. This denies the simultaneous existence of several gods. Multiple deities would naturally compete with oneanother, affecting the order of the universe. Having different needs and interests, they would issue contradicting commands

17:111"And say: ‘(All) Praise is Allah’s, Who has not taken unto Him a son; nor has He got any partner in the Sovereignty; and there is not for Him any helper out of humbleness.’ And magnify Him with all magnificence". 

A quick look at the mythologies of polytheist beliefs all throughout the history of mankind, confirms this

21:22"If there had been in them any gods except Allah, they (the heavens and the earth) would both have certainly been in a state of disorder"  

17:42"If there were with Him gods as they say, then certainly they would have been able to seek a way to the Lord of power"  

23:91"never was there with him any (other) god-- in that case would each god have certainly taken away what he created, and some of them would certainly have overpowered others; glory be to Allah above what they describe!".

If Allah had partners and more than one god had ruled over the world, each of these gods would have managed and established his control over the realm of his own creations. Consequently different parts of the universe would end up being managed under different laws and systems. Disorder in the universe would ensue but this does not accord with the unity of creation that we witness around us, governed by laws that are the same everywhere in the heavens and the earth.

This incredible coordination is known by the most atheists of physicists as being on the thinest of razor edges, where the slightest variation will throw the entire system into disarray. The only conclusion, for those endowed with the proper knowedge, one that works side by side with spiritual awareness, is that the whole thing is designed and in constant control, maintenance and sustenance by a Unique, and Sole Creator 15:21,20:50,25:2,59:1,80:19,87:2-3.

Multiplicity inevitably leads to differences and in such a vast, intricately related universal system, as described throughout the verses pointing to complementarity in creation, these differences would lead to chaos and opposition instead

27:64"Is He [not best] who begins creation and then repeats it and who provides for you from the heaven and earth? Is there a deity with Allah? Say, "Produce your proof, if you should be truthful". 

Here the Quran states a powerful truth; as the imprint of intelligent design becomes more apparent with every scientific advancement, so to is the fact that the uncaused cause beyond contingency must be singular. Every attempt to explain the existence of the universe in such an evidently planned and deliberate state without acknowledging God’s existence and oneness has proven logically unsustainable.

Apostate prophet back from the Zoo and reflects; Quran says All things made in pairs?

In answer to the video "43 Scientific Mistakes in the Quran"

Verses speaking of things created in 43:12,36:36,51:49"azwaj" means "in pairs". This refers to the complementarity prevalent in every single thing. This may include but is not exclusive to, sexual complementarity as in 30:21,16:72. There the Quran addresses the human specie, saying the availability of azwaj (maleor female) from among ourselves is meant as a source of security, love and compassion. "azwaj" may be used interchangibly between male and female spouses 2:232,234.

In the context of creation, some verses 53:45,92:3 mention the creation of the sexual pairs by specifying both genders created; male/dhakar and female/untha. But such verses do not make an absolute assertion that all things have been created that way -in opposite genders- or that all living things reproduce sexually. All languages inherently accept exceptions unless the statement is clearly absolute (see for eg. 7:25 vs 55:33 or 100:6 vs 2:152,14:7,54:35 or 6:59 vs 2:255,72:26-27 or 39:44 vs 20:109,34:23,21:28). The Original Creator may create whatever He wills then modify His original creation as He pleases and deems fit 24:45,35:1. He may even create without the mating of sexual pairs as with Jesus' case.

The primary meaning of zawj (plur.azwaaj) in the Quran, is alien to the sexual pairs, as seen in many instances where it is used 13:3,15:88,20:53,131,26:7,38:58,56:7-10. It denotes the kinds or types -some of them unkown to us 36:36- having common points, linked in a way or the other when used in the plural form. This is just as in any language that speaks of pairs without specifying if the pairing is gender based. The root is Z-W-J and it means when two or more things or people form a unit. The use of azwaj in those verses is one of the devices used by the Quran to emphasize the concept of interconnection and complimentarity between all kinds created, even when these thing seem to be opposites.

The context of pairing in 43:12 for example has God saying how He made the earth a "resting place" for us, water coming down from the sky to allow life, ships, that man ingenuisly builds using the material put at his disposal by Allah, and cattle for mobility among other uses. In 15:88 and others, the Quran tells the believers not to grieve or pay much attention to some kind (azwaj) of people -having in common their unbelief and hatred for Islam-. In 13:3-4 Allah says He made from all that the earth produces (thamaraat), 2 types. Just as day and night are 2 opposites but remain complimentary, the earthly products come in 2 opposites but complementary types. Those better than others, remain, from a higher viewpoint complementary although apparently opposites. The better one is apreciated thanks to its lesser counterpart it can be compared to, which in turn is the result of a process the plant goes through so as to reduce competition and bring the crop to fruition. Even among opposites there is interconnection on all levels, physical or spiritual, and that is the pervasive notion in all the verses speaking of pairing in nature.

Apostate prophet watches Discovery Channel; All animals are comunities?

In answer to the video "43 Scientific Mistakes in the Quran"

This verse is just one of the many verses calling mankind to be considerate towards the animal kingdom and grateful for the Creator who has given us dominion over them. Their similarity with us in the most basic of traits and needs should create in us a sense of empathy in our dealings with them

6:38"there is not a moving entity in the land nor a flying entity flying with its two wings except (part of) nations/groupings similar to you. We have not neglected in the book a thing. Then towards their Sustainer they will be gathered".

The verse does not restrict their grouping among elements of the same specie. Just as humans, even those most solitary and recluse, still need, willingly or not, to form a community and interract with living entities for survival, the animals too, need to live in communities, sometimes with entirely different species, for their survival. The repeated notion that all of creation, animate and inanimate, worships the same Creator that mankind is called to worship, connects us with them on a spiritual level, forcing the God-conscious to be considerate towards this nature entrusted to him 2:58,13:13-15,16:48-50,17:44,22:18,24:41,45:37,55:6,29,62:1,64:1,21:79,34:10,38:17-9. The whole earth becomes a fellow worshiper of the same Creator, making the animal kingdom more particularily as among the wordly devices put at mankind's disposal to reflect on the higher meanings of things

45:4"And in your creation and in what He spreads abroad of animals there are signs for a people that are sure".

That is why they will be resurrected and gathered back to their Sustainer 6:38. Not for their own judgement but as devices by which the humans will be judged, just as many other wordly creations, animate and inanimate will be made to testify as to our use of them 99:4-5,16:78,17:36,24:24,36:65,41:20-21. This is just a glimpse of the Quran's overall argument to attracts mankind's empathy not only to the sentient beings but to every creature, sentient or not, which is part of our direct environement and affected by our actions.

Islam critiqued opens ultimate criteria; from Israel's brothers?

In answer to the video "A Prophet Like Moses"

As shown earlier, after Moses's death and Joshua's appointment for prophethood Deut31, the HB says there never arose a Prophet like unto Moses, who in addition spoke to God face to face and performed great wonders Deut34. This means that him being "like unto Moses" is an indicator still awaiting fulfillment, even after an Israelite prophet appeared on the scene. The word "brethren" used to qualify the prophet like unto Moses it is a general term especially in semitic languages. It implies the real brothers, first cousins, the remotest cousins, or anyone else sharing a specific particularity with the addressees.

In the Torah itself, in Deut23:7 or Numb20:14 and Deut2:4, the word brehtren is used in the broader sense, in the context of the lengthy instructions being delivered to the Israelites. God orders regarding the Edomites who are non-Israelites, non-Jewish descendants of Jacob's elder brother Esau and calls them Israel' brethren. What this means is the tribal affiliation of brethren that exists between the tribes of Israel, such as between the Levites and other tribes, is the same affiliation that exists between the Israelites, Ishmaelites and Edomites.

In 1Kings11:1 Edomites are designated as foreigners to Israel yet the Edomites were clearly brothers, designated as such by a much earlier scriptural document, that of Genesis. The Book of Kings is from a totally different era as the Torah and the forbiddance of marrying them is not because of lineage, but because

"they will surely turn your hearts away after the gods".

The Edomites in the beginning were clearly worshippers of YHWH and the designation by the writer of Kings as a foreigner is clearly a racial slant against them. Kings was written after the exile of the Jews from Babylonia and it was the Edomites who helped Nebuchadnezzar II slaughter the Jews and send them into exile. Besides, the Ishmaelites are not included as foreigners in this particular passage, and the very scriptures tell us that Ishmael lived in the presence of all his "brethren".

At the beginning of the chapter in which the prophecy is found, in Deut18:2, it plainly shows how "brethren" can be used for people outside the tribe for whom the word applies. It says the priests are excluded from sharing in their brethren's inheritance. The priests are Levites. It isnt saying the Levitic priests are excluded from sharing in their Levite brethren's inheritance but in the other Israelite tribe's inheritance.

So, just like "brethren" here is used for the Levites but doesnt mean the brethren from within the same tribe, in the same way, "brethren" in the prophecy of Deut18:18 is used for the entire ISraelites but doesnt mean the brethren from within the same tribe. As is seen from the language, let alone the use of the word throughout the HB and even within the same chapter of the prophecy, if the promised prophet was to come from among the Israelites, the wording of the prophecy should have been clear cut, leaving no possibility for any alternate rendering:

"I will raise them up a prophet from among themselves".

In this regard in this interesting to note the gloss in the masoretic text that attempts precisely that. It contains the extra words "from among themselves" to restrict the word brethren to the Israelites. The addition was noted by critical scholars and is in fact absent from several texts, including the Septuagint, the Samaritan Torah, the NT in Acts3 and 7.

Rabbinic literature recognizes the prophethood of 7 non-Israelite, non-Jewish men (Talmud, B. B. 15b) besides those whom they did not recognize but were nevertheless true prophets. That is not to speak of the others they rejected or murdered throughout their history, more notoriously during the near collapse of their nation's spirituality as they vastly reverted to idol worship after Solomon's reign. They began slaying any person claiming prophethood and speaking against their practices. They had done the same under the reign of Ahab.

These non-Israelite prophets they recognize are Job (Ayyub in the Quran, Iyov in Hebrew), as well as several other men mentioned in the book of Job. They also recognize the prophethood of Balaam and his father. Jonah or Nahum were Israelite prophets who preached to non israelites. Obadiah was, according to tradition, an Edomite convert to Judaism who admonished his own non-Jewish people.

The Israelites Jeremiah and Ezekiel prophecied to the non-Jewish nations that had destroyed and plundered the Jews, announcing the inevitability of their doom.

All this to corroborate that even within accepted JEwish tradition, prophethood to non-Jews or by non-Jews isnt a strange thought.

It is also to be noted that God in the Torah is reported to have announced several covenants with Abraham, and none of them is related to prophethood being the sole prerogative of one branch or another. Many Jews therefore, including the most learned among them, as related in both Quranic and non Quranic sources, accepted the prophethood of Muhammad and those that rejected him didnt do so for racial reasons.

Although the bestowal of prophethood outside of their fold did cause them anger and jealousy, their essential opposition consisted in that he, like Jesus and countless others as related in both the Hebrew Bible and the NT, brought a message that wasnt to their liking. Others could not but admit the prophethood of Muhammad in light of the Biblical criteria of what constitutes a prophet or not, but are not ready to heed his message and so invent the excuse that although he is a true prophet, his message does not concern them; he is a prophet to the Ishmaelites only.

Continuing with the analysis of that ambiguous "brethren" term. While Deut17:15 says that Israel's brethren cannot be non-Israelites, it is speaking of the appointment of Kings above them and it is obvious that the appointed Ruler must be from the same nation as his subjects, not a foreigner. The Quran echoes that reality, through its linguistic precision. Moses reminds the Israelites that they were made rulers over their own fate by people of authority among their own ethnic group, while in contrast, prophets were sent among them, which doesnt entail similar ethnicity 

5:20” And [mention, O Muhammad], when Moses said to his people, "O my people, remember the favor of Allah upon you when He appointed among you prophets and made you possessors/kings and gave you that which He had not given anyone among the worlds”. 

In their biblical history, even that clear criteria of authority among their own ethnic group was subject to their deeply rooted inter tribal prejudices. They disliked the appointment of Saul/Talut over them as king, even though he was selected by a prophet in their midst, because of his humble tribal lineage from the Benjamites.

By specifying in which case a brethren to the Israelites is not a foreigner, the HB shows that -unless specified otherwise- when the word "brethren" is used to relate them to another people, these people must be considered by default Israel's brethren and it has already been shown above how the HB makes use of the word repeatedly to relate them with Israelites and non-Israelites alike.

In 18:18 the context is entirely different than 17:15, it is speaking of prophethood and it is obvious that a messenger of God's lineage to his addressees is irrelevant, and even more so if we consider the demographics at the time of Islam's advent. Nations, cultures and religions intermingled and lived in the same areas. In the Hijaz, Ishmaelite pagans and Ishmaelite monotheists, the hanifs, as well as Israelites and Christians closely coexisted, speaking the same language even. A prophet therefore "to" any of those groups did not necessarily need to be a native of any of them to deliver God's communications effectively and in fact Muhammad the Ishmaelite is repeatedly described as carrying a universal mission, bringing mercy to all the worlds, starting with the mother city/Mecca and its surroundings.

The geographical location of the Hijaz, at the crossroad of the major civilizations of the time, was all the more appropriate for the fulfillment of that universal mission.

As already seen, even Judaism recognizes the prophethood of non-Israelites and this is precisely why the Deuteronomy prophecy does not stress that such "brother" must be from within Israel contrary to 17:15 speaking of the necessity of appointing an Israelite king.

Islam critiqued unlocks another criterion; similarities only?

In answer to the video "A Prophet Like Moses"

As explained earlier, Deut18 states that, despite Moses' similarities with the prophet, his essential difference with him would be in how God's commands or laws would be communicated to the people. Moses received the law through direct communication with God himself or as the Quran says, "God spoke directly to Moses".

In the case of the "Prophet like unto Moses", God would not communicate in this manner, but would inspire His words into the mouth of this Prophet.

During the time of the prophet Muhammad, the Israelites would try and obscure, denigrate and discredit him and his followers by saying that God spoke to Moses directly, but not to Muhammad, so why should they believe him 28:48? Yet, not only did they majoritarily disbelieve in both Moses and Aaron despite the miracles witnessed and the manner in which Moses received revelation, prefering even to remain in Egypt and die in slavery, but also the very prophecy within their own books outlines that such would be the type of divine communication with the awaited one and they were bound to follow him and if anyone of them fails to do so God himself "will make him answer for it".
Finally, nobody after Moses claimed to be "like unto Moses", until

73:15"Surely We have sent unto you a Messenger as a witness over you, even as We sent To Pharaoh a Messenger".

In fact this prophecy of Moses was so clear that it was as if Muhammad was there at the side of the mountain and Moses saw him with his own eyes however, despite the spiritual closeness of both individuals

28:44"you were not on the western side when We revealed to Musa the commandment, and you were not among the witnesses". 

After Moses, there had been no other prophet from among the descendants of Abraham who claimed to bring a complete divine law for the people, revealed to him by the Lord, establishing a new community as was done at Horeb in the context of the prophecy, except the prophet Muhammad. There did not even exist any claimant of having been "a prophet from among the brethren of the Israelites with a "Fiery Law for them"Deut33:2 "like unto Moses", that could have been presented as a rival to the single and sole Prophet from among the Ishmaelites who did exactly that, who revived the religion of Ibrahim

6:161"Say: Surely, (as for) me, my Lord has guided me to the right path; (to) a most right religion, the faith of Ibrahim the upright one".

In this aspect only Moses, and his effort to erradicate idolatry from among his own people and some foreign nations, can come close to him.

Islam critiqued fasts forward to 2nd Temple times; Where is the awaited one?

In answer to the video "A Prophet Like Moses"

As already pointed, in the days of Jesus the priests were still awaiting the coming of "the prophet". The text points to that personality with a definite article, meaning a specific, unnamed, unidentified prophetic figure that has not appeared yet.

Along with this prophet, the Jews awaited the coming of the messiah, as well as the return of previous identified, known prophetic figures to them, including Elijah or Jeremiah Matt16:14. So they proceeded in questionning John, inquiring to see if he fitted any of the roles Jn1:19-25. John answered no to all. The reason John gives this answer is because he was not the Messiah, not "that prophet" and not a physical reincarnation of Elijah.

He demonstrated a misunderstanding on the Jewish priests' part who thought Elijah would be resurrected in flesh hence their inability to recognize his fullfilement of the prophecy, as here stated

Matt17:12"Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him".

John hinted to their misunderstanding by identifiying himself with the messenger prophecised in Isa40:3 who is none else than Elijah. Jesus is also quoted in Lk7:27 confirming John had fulfilled the prophecy of Malachi3:1,4:5 speaking of Elijah returning and paving the way for the Messiah, and because John had fulfilled that role, he is said to have come

Lk1:17"in the spirit and power of Elijah".

These 3 prophecies eagerly awaited to be fulfilled by the Jews were thus speaking of 3 separate entities, 2 of which have already been settled in the persons of John as Elijah and Jesus as the messiah.
 
In Matt11:2-6 John asks Jesus to clarify his position. This, as a side note, is a contradiction in itself as John identified him earlier as the "lamb of god". Nevertheless, John asks JEsus

"Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?"

"He that should come" may signify both the Christ or a Prophet like unto Moses, because both had been waited for. As evidence of his true identity, Jesus gives various miracles and none of those qualify him as being the "Prophet like unto Moses" and all of them qualify him as the prophecied Messiah/Christ Isa29:18,35:5-6. Here is a clear statement by Jesus himself using the scriptures as evidence of who he is and who he is not. Nonetheless the gospel of John in jn1:45,5:31-47,6:14 still wants to equate Jesus with the specific prophet but since the Gospels and the HB cleary distinguish between "that prophet" and the Messiah/Christ, the author of Acts3, conscious of the difficulty in equating the 2 personalities attempts to reconcile them together. He argues that the prophecy of Deut18 still refers to the Christ, but the one that is supposed to return, since the pre-crucifixion Christ did not qualify as being the awaited prophet.

All this tangled web is cleared if we go back to the basic fact that the HB and NT make a clear distinction between the "Prophet like unto Moses" and the Christ/Messiah. But what is even more important is that Jesus nowhere claims to be or presents himself as the promised "that prophet" or "Prophet like unto Moses". The most important message of all 4 gospels is the belief in Jesus as the promised Messiah, not as the promised prophet like unto Moses. In Jn20:31 for example, the author signs his work with the statement that all that precedes was written to convince the readers that Jesus is the Messiah, a personnality clearly distinct from "the prophet like unto Moses". 

Jesus was a personality distinct from "that prophet" and in fact part of his mission was according to the Quran to give glad tidings of the Awaited One. This is precisely what he did in the NT when prophecising of the paraclete who would establish justice and a new order.

Islam critiqued puts the prophecy back in the picture; context of the prediction?

In answer to the video "A Prophet Like Moses"

The essential part of this prophecy which will lead us to the true identity of the prophet is its context of revelation.

The prophecy and the covenant concerning that prophet, the unconditional obedience to him and support to his mission once he is identified, was made on the Day of Horeb at Mt Sinai. That mountain by the way, contrary to the arbitrary, baseless designation in the south central Sinai Peninsula, points rather towards the present day Saudi Arabian mountains. But that is another discussion.

The day that prophecy was made, was when Moses received the Torah for the Nation of Israel, giving real birth to the Israelite community. This means that the primary purpose of this event was the establishment of a new nation commissioned by God to fulfill certain objectives under a new Law sent to humanity.

This is the most important aspect of the covenant God established with the Israelites regarding this Prophet and the Quran reminds them of it 3:81-82,86 when Allah made a covenant with the people, through the prophets, commanding them to accept the prophet about whom they prophesied

"Certainly what I have given you of Book and wisdom--then an messenger comes to you verifying that which is with you, you must believe in him, and you must aid him".

The people of the book bore witness to that pledge

"He said: Do you affirm and accept My compact in this (matter)? They said: We do affirm. He said: Then bear witness, and I (too) am of the bearers of witness with you".

The prophecy clearly relates the statement of Moses to the promise granted to the righteous among the offspring of Abraham per both the Torah and the Quran, which includes the Ishmaelites. It also relates it to how the offspring of Abraham are commissioned with assisting this Prophet

Deut18"you must listen to everything he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from their people". 

It is clearly strange that the prophecy appears very late in the text, at chapter 18, well after the event of Horeb when it actually took place, and when Israel received the law, which means it is actually out of context. Why is it narrated well after Israel had fought battles and the events of Horeb were over, and not recorded with the actual incident of Horeb when it was taking place? How much of those events were obscured, nobody knows.

The prophecy is disconnected from the flow of the discourse hence the difficulty, for those approaching the text and assuming it to follow a chronological order of events, to understand to whom the words of the prophecy apply to. This peculiarity of the Torah however only confuses Christians who are largely unfamiliar with the Hebrew scriptures. Jewish scholars on the other hand have long ago accepted this difficulty, as encapsulated by their rabbis' saying

"There is no earlier or later in the Torah".

The reality is the original prophecy was made in the context of Moses receiving a law that would establish a nation, the only difference being this new community would not receive the divine law like they did when God manifested it directly to Moses and the Israelites, but through an intermediary. This is due to the Israelites themselves requesting not to hear God's voice anymore nor witness the dreadful conditions which were created at the foot of Horeb. The dreadful manifestation had the purpose of instilling in them the importance of the covenant, which included the support of the prophet like unto Moses when he comes Ex20:19,Deut5:23-27,18:16.

So this time, instead of manifesting the new covenant through a dreadful event, Divine Words will be put in the mouth of the Prophet who would be appointed to that office, and he will recite the divine law before the people. As related in Ex20, what was collectively revealed to the Israelites were the 10 commandments, not random revelation. It is the revelation of law which they didnt want hearing directly anymore, fearing they would die. They requested to indirectly hear the law, through Moses. And effectively, Moses began going back and forth between God and them whenever subsequent instructions came. This is the proper context in which the prophecy of the future prophet was uttered; receiving law will from now on will only come through an intermediary between God and the people. Besides law, revelation could still occur without an intermediary, as described for example in Numbers11 which happened after the prophecy of Deut18. The further corroborate the textual corruption and displacement of the prophecy, in the dead sea scrolls, it is actually placed in its proper context in Exodus 20.

The fact that this prophecy was made at Horeb shows how important the covenant God established with the Israelites regarding this Prophet was, and how true the Quran is when it says that they mix truth with falsehood. The events of Horeb were threatening and forceful, compelling the reluctant Israelites to enter into a national covenant. The Quran depicts their shameful, ungrateful attitude that led up to that moment. It is in that context that the prophecy of a new nation under a new law they will be bound to follow, was made; due to their pattern of disobedience, they will ultimately be deposed of their spiritual eminence among the nations. God was telling them that in His mercy, they will not be left without guidance. If they follow and support that prophet from among their brethren, they will be part of something far greater.

It becomes all the more obvious that the idea of a Prophet simply being sent within Israel makes no sense because Prophets were always sent to Israel speaking in the name of God through the 'spirit of God' before and after the prophecy of Horeb, prophets like Jeremiah

Jer1:9"Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth".

It can't refer to simply revelations, because their subsequent prophets did not promulgate any new laws, as was the case at Sinai in the context of the prophecy. Jesus for example adhered to the law of the Torah to the minutest detail and ordered his followers to do the same. None of them and no prophet after Moses established a new nation, Jesus said that he was sent to the Lost Sheep of Israel.

 After Moses's death and Joshua's apointment for prophethood Deut31, the HB says there never arose a Prophet like unto Moses Deut34. This means that him being "like unto Moses" is an indicator still awaiting fulfillement, even after an Israelite prophet appeared on the scene. That indicator cannot be what is stated in the rest of Deut34:10-12, such as God speaking face to face with the prophet, since the prophecy of Deut18 itself says in which manner he would receive revelation

"I will put My words in his mouth and he shall speak to them all that I command him".

Neither does the indicator has anything to do with prophetic miracles the like of which Moses performed, since the 2nd criterion of the prophet has to do with divine judgement of those that reject him.  

By Jesus' time and their successive humiliations at the hands of their enemies, that prophetic, legislating and governing figure that is to to establish a new nation under a new law, which they will be bound to follow and support, became garbled with a davidic royal, supposed to bring back their own former glory above the nations, as well as re-introduce their own law that became obsolete with the loss of their right to exercize it. This is seen by their vague allusion to "the prophet" on one side and "the messiah" on the other, when they came questionning John the Baptist as to his identity.

They knew this prophet was still awaited but lost the purpose of the prophecy related to him, as well as the indicators that would lead them to recognize him. However, the evidence, as is being shown, was not blotted out entirely hence some among the most learned Jews in the prophet Muhammad's time claiming to

"recognize him as they know their own sons".

There is a reason why Moses, their most prominent leader and prophet, never says a word about that messiah supposed to re-establish them as a nation under God. And yet this messianic king is the most anticipated religious figure of the entire Jewish scriptures? Moses predicts the Israelites' future disobedience and destructions, as well as rehabilitation, but never speaks in that context of the royal messiah supposed to achieve what they would later claim will be precisely his role Deut31-32. Simply put, this end times savior is a post-mosaic development meant at consoling the exiled Jews. There is no notion of a messianic salvific figure anywhere in the 5 books of Moses. There is no notion of a messianic salvific figure anywhere in the 5 books of Moses. This is significant because the Torah, in terms of authority ranks higher than other parts of the Hebrew scriptures. In orthodox judaism, the books that comprise the bible are arranged in descending order of inspiration. First the Torah considered word for word divinely inspired, then the books of the various prophets which God motivated the prophets to write without telling them exactly what to write, then lastly the ketuvim or writings in which God had no direct influence. Given the cosmic importance of the messiah, we should expect a mention of the person, or even the concept in the Books of Moses, but nothing.

Islam critiqued blasts Jesus; can an Israelite fulfill the prophecy?

In answer to the video "A Prophet Like Moses"

Now of course Christians contend this Deut18 prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus, while to the Jews Deuteronomy 18:18 comes solely in the context of the Israelites wanting an intermediary with God, instead of hearing and seeing the dreadful divine manifestation.

YHWH answers them positively and tells them that instead of this, revelation will now be a personal experience through a chosen individual from their midst, whom they are bound to follow.

Deut18:18 is thus speaking of a prophet generically, just as Deut13:2 is speaking of a false prophet generically, not a specific prophet. Such prophet will be like Moses, ie an Israelite, but inferior in terms of prophetic eminence. To derive that conclusion, they use

Deut34"Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, who did all those signs and wonders the Lord sent him to do in Egypt—to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel".

This passage comes after Joshua's appointment as a prophet to succeed Moses. If one argues that the dissimilarity between them is in prophetic rank, why would the text immediately negate Joshua's likeness to Moses without any standard of comparison? Joshua didnt even start his role as a prophet so as to demonstrate his worth in relation to Moses.

If the dissimilarity is solely in terms of prophetic rank, then it should have been made towards the end of Joshua's prophethood, after he received revelation and after he performed his miracles, including some nearly identical ones to Moses, like parting the waters Josh3:6-17. Joshua being unlike Moses in that context of Deut34, cannot therefore be solely related to prophetic status and performance of miracles. Moses' major particularity is that he reformed an intensely rebellious, idolatrous community, shackled under a ruthless ruler, into a nation under God's Law. But because Moses had just selected his successor before passing away, it was necessary to emphasize that this successor will continue his work. Joshua will not change Moses' national agenda and neither bring about a different Law to the community.

He was thus unlike Moses in this major aspect; he simply continued reinforcing the nation already founded under Moses, under a previous Law. The efforts and obstacles Joshua would have to face in that task would be much less than what Moses had to face, hence him being inferior in terms of prophetic experience and miracles as stated in the verse. The passage now makes complete sense in that context

"Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses (ie establishing a new nation and a new law, then needing the following intense revelational experience and miracles to bring about that new nation), whom the Lord knew face to face, who did all those signs and wonders the Lord sent him to do in Egypt—to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel". 

Islam critiqued looks for signs; knowledge of the last prophet?

In answer to the video "A Prophet Like Moses"

We Muslims believe, Muhammad was destined to be the seal of the line of prophethood and that no warner would be sent to mankind till the Day of Resurrection. Such an assertion predicates that past prophets and scriptures made clear his imminent arrival in such a way that people would have no difficulty in recognizing him. The Quran and the prophetic traditions allude in many places to the predictions of the Ishmaelite prophet in previous scriptures. Not all prophets were foretold by their predecessors. For example, no prophecy in the HB applies to Jesus just like most Israelite prophets have no prophecies about them. But in the case of the last prophet and the importance of his final message, the matter was different. The Quran reinforces the notion that the predictions about Muhammad are so clear that

6:20,2:146"those to whom We have given the scripture recognize him as they recognize their own sons".

This verse echoes what the prominent Jewish Rabbi of Medina, Abdullah ibn Salam used to say as regards the prophet Muhammad

"Certainly, I have greater knowledge of this Muḥammad than my knowledge of my son".

The Quran would mention the reaction of such early converts among the Jews and Christians

5:83"hear what has been revealed to the messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: Our Lord! we believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth)".

The Quran speaks in sura Baqara of the predictions of the HB regarding Muhammad in the context of the covenant established with the Israelites at Mt Sinai, emphasizing that the context of the prophecy is the promulgation of a new law and the birth of a nation under God.

Muslims throughout the ages have used the Bible to prove Muhammad was foretold by previous prophets. This was and still is a proselytizing strategy aimed at Jews and Christians. The idea is to have a common ground for discussion with those religious groups, after which Islamic teachings are introduced. There are however other proselytizing approaches Muslims have taken, namely pointing to the inconsistent, incomplete theologies of other systems in comparison to Islam, or naturalistic arguments, or simply presenting Islamic teachings by themselves for the audience to appreciate. Going back to the argument from the viewpoint of prophecy, Muslims didnt alter any text nor invent reports so as to create the striking parallelisms that can be seen between the Bible, the Quran and the authentic Islamic traditions. We thus see the prophet himself addressing those Jews that did not believe in him, telling them to honestly look into the writings in their hands and draw the relevant conclusions, as some of the most learned in their community did

 "I adjure you to tell me if you find in that revelation which Allah sent down to You, that you should believe in Muhammad. If you cannot find that in your scripture, no displeasure will fall on you. Guidance will be distinguishable from error, and I invite you to Allah and to His prophet".

Christians on the other hand are notorious for their distortions of the meaning and of the text itself so as to retrofit their christologies into the HB. The text of the Septuagint, the Greek rendering of the HB is known for its numerous mistranslations. But the NT text is by far the most corrupt. The anonymous writers create impossible scenarios, are anachronistic, fabricate genealogies, misquote the Hebrew writings, allude to non existent HB prophecies so as to allign their Jesus character with the previous writings.

CIRA international self-flagelates; humans shackled by their sins and stinking deeds?

In answer to the video "Sin and Salvation, Part 5 - Paradise in Islam"

Man chooses to sin Isa66:3-4, against his good nature Eccl7:29, just as he can

Ps34:14"Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it".

This is illustrated through the story of Abel and Cain. In

Gen4:7"Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it",

God speaks to Cain and tells him that good and evil are his choices and that he should choose good. God tells Cain that he can master evil and avoid falling in sin, it is an advise to choose the right path or face the consequences of sin. There are therefore 2 possibilities depending on Cain's choice.

If God tells him that he must master evil it means it is in his capability, that there is no sinful nature unwillingly imposed on him preventing him from doing any type of good and following a command from God, otherwise why would He tell him to master his evil thoughts, why would God tell him to do something impossible to him and punish him for failing. Later, Cain chooses to sin by killing his brother.

This was done out of his freewill, and his failure to master his evil tendency does not mean that he didnt have the ability to do any good. If it was the case, God would not have told him that good and evil were his own choices, nor order him to master evil or face the consequence of his sin. The most prevalent theme in the Jewish scriptures is that God relates to people according to their deeds, both good and bad. The sinful nature of man does not cancel out any good that we do, the actions of men find favor in the eyes of God Gen26:4. David is pointed as an example of righteousness that others should follow 1Kings11:38. This does not mean that he was sinless - he wasn’t. But it does mean that his sins did not nullify the good that he did. God chose to save life on this planet through the handiwork of the righteous Noah. Noah’s ark, which was built by Noah’s obedient action, was the means through which God recreated the world. The message is clear

Prov10:25"And the righteous one is the foundation of the world". 

Just like in Islam, freewill is a foundation of Judaism. From the very beginning, mankind's original design already included the capability of free will. The textual proof of this in the HB is that God issued a commandment to Adam; God doesnt issue pointless commandments and - if mankind lacked the free will to obey or disobey - then every commandment would be pointless.

Deut30:19"I call heaven and earth to bear witness this day, for I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Therefore, choose life, so that you and our children may live" 

Lamentations3:38"Evil and good come not from the mouth of the Most High. Why then should a living man complain, a strong man, because of his sins?"

this explains that if a person chooses evil and fails to heed the call to righteousness, he has no cause to complain, for the decision is his alone.
As to

Isa64:5“and all our righteousness (are) as filthy rags.”

Its a long prayer of confession where Isaiah compares the righteousness of a SINFUL generation to filthy rags. It isnt speaking in general. The prayer continues by asking God to return to His servants and have mercy on the righteous sons of Jacob (63:17). As is clear, the passage doesnt dismiss all people's righteous deeds as useless, only those coming from insincere and sinful people. This isnt something strange, whether Jesus or the Quran would equally later denounce religious hypocrisy.

Ps14,53 "The Lord looked down..There is none that does good, no, not one."

but the psalm continues

"Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? Those who eat up my people as they would eat bread, and call not upon the Lord"

although the psalmist uses “the children of men” and “all”, he is only talking about the “workers of iniquity”, and is clearly excluding “my people.”