Acts17apologetics try psychology; Muhammad traumatised by childhood experience?

In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"

The fact is that so many factors in the prophet's life went against displaying any sort of positivity and mercy that one can only conclude that he had been preserved and guided by the Almighty from turning into an evil despot; never knew his father, hardly enjoyed the compassion of his mother, lost his grandfather, and then his uncle and dearest wife simultaneously, witnessed every single one of his children die save for one, who was treated like a menace and fugitive after decades of building a flawless reputation among his people, on top of that physically abused until he would faint, starved for years by his own people, and faced countless campaigns of character assassination, directed towards him and his household, driven out of his home, unto a foreign town only to find hypocrites there awaiting every opportunity to betray him, then watching assassination attempts against his life unfold regularly, as well as the murder and mutilation of his relatives and companions.

Who could in such circumstances persevere and rise beyond negativity, displaying mercy, justice and empathy besides one divinely guided? This is why we find in this Quran, and as embodied by the prophet, that it calls Muslims to treating others, whether close or far "neighbors", from one's own people or not, as they themselves would like to be treated. It was a way of life of the prophet who taught the people the general axiom that 

"Allah will not be merciful to those who are not merciful to mankind". 

Whenever the Quran encourages fair treatment, it does so by instilling empathy

4:9"Let those who would fear for the future of their own helpless children, if they were to die, show the same concern for orphans, let them be mindful of God and speak out for justice".

That type of imaginative role-reversal is a recurrent theme 4:36,42:23,83:1-6. Treating others even better than what is expected towards one's self, opens the possibility to create a positive change even in one's enemy 41:34,59:9. This shows how altruism in the Quran, although seemingly over empathetic, actually remains pragmatic by extending fair treatment even to one's enemies in certain cases. The prophet said

"Whoever would love to be delivered from the Hellfire and entered into Paradise, then let him die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and let him treat the people the way he would love to be treated".

Acts17apologetics accuse Muhammad; Quran 9:29 attacks Jews and Christians for their faith?

In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"

Until 9:29, the sura Tawba prescribed divine punishment upon 3 groups; the hypocrites among the Muslims, the treacherous warmongers among the idolaters, and those idolaters insisting on their pagan practices within the sacred precincts of Mecca. 

No punishment is prescribed on the peaceful idolaters beyond Mecca, as well as those in Mecca that refrain from their rituals at the sacred sites re-dedicated strictly to the Islamic religion. They are to be left unharmed as mentioned earlier.

Nor is there until now any legal directive towards the remaining non-Muslims living under Muslim rule, whether in Mecca or beyond. This included the people of the book (Jews and Christians) or the followers of other belief systems, or even atheists 

9:29"Fight those who believe not in God and nor in the Last Day and nor do they forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden and nor do they follow the religion/DEEN of truth from among the people of the book, till they give the compensation with a willing hand, while they are humble".

This verse, as attested by the prophetic practice, is not restricted to the people of the book. It covers any religion that was and could potentially fall under Muslim rule as a result of provoked warfare. The verse mentions 4 categories;

1- Those who do not believe in God 

2- Those who reject the resurrection 

3- Those who regard as lawful what Allah and the prophet have forbidden. Those that pass the 2 preceding criteria by believing in God and the concept of resurrection, should adhere to Islam as the only reasonable spiritual reality. If they make the choice not to, then they are believers in one of the many man made religions that does not forbid what Allah has forbidden through His prophet in the Quran and sunna. Or they might be from the people of the book, believers in God and the resurrection. Being sincere in their faith, they should, like the aforementioned group naturally enter the fold of Islam. The Quran speaks of them, those that remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability. Their sincerity, unprejudiced, praiseworthy reading and understanding of their books led many of them to eventually believe in the revelation bestowed on the prophet Muhammad 2:121,83,3:113-115,199,4:162,5:13,66,69,83,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4. But those that make the choice not to, they remain as people of the book who despite their sincerity in faith, do not regard as forbidden what Allah and His messenger forbade.

4- Those who do not follow the DEEN of truth from among the people of the book. The root D-Y-N means rule or debt or any obligation. It may be summarized as "system". It is used this way in the Quran 9:36,12:76 classical literature and even in common Arabic speak. Whenever the preposition "mina" is used before a composite entity, or a group, and that this entity is given a qualification, then "mina" carries the meaning of "among", pointing to a portion from among that composite entity 4:46,160,5:5,23,41,57,107,8:65,57:10. "The Deen of truth" in that phrase cannot refer to Islam as a religion. One cannot speak of a portion from among the people of the book as being followers of Islam while others reject it. This speaks of the Jews and Christians whom the Quran in many places condemns as sinful, insincere to the truth of their own books. The praiseworthy among them, followers of "the deen of truth" were those included in the 3rd category.

None of the groups above are to be fought until they become Muslims. Rather until they pay the jizya in submission to the Islamic rule. That subjection is in relation to the Islamic system which they are now bound to, being permanent non Muslim residents under protection of the Muslim state. The majority of Muslim scholars have understood the passage in that way. See for example al-Shafi'i, Al-Umm, Vol. 4, Ahmad Mustafa al-Maraghi's Tafsir Vol. 10 or Fatani, Ikhtilaf al-Darin p48. This is also seen by the fact that the musta'min (a non Muslim temporary resident) is not subjected to the Islamic legal system nor the jizya, according to the Hanafi school. That subjection has thus nothing to do with humiliation, as some have interpreted, and without any evidence in the prophetic practice nor that of the first caliphs. Humiliation does occur however, when those non-Muslim residents of the Islamic state refuse to pay government taxes to the point they have to be forcefully made to. Just as Muslims, shortly after the prophet's death had to be fought, humbled, and forced to pay the government taxes under Abu Bakr's caliphate.

The order to fight therefore isnt motivated by a choice of creed otherwise the mere paying of a tax would not have been enough to end the fighting, rather a forceful conversion would. Yet that option is never proposed in the verse. The only issue for them is explicitly spelled out; Payment of taxes and submission to the laws of the religious state they live in as members of a different religion on whom different rights and obligations apply. The government has actually more to gain in wealth and manpower if they convert, especially in early times when Muslims were a minority in these newly conquered lands. Yet they are told to keep their religion and autonomy instead.

Converting to Islam, something that isnt incumbent upon them, would end the command to fight them should they insist on not paying the jizya. But they will not escape being fought should they refuse honoring the duties that fall upon them as Muslims, including contributing financially to the functioning of the Islamic state, as well as obligations that did not apply to their former religious communities, like military service. There really is no true incentive for them to leave their religion which is why the option is never proposed in the verse.

The verses that follow illustrate some of the transgressions of the people of the book, and their causes, such as deification of prominent personalities, blind following of their religious leaders etc, while no blame is placed on them for not following Islam. These dark deviations in religion will never extinguish the light of guidance, no matter how much the disbelievers among the people of the book dislike it 9:32. The verse employs the image of a person attempting to extinguish a strong light with a blow from the mouth, to illustrate the relative feebleness of his position.

The passage ends with the reiteration of a prophecy made long before 48:28,61:9 regarding the prevailing of the deen/way of truth sent by the One true God over all other ways no matter how much the polytheists dislike it 9:33. The wording of this verse is very appropriate since it specifically mentions the polytheists, followers of non-divine religions, as disliking the establishment of the deen of truth. The people of the book, sincere to their scriptures as pointed earlier, will not dislike the establishment of a Godly system, since it does not only mean establishing Islam, but also exposing and establishing the truth of their own religion 

5:83"And when they hear what has been revealed to the messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize".

The Jizya is a collective tax, not a head tax. It is imposed on the people of dhimma, the diminutive for dimmat Allah wa rasulih, the protection of God and His messenger. This connection demonstrates the significance of the dhimmis, making them eligible for protection under divine obligation. The prophet applied the command upon Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and according to some scholars like abu Hanifa, the pagans, based on a prophetic saying 

"If they (Arab polytheists) accept the dhimmah contract (aqd al-dhimmah), then inform them that they have the same rights and duties as Muslims". 

The jizya imposed on them is a collective tax because it is agreed upon by mutual consultation, not arbitrarily decided by the Muslim state. The nature of the compensation to the Muslim state varied depending on the capacities of each one. It was not always monetary and its amount was adaptable to each case.

The benefits which the government offers in exchange of the due jizya, are matters of communal and national interest - defending the territory from outside aggression, establishing security, maintaining the environment, building infrastructure, etc., not the sort of benefits you can opt out of. The earliest Muslim rulers even appointed a portion of the Muslim zakat to feed the needy among the people of the book, even though they were exempted from paying the jizya. When a Jew came asking the caliph Umar for money, he said 

"go find him and those like him, and give them out of the public treasury". 

It is known that together with the needy, the clergy was also exempted from the tax by the Muslim authorities. And yet they fully benefited from government services, including military protection and infrastructure. These exception to the rule of 9:29 are based upon strong and firm unconditional principles as regards the Muslim duty towards the weak in any society, and the preservation of the worship sites of the people of the book where the name of Allah is mentioned. There is thus a strong Quranic basis for the policy of most Muslim rulers, including as early as the caliph Umar, of being selective in the application of the jizya upon the people of dhimma. 

Even though Jizya is not a personal head tax, for the sake of argument, one can either pay taxes willingly, or be punished through several forceful means including jail in case of refusal, or leave the country. In a secular state the issue is pretty much the same. Special taxes will apply to alien residents, who in addition to having to compensate the state for providing them with benefits of all kind, must also exempt themselves from the obligations and rights that apply to the citizen of that state (military service, various taxes on salaries, financial regulations etc). Paying that tax will protect them from being pursued and punished by that government. 

Some insidious critics like calling it "protection money". Every taxation system in the world is in fact aimed at providing protection; either by financing a system that preserves the well-being of the society as a whole, or by protecting against punishment, since failing to pay results in sanctions. Jizya is the rightful compensation demanded from the dhimmi, in exchange of the exemption from the laws, rights, obligations, penalties etc of that state religion in matters that do not concern the society as a whole. That is because the sharia for Muslim governance of non-Muslim citizens is that non-Muslims should not be forced to follow the moral laws dictated in the Quran. 

The idea that this model oppressed non Muslim dhimmis to the point they preferred conversion is unfounded, without any historical and documented basis. It wasnt therefore a system aimed at enriching anyone, but a legitimate compensation for concrete services and exemptions. That is why non-Muslims that voluntarily participated in the military were exempted from the tax. Those that paid the tax and werent properly served were refunded. For instance when Muslim ruled Syria was threatened with invasion by the Romans and the Muslim ruler doubted whether he would be able to protect the non-Muslims of that region, he hastily returned their jizya money which was supposed to be partly aimed at guarantying their protection. Abu Ubaydah ibn al Jarrah told the Christians they would be bound by the agreement again only if he is able to fend off the Roman invasion. The Christians consequently prayed for Muslim victory, knowing that the Romans would never behave with them in such a manner.
 
Under that system, non Muslims enjoy complete religious autonomy as long as it does not conflict with the state religion. For example selling alcohol publicly. Dhimmis may deliberate, individually deny, or reform their religious laws to their liking and to fit their desires without any concern about the laws of the state, again, so long as no conflict occurs between the 2. For example it is well known that Christian and Jewish elites enacted laws preventing their people from resorting to a Muslim judge in cases where their own laws were unfavorable.

Acts17apologetics feel orphaned; YHWH a father to Christians?

In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"

The concept of a divine fatherly figure typically is a Hebrew one, with God calling the nation of Israel His firstborn and referred to in the book of Jeremiah as their father. Jews are very much attached to that concept and dispute Christian appropriation of that title through their mistranslations of the Hebrew texts. 

The Hebrew understanding of the notion of God as a fatherly figure has nothing to do with the Christian one. 

In their monolatrous concept of God, Jews are the preferred sons above all nations charged with being the torch bearers of the truth, and their father is in charge of educating them throughout that process, sometimes in the harshest of ways. This is a notion which the Quran refutes. 

The Quran rebukes the people of the book for their misappropriation of the phrase "son of God" metaphorically on themselves 5:18. Here the verse is not making a sweeping condemnation of the usage of that terminology, rather its abuse. They were making that claim in the context of moral accountability. Being the sons of God implied them being His "beloved", honored among the nations, His favoured. Forgiveness was thus their due and will always eventually be restored to their station of nearness to God despite their sins. If that is the case then the Quran reminds the Jews more particularily, of the destructions that befell them throughout their recorded history.

Each of those, as related in their own books were the result of divine disapproval. None is immune in this life to hardships, whether the most righteous or the sinners. These difficulties are either meant to strengthen one's spiritual resolve, make him mend his ways, or utterly destroy him, not leaving him any chance to even repent 

3:140-1"and We bring these days to men by turns, and that Allah may know those who believe and take witnesses from among you; and Allah loves not the unjust. And that Allah may purge those who believe and eradicate the unbelievers". 

The violent hardships that befell those very ones claiming to be God's favored among the nations, were neither meant at improving their non-existent spirituality, nor to make them mend their ways and forgive them. God, their "father" meant to eradicate the sinners off the face of the earth. They knew this reality and could not offer an answer in defence of their claim of being God's "beloved". Their history of punishments, down to our recent times, is no example of a father-son relationship where the child is being lovingly raised and corrected. Further, because the verse does not forbid the notion of sonship to God, it does however make sure that anyone using it does not think of himself in any way intrinsically superior to other human beings 

5:18"you are mortals of His creating". 

Nowhere here or elsewhere does the Quran accuse individual Jews of claiming divinity, rather it seeks to blot out that notion even on a subconscious level.

In 19:34 following the story of Jesus' nativity and infancy, the Quran addresses 2 issues. First in a statement from God rejecting any notion of sonship to Him 19:35 and then in a quote from Jesus stressing the basic monotheistic principle that 

19:36"indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him; this is a straight path". 

In light of Jesus' clear statement, which happens to be quoted almost verbatim in the NT although in a different context Jn20:17, the Quran then continues by condemning as disbelievers those that contended, and still do, with these 2 principles 19:37. Jesus during his time among his people did not forbid the expression "son of God" since it did not carry ambiguous connotation to the Jews, as regards the relationship between the person whom the expression was applied to, and God. A "son of God" was neither an extension of God, nor shared in the divine essence. It is thus God who took it upon himself to reject the notion once it became perverted and loaded with polytheistic significance after Jesus. As a prophet however, Jesus, like his predecessors, always stressed the basic monotheistic tenets to his addressees, and hence the verse 19:36 rightly quotes him doing so. The whole passage from 19:30-7 in defence of Jesus aims at condemning people for different reasons and at different times during his life and prophetic mission. Where the Jews in Jesus' time transgressed in their use of that metaphorical appelation, was in the implicit notion of intrinsic honor due to them, the "children of God". Jesus in the NT condemns this Jewish self-conceit in no uncertain terms, whether it pertained to their abuse of the notion of sonship to God Jn3:10,8:42-44 as the Quran does in 5:18 quoted earlier, or whether that conceit was due to their Abrahamic ancestry Matt3:9,Lk3:8. When Jesus himself, the prophet in their midst could not in anyway be compared in greatness to the One that sent him Jn13:16 then why would they, the sinful ones boast of them being God's sons? This was no false humility from Jesus and when he asked to be honored as the father is Jn5:22-23, he meant in terms of recognition 

"Whoever does not honour the Son does no honour the Father who sent him". 

This is very similar to the Quranic statement that rejecting the messenger (dishonoring him) is the same as rejecting the One that sent him. Jesus in fact desired for his followers the same honor and glory that were due to him Jn17:21-22. It is remarkable to note how the Quran who, had it been the product of its historical milieu, should have followed the example of its predecessors in claiming the honorific sonship title to the Muslims. Instead it emphatically states that no one has any unconditional right or privilege against Allah. The only ones honored and privileged by Allah are those of correct faith and righteous deeds, regardless of their claim of belonging to a religious group or specific ancestry. And the highest distinction God may confer among His creatures, is that of obedient slaves. Such distinction does not cause an increase in relation to God, rather in relation to the rest of creation. Further, contrary to the "son of God" terminology, it does not carry the misleading notion of special privilege with God, nor of particularity in terms of essence and lineage.

The concept of a divine fatherly figure is different in Christianity. To Christians, God is the father firstly in relation to the son/Jesus whom he has "begotten not made" and of whom he is the head in the trinity. The Jewish and Christians concepts have nothing to do with oneanother and Jews loath that misappropriation of the term by trinitarian Christians. Even the extension of God as a paternal figure to regular Christians has nothing to do with the notion as described in relation to the Jewish nation.

This father-son connection is only used in Hebrew scriptures for the Jews themselves and all other instances where "sons of elohim" is translated "sons of God" in Christian Bibles is considered erroneous, not only from a Jewish theological perspective, but also from a contextual one. The word elohim although may apply to God, primarily means a powerful entity like for example judges, rulers or notables Ex7:1,4:16,22:6-7,20,1Sam28:12-13,Ps82:6.

One famous Christian rendition of "sons of elohim" as "sons of God" is in Gen6. With their "fallen angel" concept in mind, Christians prefer the "sons of God" rendition due to the mention of "nefilim" in v4 whom they speculate are the progeny of fallen angels/sons of God with sons of adam. Yet "sons of elohim" obviously is in reference to the progeny of men with great power, who rather than using their position for justice, committed crimes against their fellow men, abusing the "daughters of Adam", indulging in lawlessness to their benefit. Follows God's decision to destroy the world and everything in it, explicitly because of the human race's injustice, nothing is said about angels.

Everything is destroyed, since all this world was created for man to rule over it Gen1:29-31, except those chosen to survive in the ark. But again, nothing about angels or do Christians mean that mankind was destroyed because of the angels´ wickedness?

Now regarding the nefilim, the v4 says they were already on the earth in those days and they continued to be so afterward. They were not the result of mating between fallen angels and humans.

This race of people had the peculiarity of counting giants among them, who even survived the flood Numb13:22,33,Josh12:4. In proportion, these giants were to the Israelites what a grasshopper is to a regular human being. 

The Quran being the supreme protector of monotheism, never refers to God with such imperfect appellations, as it easily paves the ground for polytheistic beliefs, similar to the ones that polluted Christianity 17:110"HE has the best names". Interestingly, in Islam the closest one comes in parallelling God's relationship to His creatures, to that of human parent-children connection, is a hadith where the prophet compares the mercy of Allah towards the people with that of a mother to her infant. One of Allah's names, al-Rahman, stems from the root of rahm/the womb, evoking the nurturing, loving care of the mother.

Even when the masculine pronoun HE/HUWA is used in reference to Allah, it does not denote gender. In literature this masculine can either be the grammatical or biological masculine. Also, singular neutrality in Arabic is expressed with the masculine (not biological) pronoun. There is no IT in Arabic hence the use of the grammatical masculine HUWA to denote neutrality of gender (for a singular entity, while the feminine is used for a couple like the eyes). In the HB/NT, the title of "Father" has gender as well as sexual connotations. That notion of fatherhood associated with God may easily lead to polytheism, or at the least false, exclusivist, monolatrous notions as one finds throughout the Hebrew writings. Christians however took that misleading appellation to a more crooked level, as seen above. 

Acts17apologetics inquire at the source; the Abrahamic hanif?

In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"

Pre-Islamic oral tradition has preserved names of the non-polytheistic remnants in their midst, the likes of Luqman whom the Quran pointed to them as an example of wisdom, righteousness and gratefulness to the One God 31:12-13. This pure way, Abraham's way was something that none could contend with, whether Jew, Christian and even the Arab polytheists who knew him, his history and never denied that his "Way" was the Right Way, that Ibrahim was the founder of the Kaaba and was a pious worshiper of Allah.

The Quran therefore would repeat Abraham's life story while laying great stress on his antagonism to polytheism, as well as him not being part of any later group that claimed spiritual closeness to him, like the Jews and Christians. This was an admonishment, on one hand to the Arabs and the Quraish in particular. They regarded themselves as his spiritual and physical descendants. The people of the book and more particularily the Jews, thought the same and are told that Abraham instead was a pure submitter (lit. hanif muslim) as demonstrated throughout his upright life and unconditional submission to God

3:67"Ibrahim was not a Jew nor a Christian but he was a hanif, a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists".

In such background, the Quran would interpel Ismail's descendants and kept asking them to bring proof for their innovations 35:40-1, kept reminding them again and again about the One, supreme, all powerful Creator they readily professed belief in, yet placed interceding idols next to him, hence the baselessness of their polytheism.

These small groups of Meccan men and women detested the use of the Kaaba by the polytheists and kept their practice of religion monotheistic. They affirmed that the Abrahamic legacy had been distorted beyond recognition, whether by the Jews, Christians or Ishmaelites brethren, and these personalities were seeking a return to the pristine religion. The traditions mention their names and how their ways of life would lead them to harassement by the Idol worshipers. They include names like Uthman ibn Huwayrith, Ubaydullah bin Jahsh, Zayd ibn Amr ibn Nawfal Al-Nabighah al Ja'adi etc, as well as Muhammad the orphan whom they all knew and hence couldnt accuse him of change of heart

10:16"I have lived a lifetime among you before it".

Muhammad essentially raised himself, never worshiped the idols, never entertained the idea of doing so in the past 109:1-6. He would retreat away from the pagan environement to contemplate as some of his forefathers did, such as his great grand father the hanif, Hashim ibn Abd al-Manaf. He would remain in such wandering perplexity until his prophetic call came unexpectedly. His firm stance against associating with God and polluting the Kaaba reached its peak then, despite his opponents' demands to compromise his message with their beliefs 68:9.

In the pre-Islamic poems of the likes of Jiran al-'Awd or Umayyah ibn Abi as-Salt, the hanifiya, "the way of Ibrahim" as he said, is mentioned by name and Ibn Ishaq quotes it in connection with Abraha's attack on the Kaaba. Sirmah ibn Anas of the Banu Adyy ibn Al Najjar was another hanif, per the work of Isabah, that renounced idolatry and became a hanif and that he worshipped only the God of Abraham. There are countless sources that connect Abraham with the Arabs and those that desired to return to his ways, without any connection to Jewish and Christians ways, were considered hanifs. None among the Arabs ever contended with such facts. This whole tradition revolved especially around the legacy of the Kaaba.

Acts17apologetics go the beginning; the Hanif leaned towards Christianity?

In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"

The hanifs is a term used first and foremost as an uncompromising opposition to polytheism 10:105,22:30-1,98:5. It also describes mankind's original predisposition to uprightness 30:30. Hanif stems from H-N-F, which is lexically very interesting. It means the foot that is tilted inwards so that the sole is exposed. In the highly metaphorical language of the Arabs, it became used for the one that exposes his inner self, his secrets, has nothing to hide due to his uprighteness, rectitude. The opposite of hanaf is janaf, indicating the outward inclination of the feet. It is used to imply crookedness of intent in 2:182. As to hanaf, a water tap is called hanafiya, from the same root, because of the straight manner that water comes out of it. A person born with a condition that made both feet point to eachother when walking was referred to as rajulun "ahnaf" because that person walks in a straight manner and can only change direction with difficulty. The common denominator to all these subtle meanings, is straightness, rectitude.

Because to the pre-islamic Arabs, their forefather Ibrahim's spiritual way was independant of all belief systems of the time, be it the loathsome distortions of Judaism and Christianity or Idolatry, it was considered as close to man's original upright predisposition as one can be, and thus the word became associated with those seeking to emulate Ibrahim 3:67,6:161. They rejected the consumption of meat slaughtered in the name of idols as well as other pagan rituals and abominable practices like the burrying of infants alive, which they openly decried. They performed circumcision and rites that were similar to the Israelite rites of the altar sacrifice even before the coming of Muhammad.

Josephus in his Antiquites speaks of the Arabs as Ishmael's descendants, way before the time of Muhammad, almost 500 years, saying they circumcized their children at 13 years old, as was still done in the times of the prophet, to commemorate their forefather Ishmael. 

Uri Rubin (Professor, Tel Aviv University) "The pre-Islamic Abrahamic sacredness of the Kaaba is clearly demonstrated in the belief that Abraham's footprints could be seen on one of its sacred stones. This belief is reflected in the very early verses attributed to Abii Talib in which numerous pre-Islamic places of worship are described in a manner which is totally independent of the phraseology of later Islamic sources. The verse referring to Abraham's' footprints reads "wa-mawtii Ibrahima fi l-sakhri ratbatun 'ala qadamayhi hafiyan ghayra na'ili/By Abraham's footprint in the rock still fresh / with both feet bare, without sandals". Later on, Muslim tradition applied to the stone bearing Abraham's footprints the Quranic epithet "Maqam lbrahim". Even the view that the haram, i.e., the sacred territory of Mecca, was founded by Abraham may be regarded as pre-Islamic in origin. Muhammad b. Habib (d. 245H/859), has recorded in his Munammaq a remarkable report saying that Quraysh once asked Thaqif to become their partners in the Meccan haram, in return for equal partnership of Quraysh in the territory of Wajj which was owned by Thaqif. Thaqif refused saying: "How can you be partners in a land in which our father settled, and dug it out of the rocks with his bare hands, without iron tools. And you have not founded the haram by yourselves. It was Abraham who founded it". In other words, Thaqif maintained that Quraysh had no right to make transactions with the Meccan land due to its Abrahamic sacredness. Later on, Muhammad established the haram of Medina on the model of the Abrahamic haram of Mecca".

There is a reason why virtually every non-Muslim writer that witnessed the rise of Islam, from polemicists the likes of John of Damascus that had every reason to refute Muslim claims, to Sebeos in Armenia and beyond, regardless of precise dating and authorship of the works attributed to various Judeo-Christian elite accross the region, almost all of them refer to the Abrahamic ancestry of Muhammad and the Muslims.

In a short Nestorian chronicle, the Khuzistan Chronicle written around 660, in the section concluding the death of Heraclius, the writer says

"the victory of the sons of Ishmael who overpowered and subdued these two strong empires, came from God."

The chronicler further observes

"Regarding the dome of Abraham, we have been unable to discover what it is except that, because the blessed Abraham grew rich in property and wanted to get away from the envy of the Canaanites, he chose to live in the distant and spacious parts of the desert. Since he lived in tents, he built that place for the worship of God and for the offering of sacrifices. It took its present name from what it had been, since the memory of the place was preserved with the generations of their race. Indeed, it was no new thing for the Arabs to worship there, but goes back to antiquity, to their early days, in that they show honour to the father of the head of their people. Hasor, which scripture calls "head of the kingdoms" (Joshua 11:10), belongs to the Arabs, while Medina is named after Midian, Abraham's fourth son by Qetura; it is also called Yathrib. And Dumat Jandal [belongs to them], and the territory of the Hagaraye, which is rich in water, palm trees and fortified buildings. The territory of Hatta, situated by the sea in the vicinity of the islands of Qatar, is rich in the same way; it is also thickly vegetated with various kinds of plants. The region of Mazon also resembles it; it too lies by the sea and comprises an area of more than 100 parasangs. So [belongs to them] too the territory of Yamama, in the middle of the desert, and the territory of Tawf, and the city of Hira, which was the seat of king Mundar, surnamed the "warrior;" he was sixth in the line of the lshmaelite kings".

Even among the polytheist Arabs, remnants of rites commemorating the Abrahamic legacy were maintained.

The beliefs the hanif were attached to, did not initiate from observations and interractions with the Jews and Christians as some orientalists tried suggesting without proof. In fact nothing could have been further from the truth considering the teachings of the scriptures and beliefs in circulation at the time. The HB for example doesn't teach strict monotheism but rather a mix of monolatry and monotheism, with an evident inclination towards the former. Its tribal god, the one god of the tribe of Israel

Deut6"Hear Israel, the Lord is OUR God, the Lord is one",

is openly partial to them, his destiny is closely intertwined with that of his chosen comunity, lamenting their failure and suffering with them, carefully working to achieve their religious and political aspirations. Such a god could scarcely attract the imagination, far less the adoration, of a non-Israelite population. The NT, on the other hand, obscured and blurred the concept of One God by tagging it with the admittedly mysterious doctrine of the Trinity, besides its loathsome notion to a strict monotheist, of a dying god incarnate.

Most of these hanif have their names preserved in the traditions. They were non-Jewish, non-Christian Arabian monotheists although some of them, such as Waraqa bin Nawfal, would convert to one of the 2 faiths as a result of their search before the revelation of the Quran. This Hanif had decided to become a Christian and was among the first ones to recognize the signs of prophethood in Muhammad at the beginning of his call. That recognition however occured towards the end of his life and Waraqa thus died a Christian, before the core Islamic teachings were openly communicated.

Apostate prophet the classic exegete; What is naskh/abrogation?

In answer to the video "The Most Violent Quran Verse (Sword Verse)"

2:106 speaks of N-S-KH meaning a) to write an exact copy, or b) to write over as in replace. 16:101 says baddalna aya makan aya/we replace an aya in the place of an aya. Sura 16 by the way is Meccan and according to the proponents of the idea, the first case of abrogation occurred in Medina. Both verses speak of the physical replacement of the abrogated, with the abrogating and this is not the case of Quranic abrogation according to which both types of verses are still present within the Quran. It is talking of the Quran's ayat superseding the ayat of previous scriptures, replacing them, which precisely is one of the oft repeated functions of the Quran. Another verse misused by the proponents of Quranic abrogation is 13:39. It speaks of "mahw" which means effacement and total removal; this again disagrees with the advocates of that theory according to which both the abrogating and the abrogated verse remain in the Quran.

No consensus exists on whether the doctrine is a reality. The identification of abrogated rulings in the Quran has been in the past and still is an act of biased interpretation. We see cases of companions, even after the prophet's death giving different opinions on whether a verse is abrogated or not, as is the case for 2:184 with ibn Umar arguing for and ibn Abbas against its abrogation. Scholars of abrogation, fuqaha’ havent been able to refine the principles of abrogation so as to give them universal shape. Different scholars have come up with their own standards of abrogation. This doctrine was introduced decades after the Prophet and was developed in full over three centuries by many scholars. In other words, abrogation is not a genuine Islamic doctrine. Most verses proposed as subject to abrogation do not even conform with the rule of an aya replacing another aya; for example scholars on the subject argue that the "verse of the sword" 9:5 abrogates 2:256 yet they conveniently omit that 2:256 contains information that cannot be replaced and so they are forced to select even within an aya what is abrogated and what is not. Further the verse of no compulsion was revealed in Medina after the first command to perform jihad 2:190-5. It is a reiteration of an Islamic principle present long before in Meccan verses, including in 18:29. This means the application of that principle of freedom of religious choice, and its validity, are unaffected by the political superiority of the Muslims.

No authentic report of the prophet mentions the theory or the existence of abrogated verses within the Quran. Not a single verse of the Quran indicates that a ruling has been overruled by another. Something else to note is that even the traditional adherents to the notion agree that there are no abrogated verses present in the Quran. This is seen from the various ahadith which speak of passages people used to recite and that were absent from the prophet's final recital of the Quran. People explained that phenomenon through the theory of abrogation. Even when some scholars speak of abrogated verse still present in the Quran, they dont argue that these verses become obsolete, rather they carry a new meaning.

Apostate prophet is shocked by his idol; Jesus rejects non-Jews?

In answer to the video "The Most Violent Quran Verse (Sword Verse)"

Jesus in the NT makes use of such metaphors as well when he compares the spiritually unclean to dogs and swine Matt7:6. The main thing distinguishing man from animals is his spirituality and sense of morality. This aptitude is what raised him to be God's vicegerent on earth, a honored creature excelling most of God's creation 14:32-33,17:70. So when anyone corrupts and forsakes that aspect of his being, and in addition rejects Divine guidance only to follow his low desires then he loses that distinction. He becomes the lowest of the lows although having been made in such a mould that could raise him up to moral and spiritual heights, with the highest rank being that of a prophet of God. That reality is captured through four oaths in 95:1-5.

The oath taken by the 2 of the choicest and noblest fruits, the fig and the olive, followed by an oath by the 2 locations most blessed in terms of revelation, mount Sinai and Mecca, serve as argument to the positive potential of the human being. Like the above mentioned fruits, he may become among the most select by rising spiritually, the highest humans in terms of spiritual nobility being the prophets, hence the oaths taken by 2 locations associated with 2 of the most eminent of them, Moses and Muhammad. The comparison of the spiritually dead to animals, and even lower in value, as inert and senseless as a stone 2:74, is very apt in that an animal such as sheep or cattle, despite being of very weak intellect can still properly process what it hears (voice of the herdsman) or sees (location of the herdsman and the rest of the flock) in order to find guidance.

The spiritually dead cannot make use of any of his senses and so is unable to properly process the perceived information to find guidance and rise to ultimate success. A sheep becomes more apt in finding its correct direction and thus thriving through its life. Dumbness (muteness) illustrates how the inability to listen leads to lack of interest, which would naturally be expressed through further verbal inquiry, reflexion, exchanges etc.

2:18"Deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they will not turn back"  

25:44"They are nothing but as cattle; nay, they are straying farther off from the path".

Apostate prophet rituals question; Quran says pagans are impure?

In answer to the video "The Most Violent Quran Verse (Sword Verse)"

The Quran refers with very degrading terms, not only to non-Muslims, but also Muslims whenever they neglect their spiritual potential and steep to the level of animals. This is because the value of a human being in God's eyes, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity or social class, rests only in his God-consciousness 49:13. Stripped of that quality, a human being is worthless. This is a major Quranic theme.

When all has been created with an inner truth, for a higher purpose and for an appointed term in a universe whose phenomena all testify to a higher reality 30:8,14:19,10:3-6 by Allah who is Truth in essence 22:6,62 it necessitates that everything false or based on falsehood, ie devoid of its higher purpose ultimately perishes. That reality many times manifested in this very world with the uprooting of transgressing nations altogether.

The Jews for instance, when they neglect the Torah which they claim to uphold and practice 62:5, they are compared to donkeys that carry a load while totally unaware of its contents. Donkeys merely feel the burden. It is not different for them to carry rocks and wood or books containing the most precise secrets of Creation and the most fruitful lessons for a better life, as the Quran often describes the previous revelations. The Hebrew Bible itself, quoting the prophet Isaiah, reduces them to lower than donkeys in the times when the nation had almost reached total spiritual collapse Isa1:3 and Malachi echoes how lowly and contemptible they were made to be in the eyes of the whole world for having forsaken the Torah Malachi2:8-9.

To Hosea they are a "useless ustensil" as they lost the divine immunity that was granted to them as long as they remained faithful to the covenant. HE also calls them wandering wild donkeys in foreign land, in search of alliances with the pagans Hos8:8-9. Their leaders and elders are blind and slumbering, compared to dumb dogs for their failure to warn and avert spiritual disaster despite the presence of prophets among them Isa56:10.

The unrighteous foreigners that persecuted the Jews are spoken of in similar debasing terms and with such aversion that they should not be touched Isa52:1,11,Ps94:8. All these parallels humans/animals have one common denominator, the loss of all morality and spirituality. In reference to such loss, God in Ps32:9 warns David not to become

"like a mule that does not discern; whose mouth must be held with bit and bridle, so that when he is being groomed, he does not come near you".

To avoid that outcome, David is to be careful to follow God's guidance

Ps32:8"I will enlighten you and instruct you which way [to go]; I will wink My eye to you".

The Quran uses such metaphors for all people, not only the Jews, who blindly turn away and reject divine guidance

7:175,179,8:22,25:44,74:49-51"Then, why do they turn away from the reminder? As if they were frightened wild donkeys, Fleeting from lions".

Again, the metaphor applies to those who behave in this life without spiritual awareness and God-consciousness

47:12"and those who disbelieve enjoy themselves and eat as the beasts eat".

The idolaters, because of their sacraligious practices are najis/ritually impure 9:28 just as in Judaism those of "uncirumcised flesh or hearts" shouldnt be allowed anywhere near a ritualy pure entity, whether a human or else, such as the Temple.

As a side note, recently two copies of inscriptions prohibiting the entry of nonbelievers to the Temple have been found on Temple Mount, which Josephus wrote about. These inscriptions were on the dividing wall that surrounded the Second Temple, which prevented non-Jews from accessing the interior of the Temple courtyard. The "warning" stone, which is at the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, warns non-Jews of the perils of entering the sacred Temple.

In the HB and throughout the books of the Prophets, and down to the book of "writings", non-Jewish ways are paralleled with the images of lewdness, harlotry, foolishness, lurking around to lure the weak of heart.

As a side note, it is interesting to note that this evil path is symbolized in the HB by a woman, ensaring the man, thus perpetrating the mysoginist representation of females, going back to the convoluted and corrupted story of creation. This symbolizm is well depicted in Prov7 or Ecc7:26 where apostasy, sinfulness are personified by the female sex, and the way it lures man to her

"And i find more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and nets, her hands are bonds; whoever is good in God's sight will escape from her, and a sinner will be taken by her".

This is because even though it is hard enough to find a truly righteous man, it is even moreso difficult in the case of women

Ecc7:28"While i was still searching but not finding-- I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all".

Apostate prophet concerned for his freedom; fight them until they convert?

In answer to the video "The Most Violent Quran Verse (Sword Verse)"

Until 9:29, the sura Tawba prescribed divine punishment upon 3 groups; the hypocrites among the Muslims, the treacherous warmongers among the idolaters, and those idolaters insisting on their pagan practices within the sacred precincts of Mecca. 

No punishement is prescribed on the peaceful idolaters beyond Mecca, as well as those in Mecca that refrain from their rituals at the sacred sites re-dedicated strictly to the Islamic religion. They are to be left unharmed as mentionned earlier.

Nor is there until now any legal directive towards the remaining non-Muslims living under Muslim rule, whether in Mecca or beyond. This included the people of the book (Jews and Christians) or the followers of other belief systems, or even atheists 

9:29"Fight those who believe not in God and nor in the Last Day and nor do they forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden and nor do they follow the religion/DEEN of truth from among the people of the book, till they give the compensation with a willing hand, while they are humble".

This verse, as attested by the prophetic practice, is not restricted to the people of the book. It covers any religion that was and could potentially fall under Muslim rule as a result of provoked warfare. The verse mentions 4 categories;

1- Those who do not believe in God 

2- Those who reject the resurrection 

3- Those who regard as lawful what Allah and the prophet have forbidden. Belief in God and the concept of resurrection leaves one with no other reasonable spiritual choice than to adhere to Islam. Those that make the choice not to, then they are believers in one of the many man made religions that does not forbid what Allah has forbidden through His prophet in the Quran and sunna. Or they might be adherants to a truly revealed religion, such as the Jews and Christians, but reject what Allah and His prophet forbade.

4- Those who do not follow the DEEN of truth from among the people of the book. The root D-Y-N means rule or debt or any obligation. It may be summarized as "system". It is used this way in the Quran 9:36,12:76 classical literature and even in common Arabic speak. Whenever the preposition "mina" is used before a composite entity, or a group, and that this entity is given a qualification, then "mina" carries the meaning of "among", pointing to a portion from among that composite entity 4:46,160,5:5,23,41,57,107,8:65,57:10. Among the Jews and Christians there are those whom the Quran condemns as sinful, unsincere to the truth of their own books. There are others from among them who follow the DEEN of truth. They remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability. Their sincerity, unprejudiced, praiseworthy reading and understanding of their books led many of them to eventually believe in the revelation bestowed on the prophet Muhammad 2:121,83,3:113-115,199,4:162,5:13,66,69,83,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4. "The Deen of truth" in that phrase cannot refer to Islam as a religion. One cannot speak of a portion from among the people of the book as being followers of Islam while others reject it.

None of the groups above are to be fought until they become Muslims. Rather until they pay the jizya in submission to the Islamic rule. That subjection is in relation to the Islamic system which they are now bound to, being permanent non Muslim residents under protection of the Muslim state. The majority of Muslim scholars have understood the passage in that way. See for example al-Shafi'i, Al-Umm, Vol. 4, Ahmad Mustafa al-Maraghi's Tafsir Vol. 10 or Fatani, Ikhtilaf al-Darin p48. This is also seen by the fact that the musta'min (a non Muslim temporary resident) is not subjected to the Islamic legal system nor the jizya, according to the Hanafi school. That subjection has thus nothing to do with humiliation, as some have interpreted, and without any evidence in the prophetic practice nor that of the first caliphs.  Humiliation does occur however, when those non-Muslim residents of the Islamic state refuse to pay government taxes to the point they have to be forcefully made to. Just as Muslims, shortly after the prophet's death had to be fought, humbled, and forced to pay the government taxes under Abu Bakr's caliphate.

The order to fight therefore isnt motivated by a choice of creed otherwise the mere paying of a tax would not have been enough to end the fighting, rather a forceful conversion would. Yet that option is never proposed in the verse. The only issue for them is explicitly spelled out; Payment of taxes and submission to the laws of the religious state they live in as members of a different religion on whom different rights and obligations apply. The governement has actually more to gain in wealth and manpower if they convert, especially in early times when Muslims were a minority in these newly conquered lands. Yet they are told to keep their religion and autonomy instead.

Converting to Islam, something that isnt incumbent upon them, would end the command to fight them should they insist on not paying the jizya. But they will not escape being fought should they refuse honoring the duties that fall upon them as Muslims, including contributing financially to the functioning of the Islamic state, as well as obligations that did not apply to their former religious communities, like military service. There really is no true incentive for them to leave their religion which is why the option is never proposed in the verse.

The verses that follow illustrate some of the transgressions of the people of the book, and their causes, such as deification of prominent personalities, blind following of their religious leaders etc, while no blame is placed on them for not following Islam. These dark deviations in religion will never extinguish the light of guidance, no matter how much the disbelievers among the people of the book dislike it 9:32. The verse employs the image of a person attempting to extinguish a strong light with a blow from the mouth, to illustrate the relative feebleness of his position.

The passage ends with the reiteration of a prophecy made long before 48:28,61:9 regarding the prevailing of the deen/way of truth sent by the One true God over all other ways no matter how much the polytheists dislike it 9:33. The wording of this verse is very appropriate since it specifically mentions the polytheists, followers of non-divine religions, as disliking the establishment of the deen of truth. The people of the book, sincere to their scriptures as pointed earlier, will not dislike the establishment of a Godly system, since it does not only mean establishing Islam, but also exposing and establishing the truth of their own religion 

5:83"And when they hear what has been revealed to the messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize".

Apostate prophet needs the bigger picture; what should be done with Islam's enemies?

In answer to the video "The Most Violent Quran Verse (Sword Verse)"

After the warmongerers among the Idolaters were dealt with, the sura turned to the hypocrites, plotting and sowing dissension among the Muslims, recognizable through various traits such as sluggishness in rising for prayer, stinginess or reluctancy to take up arms to the point

9:57"If they could find a refuge or cave or a place to enter into, they would certainly have turned thereto, running away in all haste".

Refusing to defend the larger community in times of war is the central blame attached to this group throughout the sura, living and benefiting from the selfless sacrifices and martyrdom of others. When they were pointed out they would swear that they are faithful and sincere, fearing for the repercussions of their treacheries and sabotaging efforts of a community in times of war

9:56,95"They will swear to you by Allah when you return to them so that you may turn aside from them; so do turn aside from them; surely they are unclean and their abode is hell; a recompense for what they earned".

God tells the prophet to let them be, they are exposed and wont delude or deceive anybody but their own selves.

Together with the idolaters and the hypocrites, the third group exposed and dealt with in the sura tawba were the people of the book. Their persistence in disbelief and uttering of falsehood is forcefully condemned as worthy of divine wrath but never is this attitude given as a reason to fight them. When the prophet arrived at Medina he invited the peaceful Jews of Khaybar to Islam with a letter, which after reminding them of the prophetic history and how he fits in it, does not put any blame on them if they sincerely reject his call

"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".

This call, from which they arent liable in case of rejection after sincerely and objectively considering the prophet's message in light of their own scriptures, was made at a time where they had not yet displayed the machinations, war incitements and enemy alliances they would actively participate in a few years later against the Muslims. Thus, the clear reason given to fight them in that sura tawba is that, now that the climax of the prophetic mission has been reached and the punishement of God has initiated as prophecied, this group that had started hostilities with the aim of uprooting and subjugating the Muslims, did not spare any stratagem to try and reach their obectives, had to be fought, defeated and subjugated in a humiliating fashion. Despite the warnings and the signs unfolding before them they chose to remain in Muslim land without giving up their warmongering 9:29.

For example the Abyssinian Christians werent bothered by the prophet nor his successors because they never showed any hostility towards the Muslims at any point. Also those of Taghlib to the north of Medina or of Najran in Yemen were never fought as they pledged full allegiance to the Muslim state as minorities with their rights and obligations.