In answer to the video "Sin and Salvation, Part 3 - Does Allah Love Sinners?"
The naive depiction of a loving God that Christian missionaries keep harping upon is scripturally baseless. Both in the HB, the Greek writings, let alone the Quran. It is nothing but a missionary ploy. That is why the Quran quotes the people making a basless, verbal claim
5:18"The Jews and the Christians have said: We are the sons of God and his well-beloved ones".
The overarching Quranic principle of divine, indiscriminate justice is that none can claim favor for himself simply on account of belonging to a race or community. A Muslim will not be beloved by God just by being a Muslim. To secure God’s approbation, one must behave as a Muslim should. A Muslim is one that has recalibrated his life on all levels so as to build a relationship with God.
If one goes back to the HB, one notices that the pervasive emotion the religion demands in relation to God, isnt love but fear.
The Quran describes the righteous in the hereafter as the one who "khashiya" the beneficient God without seeing Him in this world. The word denotes fear of Allah not only on account of the fear of His punishment as is the case with "khawf", but it stresses a sense of humility and awe at Allah's glory and greatness, something only the ones who ponder and reflect at the higher meanings of things can achieve, hence the repeated statements that
35:28"only those of His servants fear Allah who have knowledge".
The verse ends with a statement that infuses hope in the God-conscious
"verily Allah is Mighty, Forgiving".
Many Quranic passages follow that pattern of balancing the attributes of God among one another, in order to infuse hope after a warning or a feeling of reassurance following glad tidings. Such is the case in 85:4-14 first mentioning the just and severe requital of a group of criminals, then the praise of the righteous, and the passage concludes with
"And He is the Forgiving/ghafur, the Loving/wadud".
Both words amplify the concepts to the utmost; He is 'forgiving' of the sins of those sinners who repent, and is 'Loving' to the servants who are good-doers. This illustrates the concept of iman/feeling of safety in Allah (as will be detailed shortly). It is a balance between fear, hope, love.
As to the HB, when the Israelites feared they might die if they continued to experience revelation and so asked of Moses to step in and be their intermediary with God, they were told that it is precisely the awe of God that humbles a person and prevents him from sin, keeps evil away, makes him walk aright and perform justice
Malachi2:5-6,Prov19:23,Ex20:16-17"in order that His awe shall be upon your faces, so that you shall not sin".
The same is stated in the Quran 79:40. As the psalmist states, the one wo performs justice and rigtheousness can only be one whose
Ps119:120"flesh bristles from fear of You, and I dread Your judgments".
Ezra to whom part of the book of Chronicles is traditionally attributed to, states, while recalling the prophet David's prayer
1Chr16:30"Quake before Him, all the earth.."
To fear God reverently is actually among the 613 commandements revealed at Sinai Deut6:13,10:20 and reiterated time and again by the prophets 1Sam12:24-5, including Solomon, the wisest of all prophets who stated when concluding the last book attributed to him that fear from, and servitude to God is the whole purpose of man's existence Ecc12:13-14. In fact the whole of creation has been arranged in such a way so as to result in fear of God for the spiritually aware, who cannot but perceive God's all-encompassing grasp in the functioning of all existence Ecc3:14.
His father David before him echoed that universal purpose, it is every human's duty, to be inculcated from the youngest age
Ps34:12,Ps33:8"Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him".
He also stated, in the context of a time where all nations will be brought low before the Jewish people and either convert to Judaism or die
Ps2:11"Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with quaking".
God fearing is a precondition for divine acceptance and guidance Ps25:12, one of the prime qualities of the righteous believer Ex18:21, up to the most respected, upright leaders of a community 2Sam23:3 and prophets
Isa8:13,Ps5:8,Ps34:10"Fear the Lord, His holy ones".
The love of YHWH certainly has degrees, it is directly proportional to the servant's fear, not love, of Him. Fear of God is the pre-condition to wisdom itself, as well as discipline, uprightness and true knowledge, and to gaining God's praise and acceptance Ps111:10,112:1,Prov1:7,8:13. David also stated that
Ps19:10"the fear of the Lord is pure"
and hence the absence of that fear is often equated with disbelief Jer2:19. This is why the unconditionally loving YHWH will consider those who do not fear Him as worthless and deserving a severe chastisement. Those in fear of Him, more particularily of His chastisment, will be saved and rewarded Mal3:5,20,Ps85:10,Prov28:14.
As the Quran equally states, fear of God, when kept in view in one's daily life and actions, inevitably leads to reward in the Hereafter 55:46,76:5-10,79:40-1.
It will be the fear of God that will animate the mythical messianic figure that will come at the end of times to restore justice and righteousness Isa11:2-5 and it is the fear of God, carved into the hearts of the Jews at the end of times that will make them walk the straight path forever Jer32:38-40.
The fear, awe and reverence to God is so deeply rooted in the teachings of Judaism that they may not pronounce what they have construed as His actual proper name
Deut28:58"fear this glorious and awesome name, the Lord, your God".
Seeing God's name as so sacred that it shouldn't be mentioned is condemned as a great injustice in the Quran 2:114. The remembrance of God, praising Him by His name and attributes is an important part of a worshiper's rituals, continuously commanded in the Quran
87:1"Glorify the name of your Lord, the Most High".
In answer to the video "Paul Won Converts Through Peaceful Preaching; Muhammad Used Bribes and Threats (PvM 17)"
Jesus had very few followers after his death and resurrection, despite the supernatural events and grandiose cataclysms that surrounded him. He did not resort to physical violence, besides some bizarre incidents attributed to him. For example he caused the death by drowning of a herd of swine, in fact stealing them from their rightful owners, then allowing demons to purposely enter their bodies Matt8:32,Mk5:13,Lk8:33. Another bizarre incident one wouldnt expect a supposedly peaceful preacher to do is destroying a fig tree for not having fruit out of season Matt21:18-21,Mk11:13-14. On a more violent note, Jesus foretold the punishment of the Israelites, similar to the people of Galilee.
The reason he did not resort to violence wasnt because he loved his enemies and turned the other cheek. It is because he knew violence will be inflicted after his departure. He prophecised the divine retribution of a people consequently to rejecting and attempting to kill him, instead of remaining silent, ie turning his other cheek. That is because Jesus, just like Noah, Lot and others were not ordered by God to pick up arms with their few followers and fight back as the prophets Moses and Muhammad were told to do despite the enemy forces being overwhelmingly more powerful than them and their followers.
So Jesus' persuasive arguments resulted in a total of 120 followers of "the way" Acts19:9,23,22:4,24:14,22. They were known as the Nazarenes Acts24:11. The Quran calls them nasara from nusra/help in reference to those few core elements that valliantly stood by him, when he started sensing disbelief among his followers 3:52,61:14.
This inner circle are not the cowards presented in the NT as fleeing Jesus when adversity came or unable to understand most if any, of his teachings which is why they abandoned his instructions to abide by the law soon after his death. In the Quran they pray Allah to make them witnesses of the truth, that their life becomes an embodiment, a testimony to Jesus' teachings. "Christian" is a later appellation Acts11:26. In fact the word Christian itself is in reference to the belief that those who hold that qualification are anointed with God's oil, according to the earliest Christians such as Theophilus.
Nasara is phonetically close to the historical Nazarene/Nazoraios (Greek) or Nasraya (Syriac) Acts24. In the region of the Levant from where the Christians of the Hijaz originated, Christians called themselves Kristyane. It is expected that the Quran would address them by that same name just as it addresses Jews and other groups by their own names. Instead it chose to bring back to the spotlight an appellation forgotten by Christians themselves, found in their books, in reference to the first followers of Jesus, so as to illustrate how far they have gone astray. The last revelation this way vindicates Jesus' true followers, the Nazarenes, by bringing them back to the forefront of history after they had been relegated to darkness by the Christian pauline movement.
Another similarly remarkable feature of the Quran, is in its emphatic description of Jesus' mission as exclusively meant for the Israelites. To the Jews of 7th century Arabia, as is the case today, the reason for Jesus' mission and to whom it was directed to, was of no importance. No Jew would have walked around teaching the notion that Jesus was sent to the Jewish tribes. Christians on the other hand, teach that Jesus' mission was meant for all of humanity. The NT itself makes the claim, contradicting itself. It is thus expected for a 7th century Arab who is neither a Jew nor Christian, and who awkwardly decides to reveal Jesus' target audience, to similarly state that Jesus was sent to all people. Or at the very least that he was sent to Christians just as Moses was sent to the Jews.
That appellation of Nazarene which was attached to Jesus Matt26:71,Mk1:24,10:47,14:67,Lk4:34,Jn17:5,Acts2:22 could not have been in reference to his supposed hometown of Nazareth (a fruitless effort by Matthew's writer to make Jesus' birth fulfill an inexistent prophecy of the HB), since his followers, who came from different places were also referred to by that title. It is interesting noting that, besides the total absence of archeological evidence attesting to its existence, Nazareth is never mentioned in the writings of Josephus, nor is it mentioned in any other first-century writings. Josephus even mentions a village close to the present site of Nazareth, yet says nothing about a Nazareth. Even if one goes by the theory that it was an insignificant location hence its absence from all available contemporary records, one would think that by Josephus' time, Christianity would have gained enough fame so as to attract the writers curiosity as to this new movement's origins and that of its founder known by his hometown of Nazareth.
It isn't mentioned in the HB either. The Book of Joshua records 12 towns and 6 villages in that area, but no mention of a "Nazareth". The Talmud lists 63 Galilean towns, but again no mention of a "Nazareth." This total silence could be due to the location being an out-of the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres, populated by Jews of modest means as recent archaeological finds point to. This however causes major problems to the NT fable.
Among many such issues one needs to explain how such a rustic and small clan did not hear of the 12 year old prodigy among them Lk2 and that none from outside of the small town has ever come anywhere near his home to inquire of him. It would then necessarily make the village famous and put it on every map. This young Jesus prodigy did not appear in a vacuum either, considering how the NT speaks of the events forecasting the coming of the highly anticipated messiah as happening just a few years earlier. How could this small hamlet not have heard anything of the visiting magis, coming from far to worship the promised king Matt2. How could their expensive gifts have gone unnoticed within this clan of poor relatives and close friends.
Similarly to what the Quran means when it says to obey the prophet, "The way" of Jesus Jn14:6 is outlined in Lk10:25-28 where he commands strict observance of Jewish laws. In that passage from Luke he is asked about the conditions of salvation and the questionner quotes from Lev19 which details certains laws like the observance of the sabbath and admonishes to
"Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the LORD".
The 2nd passage quoted by the questionner is Deut6 which speaks of loving the One God and obeying His commandements
"keep the commands of the LORD your God and the stipulations and decrees he has given you. Do what is right and good in the LORD's sight..obey all this law before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness".
As one can clearly see, one is justified before God, not by faith alone but by deeds too. Consequently the Nazarenes, Jesus' early group of small band of followers, observed all Jewish customs outlined in the Torah but differed from Jews in that they recognized Jesus as the Messiah. The Nazarenes grew among the Israelites but persecutions forced them to go into hiding, with Paul playing a central role in their persecution prior to his conversion. After joining their ranks, he influenced the group leaders, namely Peter and James, to reach out to the Gentiles. With more non-Jews entering the fold, Jewish laws binding on the community were abandoned Acts15:1-29 and so was Jesus' "way". The Nazarenes who were centred in Jerusalem gradually became isolated. It is interesting noting that upon his arrest by the Jews and Romans, Paul was assumed to be Acts24"a ringleader of the Nazarene sect". Paul doesnt confirm the accusation, as it obviously did not conform to reality, and instead claims he follows the original path of Jesus. Paul's missionary activities progressively gained him a following among the gentile population which was more inclined looking up to Paul for leadership, instead of Jesus' brother James, a strict observer of Jewish Law, considered to be Jesus' successor in non-canonical Gospels.
With the establishment of Christianity as a state religion in Rome by Constantine in the 4th century, they definitely fled Jerusalem, in the surrounding deserts and managed to survive outside Palestine as they are mentioned by Jerome upto 380AD to have lived in the Syrian desert. Among them the Ebionites (who claimed to descend from the original Jewish disciples led by James) and Elchasites who rejected Paul as a charlatan and his teachings as falsehood, as well as the Zadokites, Essenes, Rechabites, Sabeans, Mandaeans etc. They had their own writing which they considered scripture, composed of an oral tradition attributed to Jesus, and some HB books.
Their writings are known, among others as Gospel of the Nazareans, Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Ebionites. They would later write that Paul was a false apostle who taught heresy based on the fact he was a failed convert who was disappointed with Judaism and therefore motivated to teach against its laws, all the laws that constituted Jesus' "way".
Unfortunately the group that opposed them and their practices gained more converts, obviously as it appealed much more to non-Jews, more particularily the hellenized Romans and Greeks. The Nazarenes and similar groups were inevitably marginalised while the more and more dominant groups decided what the Church’s organizational structure would be, as well as its official creeds, or which books would be accepted as Scripture. The group that became "orthodox", further sealed its victory, by the pens of early writers like Iraeneus, Justin Martyr and Tertullian, claiming that their "way" had always been the majority opinion of Christianity, going back to Jesus and his apostles. The sect that "won" and became "orthodoxy" achieved victory by political rather than epistemic means. The dominant branch was but one among many early, conflicting Christian sects, as even reflected in Paul's letters and the desperate struggles he had with them to maintain control of his own congregations.
In answer to the video "Paul Won Converts Through Peaceful Preaching; Muhammad Used Bribes and Threats (PvM 17)"
Nothing about a dying messiah anywhere in the Hebrew writings. In addition to being "a" messiah, which requires the fulfillement of specific ritual and genealogical conditions which were never met in Jesus, the end times messiah also has to satisfy some lifetime requirements, including the global ingathering of the Jews, rebuilding of the temple, ushering of the age of unfaltering observance of the Law (which bellies by the way all of St Paul's innovations), universal peace, universal knowledge of God, blissful utopia, end of evil and sin, disease and death.
Obviously none of those criteria ever occured anywhere near Jesus' era, and in fact the least that can be said is that the 1st century, its overall state of upheaval, was the antithesis of what the messianic era is supposed to be. There isn't a single prophecy saying the Messiah would come, die, be resurrected, and then return thousands of years later to BEGIN his mission. It in facts says he will accomplish these tasks within his own lifetime Isa42:4"He shall not fail or be crushed until he has set the right in the earth". That is why the idea of a suffering king messiah is inexistent in pre-Christian Judaism. The awaited figure is in fact expected to violently enforce the new world order. In view if this, Christians also need to explain why would anyone not see the "second coming" theory as an attempt to explain away Jesus' failure during his "first coming" to usher the messianic era.
That is why Paul was met with fierce resistance when he preached to Jews and instead turned to the pagans who had no clue of what the Hebrew bible taught. He could now distort and reinterpret every aspect of it, as well as Jesus' teachings so as to fit the paradigms of the pagans he was preaching to.
These gentiles believed in Mithraism, a religion already spread all throughout Europe and Asia minor centuries prior to the birth of Christianity. This is the religion adopted by the pagan Roman authority, who had centuries of tradition of dying and/or mutilated savior gods, and ultimately institutionalized. As the early church father Justin Martyr conceded
"when we say...Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified, died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus".
Paul, who was at most a hellenezied Jew, was explaining Jesus teachings in ways that were unheard of by Jesus' disciples. Paul's letters were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until 60-90 meaning Paul's theories were already established before the unknown writers of the gospels started their works and earlier Christian thought was quickly branded heretical. The church was so weak that within the same generation of the disciples, this Jewish sect of the Nazarenes, whose distinction from mainstream Judaism was only in the belief that Jesus was the messiah, turned upon its heels, abandoned Jewish law, adopted concepts unheard of anywhere in Judaism. There is a reason why the Gospel writers including Paul do not quote the Hebrew Bible but the Greek Septuagint which was hated by the rabbis as it represented the Hellenization of many Jews of the time. The early church thus became irrelevant very early on following Jesus' departure, due to Paul's efforts at supplanting it, dismissing Jewish law as obsolete, reinterpreting core Semitic concepts of God so as to appeal to his pagan audience.
After Jesus' death, Paul's main problem was to convince his Jewish audience that the messiah's death, without accomplishing any of the messianic criteria, instead of being a failure was actually a necessity. He did so by introducing the doctrine of total depravity, making all humans de facto sinners and therefore in need of an atoning sacrifice Rom7:14-25,Rom3:10-11,5:13,8:7-8,1Cor2:14,Eph2:1-3,Titus3:3. His addressees however already believed in the resurrection of the dead, in a just God who forgave the sins of a penitent heart. Nothing was missing in their system that Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection could fix. Paul's redeeming hero was a redundancy to them, so he was obviously met with fierce resistance wherever he preached his unscriptural ideas. This led him to eventually turn to the gentiles among whom he found a much more favourable audience. All this is evident from a cursory reading of the NT and the writings of Paul. That is how Christianity was shaped, using its target audience's sensitivities all the while toning down to the maximum its Jewish heritage.
The sect that "won" and became "orthodoxy" achieved victory by political rather than epistemic means. The dominant branch was but one among many early, conflicting Christian sects, as even reflected in Paul's letters and the desperate struggles he had with them to maintain control of his own congregations. The process was not a difficult one considering Mithraism's tendency to accommodate with other rival cults, throughout its vast geographical spread, before and after Christianity. Christianity of course wasnt that accommodating, doing everything to supplant it due to the disturbing similarities. Many Church Fathers (Justin, Origen, Tertullian) attempted rationalizing the how Mithraism similarities with their religion; "satanic imitations" being the standard explanation. The fine details of those similarities are now lost due to the Christian destructions of all "mithraes" they could put their hands on as well as persecute its followers. The task of reconstructing which themes Mithraism absorbed from Christianity so as to embellish its own narrative, versus what actually pre-dated Christianity, becomes a speculative task. But the presence of such vehement defenses by church authorities reveals their major embarrassment, their discomfort at their opponents' accusations of plagiarism. Instead of engaging their critics in debate, these church fathers and other Christian "orthodox" writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries slandered their opponents with exaggerated or even false charges, shunned them or socially intimidated them. This pattern of engaging their critics is in itself revealing of their own insecurities.
In answer to the video "Paul Won Converts Through Peaceful Preaching; Muhammad Used Bribes and Threats (PvM 17)"
As Paul candidly admits,
1Corin15:17"If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins".
In essence, the validity of Christianity stands or falls on this claim. Yet the admittedly crucial nature of that event is contrasted by the scarcity of material related to it within the Gospels. Barely 5 people witnessed the risen Jesus, and when analyzed critically, these testimonies are contradictory and inconsistent.
In Mark, Matthew and Luke, Jesus' message is centred not on the resurrection, but on the establishment of God's kingdom on earth, a metonym in those days for God's rule of justice and restauration of JEwish glory among the nations, with the defeat of the Romans. It is only with the development of Christology with John's Gospel and Paul's writings, as well as the Greek Church fathers, their rich Hellenistic background of mythologies and legends of deified leaders, that supplied the fertile ground for the short story of Jesus' resurrection, his interpolated deification. This Hellenistic perspective however isnt on par with the Jewish background which the writers and early Christian scholars claim provide proof for their beliefs on Jesus.
In Jewish understanding, the resurrection of the dead is a common theme that has already occured in the past and that shall happen again in the messianic era, without any divine connotation or connection with atonement for sins. These men were formulating their ideas, interpreting inherited traditions while still infused with stories of demigods, Achilles, Dionysus or Heracles to name but a few. By the time they expressed their thoughts and the Gospels were put to writing, the Jerusalem Temple had been destroyed in 70CE, and the centers of Christian thought were spread around the Mediterranean. This opened the way for non-Jews and foreigners to Jesus' socio/cultural/religious background to take the reigns of power in the early church.
When challenged by the Pharisees to display a miracle, Jesus promised them his resurrection after being dead for 3 days Matt12:39. Once he is supposedly resurrected, he doesnt appear to those who specifically asked him for the sign and to whom he said he will reappear. Instead, Jesus' followers come to the Pharisees, claiming that the sign had occured. Neither is there any claim that the risen Jesus ever appeared to anyone but believers. There is only the word of a mere handful of "witnesses" whose stories vary from person to person, and we dont even know who transmitted those biased accounts until they were eventually put to writing by scribes whom nobody knows.
In answer to the video "Paul Won Converts Through Peaceful Preaching; Muhammad Used Bribes and Threats (PvM 17)"
Paul was spending all day in his writings trying to gain credibility as seen in the Epistles, saying he was equal to, if not greater, than the Apostles of Jesus and making statements such as even if angels were to come down, and they said differently than what he was preaching, not the believe the angel.
That is in stark contrast with the Paul described in Acts, supposedly written by his disciple Luke, where he is more of a team player, subordinated to the early apostles of Jesus.
And yet the man never once met Jesus in his life, and here he was coming to those that knew and followed him, telling them they were all wrong the whole time. He never even quotes him once in any of his writings, doesnt show any knowledge about the historical Jesus at all. He was all for the assimilation of the Gentiles into the Judaic faith, and the Jews compromising on their faith as opposed to the other way around. Thus, his focus on grace as opposed to law. He asserts his authority before the Greek people, but never to the community in Jerusalem, and more particularly James, Jesus' brother. James' approval was necessary for anyone claiming to preach Jesus' teachings as explicitly stated in the church-rejected Pseudo-Clementine chapter 4 and implicitly alluded to by Paul in 2Cor3:1-6,1 Cor9:2,Gal1:20-24. He sharply disagrees with James and what Jesus taught when he preached salvation through faith alone Rom3:30. James, like all prophets of the scriptures, repeated the basic principle that faith and deeds go hand in hand and that one without the other is useless James2:19-22. So important are the good deeds for one's salvation in the Hereafter that the prophets prayed God to remember these deeds for the final judgement Neh13:14.
Paul's authority was constantly challenged, not only by Christians but by Jews whom he went seeking in their synagogues. In Acts21, Paul is asked to partake in the Nazirite purification sacrifice to prove he was still "kosher". After all he is the one to have instaured the deceptive missionary modus operandi (Jew to a Jew, gentile to a gentile etc). This challenge to Paul shows something important, Jesus' earliest followers were still practicing sacrifices after Jesus' death and never believed Jesus abolished the mosaic law, much less the sacrificial system. Why would he, when the HB to which he abided to the letter, explicitly says that all the mosaic law including animal sacrifices will be reinstated once the 3rd temple is built.
As to the Christians that challenged him, he accused them, more particularly Jesus' disciples and apostles of being false and deceitful 2Cor11:13-15, sarcastically said they "seemed to be pillars" of the church Gal2:9, even cursed them Gal5:12. It took 3 angelic apearances to confirm and justify Paul's abrogation of the mosaic dietary laws and others laws, to Jesus' early disciples.
Peter reconsidered his firm stance on abiding by these laws, when he was eventually convinced that abrogating dietary laws like not eating pork would result in Romans being saved from Hell. If Jesus' message was what Paul said it was the entire time, why did it take a vision, reinforced repeatedly, for Peter to do something that Jesus had allegedly already instructed him to do? Sometimes Christians try finding justification for Paul's dietary reforms in Jesus' saying
Mk7:14-19"There is nothing that goes into a person from the outside which can make him ritually unclean. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that makes him unclean...Nothing that goes into a person from outside can really make him unclean, because it does not go into his heart but into his stomach and then goes on out of the body".
If all food is good for consumption regardless of pre meal rituals because it merely enters stomach and not the heart then why are James and Paul himself so concerned about food offered to idols Acts15,1Cor10? Jesus here wasnt denying the law, rather infusing it with a much needed spiritual dimension, as he applied himself to do all throughout his career. Similarily, the sabbath, whose transgression is punishable by death according to the Law upheld by Jesus, became a matter of free choice with no consequence Col2:16-17,Rom14:4 thus easing the way further for any potential converts.
Paul, who was at most a hellenezied Jew, was explaining Jesus teachings in ways that were unheard of by Jesus' disciples. Paul's letters were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until 60-90 meaning Paul's theories were already established before the unknown writers of the gospels started their works and earlier christian thought was quickly branded heretical.
After Jesus' death, Paul's main problem was to convince his Jewish audience that the messiah's death, without accomplishing any of the messianic criteria, instead of being a failure was actually a necessity. He did so by introducing the doctrine of total depravity, making all humans de facto sinners and therefore in need of an atoning sacrifice Rom7:14-25,Rom3:10-11,5:13,8:7-8,1Cor2:14,Eph2:1-3,Titus3:3. His addressees however already believed in the resurrection of the dead, in a just God who forgave the sins of a penitent heart. Nothing was missing in their system that Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection could fix. Paul's redeeming hero was a redundancy to them, so he was obviously met with fierce resistence wherever he preached his unscriptural ideas. This led him to eventually turn to the gentiles among whom he found a much more favorable audience.
Paul's major tenet is that man is a slave to sin, cannot reach holiness by his actions, and must be "saved" from inherent damnation. One by his own will cannot choose to turn to God unless by God's grace. The doctrine was further developped by Augustine of Hippo but some righteous early christians objected and were quickly branded as heretical. Among Augustine's powerful arguments was that human depravity could be demonstrated by the "involuntariness" of the male erection. This base impulse belonged to nature, or the flesh, not to the spirit. In his logic, because of man's uncontrolable urges, it was women who had to be constrained. Tertullian taught when a parent sinned, this physical taint of the soul was passed on to children.
Paul applied himself to give everyone a reason to reconsider Jesus’ death, now turned into a suicide missionplaned since the beginning of creation. But the cursed law of Moses stood in his way. If one could find salvation through obedience to the law, as all past prophets including Jesus taught, then it would make Jesus' supposedly purposeful sacrifice redundant
Gal2:21"If righteousness come by law, Christ is dead in vain".
But how about Jesus, what did he think of the law of Moses.
Through a concise statement, the Quran explains the mutual relationship between the Torah and the Gospel; they complete one another by centering the attention on the wisdom and spirit of every aspect of God's Laws so that they do not end up as something lifeless and burdensome for the people
3:48-50"And He will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Tawrat and the Injeel..And a verifier of that which is before me of the Taurat and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord therefore be careful of (your duty to) Allah and obey me".
By the beginning of the 1st century Judaism was a sterile, lifeless organism, waiting to be infused with a spirituality that only Jesus could provide.
Jesus repeatedly condemned those traditions in the NT, denounced the Jews and their leaders as "hypocrites" and told the people to beware of these "teachers of law" for their soulless traditions, and "children of the Devil" because of their claim of inherited righteousness through their affiliation to Abraham Jn8:37-44.
Not in one single instance within the whole NT is it reported that Jesus said that the law of Moses needs to be abandoned, contrary to Paul who besides stating it was a curse Gal3:13 given not by God but by angels Gal3:19-25,Heb2:2 declared it obsolete Rom3:20,7:4,10:4,Heb8:13,Gal2:21,3:23-25,4:21-31,5:1,Eph2:15 even describing his former Jewish beliefs as worthless, rejecting his former Jewishness by warning of Jewish dogs saying in the original Greek
Phil3:2-8"I consider them excrement".
He told people he was seeking to convert that they were now under the vague 'law of Christ'. Jesus himself never alludes to such law, hence it being unknown to any of those who met and followed him and respected all Jewish laws to the letter as per his actual instructions. That law of christ, tailored so as to apeal to Paul's mainly pagan audience, has removed the old burden from mankind 1Corin9:21,Gal6:2. He sometimes paid lip service to the Law if the situation or audience required a show of obedience to the law Acts21:20-26 but immidiately denounced the likes of James and Peter for telling the Gentiles to follow the law Gal2, evidently because it attracted less converts.
As regards Matt26:28 and elsewhere where it is believed Jesus declared the ushering of a "new" covenant
"This is my blood of the new covenant",
some manuscripts have "new" others dont and even if we go with the former translations, there is still the problem of Jesus allegedly ushering in a new covenant yet he specifically told his followers to abide by the Law or what Paul refered to as the Old covenant, which Jesus called "the way" and upheld to the letter. Where did Jesus say the Law of Moses would become "old" and needed to be abandonned subsequently to his alleged sacrifice?
In fact, we find in the Gospels Jesus invoking the Torah when arguing with the religious elite because Jesus' mission was exposing the Pharisees for their hypocritical and rigid application of the Torah, not to abolish it. He gives the example of David who worked on the Sabbath, driven by necessity to eat food Matt12:1-8,1Sam21:1-6. He was this way upholding the spirit of the Law because saving a life is lawful on the Sabbath per the Torah Mk3:4 hence his quoting from
Hosea6:6"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice".
The Rabbis knew and understood this, that is why they couldn't answer as there was no violation of the Law. Similarly when he was accused of breaking the Sabbath because he healed the sick, what he was actually doing once again is exposing their rigid and soulless outlook of the religion. He took advantage of that situation to infuse the law with its lost wisdom. He showed them the Torah itself allowed circumsising or caring for an animal on a sabbath, then what to say of helping a suffering human being Matt12:9-13,Jn7:23-4,Lk13:10-17,Mk3:1-6. By breaking it he was doing what he "sees" the Father doing, sustaining His creation at all times. Jesus, the most knowledgeable person among his contemporaries in religious law further told his Jewish audience that he was in this way working together with God. As correctly understood by the faithfull blind man who was cured on Sabbath, this action did not make Jesus a sinner nor a blasphemer as his enemies among the Jews accused him, but rather a true prophet Jn11:11-33. Yet even to this day, the Talmudic "sages" whose legalistic deductions are viewed as God-given still hold that
“one does not assist a gentile woman in childbirth on the Sabbath” (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 330:2).
The Quran accurately sums up Jesus' mission as such
3:50"And a verifier of that which is before me of the Torah and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you".
Jesus verified the truth remaining in the past scriptures, relieved the bani Israel of some of the things forbidden to them through the soulless and far fetched conjectures of their rabbis. That is what Jesus meant when he told his disciples that they must practice and teach these laws to the letter while surpassing the "righteousness" of the Pharisees, meaning they must practice the body and soul of the law not only the body as they did
"whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven".
Per the Quran, the divine mercy is such that when it is absolutely necessary for survival, or in circumstances beyond one's control, there is no blame if one transgresses temporarily. But in all cases -normal or extraordinary- the spirit of the divine law must be kept in mind. This is demonstrated in 2:173-7 where in the context of mentionning the forbidden foods, the Quran reminds that distorting what God has revealed and profiting from it, ie not acting accordingly is equal to consumming fire.
The Quran further says that the essence of religion is faith in God and benevolence towards men
"It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteousness is this that one should believe in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets, and give away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for (the emancipation of) the captives, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in time of conflicts-- these are they who are true (to themselves) and these are they who guard (against evil)".
In answer to the video "Paul Won Converts Through Peaceful Preaching; Muhammad Used Bribes and Threats (PvM 17)"
The Quran relates how the prophet's opponents among the pagans and the People of the Book did everything to make him compromise his revealed principles with theirs, forge verses or deliberately corrupt them but the message was divinely protected from the interference of the evil ones -men and jinn- from its descent from heaven all the way to its uttering by the prophet who was repeatedly warned 2:145,10:37,42:15 and never allowed to yield one bit to them despite the hardships he and his followers suffered. Like the prophets of old, who despite the pressure to alter the divine messages and make them more appealing he answered
2:120,10:15,13:37,17:75,68:9,69:44-7,40:66"Say: I am forbidden to serve those whom you call upon besides Allah when clear arguments have come to me from my Lord, and I am commanded that I should submit to the Lord of the worlds".
As reflected is sura qalam, which is among the earliest Meccan suras, pressure was already being imposed on the prophet at the onset of his mission to change and compromise his message. It is to be noted, when the Noble Book unapologeticaly warns its messenger in the context of temptation to yield to his opponents, these frequently seen conditional statements do not mean that the prophet was actually tempted in doing so. There are many implicit meanings to these warnings, including that regarding the obligation to abide by the divine law/sharia, there is no difference between a prophet and a regular believer.
The second thing is that, seeing that the prophet is warned, how much more should they be careful of their responsibilities in upholding the principles of this revelation. And finally, seeing and hearing that the messenger is in no position to change anything in Allah's ordinances, the enemies should know that it would be fruitless to even think of approaching him with such objective.
When the prophet Micaiah the son of Imlah was under the same kind of pressure, he answered, knowing the dangerous repercussions of refusing to yield to the rejecters
1Kings22:14"As the Lord lives, for what the Lord will say to me, that will I speak".
The prophet Isaiah was equally warned not to yield to the disbelievers' requests Isa8:11 who, unhappy with his strong warnings and admonitions, would openly demand that he should forsake the straight path, the true God and give them false prophecies
Isa30:10-11"You shall not prophesy for us true things. Speak to us with smooth talk; prophesy mockery".
The prophet's opponents practiced deception upon him, and tempted him with greed, held out threats, and raised a storm of false propaganda against him, and persecuted him and applied economic pressure and social boycott against him. Yet the prophet did not compromise an iota of what was revealed to him, even in the direst Meccan period. Although he did experience fear at the consequences, never did he withhold a word that needed to be uttered in the face of his opponents, so as to soften their stance. Even when his uncle and protector Abu Talib was pressured by a Meccan delegation to withdraw his tribal protection of Muhammad and the Muslims, he firmly replied:
"0 my uncle, if they placed the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left hand to cause me to renounce my task, verily I would not desist therefrom until Allah made manifest His cause or I perished in the attempt".
The prophet then turned to depart until Abu Talib called him back
"Say whatever you please; for by the Lord I shall not desert you ever".
It is to be stressed that the prophet took this stance when his uncle, his last resort, seemed on the verge of letting him down. This attitude, besides the established reputation he had as a man of great integrity by his friends and foes, before and after the revelation, confirm the testimony of God Himself about His chosen one
68:4"And indeed, you are of a great moral character".
The Quran also presents situations where the prophet is showing fear in communicating certain revelations to his people 5:67,33:37 fearing their reaction, judgements or tauntings but the Quran would compel him to keep transmitting what he is receiving, not to ever
11:12"give up part of what is revealed to you"
showing how he wasnt acting according to his whims
2:120"If you (Muhammad) give in to their whims and desires despite the knowledge that has reached you, you will have no protector or helper against Allah".
In short, they did all that could be done to defeat his resolve. But just as he repeatedly, from the onset of his mission, rejected any compromise in religion, even less with the basic concept of monotheism 10:104. Since the earliest Meccan verses, he was admonished to distance himself from all rijz/filth 74:5. The mufassirun have included all kind of spiritual evils under that term, idolatry, sinfulness, impurity etc. The wording here does imply a previous tendency or involvement in those evils. The wording here does not imply a previous tendency or involvement in those evils. It assumes a scenario so as to enforce the point that everyone is liable to punishment for transgression
10:106"And do not invoke besides Allah that which neither benefits you nor harms you, for if you did, then indeed you would be of the wrongdoers".
The conditional form of the second part of the verse shows that the premise is a warning, not an accusation.
There are many such statements where the prophet is urged to stay away from someone or something that is against the truth revealed to him 26:113,28-86-8 or to behave in a certain way that is upright
33:1"O Prophet, fear Allah and do not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise. And follow that which is revealed to you from your Lord. Indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted".
Their hopes of finding common ground between Islam and their ancestral beliefs which they showed they werent truly attached to and were ready to compromise so long as their worldly interests were preserved, was definitely shattered with the very first word of sura kafirun
"Say: O kafirun".
That simple word "qul/say" unambiguously showed them that what the prophet was presenting, his answer to their offers, wasnt his that he would be in a position to negotiate; a third party was sending a message through him and, contrary to them, was so firm in his position that a forceful announcement of dissociation had to be made. That opening word reveals another important point, the sending authority wants to make a strong, unforgiving statement and is pushing the messenger to communicate it despite his often described soft character, gentleness and even sometimes reluctance to transmit a particular message, as described in the Quran.
The second verse elaborates
109:2"I do not serve that which you serve".
It follows by refuting any possibility of amalgamating Islam's monotheism with the polytheism of its addressees
"Nor will you worship that which I worship".
The next verse increases the intensity of the declaration of acquittal as it shows that the prophet never even considered worshiping their idols before his prophetic call so how could they imagine he would make any compromise with them now that he has received the Quran
"Nor did I worshiped that which you worshipped".
This is thus the monotheistic pattern of the prophet, his constancy that began before his call. He had dissociated himself from all practices linked to polytheism, and was wandering in search of guidance as to how to properly worship the One Creator.
Muhammad was always troubled by witnessing the bestial behavior, the families who viewed a firstborn daughter as a disgrace and would burry her alive among other savage practices and the polytheism of the idol worshipers. The Quran pictures an intense scene on the day of Resurrection, where the parents responsible of such horrendous act would be so contemptible in God's sight that they would not be addressed regarding the killing of their infant. So undeserving are they of being directly spoken to that God will turn to the victim, the one without a voice in this world and even if she had one would not be heard, and ask her if there exists any minutest fault for which she might have deserved to be murdered in that way 81:8-9. In their savagery, short mindedness and lack of God-consciousness they would sometimes not even spare their sons, for fear of poverty and lack of sustenance 6:151. It is to be noted that this abhorrent practice has perdured throughout time, and in a more widespread fashion in the form of abortion, most often for the same kinds of reasons. Fear of being able to sustain a child, in any aspect, can never be a reason for taking away his right to live 17:31. Sustenance at its source, does not reach anyone but by God's leave.
The temptations of Mecca had no power over the disciplined soul of Muhammad whose prime concern was contemplation. He did not like to frequent the Meccan social gatherings and activities. Sometimes when overcome by the pain of such sights, he would retire for meditation in a small cave known as Hira on the Mountain of Nur two miles from Mecca, he would fast and spend long hours in contemplation far from vice, immorality and idol worship. The cave is an extremely isolated small crevasse high in a mountain which even those passing very near to it, if they ever ventured at that desolate, rocky and hardly accessible place, would not notice. Only those who have been there can understand its remoteness and isolation. It is as if the prophet was drawn to this place, suitable for a spiritual retreat. Muhammad was taking a different direction than his people, advancing on his path of evolution and spiritual perfection, although being totally unaware of the requirements of the true faith, solely relying on his innate moral uprightness with which every human being is born and which compelled him at most to be repulsed by the ungodly habits and rituals around him and at least to never participate in their practices. For example he is said to have been keen to avoid the idols placed at Safa and Marwah while making runs between those places.
The report by abd al Mundhir, a known falsifier and fabricator of traditions unanimously rejected as unreliable stating the prophet once sacrificed an offering to an idol prior to his prophethood has been discarded by all hadith scholars.
Such was the situation of the hanif remnants among the Arabs, those that tried maintaining the legacy of Ibrahim, retiring away from their community, to the desert, a cave or against the walls of the very house built by their forefathers Ibrahim and Ismail whom they constantly remembered, searching and wondering about the original and complete manner in which they should worship the Almighty but that was now almost entirely lost and forgotten.
The ingrained guidance which Allah has equipped all mankind with, although allowing the possibility of avoiding the great moral harms and reasonably coming to believe in the most basic tenets of correct faith (monotheism and herefafter), it cannot explain the complete and exact requirements of the Creator whom the upright person is convinced of. Despite his awareness in those fundamental principles, the person therefore remains lost and ineffective in his search for an explicit guidance to know his obligations, how he should discharge them, how he should direct all possible aspects of his life in total subservience to God. Such person remains wandering in perplexity in search of the truth until he is shown the ultimate and precise manner in which his Creator is to be served
12:3,42:52,93:6-7"Did He not find you an orphan and gave you shelter? And found you lost and guided you?".
It is important to note here it doesnt speak of being lost from the straight path. One can be on the straight path all the while yearning and unsuccessfully looking for the best and ultimate way to progress on it, until it is shown explicitly. The difference between a prophet and philosopher is that the former, after seclusion and deep insight gets the truth and wisdom from God whereas the latter arrives to a glimpse of it or sometimes falls short of it by himself. Consequently, we find that the books of ancient philosophers, and of those that developed their theories after them, could not stand the test of subsequent criticism, resulting either in exposing flaws or entirely discrediting their lines of thought. As to the branch of philosophy that claims to investigate the realm of metaphysics through rational thought, the Quran categorically denies these attempts since it states that the concepts of God, Hereafter and revelation are parts of the knowledge of the unseen/ghayb, meaning beyond the reach of human perception. That knowledge is only imparted through revelation and thus all true metaphysical endeavors depend on it. Although the Quran continuously encourages humanity to inquire into and reflect upon the visible world to acquire knowledge, and understand through it the rational need for the resurrection, judgement and hereafter, in the case of knowledge of the unseen, it aims to guide the individuals during that process
96:4-5"He taught mankind that which they did not know".
Any philosophy that is not guided is in great error when dealing with the metaphysical realm, a realm transcending our sense-experience, making its direct intuition or experience impossible.
That condition the prophet was in, of seclusion and desperate seeking of the truth, as well as God's remedies to his concerns, inner questions and difficulties, is captured in sura duha and sharh. So, just as God, in answer to Ibrahim and Ismail's prayers, showed them the manner in which they and those after them should engage in worshipping Him 2:124-131, as was done to Adam who was taught the manner in which to invoke God and seek forgiveness 2:37,7:23,20:122 God showed the true rituals to Muhammad in answer to his spiritual quest, restoring them to their true form and purpose after they had been disfigured with time. There is a lesson of humility, for a servant to reverently ask his master for the best way to please him, as Ibrahim asked his Lord, and to not be self-conceited in thinking that one knows best how to outwardly behave when addressing the Lord of creation just as one wouldnt disrespect the basic conduct to have when facing a mere worldly ruler. The form of a ritual is just as important as the sincerity in its execution.
In the musnad we read of a neighbor overhearing a conversation that occurred between the prophet, prior to his call, and Khadija at their home
"I dont worship al-laat and al-uzza and i will never worship them".
This could have only happened when they had just been married. Had the prophet been a worshipper of the idols prior to his call or during his marriage for some time, he would have had to provide some explanation for his sudden change of attitude, yet we read Khadija respecting his position without showing any sign of surprise
In answer to the video "Paul Won Converts Through Peaceful Preaching; Muhammad Used Bribes and Threats (PvM 17)"
This hadith comes back many times in anti Muslim circles, passed around like a hot potato. A little background check will clarify the issue. The background is actually 9:5, another favorite of anti Muslim critics. As the surrounding verses make it clear 9:5 is speaking of those who repeatedly broke the contracts, despite the Muslims keeping their engagements, attacked the Muslims first.
These people, the Muslims should remain extremely cautious with. The Believers are required to put their trust in God and negotiate with them regardless of their treacherous history if they show an inclination towards peace 8:61-62, but at the same time should not hesitate to cancel the agreements in case they fear treachery on their part. But this must only be done openly and publicly so as to avoid any misunderstanding on the state of war between the parties 8:58, just as was done with the very first verse of sura tawba where a declaration of immunity and dissociation is made with the treaty breakers.
Then the Muslims should prepare themselves for every eventual threat from within and outside the community 8:60. The Muslims should only stop fighting these treaty violators under 2 conditions:
- The first condition is if they clearly become Muslims by praying regularly and pay the poor rate. This is the only guarantee Muslims have against being attacked by a people provably inclined to backstabbing and breaking of oaths
4:91"You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority".
It is in such background that one should read the often misused report in which the prophet says
"I have been commanded to fight the idolators (Other versions "the people") until they bear witness to La ilaha illallah (there is none worthy of worship except Allah) and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. If they bear witness to La ilaha illallah and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, and they pray as we pray and face our Qiblah, and eat our slaughtered animals, then their blood and wealth becomes forbidden to us except for a right that is due, and they will have the same rights and obligations as the Muslims".
What is translated as to fight/uqaatil implies fighting opposite an initial attack, as is clear from the context of 9:5. Also, the more complete hadith further portrays the prophet quoting
88:22"Therefore do remind, for you are only a reminder. You are not a watcher over them".
This, in addition to the known proper context of the report, decisively shows there can be no compulsion in religion, as explicitly stated in the Quran in many places. As commented by ibn Taymiya
"what is meant here: Fighting the fighters of those that Allah made permissible to fight, and not those under the treaty and were loyal to Allah".
No forced conversions occured at the conquest of Mecca and sura 88, which is quoted by the prophet in relation to his statement in the hadith, is unanimously believed to have been revealed in Mecca.
- The second condition is if they do not become Muslims but they stop their persecution then
2:193"there should be no hostility except against the oppressors".
That is because
8:38"if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed".
These 2 important point show that 9:5 does not say to fight these hostile idolaters until they become Muslims since an idolater who stops fighting is left to go freely to his homeland 9:6, but until they refrain from their hostile attitude of which a conversion to Islam and the strict and public adherance to each of its ordinances would be a guarantee.
One last time, not all idolaters were fought until they became Muslims, only those that were untrustworthy to be left based on a verbal agreement.
In answer to the video "Paul Won Converts Through Peaceful Preaching; Muhammad Used Bribes and Threats (PvM 17)"
Even though the object of the enemies of Islam when they take on arms and engage Muslims in war is to exterminate them entirely, the Muslims are told that the Divine object in assisting the believers in punishing the disbelievers at war is not to exterminate them, but to deliver a blow that would deter them from continuous agression 3:127. They are therefore told to fight only the people who attack them
60:9"those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion".
Defensive warfare cannot be predicated on personal whims or desires. War ethics also include not fighting near the Kaaba except if initially attacked. If the enemy desists from deliberate aggression then fighting must stop. This in turn indicates that there should be no rancor against the enemy when they correct themselves or even when they end the hostility. The Muslims, even though oppressed should not seek blind revenge at all costs, rather they should try engaging in peaceful negotiations before 8:39-40. In a dominant position, Muslims must remain concious of their past weakness before Allah strenghtened them and not refuse the hand of peace from non-muslims 4:94. In all cases retaliation must be
22:60"with the like of that with which he has been afflicted and he has been oppressed".
2:194"Thus, if anyone commits aggression against you, attack him just as he has attacked you - but remain conscious of God".
This means that even while seeking just and equal retribution, one must remain conscious of God's limits. The Quran's supreme realism reflects even in such situations, telling those whose spirituality is of a high degree, that if they are able to be patient and forgive for Allah's sake, instead of exercising their legitimate right to retaliation when they have taken the upper hand then Allah will compensate them for their magnanimity
42:39-43,16:126-8"but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient..Surely Allah is with those who guard (against evil) and those who do good (to others)".
The sensitivity of the issue is pictured in God's address to David, the prophet-king 34:10-11. As he was given mastery over a crucial component in warfare -iron-, he and all those after him are told that in their use of that martial technology, God is ever seeing of what they do, indicating that they should use this means in the path of righteous deed, not in the way of oppression, cruelty, and sin.
Fighting cannot be directed at those
60:8"who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes..show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice".
Al-Tabari states that this applies to people of “all ways of life and religions". Nothing abrogates this principle. This is because being friendly and lenient with non-Muslims does not contradict severing ties with those same ones and even fighting them if it is to establish justice and claim one's rights. The Arabic birr/compassion is the same one the Quran uses when instructing Muslims on how to treat their own parents 17:23-4. Others towards whom defensive jihad cannot be directed are those who come in peace without any desire to fight 4:90. Not all of Islam's opponents are alike, some do not strive actively for the extermination of Muslims and should therefore not be fought in the same way as one would engage an armed enemy. They, as well as others could have been deliberately misinformed and are thus given the benefit of the doubt
60:7"It may be that Allah will bring about friendship between you and those whom you hold to be your enemies among them; and Allah is Powerful; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful".
We see how the Quran engages the issue of warfare in the most sublime and pragmatic of ways. The very foundations of the divine law, as taught by all Prophets, is the establishment of justice and to argue a person has no right to seek his rights is an absolute wrong. The Quran has taught the best attitude, and that is to forgive and continue calling people to right and goodness, even if the people try and persecute another but when the persecution becomes unbearable and life threatening, hindering one from religious freedom then retaliation is permitted, but never above and beyond what a person has himself received.
In answer to the video "Paul Won Converts Through Peaceful Preaching; Muhammad Used Bribes and Threats (PvM 17)"
Accepting to fight in Allah's way results in reward in this world as well as the next 48:18-21, but turning one's back to the enemy and refusing to shoulder that duty makes a person
48:16,8:16"deserving of Allah's wrath"
in this world as well as the next. Here are the prophet Jeremiah's words
Jer48:10"A curse on anyone who is lax in doing the Lord’s work! A curse on anyone who keeps their sword from bloodshed".
As already pointed, history bares testimony to this fact with the example of the Israelites who had refused to put their trust in the prophet Musa to go forth and fight in Allah's way. Their wordly reward was consequently taken away and they were forbidden entry into the blessed land and sent to wander 40 years in the desert until the last one of those who had shown cowardice was dead. A new generation was then raised instead, one that would willingly take up arms, fight and conquer as divinely ordained. See the Quran in 2:243,5:21-26 as well as the Hebrew Bible in Numbers13:28-33,14:1-35,21:14-35,26:64-65 and Deut2:7,14-19,Josh5:6.
The Muslims are warned that the very same fate awaits those who turn their backs to the prophet when they are called to struggle in Allah's way
9:38-39"If you do not go forth, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you, and you will do Him no harm; and Allah has power over all things".
True Believers rejoice at any opportunity of serving God's cause, like Joshua and Caleb who rent their clothes telling the remaining cowards among the Israelites to stand up for battle. In the end, what God wishes to accomplish is independant of the direct addressees of a prophet. As demonstrated with Musa and the Israelites, He could easily uproot them in case of disobedience and rise another people instead. However, those who followed the prophet Muhammad in times of peace and war are the opposite example.
Contrary to the majority of Israelites in Moses' time who refused to march forth despite witnessing all kinds of divine miracles, the majority of Muhammad's followers fought when ordered to. This is corroborative of their desperate situation, leaving them no choice but to fight for their survival, the survival of their families and their rights to worship Allah.Because of all their sacrifices and because they went forth when they were commanded to, they were made successors in the land 6:133-134 and they earned Allah's rewards in this world as well as, God wills, in the next.
In addition, the Muslims are commanded not to neglect the obligatory prayers, even when facing the enemy at the battlefield 4:101-3. This shows the true objective of these warriors fighting to free themselves and their people from religious bondage; fighting was not their primary occupation for when the time of holding the timed and ordained communion with their Lord arrived, they performed their spiritual obligations despite the imminent danger.
In answer to the video "Paul Won Converts Through Peaceful Preaching; Muhammad Used Bribes and Threats (PvM 17)"
As shown earlier, the philosophy of armed struggle/jihad as a form of divine punishment is confined to the prophetic era during which a previously warned nation is to be destroyed.
The 2nd type of jihad is the establishment of the will of God on a specific land (Canaan in the times of Moses, Mecca in the times of Muhammad). It is enforced by a prophet, and his followers makes sure that the new order established is maintained for that land.
Outside these 2 scenarios, the 3rd and last context to which armed jihad is applicable, is in self-defence, when war is waged against a Muslim community solely for its religion. This type of armed struggle covers the prophetic era and beyond. In that context, if their opponents engage them in battle they will be defeated, provided their objective purely is the end to religious persecution. This was Allah's way before
48:22-23"Such has been the course of Allah that has indeed run before, and you shall not find a change in Allah´s course".
It is to be noted that even the most zealous proponents of Jihad as the struggle to spread Islam to all the world, including nations that do not pose an explicit threat to the Islamic mainland, still maintain that this form of struggle aims at removing all obstacles a human being may face in his freedom to choose Islam or not. If a nation opposes the objective presentation of Islam to its people, so that they may freely choose to adopt or reject it, then an armed struggle by the Islamic state against that oppressive nation is justified. Once the Islamic state is established, then its citizen are free to choose between Islam and payment of zakat, or their own religion and payment of jizya. We thus see that even this view of jihad contains the element of self-defence as well as freedom of religious expression, in accordance with the Quranic axiom of no compulsion in religion. Another thing to note is that this interpretation of Jihad basically is what the western "civilized" world has been doing throughout history, whether the imperialists, christian colonizers, communists or democrats. Contrary to the Islamic model, the invaded people are not given the choice on whether to choose the new system or not, except for the "democratic" invasions to some extent.
God gives glad tidings of success 24:55 in this armed struggle. It is a great test of resolve and faith 9:14,16. 2:153-157 was specifically revealed to prepare the believers for the trials they would have to bear for having chosent he path of truth. They are told to remain firm in their faith so as to find the inner strength to bear that burden, because their opponents will not give up. They have realized that to stop Islam's spread they had to annihilate the Muslims themselves. The verses indicate that the great trial is near, it mentions martyrdom in the way of Allah, and praising it, saying that it is not a death, it is life. It lays great emphasizis on the virtue of "sabr" which is one of the most praiseworthy characteristics of the believer.
2:190-5 allowed retaliation for the first time
"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you"
the root qaf-t-l means to kill. But used in the form qaatilu entails interaction, killing opposite killing or killing against killing. Literally speaking it should be rendered "engage in killing opposite killing" and because of a lack of non-Arabic word conveying that sense, the interactive word "fight" has been preferred and used by both Muslim and non Muslim translators, in all instances where the same form is used. In 9:111 for example, the consequence of qaatilu/"engage in killing opposite killing" either results in killing the opposite party, or being killed and that is because there is a clear will to kill from the opposite side. When the original order to qaatilu was issued in 2:190, it came with 2 important messages: - do it against those who yuqaatilunakum - do not transgress the limits when applying the command to qaatilu
What constitutes transgression in that context? To apply the command of qaatilu in a different way than prescribed in the verse, ie against people other than those who "yuqaatilunakum". This again, not only agrees with what was said about the verb being interactive in nature, as attested by its usage and the dictionaries stating that the word is used "in a context of a counter-effort to kill", but also with the Quran's overall message, which is to live at peace with anyone, Muslim or else, that does not aggress the Muslims unjustly, and defend against those that engage in hostilities without any reason other than hatred for the religion.
The ethics of war as laid down in the verse is to remain within the bounds of
"and do not exceed the limit. Verily, Allah loves not those who exceed the limit".
This principle applies to Jihad in all of its aspects; - whether for the establishment of God's will in a specific land, as was the case in Mecca with Muhammad or Moses in Canaan - whether for the punishment of rejecters in the prophetic era, as was the case with the Ishmaelites and the Israelites - or the timeless right to self defence. At that point it became inevitable that the early persecuted Muslims should fight in self-defense or they would be destroyed. It is the natural right of all Muslims and every human being to
26:227"defend themselves after they are oppressed".
The divinely sanctioned right, throughout the ages and nations, of jihad in self defense has a clear objective. It isnt for any material gain or territorial expansion, but to dispel mischief, and corruption/fasad on the earth and stop religious oppression
2:251,22:40,3:167"Come, fight in the way of Allah or [at least] defend".
It is inadmissible that man be prevented from choosing or practicing Islam due to pressure and fear. In such a society, war is justified until one is free to choose or reject Islam
2:256"There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error".
This shows that under no circumstances should be forced in spiritual matters, whether it is to accept or reject Islam.
The Quran would therefore stir up the believers for battle based on the reality of their physical and spiritual opression, whether men, women, old and young alike 2:217,4:75,8:26,22:39-40,28:57,60:1,85:8-10,96:9-10. God commands to fight for justice. Any other reason to fight is oppression and fighting
"in the way of the devil" 4:76.
This was an undeniable reality and necessity. They had to overcome any fear and trust that Allah's help will come at the battlfield. He will weaken the struggle of the oppressors no mater the forces they can muster 4:84. Even when this was established, the prophet still did not expect the Muslims to shed their blood for a decision from which they were excluded. Consensual agreement always preceded the final decision to go to war, as here stated in the context of the battle of Uhud
3:159"and seek their advise in all matters of public policy".
Once the decision is attained by common agreement, the plan must be launched with an absolute trust in God
3:159"then when you have decided upon a course of action, trust in Allah; for surely Allah loves those who place their trust in Him".
Even the prophet after that point may not revoke the covenant and act according to his whims 3:161-4. It is to be noted that in that particular context of Uhud, the prophet was the minority opinion. He advised confronting the Meccan alliance within Medina, instead of meeting them at Uhud. Yet he never protested the decision once it was mutually agreed upon, nor did he blame the majority once the battle was over and the Muslims were defeated. No matter how supreme the wisdom of the Muslim community's ruler is, in this case a prophet of God, the right of the remaining members of society to be consulted can never be waved off. We see here that in this defeat of the Muslims at Uhud, an important lesson was implemented as to the conduct of a Muslim leader.
Once everybody is set to leave with a full trust in their decision and the will of God, then their physical, mental, financial capacities as compared to their enemies only become secondary issues. Only if these conditions would result in overburdening and harming the person and the people depending on him, even before engaging in fighting, then such person is justified in holding back from fighting 9:91,48:17. The others rely on Allah, who knows their material and physical limits, and will assist them 8:66. They are fully justified in fighting back, and will be helped in the process
22:38"Surely Allah will defend those who believe; surely Allah does not love any one who is unfaithful, ungrateful".
Part of the 613 Jewish commandments is to similarily be fearless in battle and fully trust in God Deut3:22,7:21,20:3. It was their failure to trust in God's capacity to defeat, through a weak army, a much stronger adversary that caused their 40 years desert wandering prior to entering the land promised to Abraham. God calls mankind to fight in His way first to solve the wordly obstacles to which a particular people is confronted, but these worldly obstacles are connected to the spiritual aspect of man's existence. This means that fighting in God's way liberates man from both physical and spiritual obstacles. That is why those who fear wordly losses in the process, are told that this world is ultimately ephemeral whether in case of victory or loss. They would thus have certainly reason to fear should their battle be solely aimed at achieving wordly objectives.
But since fighting in God's way includes spiritual objectives, then one has no reason to fear because the Hereafter in which the benefits of that struggle will be certainly found, is everlasting 4:74. Choosing to serve God in this way, putting one's own life on the line to defend the oppressed and advance the cause of truth is the most selfless material and spiritual sacrifice one can do. Every culture and civilization in history has owed its survival in the face of oppression to these types of honored individuals.
But even then, as in any army, there are degrees among soldiers, hence the prophet saying that military participation is ranked 3rd in terms of divine appreciation
"I asked the Prophet 'Which deed is loved most by Allah?" He replied, 'To offer prayers at their early (very first) stated times.' " `Abdullah asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" The Prophet said, "To be good and dutiful to one's parents," `Abdullah asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" The Prophet said, "To participate in Jihad for Allah's Cause." `Abdullah added, "The Prophet narrated to me these three things, and if I had asked more, he would have told me more".
However those among the volontaries going to such extent in their selfless sacrifice that they are martyred, the prophetic sayings describe them as meriting the highest reward. Wordly gains certainly follow as a collateral result of wars, and although are certainly the just compensation of those sacrificing their wealth and resources on the way, the Quran stresses that these wordly gains must never be the motive. In a hadith the prophet even answered about someone fighting in God's cause but also seeking material reward, that in the herafter "He would receive no reward" (sunan Abu Dawud).
The Prophet's conflict with his tribe was not because of any worldly reason; it was only for the freedom to practice the religion of God 4:74,94 in the place originally dedicated for it. The Quraysh had to fulfill their obligations towards the Kaaba because they were its custodians. If they were not ready for this, then they had no right to keep it in their custody nor did they have any right to prevent people from returning to the pure Arbrahamic legacy through intimidations, or stopping others from worshiping on a land settled for that purpose since the days of Ibrahim 22:25-9.
This was Allah's way before in regards to Canaan, even prior to the Israelites settling in it, when its natives progressively abandonned the ways of righteousness, despite knowing it, perverted it beyond recognition Gen15:16,Deut9,1Sam4:7. The Israelites were sent in precisely to purge the sacred land from its unworthy custodians. When the prophetic warnings materialized upon the Quraysh and their grip on the lives and freedom of the people was loosened, then the people hastened to accept Islam in multitudes now that they were suddenly afforded with the liberty to choose their own religion. 110:2 predicted this reality long before the conquest of Mecca
"And you see men embrace the religion of God in multitudes",
and this was through the guidance of the Heavenly Book that transcended all obstacles to give life to the spiritually dead 6:122.
